| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Donkey Choker |
Bivvy Ban on the Thames? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 72 (21/06/08 09:38) |
Does anybody know what is behind Elmbridge Borough Council`s sudden enforcement of a 1992 by-law banning the use of tents or similar structures on their
sections of the Thames?
I rarely if ever use a bivvy on the Thames but I`m worried that it could be a part of an anti angling programme? Mic |
||
|
Thames bloke |
|||
|
Posts: 89 (21/06/08 11:00) |
Just posted on the Thames thread, but last night the police turned up and told the bivvy boys to take the down, The policeman (two) came over to me and said
your fine mate there are no problems with umbrella's it the tents as the local bye laws state NO CAMPING. Its all about blocking footpaths/rivers edge view
with tents/bivvys. As i said to the policeman if someone walks along i lift the rod out the way so they can walk bye, its a bit tricky with rod pods two rods
then x that bye x amount and its a problem to the general public. Basically its about keeping the footpaths accesable to all.
It was this BIG
|
||
|
davhall |
|||
|
Posts: 1968 (21/06/08 11:03) |
no bite alarms on hampton court, no bivvys now on this section, sounds good to me.
|
||
|
Thames bloke |
|||
|
Posts: 90 (21/06/08 11:11) |
davhall wrote: Agree with you dave, have fished night sessions with just a brolly if its needed for to long too remember. If the bivvy boys feel they must have there tents and can't fish without them and have to move on, i won't be complaining.
It was this BIG
|
||
|
Hugo Curgudgeon |
|||
|
Posts: 793 (21/06/08 11:27) |
Thames bloke wrote: Excellent news!!
regards Hugo
Last Edited By: Hugo Curgudgeon
25/06/08 13:09.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Donkey Choker |
Bivvy Ban | ||
|
Posts: 73 (21/06/08 12:49) |
I think you all might be missing the point, I myself don`t use a bivvy, i don`t even like to use a brolly I find it makes you lazy and less likely to move when things are slow. My point is that having taken the time to have a quick look at Elmbridges policies towards sports and leisure groups, angling doesn`t seem to feature very highly on their list of priorities. Could there be an underlying anti angling policy going on here. If so then your "stuff the bivvy brigade" might come back to bite you on the ass when in the future you might want their support. Divide and conquer, as usual angling`s group mentality might work against it. I know the time bandits are their own worst enemies and I have no real love of that type of angling mentality( see my profile) but I think think that when our sport is attacked from outside angling its about time we closed ranks and looked after our own. Mic |
||
|
davhall |
|||
|
Posts: 1971 (21/06/08 12:54) |
are you saying there is a secret policy to ban angling all together in certein areas on the thames?
i cannot see that. |
||
|
DAVSURB |
|||
|
Posts: 736 (21/06/08 13:14) |
Dave unless they want to change the Magna Carta it has to be free fishing from Staines Stone downstream I believe.
I would guess the problem has emerged due to a minority of anglers? leaving rubbish, lighting fires and being generaly disruptive. Sadly it is always a small minority. Dave |
||
|
jeeves33 |
|||
|
Posts: 243 (21/06/08 14:33) |
One of the club waters i fish has had this rule for many years.." only a brolly type system may be used " as i understand it this was a condition in
the lease agreemant to prevent camping becoming established ie frame tents,domes ect are not permitted,nothing to do with anti angling.
|
||
|
Donkey Choker |
Bivvy ban | ||
|
Posts: 74 (21/06/08 15:39) |
If everybody is comfortable with the fact that angling is an untouchable sport then I`m obviously being overly alarmist, I just broached the subject that perhaps someone with a bit more knowledge of the machinations of Elmbridge Council might know if this was just a specific purge on camping on the Thames towpaths or the start of a more concerted effort to try to deter anglers from these sections of the river. Its not unknown for councils to be infiltrated by people with specific agendas, take the actions of the woman from the swan sanctuary who is trying to ban angling on sections of the Severn. Mic |
||
|
davhall |
|||
|
Posts: 1972 (21/06/08 16:54) |
magna carta ???, is this the same magna carta that's says no detention before trial and sentence.
i think the MC has done it's day...it's called the EU now....   
Last Edited By: davhall
21/06/08 16:57.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Thames bloke |
|||
|
Posts: 91 (21/06/08 18:26) |
I don't believe it has anything to do with getting angling banned all together, Its more to do with making sure everybody can access and enjoy the river,
Having bivvies, pods, rods blocking access to the river and some area's are getting bad, they set up friday night, fish all weekend and during this people
can't walk along the rivers paths. I don't believe there is a didden agenda, they are just making sure everybody can access it.
It was this BIG
|
||
|
Spudman |
|||
|
Posts: 8 (22/06/08 19:35) |
Are these the same police who don't want to know about East Europeans and the like fishing during the closed season?? 
Alan |
||
|
RICH PARSONS |
|||
|
Posts: 347 (22/06/08 19:40) |
And the same police who don't come out when you get robbed.
