fishing near my boat

[magnetman]

I'd have thought, after this length of time, the fish are pretty used to it.

 

Apart from putting a bit of colour in the water, I wouldn't have thought there would be much effect on the fish.

I caught a big pike on a lure once just behind one of the Salters steamers at Oxford, while it was turning and moving quite a bit of water with its propeller. I'm sure it was the boat stirring up the silt which brought the pike out looking for disorientated fish caught up in the confusion.

[GSer]

I caught a big pike on a lure once just behind one of the Salters steamers at Oxford, while it was turning and moving quite a bit of water with its propeller. I'm sure it was the boat stirring up the silt which brought the pike out looking for disorientated fish caught up in the confusion.

 

 

I've done the same, the pike certainly seize their chance when they can.

 

One or two steadily steered boats make little difference to the fish themselves, more boats can make the fish move out of the boat channel onto the shelfs till things quiet down a little.

 

The main effect for anglers trying to catch the fish is the dilution to the concentration of any groundbait used, a still canal with no boats you may be able to tempt fish from a small area all day, however a few boats and lock movements spreads the bait and so scattering the fish a little each time, one bad boater can just obliterate a swim and ruin the whole day for the angler.

 

Paul

[chris w]

............... one bad boater can just obliterate a swim and ruin the whole day for the angler.

 

Paul

 

Oooooooooh how?

[GSer]

Oooooooooh how?

 

 

If the boat stirs up all the settled silt, dead leaves and rotting vegetation, fish can just shut up shop and not feed for hours, its something similar to a rising river the silt in their gills puts them off the feed.

 

One selfishly steered boat can ruin a whole fishing match let alone just one guys day, it's rare yes, but I have seen it happen especially on the London canals where the old working boatmen never let off the throttle at all and if I remember correctly the speed limits were never in place for them

 

Paul

[Tony Brooks]

A fair point made (almost)

 

If you wanted exclusive fishing rights to a stretch of canal you would expect to pay thousands for the privilage, however most anglers realise that spreading the cost over a number of anglers is more practical and so form clubs/associations and syndicates.

 

Boaters who wish to spread the cost tend to use 'shareboat' schemes, if a boater requires the boat to himself he can pay the licence and travel almost the whole system legally that option is not available to an angler unless he joins a huge number of clubs and associations (very expensive)

 

Having seen pig ignorant, beligerant selfish behavoir by boaters both towards anglers and other boaters, many many times and the reverse situation very few times, it strikes me that boaters seem to be very NIMBY/selfish about sharing 'their' waterway with other users.

 

Paul

 

 

The comparison is not the same. An angler can turn up at any time and expect to dish if no-one else is in that spot. Even if there is someone else there the angler can walk for a bit and find another spot. A share boater gets allocated fixed times and if they want to go boating at other times they have to pay to hire or something. This argument also fails to address the comparison in costs between on-line moorers and anglers.

 

I find most boaters very much "live and let live" types and I suspect, like me, have been conditioned to be less than sympathetic to anglers by anglers actions and attitude. Fishing from lock landings, ledgering across a lock landing approach and abusing the boater when they carry the line away, ignoring the club's no fishing after dark rule and fishing off the lock landing. Opening paddles to crate a flash of water, fishing off water points, hiding in bushes and being belligerent when a boater fails to spot them, obstructing towpaths with equipment so walking to the lock is dangerous and difficult, raising poles and dripping maggot water all over the boat and boater, or even failing to raise their pole because "you are too quiet" - and the things mentioned earlier.

 

I am not trying to tar all anglers with the same brush and certainly am not trying to say all boaters behave impeccably to wards anglers. My view (as an ex-angler) is that this modern "every man for himself" attitude is causing all sorts of problems in society as illustrated in this thread, the ones on lack of licenses and so on. Unfortunately when one group in society has fairly good reason to feel they are being taxed so that many other groups can enjoy their use of the amenity for a lesser or no cost than that group will feel and act as the aggrieved party. I am surprised that only one angler has come on and condemned the behaviour of the other waterways user.

 

I think BW really should introduce a national rod license that has to be displayed and and reduce the fees charged to clubs. They could even allow clubs keep a percentage of the fees they collect from unlicensed anglers. In may places I could see this becoming a first class way of raising club funds.

[jeb]

I'd have thought, after this length of time, the fish are pretty used to it.

