Grayling fishing in Lancashire??

moustique

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
1,319
Happpy new year everyone:D(1st post 2009)

Hi moustique:D


My original post was a little "devil's advocate"....

....................in reality....leases often have and amenity or public access clause.....

I'd like to tag on proper keepers wages running the river FOR the river....... INCREASING fees.... :eek:


Hi Sedgeking,

Apologies for the selective editing of parts of your quote, but you have made some good points.

No problem with you playing "devils advocate" it's a good way of looking at things from a different perspective. ;)

I agree with you regards the access clause, I've come across it myself on one or two occasions when I was on the committee of a fishing society and looking at waters.

With regards increasing costs to cover keepers wages, that is a bit of a hot potatoe! :D

Yes it would increase fees, and there are a number of ways to look at the issue.

If a club / association is already pretty exclusive and already charges high membership fees them members may not be to put off by the increase in costs. However, to me this is game angling at the top end of the market!

But look at the other perspective, or even use my position as an example. I love my fly fishing, (and also like some coarse fishing) and I’m a member of 3 clubs who’s subs are all about £100 per year, so in total I’m paying £300 for my fishing. If any of those clubs increased their fees by a significant amount then I would have to consider renewing – purely on the basis of cost. Can I afford it and will I get value for money? In my case exclusivity doesn't come into it. :eek:

I guess it all comes down to how individuals value their fishing and the price they are prepared to pay.

Take another example of myself; a club I’d love to join – but simply can’t afford or justify the cost is Bowland Game Anglers. They have some lovely stretches on the Hodder, but purely due to cost I can’t ever see myself becoming a member, and have to accept the fact that it is outside my price range.

The point I was trying to make, in that for a lot of people many clubs are already exclusive and outside the average game anglers price range. By increasing costs further this would simply widen the gap and make more water even more inaccessible.

Interesting topic, but it all comes down to the individual angers affordability.

:)
 
Last edited:

guest70

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
4,450
Location
Lancashire
Good points Barry! I joined a club last year whose subs are in excess of £500. I'm willing to pay that considering the water on offer and the way the club is run - provided I can get out fishing enough times to justify paying the rate. To my mind, this is still good value for money when I consider the pleasure I get out of it and when compared to the likes of golf club membership.
The flip-side is I had to let my two other memberships lapse (combined fees £300) as I couldn't justify the cost, nor would I have the time to fish all the water available.
 

sedgeking

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
1,071
Location
Gods county-West Yorkshire
Deserved of the 5 star rating

Hi edenangler and moustique:D

An interesting response...you both had the same dilemma: both choosing different route-paths to a solution.

Can I afford it and will I get value for money? In my case exclusivity doesn't come into it.

provided I can get out fishing enough times to justify paying the rate. To my mind, this is still good value for money when I consider the pleasure I get out of it and when compared to the likes of golf club membership.
The flip-side is I had to let my two other memberships lapse (combined fees £300) as I couldn't justify the cost, nor would I have the time to fish all the water available.

A marvellous debate guys:D:D.

edenanglers decision to go with one club employing keepers and maximising the value of the water (and in all fairness probably enough bankspace for a years fishing).
mousetique justifying the good water with bad attitude ,maximising on area of fishable water.

Note: overall cost didn't even come into the decision....about same in both cases.
This is quite heartening:D as the future could be a case of which club is the best...... not cheapest....and where is MY money best spent on my behalf or, even better, is best for the river.

I've already stated my ideal.....but the trouble is that its not often a choice countrywide as the majority of clubs are not looking past their noses and looking at the bigger picture. Instead opting for the "it's not our job...what do we pay our licence for" attitude.
Individually some members would be willing to benefit the waterways.....but are not given the chance by their own club.

EA, nice as they are, do not look after our rivers and lakes and its about time people realised this.
 

DrRob

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
98
Location
With Cindy Crawford
The Manchester Angler have in fact dropped their prices this year by £20 to help members in these difficult times.
If you want to think about costs look at the Burnsall club on the Wharfe their fees are £550 a year + £250 joining fee & £600 share issue :eek:
 

moustique

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
1,319
EA, nice as they are, do not look after our rivers and lakes and its about time people realised this.

