UNTIL I read Peter Double’s excellent summary of what that lot in the Big House are up to in relation to the British Isles’ most popular participant sport – more so than darts, so I’m told – I hadn’t realised that me going home with a large bag full of mackerel or snipe (not to mention a nice bass if I’m really lucky) for Herself to cook could land me on the sharp end of a fine of up to twenty grand.

Like him, I don’t quarrel with the army of jobsworths they’re likely to have to employ to police this utter nonsense clamping down on the non-sporting amateur fishermen who’ve got a nice little earner – as Arthur Daley from Minder might have put it – flogging their tax free wares at the back doors of restaurants.

But they are a completely different breed altogether from the likes of me who, sometimes with my neighbour’s youngsters, ventures down to the breakwater at St Catherine’s to wet the line over the back wall.

To suggest, as has been done either expressly or implication, that shore anglers are responsible – even minutely – for depleting fish stocks (no matter what measuring criteria is used) just shows the truth of the old saying that our legislative chamber is simply a few square yards near The Square that are surrounded by reality.

I can remember chatting about fishing a few years ago in the pub. I’d caught a bass – a rarity both then and now – and was probably celebrating the occasion with a wet or three. This bloke introduced himself as a chef from one of the Island’s top restaurants and offered me five quid a pound for my bass.

I turned him down immediately, not because the money wouldn’t have come in handy but because I’ve got friends who were then full time professional fishermen and it seemed to me that I was taking away part of their livelihoods.

Besides, Herself was at that very moment preparing one of her culinary delights and top of the bill was my fine bass.

All this talk of five bass a day makes the likes of me smile and I doubt I’m the only one. Indeed, I’d have considered myself just a little bit greedy if I’d have taken one bass every fifth time I went down to the breakwater.

As Peter Double put it so eloquently, suggesting that the whole angling community should be penalised for these tax and (fishing) licence dodgers is quite frankly outrageous.

My experience – I first lobbed a line, float, weight and baited hook over the breakwater’s back wall when there were still German armoured cars and the like abandoned on the nearby slipway – suggests that his assertion that the catch rate from boats is far higher than that of shore anglers is absolutely spot on.

That is not to say that everyone who fishes from a boat is taking more fish than is reasonable but some most certainly are, just as some scuba divers didn’t play the game years ago in relation to ormers, which is why the likes of me hasn’ had a decent feed of those extremely palatable creatures for decades.

I don’t mind opening my fishing bag for anyone in authority when they’re checking size limits and I dare say most shore anglers would agree. While it took a while for people to get used to that particular legislation, I reckon that the majority now try their best to abide by it.

Similarly, more anglers than used to be the case now take a bit more care when returning fish to the water that is either undersize or that they don’t particularly want. From my own point of view, wrasse (or rockies as they are more commonly known) are always put back as carefully as I can, for I have no use for them.

I do so hope that our elected representatives think again on this issue and they could do worse than take on board Peter Double’s suggestion that they should perhaps be doing something about ‘amateur’ boat fishermen rather than lumping shore anglers in with them.

I HAVE to say that after reading the article on the flower shop at the General Hospital being forced to close because flowers are discouraged on some wards, I was left shaking my head in disbelief.

Quite frankly, to suggest, as did Mike Le Fevre – he has the grandiose title of director of estates and hotel services (whatever that means when it’s out alone on a wet Wednesday) – that flowers could get in the way of doctors and nurses is stupid.

My own experience of a hospital stay – six days for the removal of a troublesome appendix – suggests that flowers are usually placed in an appropriate location by hospital staff themselves, rather than either the patient or the kind visitor who brought them.

Quite frankly, I strongly suspect that the view given by the shop’s owner – that people are being dissuaded from bringing flowers is because of ‘staff allergies’ – is probably about right. I have to say that if I had an allergy affected by flowers then I’d really think long and hard before applying for a job in a hospital ward – a place where since Noah was a boy you were likely to encounter pollen bearing blooms.

But there again, putting the kibosh on such job applications might affect someone’s human rights and we can’t do anything to rock that particular boat, can we? The whole human rights industry would be close to meltdown if we did.

AND finally, did I read it correctly? A planning officer says that if a refusal to allow a third dwelling is maintained then the applicant will sue in court. If it is approved the court action will be withdrawn, so the planning officer recommends approval. I hope other rejected applicants have noted the comments.