Dodge, i said nothing of the sort. If you read the paper it actually says i was against the removal of the fish that were already there. At no point does it say that i said Carp should be stocked in the canal. I agree the wording in the article isnt ideal but the only person who said Carp should be stocked is Richard Griffiths. When i was asked if i felt they should be stocked in i actually said no, but those Carp that are already there should be left alone.

I am very surprised Shimano have backed this, I cant see how they can gain anything from it.

I agree with Steve. We have quite a few on the K&A canal but the thing is we know where they are. If you scale up the gear you can get a few out. People moan about getting beaten by one carp while they have battled all day for 8lb of bits. Its funny how they then call somebody a prick for sitting there all day and not catching one. They want it both ways. I gave up catching tiddlers when I was 10 and don’t mind sitting there for one fish or the bigger fish like skimmers. Team tacticks don’t allow for this. Leave the carp there but don’t stock any more would be a good balance.

I must admit Steve I ‘skim read’ it and interpreted that you were backing the idea.

I have reread it and it isnt worded very well at all, but it doesnt actually say i am backing the stocking of Carp. If anyone has read it that way then i can categorically state im not backing the stocking of Carp into the canal. My concern was the removal of the Carp in the first place and i still stand by that. Woodhouse i dont think shimano are backing it either, at least it doesnt say that either. It just says that Richard Griffiths works for shimano as brand manager unless there is a seperate article.

I have to say im a bit annoyed as the article is misleading to say the least unless you really read it properly.

@carpmagic wrote:

I have to say im a bit annoyed as the article is misleading to say the least unless you really read it properly.

Most people on here can’t read properly anyway ~sick

a few facts about the fish that were removed and the venues in general.

1. Fifty one carp and 95 pike were removed (carp went to Wellford and pike went to Cudmore)

2. The total day ticket revenue for the two venues in 2010 was less than £100 (rent is over £2000), they are both match oriented.

3. All necessary paperwork and checks were carried out.

4. Some carp were stocked by the controlling club, the others have been stocked illegally (stolen) from various day ticket waters nearby.

5. Neither club were aware of the amount or size of carp in the venues or that so many carp anglers were fishing the venue.

I’ll think of a few more.

Sorry Dodge but that is most definitely not what i said. My only remark was that taking big Carp out of a venue which they have been in for years is wrong in my opinion. I said nothing more. Sadly my quote bears no resemblance to the headline accompanying the article.

Its bad reporting Steve..simple as

I still dont think anyone from Angling times has spoken to either of the clubs.

I agree Lee, the more i read the article the more annoyed i am about how it has been written as unless you really pick the bones out of it you could easily think i was all for the stocking of carp into the canals when in actual fact i said i was against it.

I’m going to be shot down in flames for this but –

I have believed for some time that AT is the ‘Sun’ of the angling press and sensationalises most stories out of all proportion. This story is just further evidence.

I only get it for Steve’s articles. Fact – not sucking up!

If you add “dont” to the quote. It reads very differently. Although i,ve not read the article to comment further.

Why the attack on Steve, Dodge? While it seems to be a miss-quote from what Steve has said on here. If that was Steve,s view. Whats wrong with having that view? Dont you like catching carp?

The bridgwater canal. Your local match canal water was stuffed full of carp 20/30 years ago. It was well attended in winter leagues and opens partly because of those carp. There are very little in the way of matches on the canal now That suggests something is missing. Maybe it does need stocking with more carp. Then maybe some of the anglers would return to that canal!

It’s because Dodge can’t catch carp ;-).

True blue

perhaps the controlling clubs should swap the carp for silvers.

there was a stretch below devizes ( k&a) called the pile that was dominated by carp funny thing is there,s no matches there nowadays ~think unless there secret matches~shh . dont agree with fish removal at all, any more that i agree with restocking as thats usualy a waste of money.my local club spent thousands and had tons donated from chew valley lake every april~think weights went down not up. funny that. leave well alone.

Just read it, Steve says he was shocked by the removal of the carp that were already there & not that he thinks the canals should be stocked with carp.
Whoever came up with the HEADLINE for the story needs to put the facts right next wk!!!!
The headline is misleading people into thinking certain people have said stock carp when they havnt!!

Woodhouse, i have a feeling that those carp that where removed from that part of that canal where there for very good reasons. Carp further down or up the canal are likely to move in to that area where those carp where removed from to fill the gap. Nature does things like this with good reason unless its closed off. Adding stocks of silver fish is likely to result in most of those added silver fish stocks spreading out. You might even find that any added stocks of silver fish never stay for very long. The added silvers bugger off to a different part of the canal and are never seen again.

