If a person, or a club, or a syndicate, has or obtains fishing rights, does this simply mean that the water is to be policed to keep it from being fished by unauthorised folk? Or are there responsibilities and duties that come with the privilege of "ownership"? Unless there are stipulations in the deeds or in the lease, there is next to nothing forcing the lucky possessors of the fishing rights to do the right thing by the water and its inhabitants. Confront a club committee with the idea that they should be taking steps to ensure professional keepering of their waters and you will usually be told that the members would never countenance the necessary increase in fees to pay for such services. This is surely because anglers, certainly in the UK, have become used to paying very little for the right to fish. To make any change, which would lead to their rivers being looked after in the way they (the rivers) deserve, first needs a general change of mind and attitude towards the cost of fishing.
Will this ever happen in my lifetime? Maybe it will in one or two exceptional places...
While I'm waiting I think I'll just make sure I patronise only those places where my money goes into the upkeep of the waters by professional, dedicated, river keepers. An amateur cop in the form of a bailiff is NOT taking on the real obligations implied with ownership and leasehold of fishing rights.
What do you think? Is this how to make sure waters are managed in as sustainable a manner as possible? Is keepering nothing but a relic of feudal times? How can our rivers all be made as they should be if not by full-time, dedicated, professional keepering?
Regular Rod
I've never quite understood the way you folks arrange to fish. I thought there were limited numbers of people allow on all water and that a private riverkeeper made sure the water was protected against violators.
ReplyDeleteThe problem we have is folk think fishing should be free. Make it free on our crowded island and it gets ruined inside two years... If we all paid what our fishing is really worth then there would be many more well kept waters and more opportunities for more folk to enjoy them.
DeleteYou may be right Richard, but is that not how it use to be. With all those 'privileged' being able to afford their fishing and those of lesser means unable to. Is Salmon fishing not still like that?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there must be a compromise and that could be a ''Green Government'' funding exactly what you suggest, with councils responsible in providing clean rivers and free fishing for the people. If you only give your money to those you think provide the best protections what happens to the rest?
Nice post and thought provoking.
Richard.
Public Sector? The British experience of Public Sector is that it is all a waste of money. Look how the EA takes our money and then works against the interests of the rivers and their inhabitants. Local councils can't even keep the streets clean let alone the rivers. No, it's down to us anglers to stump up the money and insist to those that control the water (committees, owners etc.) that we want it looking after professionally by full-time, qualified and dedicated river keepers and that we are prepared to pay for it.
DeleteRR