The Angling Trust and the Rivers Close Season is it time for some answers?

[The bad one]

I get all of what you write Ray and in the real world we’d get answers to questions asked, but this is the surreal of small p Politics and such answers are rarely given.
As to not cutting and pasting - I take the view, if someone puts it out there in internetland, then providing you reference the source, it's fair game.

 

[thecrow]

A nothing statement that does not answer the basic questions that have been asked.


It concerns me that licence money is possibly to be spent on this taking away from other areas that are already under financial pressure due to cutbacks.

 

[black kettle]

I have posted up the River Telegraph's response to the EA Statement on our facebook group page tonight. Please take the time to read it.

What a long time to wait for what is, a paltry statement of just four short paragraphs? It also gives hardly any information out.

Apart from the obvious, which is so scant its almost missing, no mention of the wildlife effected from any proposed changes. No mention of the type of scientific surveys to be undertaken, if any. Or any mention of where, when and the all important question, how much of the rod license money will be spent given that the statement does say it will be rod license money being used?

Of course to undertake a full survey covering all fish species and all species of flora and fauna it would cost millions of pounds and a long time frame.

What we do know of course is that spawning fish are NOT affected by being handled and caught in the close season because we don't fish for them then. The EA and AT stance over the whole issue is surrounded by fog and fudge. With very little substance of a professional nature. And none where it says we shouldn't be pursuing fish relentlessly offering our quarry no rest bite at all.

The EA say they are going to have meetings to talk about this over the next two months. More wasted time and money to decide what we know already that wild fish amid a wild environment benefit from having a close season. Just the same as every other sport that cherishes a close season for their quarry.


Regards,

BK.

 

[Titus]

So in other words a lot of trumpeting and hooraying and then little progress or definition bar we're going to talk a bit more for a bit more of a while.

I just wish I could like this twice.

---------- Post added at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 23:55 ----------

This call for a change to the rivers close season remains a mystery, just who is it that is calling for change? The AT have been very reluctant to say just who it is, other than name a few anglers.

Me for one, and if you were to step outside of the 19th century bubble which contains the close season you would see plenty more like me.
The law has outlived it's usefulness and is now counterproductive, the only people who can't see that are the 21st century angling Luddites looking back on a golden age which only exists in their rose tinted, tweed clad, imaginations.
The law as it stands is the definition of an anachronism and should be recognised as such.

 

[The bad one]

I just wish I could like this twice.

---------- Post added at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 23:55 ----------



Me for one, and if you were to step outside of the 19th century bubble which contains the close season you would see plenty more like me.
The law has outlived it's usefulness and is now counterproductive, the only people who can't see that are the 21st century angling Luddites looking back on a golden age which only exists in their rose tinted, tweed clad, imaginations.
The law as it stands is the definition of an anachronism and should be recognised as such.

In Your view!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I too would love to know what or who triggered this so called look at the retention of the Close season, who are involved in discussions, and particularly their commercial interests. Until there is clarity on this then suspicions will fall squarely on the tackle trade and those with a commercial interest in seeing it's abolition.

I can only guess at the reasons that those who have the ear of the Angling Trust who are steering them into these discussions had the testicular fortitude to come forward and reveal their agenda . . . . . . . .

Those of us who support the retention of the close Season, as is, have done so on many occasions, and I have to say that the old fishing bodies were never so "political" as the way that the Angling Trust has become.

The wording on their statement smacks of a party political broadcast or an ambiguous manifesto. Do they really think so little of us anglers as to be so condescending?

If they wanted to test the patience, resolve and the allegiance of those of us who want the Close season left alone, then they are certainly going the right way about it.

 

[Judas Priest]

In Your view!

Apologies for being pedantic but I thought that was the idea of a forum

 

[nicepix]

Whilst I am in favour in principle of close seasons to protect fish at their most vulnerable time I have to agree that the current model is way past its sell-by date. I don't think the close season should be abandoned, but an extensive overhaul or rethinking is well overdue.

 

[thecrow]

I can only guess at the reasons that those who have the ear of the Angling Trust who are steering them into these discussions had the testicular fortitude to come forward and reveal their agenda . . . . . . .

Only the trust can answer the question of who these anglers are but as is usual with the trust they treat anglers members or not with disdain, silence only breeds suspicion and the longer they are silent the more suspicious anglers will become.

Another reason for the silence on this matter may be that there are no anglers calling for the CS to be looked at other than a few inside the trust.