 

Apart from putting a bit of colour in the water, I wouldn't have thought there would be much effect on the fish.

 

Your spot on Carl. As a rule boats have no effect on fish whatsoever on waters that have always had boat activity in some form or another. The only exception to this rule is where we have found large carp that have been hit by power boats, obviously not on canals or rivers.

[Janet S]

... you get 365/24/7 access to BW waters

 

No I don't, not unless I join hundreds of different angling clubs, or pay for an awful lot of day tickets! There aren't many areas of free fishing available on any of our canals, lakes or rivers these days. I wouldn't like to be watching over my shoulder all the time, looking for bailiffs, so if I haven't got a ticket, or it says "Private Fishing", I won't fish. I've recently returned from a trip up the Rochdale, and to be able to fish for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening during our week long cruise, I had to pay around £27. A weekly ticket from one club, and another club ticket where I had to buy a yearly membership, just to fish for two days. My total of about sixty hours canal fishing this year has cost me almost £130.

 

I will not accept fishermen and boaters are being charged on an equitable basis.

 

I simply stated that I felt I was paying a reasonable amount for the small amount of canal fishing that I personally do. I really don't see how you can compare the costs of boaters v anglers. Let's try and keep it in proportion. I accept that not all the money I pay goes to BW, but that's a matter between BW and the angling clubs who lease the water. I assume that BW charge what they think is a reasonable amount for the stretch they lease out. If the cost of that is then split between members by clubs and syndicates, then where's the harm? We get our fishing. BW gets what they want.

 

What I will say though is that anglers (perhaps I should say "real" anglers?) are the eyes and ears of our waterways and our countryside. We're very often the first to spot signs of pollution, and act accordingly. You're cruising along on your boat (me too - don't forget I'm also a boater!) and you spot a grotty bit of canal, perhaps some oil floating on the surface....a few dead fish....what do you do? Cruise past, worry about what may be wrapped round your prop and then carry on?

 

I'd be straight on the phone to the EA or the ACA to report pollution.

 

I really do get fed up of this continuing argument about who has most rights to the canals. I'm just happy to see them being USED! I don't particularly care if it's by boaters, dog walkers, cyclists, joggers, anglers, bird watchers or transvestite lollipop ladies...

 

As I've said before, they are a valuable amenity that should be available to all.

 

Janet

Edited October 23, 2008 by Janet S

[US Marines]

I really do get fed up of this continuing argument about who has most rights to the canals. I'm just happy to see them being USED! I don't particularly care if it's by boaters, dog walkers, cyclists, joggers, anglers, bird watchers or transvestite lollipop ladies...

 

As I've said before, they are a valuable amenity that should be available to all.

 

Janet

Sorry Janet, you've gone too far there - this definition also includes Chris w !

Edited October 23, 2008 by US Marines

[Janet S]

Sorry Janet, you've gone too far there - this definition also includes Chris W !

 

Ooooops!

 

Still, I stand by what I said!

 

Janet

 

PS. Chris W is a pusscat really.....

[fuzzyduck]

I really do get fed up of this continuing argument about who has most rights to the canals. I'm just happy to see them being USED! I don't particularly care if it's by boaters, dog walkers, cyclists, joggers, anglers, bird watchers or transvestite lollipop ladies...

 

Where is this?????

Are they still legal???

[US Marines]

Where is this?????

Are they still legal???

There you go Mr Duck, I was trying NOT to draw attention to where, in Janet's definition, Chris w was included.....

[jeb]

PS. Chris W is a pusscat really.....

 

And a very sucessfull angler too . I've often watched him put the bait in and am truely amased how quick he gets a bite.

[US Marines]

And a very sucessfull angler too . I've often watched him put the bait in and am truely amased how quick he gets a bite.

I have to say that it does rather make for good sport - but, like real angling, many may bite but some little fishies are harder to land than others....

 

 

(although he would probably say not)

 

 

Anyway, we've probably hi-jacked this thread for long enough now....

 

[fuzzyduck]

Anyway, we've probably hi-jacked this thread for long enough now....

 

 

Yes you have! can we go back to the Transvestite Lollipop Ladies please???

[denboy]

Yes you have! can we go back to the Transvestite Lollipop Ladies please???