There might be good arguments for removing the resident carp. Although im struggling to come up with any. However, im amazed that pike where removed. The only thing thats likely to result in is less health stocks of fish!

If Steve Ringer says what he meant HERE that is good enough for me. It should be for anybody. The man has integrity.

Sounds like he was a victim of bad writing / editing. Apologies I rarely buy the AT.

Dodge, Steve answered your question 3 times. You still asked whats going on. It did look like you where not excepting his response on face value and looked like an attack to me.

It does open up the debate about stocking carp in canals. I ask again. Do you have a problem with stocking carp in some closed off sections of canal. If you do. Then, Why?

IMHO & this is only my opinion, if any fish were to be removed from the canal, it should be Zander as per the EA’s guidelines under the non-native species regulations. Anything should be left where it is, especially as the fish can travel between locks (if there are any on this particular stretch as I don’t know).

@D.W. wrote:

IMHO & this is only my opinion, if any fish were to be removed from the canal, it should be Zander as per the EA’s guidelines under the non-native species regulations.

Carp are as non native as Zander, the only difference is they got here before them.

At the end of the day some clubs are contracted to offer a service and pay the rental fees on certain stretches of canals and if carp do not fit into that equation then they have to be removed.

either that or the carp anglers make their presence known and offer a solution

Who wrote the story as its just sensationalist and sounds like its been half made up

natural water courses should stay natural, no stocking or destocking it knackers up the biomass, especially pike, you take pike out in a couple of years time your going to have loads of jack pike to make up the numbers that’s been taken out, that’s the biomass!!!
i think Steve has made his point that he never said that he wants carp stocking on canals!!!!

Hi guys
The editor has read the thread and asked me to post this on Angling Times’ behalf.
“Obviously we are very concerned that we have misrepresented any individuals or groups, but I urge anglers to study the article carefully.
The headline is in quote marks – a style often used in publications – and is a direct lift from a statement made by Richard Griffiths.
The story is purely a statement of fact and in no way represents the paper’s stance.
Mr Griffiths does work at Shimano but as far as I am aware, his belief in the stocking of carp is a personal view.
The only opinion AT has reference the story is the careful netting of fish and the importance of leaving a natural balance in the waterway. The science behind taking pike out of a stretch is complex and should be studied before the removal of any predators.”
The Angling Times has recently undertaken a significant relaunch and should any anglers wish to take a sample copy to see if they approve of the changes, please email [email protected] with your address details.
Many thanks
Abi

I bought this weeks AT and skimmed that article becuase it seemed ludicrous to turn canals into commercials. Sort out the cormorants and restock the ton of skimmers/roach they’ve eaten over the last decade would be the way to get my local canal back to life.@NW Cut Angler wrote:

If Steve Ringer says what he meant HERE that is good enough for me. It should be for anybody. The man has integrity.

Sounds like he was a victim of bad writing / editing. Apologies I rarely buy the AT.

I completely agree, one of the only things I read in the AT is Steve’s article normally so to see his assiciation with that article was a little dissapointing but at least with the sites like this on the internet Steve has the chance to say what he meant.

To the angling times, I thought the new look was a bit of in improvement this week HOWEVER please drop the daily mail style tabloid sensationalist reporting please.

Obviously not every reader will pick an article apart to get “the true story” and you are dreaming if you think that article was meant to say

“The science behind taking pike out of a stretch is complex and should be studied before the removal of any predators.”

To someone glancing over it it basically says:

“The only way to save our canals is to stuff them with carp and this is a view backed by top anglers such as Steve Ringer”

Tewton
We only discovered the pike removal to Cudmore as a result of this thread, so obviously that isn’t mentioned in the story. But the information did start alarm bells ringing.
Angling Times is anti the removal of predators without a consideration for the bigger picture. All we ever ask is for the science to be considered and the removal substantiated.
I’m not sure I agree on the sensationalism claim as the piece is purely a group of facts without any AT opinion woven into it.
The key ‘opinion’ piece in the paper this week is AT’s decision to create posters for fishing clubs and anglers to help fight the issues of hydropower, cormorant predation and poaching.
Our columnist Steve Partner is writing about the carp stocking issue next week. He’s not a supporter.
I hope this clears up the matter.
Warm regards
Richard
ed.

@Abi wrote:

I’m not sure I agree on the sensationalism claim as the piece is purely a group of facts without any AT opinion woven into it.

Is it facts though?

As anyone asked the controlling club of their opinion or are you just listening to a guy who works for a company that spends a lot on advertising in your paper?

