|
Post by ronny on Aug 9, 2014 4:35:21 GMT
What happened to link in first post? Was working fine and now looks like its been took down? I noticed last night in the comments box a lady had commented saying she was worried it would ruin the rural sights and that all the traffic down such narrow roads would lead to accidents
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Aug 9, 2014 8:23:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ronny on Aug 9, 2014 9:32:20 GMT
Cheers dave that worked
|
|
|
Post by rickyg on Aug 9, 2014 9:59:41 GMT
nightline, the river ouse is fishing the best i have seen it in summer for donkeys years this year, both above and below the weir.Areas i thought had been "ottered" are producing double figure nets of roach , and 50lb + nets of bream .It probably has nothing to do with the hydro, more to do with the mild winter/warm summer.Just a point, I wonder if the topcliffe stretch would be as prolific if somebody a couple of hundred years ago decided not to mess about with the river, and didn't build a weir.Man has changed the ecosystem on nearly all our rivers, look at the tees, it has changed from a chub/dace river to a bream/perch river around Yarm due to the tidal barrier
|
|
jason
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by jason on Aug 9, 2014 12:49:21 GMT
I would assume the weir and the mill were born out of necessity all those years ago Ricky.In my opinion this scheme is not a necessity as the power generated by these schemes are minimal.Indeed if you search the web for information on the national grid, you will find the input of hydro power to the grid is minuscule.
As for the scheme at Linton.I don’t think you can make an informed judgement on the impact it has had,based on a few good catches from the river this summer.
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comparison with the Tees.That scheme(albeit a very different one to the Topcliffe scheme) changed the river from one thing into another.Do we want this to happen with the lower Swale?
Jason
|
|
|
Post by nightline on Aug 9, 2014 17:59:24 GMT
nightline, the river ouse is fishing the best i have seen it in summer for donkeys years this year, both above and below the weir.Areas i thought had been "ottered" are producing double figure nets of roach , and 50lb + nets of bream .It probably has nothing to do with the hydro, more to do with the mild winter/warm summer.Just a point, I wonder if the topcliffe stretch would be as prolific if somebody a couple of hundred years ago decided not to mess about with the river, and didn't build a weir.Man has changed the ecosystem on nearly all our rivers, look at the tees, it has changed from a chub/dace river to a bream/perch river around Yarm due to the tidal barrier Ricky I would have to agree with you - rivers in their natural state probably haven't existed for 500 years and it is really good to know of the Bream and Roach catches, rivers constantly surprise us - but I refer again to your point, some of the impacts we have made on the rivers in the past were made with the best of intentions and only time has shown the damage we have done. I would ask you to consider that this Hydro scheme at Topcliffe from its inception has no merit whatever your point of view; the evidence is irrefutable that hydro electric schemes on small and medium sized rivers are not viable. (see earlier posts and YouTube link-(death of a river). However the companies that are promoting these schemes can still profit from them via Government incentives, Tax manipulation and Government guaranteed/subsidised market without showing genuine net financial growth or a profit to the ecology from the power generated. If it was genuinely for the greater good then I believe anglers would/should accede. Where is the greater good in this proposal? The River Swale is paradoxically both a small and major river. Particularly small here at Topcliffe and I do believe no one really knows what a long term impact such a scheme could have but I do believe it will be really damaging long-term. A proper Environmental Impact Assessment has not been carried out- just a survey, the fisheries assessment could be torn to shreds by anyone knowing the water well. - If that is correct then that should be enough for it not to go ahead. I know for a fact that lamprey, barbel, chub, pike and perch spawn there. Regarding one of the known spawning areas around the Island this is an extract from the fisheries assessment ‘it is not anticipated that there would be any significant impact on the quality and availability of spawning habitat in this area’ . I want conclusive statements not an opinion as to anticipations from so called professionals. If any of that could be negatively affected then the region’s major angling club should not be the torch bearer. It is quite astonishing that an angling club should be promoting such a scheme. I cannot believe that thinking anglers are going forward with this. I dread to think how Topcliffe residents will perceive us should they realise it is our angling club that is facilitating it.
|
|
|
Post by jgpark on Aug 9, 2014 18:16:07 GMT
Haven't said much on this site about this, enough to say I agree totally with what Duncan has quoted, I have been against this from day one and continue to speak against it.
However I may have to resign as senior trustee to continue and obviously I would not be party to the latest correspondence.
This whole scheme is wrong, wrong place, wrong time. Put it on a big river like the Ouse and I may think differently but not Topcliffe.
Regards
Graham
|
|
jason
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by jason on Aug 9, 2014 18:39:43 GMT
Graham, I don't know you from Adam, but I think the above post says a lot about you as a person.I think you should be applauded for standing up for your convictions. If you were put into a position where resignation was the only answer, the association would worse off for it.
