JennyMorgan

I believe that it was largely funded from the DEFRA Grant, not navigation although I don't doubt that the 24hr mooring was charged to the toll account. I don't see anything untoward there.

They have long been on the Upper Waveney but during this past summer a number of us locals have caught juvenile chub off Oulton Broad.

Ra was built in Germany, bit of a snub to Broads yards, and came to the Broads in 2000. Technology has moved on a pace or two since then and perhaps her batteries now need expensive replacement. Twenty years old, I expect that she's been written down in value to the extent that maybe she's ready to be sold on at no great loss. Perhaps she could return to Barton but my understanding is that she had become something of a liability whilst there. She came to Oulton Broad just once, a couple of trips from one end to the other and then she had to be towed back behind a ranger's launch, much to the amusement of the cynics on the shore!

Hopefully we will eventually hear from the Whitlingham Charitable Trust as to the real reason why they have dumped the Authority. It will be interesting to see what transpires, yurts and lodges perhaps? At the moment both are posting what appears to be a very similar joint statement.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/colman-family-end-contract-with-broads-authority-over-whitlingham-1-6322559

There is very definitely a large catfish on the Waveney. I caught one at 18 lbs many years ago. I also witnessed what I suspect is the same fish some years later at 86lbs. A 110 lbs plus fish came out at Beccles a few winters ago, apparently well witnessed and recorded. As for carp, blessed nuisance fish, I've had two off Oulton Broad over the years, both unintentionally, one also at 18 lbs and one at 21 lbs. I also witnessed a 48 lbs come out near the Waveney River Centre four years ago. They are there, needle in a haystack fishing though.

Bill, whilst I agree or largely accept the gist of your last post I must take exception to the DEFRA report Not really, the population was a fraction of what it is today thus probably a great deal less interference from mankind. Secondly I suspect that the natural balance was a great deal more natural then than it ever could be today. Re the fishing, I haven't had the big bream, ten pound plus, this year that I've had over the last few seasons. However I have had more than a few in the three to five pound bracket and I have had some stonking roach fishing, better than for a long time. The pike fishing, now that has deteriorated big time, too many would be pike anglers and not enough fish plus some appalling fishing skills. Re fish moving about, a point well made by Fred. Because you catch in one place one year doesn't mean that you will do so the next year. The same can be said for one week and then the next! Fish do have traditional movement patterns but there are plenty of other factors coming into play.

Fair comment but perhaps not so relevant as it might be, let me explain. I well remember when game-keepers controlled otters, pike, fox, jays, indeed most predatory species. Okay, so it was done in the name of 'sport' but it had gone on for generations and the so called balance of nature evolved around that control. Regretfully that balance has now been wholly upset, due to mankind's continued intervention. As a kid I saw marshes and rivers teeming with wildlife and waterfowl. In recent years I have seen marsh harriers decimating the nests of ground nesting birds, both out on open marshland and along the rhond. As an angler out on the bank I have seen both fox and otters feeding from nests, destroying both eggs and taking the young. Years ago there were literally tens of thousands of coot and moorhens, enough to feed the guns of the marshmen in their punts but also enough to sustain natural losses to what predation there was at that time. That balance has undeniably been upset. It doesn't matter who was here first but it does matter as to whom is here today. The release of both otters and mink has been a substantial own goal by animal rights activists and avid, often unthinking conservationists. The return of marsh harriers is to be welcomed on many counts but it has come at an unpleasant cost to other species. Poorly controlled dogs and feral cats have also added to the problem, as has tree loss in domestic gardens. Mankind, often well meaning, has a lot to answer for!

Costa Lot muffins & coffee, surely not, falcons aren't that silly, surely!

Since we are on the subject of dwindling fish stocks, the shortage of fish in the North Sea might be the reason that there have been several fish guzzling seals sighted on the Broads this year. Six feet of bull seal must do far more damage than ever do otters, we mustn't forget those pesky cormorants either It certainly has!!

Lowestoft was always a near water/longshore port which gave us the edge! Mind you, unless I catch it myself I now tend to head off to nearby Southwold for prime fish, Lowestoft is unfortunately a shadow of the fishing port that it once was. For tomato sauce I head for Lidl!

I don't use a keepnet myself, my choice, but in moderation, as in MikyO's picture, it is just about, almost acceptable. Where I do see red is when people retain fish overnight, several days even, in order to fill their net for the ultimate trophy shot. As for towing fish in a keepnet behind a boat, arghh! MikyO, hot spots do get hammered and ill judged keepnet use does take it's toll on fish stocks, of that I am convinced.

Smoked whiting, 24hr old when smoked, is the food of Escoffier! Whiting is lovely when fresh, especially pout whiting, but it has to be really fresh. Head off down to Southwold Harbour and the chippy there.