Abi i think Richard needs to read this piece again.

The first paragraph reads that ‘some of the biggest names in the sport have thrown their weight behind a campaign that could stop carp being removed from canals and would instead see the species stocked into these venues nationwide’.

It then mentions that Steve Ringer has signed an online petition. This petition asks for the removal of carp from canals to be stopped. It asks for the stocking of carp only where they have already been removed.

The reader can only presume that Mr Ringer et al wants the carp to be stocked into UK canals nationwide. If this is not the case, as already denied by Steve in this thread, then you cannot really defend your story and instead should apologise. We do afterall all make mistakes. Or does the litigation society we live in prevent this?

Angling Times is anti the removal of predators without a consideration for the bigger picture. All we ever ask is for the science to be considered and the removal substantiated.
I’m not sure I agree on the sensationalism claim as the piece is purely a group of facts without any AT opinion woven into it.
Warm regards
Richard
ed.[/quote]
hi rich reading through this topic i can see there are two issure or stories in one
one is the removal of carp from said canal and then introduction of carp stocks being put into our canals to save the sport and entice the young generation to go fishing.
point one on the netting of the carp and pike by a professional company the BW doe’s A/TIMES think that the BW haven’t look into the considerations and the bigger picture before carrying out this operation the clubs could not of just phone up BW and requested the netting and the following week carry it out i just can’t see that happening also a lot of the carp did get returned to the stretch save as all the fish removed.in your article feb 1st a spokesperson for BW told the A/T i can confirm the removal of the carp can at a request of the two angling clubs, i don’t think you have given BW a chance to answer in full
and as this topic has now built into a full grown battle against two forms of angling specimen carpers and match fishermen if you like to take a look at blackcountry carpers website you will see what i mean its very hostile
perhaps Richard griffins should of thought about the impact of this story

Having read the report on here, then again in (someone elses copy of) this week’s edition, I have to question the relevence of Richard Griffiths adding his job title (& employers name). It’s a complete irrelevence to the matter at hand, so why is it there? Are we to believe that you need a certain level of (alleged) credentials before you get an airing in this publication? That’s what some might be led to believe.

Having read the coverage to date, my view (& it’s only my view) is that it looks very much like NIMBYism. (They can’t take the carp out of the canal near MY house – I’m furious; stamps feet, bores his wife to half to death & starts a petition) kinda thing. I can’t see anything on here or in the Angling Times (if I can be bothered even scanning someone else’s copy) where the initiator of this fuss or a ‘journalist’ has contacted the controlling body for the water concerned.

You can either do something right, or you can do something quick; rarely do the two coincide. Too many things appear in the AT as knee-jerks without adequate leg-work behind them – at least that’s how it seems.

@AT it is sensationalist IMO because (as you’ve admitted) the headline doesn’t match the story you were trying to get across (if we could all be bothered to read everything), the sub headline is even worse.

I have spoken with AT regarding the headline as it and this thread has only just came to my attention.
The Heading is missing a very important part and this is included in the petition – Sections of canal that have had carp removed for no valid reason should have a re-introduction plan to get back to the same numbers of what have been removed.
The idea is not to turn a canal in to a commercial, far from it (they have their own place), but to keep canals exactly the same as they always have been, this is so that every angler regardless of their disipline whether it be match, pleasure, Carp or Predator can enjoy the sport.
The fact is that Carp are being removed that have been resident for many years and this will anger certain anglers (i am not the only angler that dissaproves of what is happening).

Many new anglers/kids catch their first fish on a canal whether it be Gudgeon, Roach, Bream or Carp. Taking the opportunity away of catching a 15lb carp from a kid is in no way fair.

I have on good authority that a minimum of 82 carp were removed from this 2 or 3 mile stretch so all of the figs that have been made up of 30, 51 etc there was a lot of secrecy on the removal of these fish (buckets covered etc).

Lee Woodhouse – Bragging about removing carp from your stretch of canal on carp forums is only fueling confrontation.
R Griffiths

Griff

You have got completely the wrong of the stick, I am after help not confrontation.

@woodhouse wrote:

Griff

You have got completely the wrong of the stick, I am after help not confrontation.

It is probably best that we speak in person at some point as i believe certain issues can be thrown out of context. My issues are only for the future of the sport.

griff you are totally right, if fish are taken out,(for stocking other fisheries) they have got to be replaced which will balance the canal(biomass). there’s a misconception that if you take all carp and pike out of a canal, and stock more “silvers” the fishing will improve, this is not the case.
just let natural waters be just that NATURAL

Lets dispel the myth, carp are not natural to canals and have only been introduced in the past 20 to 30 years….