 

[no-one in particular]

At least it shows by extending the talks for another 2 months they are not prepared to jump into any decision willy nilly. My reading of the statement is they cannot find any conclusive evidence to change the CS so far. So, they are looking at it further. I expect its all been half a dozen of one and half a dozen of the other. Which probably means they wont change it in the end.
I would like to see a full close season on rivers and lakes but, a shorter one, say for 6 or 7 weeks.
However, Its about the best evidence that can be obtained taking all areas of fishing into account and coming up with the best CS possible. It seems to me that's all that's going on, I think that's a good thing to do every now and then.

I am not bothered about being informed whats going on, I only go fishing, I do not run the sport in any way., its up to others to do that. If they come up with something that they thinks better in the end, then so be it.

 

[sam vimes]

Those that are totally unwilling to countenance any changes to the closed season keep banging on about scientific evidence. Has anyone, including those that originated the current laws, got any to support the closed season. I mean real scientific evidence, not just this wishy washy "well it's obvious". What might intuatively seem to be the right thing, may not actually be so. It was brought in because matchmen of the time killed all they caught. It seemed intuative that doing so during, and just prior to, the breeding season would damage fish stocks even more than they already did. The majority of the rest of the stuff I see is little more than an emotional response against the prospective change to what has become a tradition. It may seem intuative that a closed season will be beneficial to those species that might spawn in that period. However, it may not actually be the case. Until some real scientific evidence is gained, we may never know. There's always a chance that the closed season actually does more harm than good. A default position of assuming that the closed season is beneficial, based on pretty much nothing beyond the knowledge that some coarse fish might spawn in that period, on a good year, on some rivers, doesn't make a great deal of sense.

One size does not fit all. Tradition and intuition do not miraculously turn into science over an extended period of time. Whilst there may not currently be much scientific evidence to support scrapping or changing the closed season, there's also precious little to support its continuance.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I just wish I could like this twice.

---------- Post added at 00:05 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 23:55 ----------



Me for one, and if you were to step outside of the 19th century bubble which contains the close season you would see plenty more like me.
The law has outlived it's usefulness and is now counterproductive, the only people who can't see that are the 21st century angling Luddites looking back on a golden age which only exists in their rose tinted, tweed clad, imaginations.
The law as it stands is the definition of an anachronism and should be recognised as such.

Hi Adrian,
Regarding the 19th century bubble you quote, you should be aware that back in the 19th century most of the coarse fish caught ended up either on anglers tables or in the local fish markets. You don't have to go back that long to a time when most inland residents never tasted a sea fish and eating coarse fish was quite normal.

Your whole argument has no foundation whatsoever for the principle of protecting and preserving of our wild fish stocks, the rivers habitat or the wild creatures that live there. Your argument also supports the relentless pursuit of wild creatures, a principle I might add that no other sporting body either supports or condones in the UK. Your argument will see UK angling cast back in time to when man had little comprehension of conservation. Your view that the current rivers close season remains a anachronism stuck in history is the admission and belief that all conservation measures put in place for the protection of our wildlife is wrong. Clearly that is not the case.

This argument has nothing to do with wanting to fish more. Its about the protection and preservation of fish and the whole of the river environment. Its also about NOT wanting to pursue fish relentlessly. And no amount of scientific evidence will encourage those who support the rivers close season to pursue our quarry relentlessly.


Regards,
Ray

 

[black kettle]

Hi Sam, and All,

Using your quote Sam;

" there's also precious little to support its continuance."

You are mistaken Sam. There is actually massive amounts of support and actually science in literally hundreds of papers written about flora and fauna plus wild fish via their well documented life cycle and basic requirements to sustain life which supports the argument to retain the rivers close season.

As for numerical support? Only 14.9% of anglers in the 2012 survey undertaken by the AT wanted to see the close season abolished whilst 39.5% wanted it retained in its current form. That proves absolutely and conclusively that angling is in favour of retaining the close season. Remember Sam, this was a survey commissioned by the AT themselves and nothing has changed in the river habitat since 2012 to encourage any rethink of the rivers close season.

Aside from angling Sam, have you any idea how many of the UK's conservation and wildlife organisations are in favour of keeping the rivers close season? This figure is in the millions Sam.

The River Telegraph will form a platform for the voices of those who support the retention of the rivers close season so anyone seeking to do just that please join us. We want to settle this issue once and for all and to do just that we are inviting ALL the vested interests.

Then there is the argument that does not adhere to scientific evidence. Its the argument we make that its absolutely wrong for UK river angling to pursue wild fish relentlessly. The relentless pursuit of wild fish and wild creatures with no rest bite that the current close season offers is wrong. No other sporting organisation supports this type of thing so why should angling?