Totally agree with you on this!

There were some interesting comments in the Dec issue of T & S, in which it was stated that the E.A was flouting EU law by allowing fish farms to pollute rivers, suh as the Test, etc.

The reply by the new EA head of Fisheries certainly caused me concern when he stated "More studies are needed to assess if it is feasible to develop environmentl quality standards to allow regulators to take relevant impacts into account"

As you would expect, he;

- Totally ignored the main point of the issue
- Failed to address or even acknowledging the fact that the E.A is in breach of EU law!

But as you would expect, he from called for more studies - i.e, jobs for the boys!

mousetique justifying the good water with bad attitude ,maximising on area of fishable water.

I may try and maximise my fishing with membership of 2 clubs I’ve been a member of for over 15 yrs, and another club (a member for 5 yrs) that gives me access to excellent grayling water on the Welsh Dee.

I’m not rolling in money so have keep things in perspective when it comes to how much I spend. Overall cost does come into my decision.

As I stated in my last post, it all comes down to affordability.

I'm not sure what you mean by bad attitude?

.
 

sedgeking

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
1,071
Location
Gods county-West Yorkshire
Sorry....you could be

Hi moustique:D

mousetique justifying the good water with bad attitude ,maximising on area of fishable water.

Sorry mate that was my bad grammar: should have read :justifying the good water with bad,attitude,maximising on area....though still not perfect I'm sure that should make more sense as I was in no way implying you had a bad attitude.Merely that a club without "kept" waters will have a little high quality water and a majority of lesser quality.
My apology:eek:

But as you would expect, he from called for more studies - i.e, jobs for the boys!

This is the way of the EA(possibly the world) and unfortunately we have no choice to comply as all the engines are driven this way.

Occasionally you get a chance to wake em up though:cool::D:D....I've just had a victory with the compensation water release (believe it to be the first 'backdown' in the country).The outcome is months of tests,studies and meetings with the PROBABILITY that no flows will be altered from current situation.....but it has to be justified (jobs for the boys.... including me....I did ask the question who was paying me)...NB if unopposed this directive WILL be implemented on YOUR river:eek:( not to be a doom merchant as it MAY be of benefit to SOME rivers)

The issue of reducing compensation flow is actually in the WFD (2015) documentation for River Basin Management Plan.....which you should be having a look at;)......it affects EVERY river(if compensated) in the country. As its a target to achieve.....and they started 12 months ago, in sneaking this in the back door, on some rivers:mad::mad:
Its guise is that its supposed to be a benefit to the ecology of the river<sounds claxton> but based on data that fits a model (size0:rolleyes:....but they are all different in the real world:eek: )


We do have to work with them....but don't let it be one sided:eek:
If you have a chance to fill in a RBMP then do so...its your chance to have a say in the direction its heading.
The document is a nightmare to read and cross reference with the annexes though and is not for the faint of heart.:mad:...it makes you wonder if they do it on purpose:eek:
 

moustique

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
1,319
Hi Sedgeking,

Many thanks for the reply and explanation it is appreciated. :)

Forums can be funny places. :D

I've read through plenty of LEAPs', etc, and other Catchment publications over the years, I guess they are now called River Basin Management Plan :eek: :D

Interesting to read your comments about "it's the data that fit's the model" I thought I was the only one who could see what they were doing. i.e, we'll make this fit, which means we can then say - we've achieved these targets............. :eek: Excuse my scepticsm :D :D :D

The clubs that I'm a member of do have representatives on most of the panels and committees, RAFAC, etc, etc. and slowly things occasionally get done.

:)
 

grey duster

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
1,163
Location
Nr Cheltenham
Hi Matt,

It is a good way to keep pressure off the water, but if that is the clubs real objective then they sholud simply do away with day tickets completely. :D

With regards to the club only allowing membership to residents, that's their choice, (and they aren't the only club to do so), but it is a little unfair and self-centred. If every club took the same attitude then river anglers would soon get fed up with only being able to fish in their local water.


