|
|
Post by hadrian on Jul 18, 2006 22:49:39 GMT
hi w.g,if im honest,i dont think im being milked,if i really thought what i was getting for my money wasn't worth paying for then i wouldnt pay it.however,on the very rare occasion when you cant get a cast through nobodys fault other than the weather,do you not think a compromise somewhere in-between would be a fairer way?
hadrian.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnmac on Jul 18, 2006 23:09:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Jul 19, 2006 0:47:30 GMT
hi flybox,welcome to the forum.
i have just read your comments on fair play.first of all there arent 200 days in a season,and secondly, if there were 200 days in a season its highly unlikely that 40 of them would be totally unfishable.to my knowledge, in the history of salmon fishing in any part of the u.k, 20% of salmon fishing per season has never been cancelled due to beats being totally unfishable.60 days out of 200(30%)is even more ludicrous.im quoting your figures as i dont have the facts to hand,maybe you can help me.
once you have looked at the figures again,let me know if you think its more likely anglers would book more confidently(paying an extra couple of quid)knowing if they did get rained off,they would get compensated.
hadrian.
|
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Jul 19, 2006 1:20:31 GMT
johnmac,i think it could well be chelsea top,rangers 2nd,hearts 3rd and celtic 4th or 5th.
theres talk in a couple of years juventus might be in the s.p.l.
hadrian.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoater on Jul 19, 2006 7:26:15 GMT
The idea of compensation for weather affected fishing seems to be missing a very basic and naturally exciting part of salmon fishing for me.
I love the unknown element of a rising, angry River. We pray for a flood often enough. If I was fishing a week on a River at it's bones, I'd willingly lose a day or two to a flood in the hope of better conditions later. A flood often produces superb fishing as it recedes, as we all know. These uncertainties are what make salmon fishing. It's pleasure lies in being so closely linked to nature's cycles.
Most insurance agents would find someone to quote you, bit like when people go on a skiing holiday. Me, I wouldn't dream of it. And I wouldn't book the fishing if I couldn't bear the thought of odd weather conditions!
|
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Jul 19, 2006 9:14:52 GMT
The idea of compensation for weather affected fishing seems to be missing a very basic and naturally exciting part of salmon fishing for me. I love the unknown element of a rising, angry River. hi stoater,UNFISHABLE DUE TO DANGEROUS CONDITIONS,the beat owner is saying to you"stoater,put your rod in the car,give me your money and go,vamoosh.".to me there is nothing naturally exciting about handing over cash for something you didnt get.one thing you do know about an angry rising river is,if it doesnt stop your paying for it,not the poor beat owners. hadrian |
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Jul 19, 2006 11:18:43 GMT
What i mean by nature Hadrian is if it decides to rain for 5 days and turn the river into a raging torrent there is very little any of us can do about it,and complaining is just like peeing into the wind if you catch my drift.
Colin.[/quote]
colin,
im not saying beat owners or anglers can do anything about raging torrents(talking of raging torrents where is flybox),but beat owners could adopt a fairer system and probably would if anglers did complain when charged for fishing they did not get.
colin,please,please,please,before you reply to my posts make sure you read and understand the points im trying to make.
thanks,
hadrian.(still p'ing in the wind).
|
|
|
|
Post by johnmac on Jul 19, 2006 11:40:18 GMT
Hi Springer..... thanks for the reply! I agree totally that debate is a good thing.... i like nothing more than a bit of banter...... so the more the better.......keep it coming As for the SPL jokes from those South of the border.... shame on you all ;D and as for the worlds best league (the Premiership...apparently!) can anyone see Chelsea not killing it by buying all the best players and winning it for the next 20years? unless there is another Russian billionaire waiting in the wings?  oh well! |
|
|
|
Post by flybox on Jul 19, 2006 11:57:03 GMT
Oh come off it Springer, If you really run your business that way, then I don't believe you. You set the price of whatever it is you make/supply based on your running costs plus your desired profit margin. If that doesn't generate a competitive price, you drive down your running costs or accept a lower profit margin. People buy the fishing as it is, happily, so it seems to me that it's about right. The moment you start buying insurance (which is what you're after, whatever you call it) then costs start to rise, as the insurer needs to cover his potential losses and make some profit. Hence your fishing would cost you more, not less. And for your fishing to cost you less is what you want, we hear. As for 20% unfishable days, i think most of the Scottish rivers are pretty unfishable just at the moment, unless you bring your own Volvic  Very few rivers are ever completely unfishable. If it's too dangerous to wade, then you can fish bits from the bank. You never know your luck. It beats being in the office. If you don't like it, stick to wild brownies. They're free in your part of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by flybox on Jul 19, 2006 12:09:47 GMT
an acquaintance was turned away by the ghillie 4 days out of 6 last year on the Tweed through the beat being unsafe (top marks to the ghillie there) Top marks? Nothing to do with the gillie fancying a day in front of a fire with a bottle/the paper then. I don't doubt for a moment that wading was dangerous, but I am surprised that the gillie couldn't find him somewhere to wet a line. If I've paid for the river, and taken the time off work, I'd rather wet a line fruitlessly than not. Ah, gillies. Some work 9-5 with an hour for lunch (and nothing wrong with that, I hasten to add). But you're often expected only to fish when they're working, even when: 1. It's mid-July and your likeliest taking times are dawn and dusk, not 11-5; 2. It's mid January and the best fishing time is 12-3, one hour of which disappears into lunch. Don't get me wrong, there are loads of excellent gillies who will bend over backwards to accommodate you, but there are those beats where the fishing appears to be run to suit the gillie, not the angler. That's a much bigger complaint, to my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Jul 19, 2006 15:24:57 GMT
hi flybox,i have noticed that you havent answered any of the questions i asked you in a previous post.i understand why and so i am not going to push you for answers.