Mine and many other match anglers perception is where carp frequent the silvers are ousted so drawing a carp peg in a team match is a complete mare….

In 8 years of fishing the Wigan water I only know of two carp caught in matches, one by team mate Carl Robinson and the other Paul Hughes… in other words, they are not a viable option to fish for in matches and inhibit the angler that draws a carp frequented peg….

I would love all carp to be removed from the Leeds Livvy in order to give space for the silvers to flourish…. Maybe the Sarries Head would become a decent venue again….

~clap ~clap ~clap

Playing Devils advocate here is that not the same where all big fish live? In other words where there is a shoal of Bream you get very few Roach? That was always the case on the GUC, great if the Bream fed but they rarely did in normal match hours therefore making those pegs poor at best.

Steve one solution to get back to normality and try and bridge the differents the carpers and matchmen is surely these carpers could rent there own section of canal where match anglers can’t fish
this would prevent this sort of thing happening again

Irk the purists, there where plenty of carp in the Leeds/Liverpool canal more than 30 years ago. The canal at the Liverpool end and out to the Sarries Head also had a massive head of tench at that time which the canal became quite famous for. Any lost fish in those days where put down to being very big tench but carp have always been there. Carp in our other NW canals is nothing new. The Bridgewater canal was stuffed full of carp 30+ years ago and have been targeted in matches by the anglers in the know. Most match anglers hooked at least the odd carp in opens and winter league matches in those days on the Bridgy from Runcorn and right though Manchester and beyond. I,ve even caught several carp in matches at the Red Lion on the Trent/Mersey canal in a winter league matches 30+ years ago. Carp in our canals is nothing new.

The lack of sport at the Sarries Head is likely to be down to the numbers of bream on that section of the canal. 22lb of bream won a club match last weekend. The back up weights where very bad with very few roach caught.

R.I.P the bridgy fond memorys of the super leagues around the boating club section skimmers and roach weights were always good ~sick ~sick ~sick

dodge i used to fish the bridgy a lot years ago and ive hooked and lost plenty and seen a lot more hooked and lost on lots of stretches especially round sale there didnt seem to be any small carp they were all animals,ive also lost them in matches at grappenall and seen plenty caught along preston brook.really miss the matches on there but there was only so many bikes boats dogs and dog crap that i could put up with,plus the motorbikes coming along the towpath.

don’t you think that if a fish has been there for 30 years plus, it deserves to stay??? and what about there off spring???? or shall we take all the carp out the Trent and stock it with burbot???

Thanks Dodge. I never knew those carp where stocked around 1975ish. I was fishing the Bridgy regularly around Manchester in the early/mid 80s in big opens and the leagues. The carp where mainly between 7lb-12lb in those days and there where a lot hooked and a few where landed from what i remember. I certainly landed a few but lost a lot more. 1000 carp in a few miles of canal was a lot of carp in those days. Maybe not stuffed with carp by todays commercial stockings but that was a lot of carp in those days. The match sections of the canal from Preston Brook to Runcorn old town also produced carp around the same time too. Maybe there where not enough carp to dominate matches but there where enough to make a difference for those who regularly targeted them on the right tackle and/or had a bit of luck.

Seems you have the same/similar memories of those carp as me, Redarmy. They did make the fishing interesting but they never harmed the silvers fishing on those sections of canal. Good memories!

if we had the gear we have now and the know how there would of been some very interesting weights of some of the feature pegs

this is quiet true dodge, rivers and canals stock and de-stock themselves, it just seems to me that because the canals have become poor, match-men start blaming carp-pike etc.. all that’s happening is that canals are going the same way as rivers, running very clear making most of the fish nocturnal.
iv read the part about the bridgwater canal, last year some lads were night fishing(which isn’t allowed) where there had been nothing caught in matches,they caught loads of bream and carp!!!

@deanb wrote:

this is quiet true dodge, rivers and canals stock and de-stock themselves, it just seems to me that because the canals have become poor, match-men start blaming carp-pike etc.. all that’s happening is that canals are going the same way as rivers, running very clear making most of the fish nocturnal.
iv read the part about the bridgwater canal, last year some lads were night fishing(which isn’t allowed) where there had been nothing caught in matches,they caught loads of bream and carp!!!

correct mate even the loughborough canal they catch carp at night again night fishing is not allowed i’m not sure if the club allows boilies and pellets as its the controlling clubs rights to ban any baits from there waters this also happens on the river soar bream fishing at night they bag up its just a question whether they get returned ~sick ~sick ~sick