We have spoken to 10 bone-fide anglers (all holding U.C.A.P.A. Ltd Salmon permits) and not one of them agree to the price rise.
All of them are disgusted at the fact that there are no concessions for junior or O.A.P's
8 of then asked why day tickets are not available
6 of them asked if the decision to raise the permit prices was made at an A.G.M.
8 Asked what the money is being spent on as none of them have encountered a bailiff this year
4 Expressed concern at the lack of control there is over the number of fish any one angler can take in a season 1 person informed us that he knew of one bone-fide angler who had killed 15 fish so far this year.
One would have thought that with the current financial situation world wide it would have been more pertinent to freeze the price of permits. We also feel that by imposing the £20.00p fine for non returns will do more harm than good. Many anglers forget to send in returns which sadly is the nature of the beast. By imposing exorbitant penalties anglers will simply not buy a permit and take their chances like a lot of people fishing the Clyde for salmon. It is a well known fact that the U.C.A.P.A. Ltd bailiffs are ineffective.
Check out the U.C.A.P.A. web site and compare their comments on migratory fish and non migratory fish. It appears from reading it all they are interested in as far as Salmon go is the Main Stem. Should they not be developing all of the tributaries down stream of Stonebyres? All they seem to care about is how much money can be made.
The people who are paid gratuities should only be paid on results. Would we expect to pay our police not to detect crime? The bailiffs should only be paid on results and proof of patrols. We wonder how many prosecutions there have been in relation to Salmon poaching on the water controlled by U.C.A.P.A. over the last 10 years?
We say this to senior citizens ask yourself this how much money does Mr Quigley get paid in honorarium and does he get a free permit? UCAPA seem to be the only angling association or club that does not offer concessions perhaps after all the honorariums are dished out to those in favour there simply isn't enough left in the kitty to allow for concessions. Bet they change the rules when they get older to suit themselves as they seem to do in everything. UCAPA is a closed shop and if you are not a pal of old Joe's then you have no chance of becoming an elitists amongst anglers as they seem to think they are
5 comments:
As a person who has no interest in fishing in general,I stumbled upon this blog and was amazed to find that a person who calls themself grasscarp seems to be pre- occupied with running down UCAPA, I know of this angling club and have done a little research and find that most of the people I spoke to are ok with the way the club is run, I have also found that it is quite a simple task to become a member of the club and by doing so the member can then attend meetings where they can voice their opinion on what they may or may not be happy about and have any point which they may feel they would like to see implimented put to a vote. I wonder is grasscarp a member of UCAPA? if not then why do these anglers who appear to be use this grasscarp as a mouth piece? when the simple alternative is to attend the meetings in person and voice their concerns in front of the membership, i also cannot help but wonder why the person who calls themself grasscarp hides behind this assumed name,is he or she affraid to let the people who read these bolgs know who they are, is the reason for the use of the name grasscarp in fear of repercussions as most of the things written seem to be of a personal nature against folk who are members of UCAPA and i see in another blog the Avon Angling Club?
I was searching for quantum physics and stumbled across this blog site (sounds improbable doesnt it). I have no interest in fishing in general but I spent hours reading this blog page( sounds even more improbable). Does the previous writer think that the angling public are stupid? This idiot has just exposed them self as
a bit player in the whole scenario especially as they keep making the fundamental mistake of using a small case letter i when using the first person singular. This is evident in many of the blogs posted so who do they think they are kidding? They are obviously deeply involved in fishing and note that they criticise grasscarp for remaining anonymous when they themselves chose the same format for posting their rantings. Pot, kettle and black spring to mind.
R.J. Rathly
Has grasscarp seen the article in this months Trout & Salmon magazine? Apparently UCAPA have engaged the services of the ACA in submitting a claim against Scottish Water in relation to the Logan pollution which happened earlier this year. Very interesting to read especially when UCAPA have never carried out any form of management or stocking and have never shown an interest in this tributary before. What are they claiming for? according to what I have heard there are no salmon in the Logan but I have heard that there are sea trout but these are being poached on a regular basis by some locals. When is this so called angling association going to face up to it's obligations in relation to preventing poaching on 'their part of the river and its tributaries'
Grasscarp have hit the nail on the head, its all about money and nothing else. I now challenge UCAPA to reply to this post stating what they have done for the Logan in the past 10 years. In my opinion their claim is fraudulent!!!!!
Rab Broon
Yeah the Logan is thick with Sea Trout, you can walk across the river on their backs.
Logan might not be thick with sea trout but there certainly are a few going up as they have been doing for years. However it could have been thick with them if those who are responsible for the fishing's did some anti poaching patrols. It is common knowledge that the bottom half of the Nethan is being lamped on a regular basis and the salmon eggs are being taken for potty as are some of the sea trout eggs. Is the last writer inferring that there are no sea trout in the Logan if so then why are UCAPA submitting a claim for compensation? as surely only the brown trout were affected and UCAPA have no jurisdiction over them. So I say to the last writer stick that in your pipe and smoke it. As a matter of fact UCAPA only have the right to fish for the salmon and sea trout is it not the Crown Estates that own the salmon fishing's? and should it not be them who submit any claim? Everybody seems to bitching over this one and in reality if everyone worked together rather than letting huge ego's get in the way the Clyde System could be one of the best salmon rivers in Scotland.
Post a Comment