if one or two more of the forum members and guests bothered to put their points/opinions accross we could enjoy more of this healthy and sometimes heated debate.
tight lines,
hadrian.
|
|
rennie
Member
If they cant see it they cant take it
Posts: 269
|
Post by rennie on Jul 19, 2006 16:12:01 GMT
Eh up Flybox,said days on the tweed last year I did fish every one have to say walked off one day and was nearly washed away to Berwick another,it was a waste of time for us and worse downstream for them and yes they were all in the boozer (a right state) but the ghillies tip did suffer.While I do sympathize with you and definitely agree on some points getting something done will be something short of a miracle.When I have looked forward to something so much for so long it really grates when I cant get to fish and that includes no water as well,so far to date I have been able to blame:Flood,Drought,Ice(frozen river),Snow(cant get there),Wind(cant stand up) and a petrol strike, no ones fault apart from the latter.I suppose the only hope is if the conditions could be pronounced as life threatening,but who would make that decision?.As a former match secretary I once abandoned a match on the River Wharfe as it rose 6ft in an hour with junior and elderly anglers to think off no doubt it was the right decision but I was shouted down by several anglers who wanted to fish on,not my fault merely the organizer who would have shouldered the blame had the unthinkable happened.
Seeing as many rivers are being tied up to Fish Scotland maybe a guideline in the let or something like that if its too bad/dangerous to fish a refund on day/s lost ,you do pay a year up front after all not too much to ask maybe? or like I hinted earlier is it all one way. Pedro.
|
|
|
|
Post by williegunn on Jul 19, 2006 18:59:23 GMT
Soapbox, No, people buy the fishing this way because that is how it is sold. If people refused to buy it the the seller would have to re-think his marketing strategy. Have you any prime weeks on the Spey? If you are unhappy I will happily take them. |
|
|
|
Post by kercock on Jul 19, 2006 21:02:36 GMT
And so say all of us,Malcolm,
|
|
|
|
Post by stoater on Jul 19, 2006 21:42:47 GMT
Good heavens! Mr. Flybox, you make several valid points, but I think the personal/political angle on which you so villify Springer is not what attracts most of us to this forum!
I too have never known a gillie absolutely refuse permission to fish. From a boat, of course. Likewise wading in high water. But except for totally freak conditions there is always a little slack on the nearside bank that can be safely covered. On rivers like Tweed, obviously angling method restrictions make even this banktop exercise extremely unlikely to produce a fish.
But I still wouldn't want it any other way. This is thank goodness a wholly unreliable sport. Let it remain so, please!