Rich 
It's funny how we don't sell guns but Toronto bangs! |
||
|
Donkey Choker |
Bivvy ban | ||
|
Posts: 75 (22/06/08 22:30) |
Just to reiterate, I was hoping one of the Thames regulars who live local might have had their ear to the ground and give me and all the other "Thamesters" some background to this. As it happens I think Thames Bloke is probably correct but my worry was that even though the fishing may be free obviously many bylaws could be imposed that would make life mighty unpleasant, what about a night fishing restriction for instance, anyway it looks as if at the moment the police are not actively enforcing it and the council seem content to make sure everybody flouting the bylaw is made aware of its existence and no more. We shall see how it pans out in time. Mic |
||
|
Paul Boote |
Glastonbury Upon Thames | ||
|
Posts: 2424 (22/06/08 23:12) |
I have little desire to do any more Internet Angling "Trading" now, here or anywhere else, but as Bewdley is looking half-good...
Thames. Those beat who on about "Rights" should be keenly aware that with such "Rights" (as in "MY Rights") comes Responsibilities (to other people), not wee-ing upon all and sundry yet still expecting that "Coz I'm 'ere, yeah...?" to be a sufficient excuse for behaving like an anti-social a'hole. You only get treated right if you treat others right. Geddit?
Last Edited By: Paul Boote
22/06/08 23:15.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Team Tidal |
|||
|
Posts: 13 (22/06/08 23:21) |
Paul Boote wrote:Hole in one Paul! Aye Aye The Captain |
||
|
Donkey Choker |
Bivvy ban | ||
|
Posts: 76 (23/06/08 19:24) |
Paul Although I can do little but agree with you, I think the core of the problem is that because its free people don`t value it. If they had to pay £200 a year you would find that the guilty few (few?) would treat their fishing with a little more respect and not be willing to risk losing it. I fish there because after 40 years of abiding by rules and regulations imposed by people who create them to inhibit others rather than for the greater good it is a blessing to pursue my intended goals unfettered. My angling rarely impinges on others enjoyment and it would be a tragedy to suddenly be hidebound by rules again. Lets hope that a general road to Damascus moment is had and we all start realising what a wonderful facility we already have. Mic |
||
|
Paul Boote |
A few less Sauls, rather more Pauls | ||
|
Posts: 2425 (24/06/08 11:36) |
needed on the road to a fishy Damascus.
It's the old story of "The Tragedy of the Commons" - let people at a resource / something "for free", and they'll trash it (an argument long used by stern, proprietorial types who bang the drum for Pay for Play, Private Everything and Eff The Feckless Peasants). But they're wrong - the lower Thames fishery (in this case) must remain open to all and not be gobbled up by The "They didn't appreciate what they were given ... too good for the likes of them ...so we're taking it back / making it Hell for them..." Brigade. However, users of such a fishery (indeed, of any public-access resource) must learn to play by the "Rules" - to treat what they're using and others using the same with respect and consideration - or it'll all go down the pan PDQ. It's almost always a minority that messes things up for the rest. You can't legislate against such goons, or coerce them, or even heavy-handedly "Educate" them, but you might just be able to NUDGE - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/06/do_we_all_need_a_nudge.html - them into making better choices, even behaving rather "better"... In the field of Angling, this discreet "Nudging" needs to come from the people who the general herd of fishers are influenced by (perhaps even aspire to being) - the journos insanely grinning from the pages of the ferociously Ad-chasing, weekly and monthly Rags, declaring that "Carp / Barbel / Sea-trout / Destination Fishing is the New Black" and in doing so fire the starting gun on another, usually destructive, Piscatorial Gold Rush. No, these guys now have to be far less commercially motivated and must lead by example. At the moment (and for the past decade and a half or so) all they give us is sales-driven junk-fishing ("Rubbish in, rubbish out."...?). A better class of Celeb / Columnist / "Hero" from you now, please, Angling Media, then we'll see a lot less of your Daily Hate type editorials about how British Angling has gone / is going to the dogs, and rather more of "At last! We're all on the road to somewhere, and - hey - it's looking half-good!"
Last Edited By: Paul Boote
24/06/08 11:49.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Gary Newman |
|||
|
Posts: 30 (24/06/08 13:58) |
Paul,
Unfortunately magazines are usually owned by large corporations and therefore have to make a profit to keep going so it is impossible to ignore advertising revenue as you've suggested or to become non-commercially motivated. They also fill the magazine with what the majority of anglers want to read about, getting this information from reader surveys. These days it would appear that the majority want to read about 'how to do it' and anything that will help them catch more fish, so understandably much of the content of magazines is based around this. As for your suggestion that it is the fault of magazines that people rush to certain waters this isn't quite true as usually all we are doing is printing catch reports that have been submitted by anglers, ignoring them could be construed as sensorship, in the same way that people are free to post on the internet. If anything since the internet and mobile phones it has become far easier to find out what is being caught and from where, often within minutes of a big fish being caught. We only name venues in catch related stories where the angler has provided this information. Personally i very rarely reveal exactly where I'm fishing unless the venue owners have requested that i do so. I actually agree with much of what you say at the start of your post regarding a minority ruining it for everyone else and have seen it myself on some sections of the Thames which i used to fish but won't anymore since the long stay Stella brigade arrived and left some places resembling a rubbish tip. |
||
|
DAVSURB |
|||
|
Posts: 738 (24/06/08 16:30) |
Opening a can of worms there Gary.
|
||