:)
This is a fascinating debate which has made me think a bit about my approach to affordability. I think I have the third way. I have one main club which is by my standards quite pricey but has some great water which is only available to members and limited guests. It's also quite accessible for me so it's relatively easy to get to and the beats are in a beautiful wild part of the country - it frankly was a luxury which has quickly become a necessity . I then belong to two more which cost around £100 a year each. If I was forced to make economies unless they were substantial I would drop one or both of the two marginal clubs (and I mean marginal in the sense that I don't rely on them alone to access good fishing but they provide additional fishing which is of real value to me) - which I keep because the marginal benefits - the ability to fish their waters with friends who are also members or who have access to exchange tickets - are worth more to me than the cost. They also have some water which is physically closer than the "main" beats. It's a kind of price elasticity issue which brings me on to Moustique's suggestion about the price increase.

I can't speculate on the motives of Settle but there is an alternative explanation. If they are of the view that (a)they don't exist to primarily provide fishing to visitors but do so to defray the costs of managing the waters (which clubs such as WADAA clearly do) and (b) there is sufficient demand at £25.00 to raise the same amount of money as at £15.00 but at the same time reduce the fishing pressure and improve the fishing for their members then it could be a perfectly rational decision. We may or may not agree that the water is worth £25 per ticket - so we would drop off the list of potential customers - we are the marginal loss of custom compensated by the increase in income from people for whom it is worth £25.

One of the clubs has a local membership which is subsidised by a large number of non-locals - it has adopted a strategy of converging the fees over a number of years. I suppose if clubs own their fishing rights in perpetuity or own them in trust for the benefit of locals a strategy of allowing membership only to residents might be understandable, but I wonder how viable such a strategy will be in the long term?

Two final points. Firstly, has anyone mentioned the Hodder at Slaidburn which has some nice Grayling and for which tickets are inexpensive?

The second concerns Edenangler. On my computer Matt now displays with a different name - NorthCountryangler. Is this a glitch or has he changed his name because of spreading his wings!
GD
 
Last edited:

moustique

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
1,319
Two final points. Firstly, has anyone mentioned the Hodder at Slaidburn which has some nice Grayling and for which tickets are inexpensive?

GD

Hi GD,

I've fished that area as RADAC has access to the stretch, and I've fished it quite a way upstream from Slaidburn, where you can jump across the river in most places.

To be honest, the better fishing is further downstream and controlled by other clubs..... that I can't afford to join :(

With regards EdenAngler changing to NorthCountry....., it would seem from his posts that he's dropped his club ticket on the Eden for waters anew in the North Country :eek: I'm sure he'll clarify things.
But isn't it nice to fish new waters!


Shh! - or they'll be putting the price up.:eek::eek:

Dave

Couldn’t agree more! :D:D

:)
 

grey duster

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
1,163
Location
Nr Cheltenham
Hi GD,


To be honest, the better fishing is further downstream and controlled by other clubs..... that I can't afford to join :(

:)

True but in my experience it's a lot better than some of the club water which is affordable - can't mention who or the speziellewinkelngesellschaftgedankenpolizei will drag me off one dark night! I have had some decent grayling from it and there are one or two decent pools and runs on it. It used to be the only river in Bowland I fished.

GD
 
Last edited:

moustique

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
1,319
True but in my experience it's a lot better than some of the club water which is affordable - can't mention who or the speziellewinkelngesellschaftgedankenpolizei will drag me off one dark night! I have had some decent grayling from it and there are one or two decent pools and runs on it. It used to be the only river in Bowland I fished.

GD

Shh, we're trying to keep it a secret ! :eek: :D

.
 

grey duster

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
1,163
Location
Nr Cheltenham
:D

There's always the EA water at Mitton........ :D

.

True - planning a visit there in the new season - I missed the mini-forum session there last year with Phil-K and EA-as-was-NCA-as-is; I'm looking for some day ticket water on a river which (a) has fish and (b) is suitable for relative novices - I want to introduce my boys to rivers as I get tired of having to fish still waters with them in the summer and I can't take them to Kentmere now!
GD
 

moustique

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
1,319
Hi GD,

The Mitton stretch get's hammered.

I think you'd enjoy the day ticket waters on the Eden better.


:)

Just noticed the thread rating that now appears :(

What do people what off here, exactly where all the big grayling are? :D

.
 
Top