|
|
|
|
Post by flybox on Jul 20, 2006 8:24:39 GMT
hi flybox,welcome to the forum. i have just read your comments on fair play.first of all there arent 200 days in a season,and secondly, if there were 200 days in a season its highly unlikely that 40 of them would be totally unfishable.to my knowledge, in the history of salmon fishing in any part of the u.k, 20% of salmon fishing per season has never been cancelled due to beats being totally unfishable.60 days out of 200(30%)is even more ludicrous.im quoting your figures as i dont have the facts to hand,maybe you can help me. once you have looked at the figures again,let me know if you think its more likely anglers would book more confidently(paying an extra couple of quid)knowing if they did get rained off,they would get compensated. hadrian. Hi, Hadrian, sorry I wasn't ignoring you. Many Scottish rivers have a season that runs 11 January to 30 September. Non fishing days: 11 days Jan, 31 Oct, 30 Nov, 31 Dec, approx 35 Sundays, total non-fishing days 137 - leaving 228 days. So I make that about 200 days in a season. I made up the unfishable days; lets be pessimistic but not ridiculous: A fortnight of grue, three floods lasting four days each, seven days' of howling gale-force winds where quite frankly casting a line is impossible, and you're about at 20%. (Plenty of rivers in England and Wales are currently completely unfishable owing to the high temperature which would put undue pressure on the fish.) How unfishable is unfishable anyway? I then upped it to 30% 'just in case' - the whole point of insurance is that you as the insurer are covering your back. It's not speedway, which takes place in the comfort of the south of England, the north of Scotland is a hard place, particularly when you get onto the upper reaches of the wilder rivers - not maybe the Dee through Banchory where sofas are provided on the river banks and the gillies dress in dinner jackets and bring whisky & soda on the hour. It'd be more than a couple of quid on even a £50 per day beat. Anyway, I'll ignore Mr Springer's less kind handles for me - we seem at least to have woken the forum up! If he wants to insure against the weather, I suggest he talks to his insurance company. I really do think that if you consider the current system to be unfair you should boycott private fishing and hit the owners in the pocket where it hurts them. I thought this whole thread was about the unreasonable cost of fishing.  Perhaps I need to get nanny to explain this to me. You said that you wanted a refund for unfishable days. Buy ten days at £50 each, lose one day, get £50 back, total cost only £450, not £500. If that isn't your fishing costing less? And if not, why bother with this thread?  & so what? Imagine I own a piece of riverbank that is currently worth £3m, it doesn't matter whether I bought it yesterday with a large mortgage, or whether my great grandfather bought it before the Great War. If it's not returning me 7% profit before interest and tax (or whatever is reasonable for a beat) then I as the landowner am subsidising my tenants' fishing. Only the worst sort of socialist ;D would suggest that because it had been inherited the owner don't deserve to make just as money out of it as the self-made man who bought it yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by macd on Jul 20, 2006 21:36:45 GMT
I'm sure beat owners could offer refunds they would just factor it in to the costs, so the costs would go up. I am happy with the present system. about sums it up. |
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Jul 21, 2006 0:03:31 GMT
flybox,if your going to have a go at another forum member will you not address the post to me. just because the word insurance is used it doesnt always mean you have to start contacting insurance companies or brokers.if a beat owner included just one pound on each ticket,iwould be over the moon to pay it for the 10-15 times i pay on a beat,£10-£15 quid but i can book when i want not having to try and weigh up the weather and chance handing £50.00 over without getting a cast.il give you a better example.about a month ago i booked a beat at 60 odd i think £63.00,everything was looking great,rang the river line that takes and gives a reading at 5am.i think it was 2-3ft above norm,id still have fished it even if i was,as you put it, only wetting a line,however i had almost arrived at the water when the beat manager(who i know from previous dealings and is a decent chap),rang me 8.00am on my mobile phone and said"fishings knackered,over 2 mtrs in."i think its the only time this year that fishing has been canceled and it might well be the last,but had he taken a pound on every booking hed have been quids in,had he taken a pound on every booking id have been quids in,in other words everyone is happy. apart from you because your still ringing around getting quotes from swintons and direct line etc.
hadrian.
p.s,i also understand why gillies dont want punters paying even a little more,the more they pay(punters/anglers) the less they might give.so lets just keep it as it was, the present system is just fine and dandy.the problem is its not fine and dandy to pay for something and not get it,its not fine and dandy for a beat owner to sell less tickets because floods are forecast in a few days but may never come.
the fact that salmon fishing beats have increased in value in the past ten years at an alarming rate suggests to me that the beat owners that are"only breaking even for their troubles"probably wont mind to much about "only breaking even", if the beat values continue to grow at the same rate in the future.
this is boring me silly now.
hadrian.
|
|
|
|
Post by flybox on Jul 21, 2006 17:01:48 GMT
Oh gosh I'm sorry if you were offended! I thought it was quite clear that the first paragraph addressed your question, and subsequent paragraphs addressed Springer's points - following the point where his name appears. I really don't think I'm having a 'go' at him, if anybody is having a go, his posts are defamatory and libel me.
Anyway if you think that £1 would do it, may I suggest a moneymaking opportunity for you that would pay for all your fishing. Offer insurance to people for £2 per day. That'll give you £1 per day profit with the other £1 to cover payouts. Result, everybody happy: you get loads of money, we get insured fishing. I'll cheerfully pay £1 to cover fishing against cancellation.
I'll bet you don't dare do it. The risk of a very wet or very cold winter. The difficulty of deciding when a river is unfishable.
|
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Jul 21, 2006 17:51:19 GMT
flybox,springer calling you soapbox isnt a reason to go calling your solicitor and asking him to take libel action.believe me when i say i would gladly take 2 quid on every day ticket sold in the country(uk) on all beats.money for nothing,just the odd payout on the odd day rained off(totally unfishable remember)but do you think for one second any one of the beat owners are going to have that?not a chance,they want it all ways, no, £1,no£2 they want to take your money and dont give a sh** about the angler climbing into his car(or into his mothers sidecar with his bottle of volvic)and leaving with empty pockets and no compensation at all.
hadrian.
|
|
?