I New you had a sweet tooth :lol:

[Tony Brooks]

No I don't, not unless I join hundreds of different angling clubs, or pay for an awful lot of day tickets! There aren't many areas of free fishing available on any of our canals, lakes or rivers these days. I wouldn't like to be watching over my shoulder all the time, looking for bailiffs, so if I haven't got a ticket, or it says "Private Fishing", I won't fish. I've recently returned from a trip up the Rochdale, and to be able to fish for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening during our week long cruise, I had to pay around £27. A weekly ticket from one club, and another club ticket where I had to buy a yearly membership, just to fish for two days. My total of about sixty hours canal fishing this year has cost me almost £130.

 

 

 

I simply stated that I felt I was paying a reasonable amount for the small amount of canal fishing that I personally do. I really don't see how you can compare the costs of boaters v anglers. Let's try and keep it in proportion. I accept that not all the money I pay goes to BW, but that's a matter between BW and the angling clubs who lease the water. I assume that BW charge what they think is a reasonable amount for the stretch they lease out. If the cost of that is then split between members by clubs and syndicates, then where's the harm? We get our fishing. BW gets what they want.

 

What I will say though is that anglers (perhaps I should say "real" anglers?) are the eyes and ears of our waterways and our countryside. We're very often the first to spot signs of pollution, and act accordingly. You're cruising along on your boat (me too - don't forget I'm also a boater!) and you spot a grotty bit of canal, perhaps some oil floating on the surface....a few dead fish....what do you do? Cruise past, worry about what may be wrapped round your prop and then carry on?

 

I'd be straight on the phone to the EA or the ACA to report pollution.

 

I really do get fed up of this continuing argument about who has most rights to the canals. I'm just happy to see them being USED! I don't particularly care if it's by boaters, dog walkers, cyclists, joggers, anglers, bird watchers or transvestite lollipop ladies...

 

As I've said before, they are a valuable amenity that should be available to all.

 

Janet

 

 

Please take care with your snipping of posts. Your APPEAR to have deliberately mis-snipped my comment in your previous answer.

 

I get fed up with being expected to pay so others can use the system for nothing. Its nothing to do with rights and everything to do with equitable treatment and payment. In this the fishermen should be joining with boaters, but I bet the water leases are for a far longer term than one year so they have not been hit - yet!

 

I am amazed that your club does allow you 24/7 or perhaps daytime only/7/365 access to their stretch of BW waters. In fact I do not know why you are still a member unless its a. very cheap of b. you are being provocative.

 

Upon what grounds do you make the assumption that I would not report pollution - even though the EA have made it dammed hard in the past and tried to avoid taking the report. (rhetorical question) I am tempted to observe that fishermen are not prone to reporting boats adrift (have been rumours they cast them adrift) or reporting faulty locks etc.

 

I take this as a further example of the fishermen are A OK and boaters are not attitude.

 

I want as many people as possible to use and enjoy the system in a socially responsible manner but I do not see why one group should be singled out to pay extra for the others to use it.

[US Marines]

.......

Hi Tony,

 

How would you go about charging anglers, joggers, walkers, photographers etc all in a completely equitable way with boaters ?

 

In my opinion, not only would that be quite hard but - lets face it - the comparator hasn't really been properly sorted yet has it......?

 

 

Edited to add: as I have previously said, I think the needs and wants of boats and boaters should generally be given more 'weight' than others when conflicts occur about canal usage - one of the reasons for this is because boaters do pay more.

Edited October 23, 2008 by US Marines

[saltysplash]

Yes you have! can we go back to the Transvestite Lollipop Ladies please???

 

 

Going back for a min...

 

Hang on fuzzy,.......wouldnt a Transvestite Lollipop Lady be dressed as a Man?

Surely a Transvestite Lolipop Man would give the desired effect?

 

 

Having said all that......isnt the uniform for Lollipop people the same for men and women......a bloody big yellow coat

 

 

Ok back to topic everyone

[OptedOut]

This issue is simple, I am a boater and I also use the towpath.

Anglers are an obstruction to both the canal and the towpath.

 

I'll just put my flak jacket on.

[Tony Brooks]

Hi Tony,

 

How would you go about charging anglers, joggers, walkers, photographers etc all in a completely equitable way with boaters ?

 

In my opinion, not only would that be quite hard but - lets face it - the comparator hasn't really been properly sorted yet has it......?