Jason
|
|
|
Post by av1nbarb3l on Aug 9, 2014 20:11:44 GMT
totally agree with you jason and maybe with the help of graham and other forum users we may be able to halt this project until it is further researched or maybe even stopped completely as it seems we will only truly know how it will effect the river after it has been erected which may be too late if the effects are negative our beloved river swale is far too precious to play a game of chance with
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Aug 9, 2014 20:48:27 GMT
Well I too have refrained from commenting, as the first I had heard about it in any detail was at the FMC meeting on Thursday. Putting all the technicalities / reports / consultants aside it just sems like a big gamble to me.
It could have no effect or improve the fishing. Or it could wreck the fishing.
The reward - £10k per year. Although I don't know how "GUARANTEED" this figure and payment term is - 20 years ?
If it wrecks the fishing - how many members will we lose at £50 per year - we only need to lose 200 and theres the £10k gone.
Another point - and please don't think this is a matchman vs pleasure angler jibe - I've been both and enjoyed both.
The Delegates are representatives of clubs who have, in most cases , been established for many many years and as such were set up to fish matches. The Delegates , who, as per the above, represent predomonantly matchmen, agreed to pass this on to the trustees.
Topcliffe is a pleasure water ........... what about the 1000 plus non attached, pleasure angler, members' voice ?
|
|
|
Post by jgpark on Aug 9, 2014 21:31:18 GMT
I would take the 200 members, and any more we can get against a fictious £10k (£11700-00 quoted).
Are we officials of an angling club tasked with providing sport for our members or a bank ( we all know what happens to them)?
|
|
|
Post by gcb on Aug 9, 2014 22:06:04 GMT
Topcliffe isn't a match length so not very high up the peckin' order - lets get 10 grand to stock kippax wi' more pasties
|
|
|
Post by david1 on Aug 10, 2014 10:23:55 GMT
Often browse on Leeds website, but never posted before. I believe this is one of the most important threads I have read.. Topcliffe is one off the most iconic Barbel (and other species) fisheries, once described as the Royalty (Hampshire Avon ) of the North. With reference to the Hydro Scheme. The Topcliffe residents don`t seem to want it, Leeds members at best are apprehensive about it and most don`t seem to want it. The environmental advantages seem to be minimal. According to one of the posts Leeds A.S.A. own the land and can if they wish pull the plug on this project. It seems to me there is too much uncertainty over what effect the hydro scheme will have on the river. Too big a risk to take. More independent consultation is needed. To all Leeds members please make your feelings known you are the club and your opinion must be valued. please read all the posts on the thread so you can make an informed opinion. If this hydro scheme goes ahead and has a detrimental effect on the river we have only ourselves to blame. the lower Swale fisheries are very popular with Leeds members. Any deterioration in the quality of the fishing on this river would I am sure see a reduction of membership renewals. It would be appreciated if any member of the Leeds committee could answer the questions and concerns posted on this thread.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by nightline on Aug 10, 2014 12:12:56 GMT
Haven't said much on this site about this, enough to say I agree totally with what Duncan has quoted, I have been against this from day one and continue to speak against it. However I may have to resign as senior trustee to continue and obviously I would not be party to the latest correspondence. This whole scheme is wrong, wrong place, wrong time. Put it on a big river like the Ouse and I may think differently but not Topcliffe. Regards Graham Graham I could only reiterate Jason's response to your post and applaud your statement. Your principles show the club to be in good hands. Thanks to ‘Avinabarb’ we now have FORUM PETITION to carry this debate forward democratically which is the only way to go – whatever the view point each of us holds, let’s hope we use it and vote. Duncan
|
|
|
Post by ronny on Aug 10, 2014 12:33:54 GMT
Nice one Craig, good idea on petition
What about contacting other clubs and day ticket water owners below the stretches? Needs to be someone diplomatic to gain there support? I just don't cut it!
'Here love, u heed what da ganna do pet.. The fog on the Tyne is all mine all mine' Isn't gonna cut it?
So I've left the contact details for someone to contact them.. I'm not 100% clued up on lower Swale so only added what I know, so maybe ones I've missed out you guys could fill the blanks in.. We need there support over this to!
Bradford city Secs number: tel:01274 684906
Bradford #1 01274 881851
Angel caravan owners Unsure of this one??
Cundall lodge: 01423 360203
Cundall hall: Unknown
Asenby anglers: Unknown
Crakehill anglers: Email: Nigelppringle@aol.com
Fawdington (unsure of who runs this) tel:01423 324776
Be good if someone could knock some letters up on the pc and post them to the residents in the mill?
|
|