Haddock tends to be more meaty both in flavour and texture than cod. Really fresh cod tends to melt in the mouth, more so than haddock. I certainly don't dislike haddock but if a fish and chip shop owner tries to fob me off with haddock whilst claiming it's a cod then yes, I would comment.

Twowrights, your comment brought back good memories. Back in the 60's/70's my father ran a restaurant at Oulton Broad. I'm not actually sure that the cod versus haddock issue really was just a matter of taste, more that it was one of custom. Back then holiday weeks were very territorial, one week would be the car workers from Dagenham and another would be the miners from Selby for example. Each area having its seemingly traditional preferences, Londoners, for example, wanted their dog-fish (rock salmon) whilst us good folk in Lowestoft regarded dog-fish as scavenger fish, their diet being pretty revolting thus not fit for the plate. As a restauranter dad had to cater for the various tastes. Another issue was freshness, my brother & I used to line fish for cod out of Lowestoft, what we caught on Sunday would be on the table for Monday lunchtime. One Monday there was a fair ruckus in dad's restaurant as he was accused of serving un-fresh fish! In exasperation he finally announced to his miffed customer 'madam, I can assure you that that fish was swimming in the North Sea this time yesterday' as indeed it had. In other words the lady liked cod best but she was probably accustomed to Icelandic, Grimsby or Hull caught cod that was several to quite a few days days old before it was landed, unlike local longshore fish. Now, of course, fish are frozen at sea so its not so much of an issue but back then that was not the case. Each to their own. for me it's cod, for you it's haddock. As for dog-fish (rock and chips), I'd rather go without!

Vanessa, my opinion shows poor judgement, I prefer cod. Comes of marrying a fishmonger's daughter!

I might have lost a marble or two but not a caravan!

Actually my wife and I went there the other day, out of curiosity as our last visit was less than impressive, we were pleasantly surprised! Back on our list of watering holes. We asked for cod and were served cod, lovely muck!

No tomato sauce, arghhhhhhhh!

A matter of taste!

Out of interest I googled the RCC rules, interesting. By my reckoning 'Storm' should have failed dismally at clause number 7! 7. The Class is open to bona fide river cruisers and the interpretation of this definition rests with the General Committee. 8. A River Cruiser shall be a boat designed specifically and exclusively for the Norfolk Broads. A River Cruiser’s hull and decks may be constructed of any material, and shall include: a) An aft cockpit or well, surrounded by a substantial coaming, capable of seating at least two people each side, inside the coaming, on fore and aft bench seats. b) A cabin at least 6ft long between aft bulkhead and cabin front or rear of tabernacle, whichever dimension is the smaller, with a minimum height throughout of 3ft between cabin sole* and coachroof, measured on the centreline with the coachroof in its lowered position. The cabin should contain at least two bunks, with mattresses and bunk base. * Note: where the cabin sole is interrupted by bunks, engine casings or the like, the measurement for headroom is taken from where the sole would be in the absence of such obstructions. The roof beams are not taken into account. c) A forepeak, with hatch, to allow the mast to swing for lowering. The mast shall be mounted in a tabernacle, which forms an integral part of the structure of the boat. The tabernacle shall be stepped on the hog or GRP equivalent. (Yachts built before 1975 may be exempt from provisions a), b) and c) above at the discretion of the General Committee.) NB – Prospective applicants seeking registration of a yacht are advised to contact the Class Committee prior to purchase, building or alteration of a vessel. 9. Any innovation in the materials used in the construction or alteration of keel, hull, cabin, sails, spars or equipment, or the adaptation of offshore or racing dinghy technology to River Cruisers, shall be approved by the Committee prior to its use. Furthermore, the General Committee reserves the right to refer any major innovation to the Class at a General Meeting. (A rider to this rule was presented to the January 1984 meeting and contains advice on materials and equipment which, on application, would expect to be ruled admissible under the provisions of that rule.) 10. In variation of ISAF RRS 50, a whisker pole need not be attached to the mast when in use. 11. In variation of ISAF RRS 54, headsail tacks may be attached to a jib boom whose other end is attached approximately on the boat’s centre-line.

The penetrating aroma of a flatulent pooch, especially a wet one, can be nothing short of legendary. Compared to my rancid old tom, no competition, especially after he's feasted on a herring gull. Mind you, it might be a cat thing, how many people take their moggies on a long journey?

Just a mere toddler!

If it were me then I wouldn't let the cat out of the bag just yet!

https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/target-area/054WATBT1?fbclid=IwAR1P-GoXw44AZ0a1e0tXxEbCV-ampGMGpFw_1CE7wHmJbuRg3b64e6Kq3mE