 

 

Edited to add: as I have previously said, I think the needs and wants of boats and boaters should generally be given more 'weight' than others when conflicts occur about canal usage - one of the reasons for this is because boaters do pay more.

 

 

You have hit the nail right on the head there and I agree.

 

Anglers are fairly easy if an additional BW rod license with reduced club lease fees was introduced with powers to confiscate tackle enforced by club bailiffs. Personally I would alter their leases to allow boaters to fish FROM THEIR BOATS for no further cost.

 

In theory cyclists could also be required to buy a permit with confiscation of bike being the sanction if someone is caught without a permit, but no-one will enforce either of the above.

 

The rest are impossible to sort out without great expense to BW. The logic therefore must be that all users are treated in a manner they all find, to a degree, equitable. BW can not sort it out without legislation and if the government does not want that then they must provide funding to a level that makes the need to "tax" one group of users far more than others unnecessary. I use the term "tax" to include any money BW extract from boaters directly or indirectly because if one group of users get to use the system with their only fee being the normal taxes they pay the money to run the system can only be viewed as a tax.

 

As I see it the recent increases boaters face at the hands of BW are effectively a government tax that is being passed to farmers, except I am sure the government has found its easy to hit boaters so increasingly we will see less and less grant to BW and the EA. (I understand the EA have failed to hand any flood money to BW to compensate for extra expenses caused over the last two years.

 

I do not expect anything to alter and I do expect to be priced off the system in a few years, but I get fed up with certain user groups castigating boaters when its the boaters who are subbing their enjoyment of the system.

 

This issue is simple, I am a boater and I also use the towpath.

Anglers are an obstruction to both the canal and the towpath.

 

I'll just put my flak jacket on.

 

 

I could solve that one to a large extent - ban any rod on BW's navigable waters if its more than 9ft long. However this will get ignored unless there is also the poser of confiscation.

[Chertsey]

Here's an idea.... perhaps 'real' anglers, like 'real' boaters, are those who achieve results with the minimum of technology and equipment.

[Janet S]

Sorry Tony, but I simply don’t understand where I was being provocative. I was merely stating that I didn’t have unlimited access to the entire network, not unless I wanted to join hundreds of clubs. I pay what I think is a reasonable amount for the right to fish a few stretches through my local angling clubs. I think perhaps you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say, although I thought I’d made myself clear.

 

I didn’t mean to infer that you wouldn’t report pollution. Apologies – I should have phrased my post more carefully. Perhaps I shouldn’t have had that third glass of wine! I was trying to make the point that responsible anglers actually do contribute to the canals. We pull out obstructions, report damaged banks, clear litter on organised work parties etc.

 

As for casting boats adrift? I’m pleased to say that I’ve never come across that sort of reprehensible behaviour. I have tied up insecure boats several times. I agree that anglers are unlikely to report faulty locks, but then again, as they aren’t using them, how would they know they were faulty?

 

Never for one minute have I said that fishermen are A OK and boaters are not. After all, I’m both an angler and a boater myself, so I can see it from both sides.

 

Janet

[grahoom]

In theory cyclists could also be required to buy a permit with confiscation of bike being the sanction if someone is caught without a permit, but no-one will enforce either of the above.

 

The rest are impossible to sort out without great expense to BW.

 

considering that the canals and parts of the waterways are run by BW who also get money from central government, which is taken from people as taxes, don't you think that people waking, jogging - (or dare I say it) cycling, along tow paths - do pay - through their taxes?

[Nine of Hearts]

considering that the canals and parts of the waterways are run by BW who also get money from central government, which is taken from people as taxes, don't you think that people waking, jogging - (or dare I say it) cycling, along tow paths - do pay - through their taxes?

 

Are you extending this laissez-faire attitude even to those who cycle along the towpath with intent to fish???

 

(I have fallen into this category myself as a yoof )

 

Also, I am concerned by the terms "real" boater and "real" angler. I have just tried to divide myself by the square root of -1 and I got an error. Does this mean I'm real?

[Chris J W]

Are you extending this laissez-faire attitude even to those who cycle along the towpath with intent to fish???

 

(I have fallen into this category myself as a yoof )

 

Also, I am concerned by the terms "real" boater and "real" angler. I have just tried to divide myself by the square root of -1 and I got an error. Does this mean I'm real?

 

No - it means you're imaginary, but making very nice fractal patterns.