Moral issue? You betcha. Because without the strength of our nations morals we would not have half the wildlife we have now because lots of species would have gone into the abyss without the protection now afforded them to survive.

Regards,

BK.

 

[bennygesserit]

Hi Sam, and All,

Using your quote Sam;

" there's also precious little to support its continuance."

You are mistaken Sam. There is actually massive amounts of support and actually science in literally hundreds of papers written about flora and fauna plus wild fish via their well documented life cycle and basic requirements to sustain life which supports the argument to retain the rivers close season.

As for numerical support? Only 14.9% of anglers in the 2012 survey undertaken by the AT wanted to see the close season abolished whilst 39.5% wanted it retained in its current form. That proves absolutely and conclusively that angling is in favour of retaining the close season. Remember Sam, this was a survey commissioned by the AT themselves and nothing has changed in the river habitat since 2012 to encourage any rethink of the rivers close season.

Aside from angling Sam, have you any idea how many of the UK's conservation and wildlife organisations are in favour of keeping the rivers close season? This figure is in the millions Sam.

The River Telegraph will form a platform for the voices of those who support the retention of the rivers close season so anyone seeking to do just that please join us. We want to settle this issue once and for all and to do just that we are inviting ALL the vested interests.

Then there is the argument that does not adhere to scientific evidence. Its the argument we make that its absolutely wrong for UK river angling to pursue wild fish relentlessly. The relentless pursuit of wild fish and wild creatures with no rest bite that the current close season offers is wrong. No other sporting organisation supports this type of thing so why should angling?

Moral issue? You betcha. Because without the strength of our nations morals we would not have half the wildlife we have now because lots of species would have gone into the abyss without the protection now afforded them to survive.

Regards,

BK.

Could you point me at any of the hundreds of papers that , not only discuss the life cycles of our flora and fauna but , specifically support the close season.

 

[sam vimes]

Hi Sam, and All,

Using your quote Sam;

" there's also precious little to support its continuance."

You are mistaken Sam. There is actually massive amounts of support and actually science in literally hundreds of papers written about flora and fauna plus wild fish via their well documented life cycle and basic requirements to sustain life which supports the argument to retain the rivers close season.

As for numerical support? Only 14.9% of anglers in the 2012 survey undertaken by the AT wanted to see the close season abolished whilst 39.5% wanted it retained in its current form. That proves absolutely and conclusively that angling is in favour of retaining the close season. Remember Sam, this was a survey commissioned by the AT themselves and nothing has changed in the river habitat since 2012 to encourage any rethink of the rivers close season.

Aside from angling Sam, have you any idea how many of the UK's conservation and wildlife organisations are in favour of keeping the rivers close season? This figure is in the millions Sam.

The River Telegraph will form a platform for the voices of those who support the retention of the rivers close season so anyone seeking to do just that please join us. We want to settle this issue once and for all and to do just that we are inviting ALL the vested interests.

Then there is the argument that does not adhere to scientific evidence. Its the argument we make that its absolutely wrong for UK river angling to pursue wild fish relentlessly. The relentless pursuit of wild fish and wild creatures with no rest bite that the current close season offers is wrong. No other sporting organisation supports this type of thing so why should angling?

Moral issue? You betcha. Because without the strength of our nations morals we would not have half the wildlife we have now because lots of species would have gone into the abyss without the protection now afforded them to survive.

Regards,

BK.

Whilst I'm well aware of the various naturalist organization that will object, I'm not prepared to give them any credence until they start lobbying to bar their own members from watercourses during the closed season, or practically anywhere during the breeding season for any type of fauna. The likes of the RSPB would have to close their wetland reserves during both bird and fish breeding seasons for their objections to be truly valid. Then they need to think about a more general closing of waterside public rights of way, stopping farming or industrial activity (gravel extraction etc) near watercourses.

More awkwardly, it would also require that the rivers that hold trout would need to be re-examined. As it stands, a mixed course/trout river is actually closed to all forms of angling for a week or two (dependant on the region). Even in a trout only river, the trout season runs right through the period of time deemed so critical by the nature lobby.

As to the figures of those supporting or not, that doesn't constitute scientific evidence for or against the continuance of the closed season. Even if 100% wanted the closed season to remain as is, it doesn't mean that it's scientifically proven that scrapping the closed season would have a negative effect on fish.

The only genuine scientific research I've ever seen on the coarse closed season was when the EA scrapped the closed season on stillwaters. I recall that the EA suggested that the reason for continuing the river closed season was nothing more than erring on the side of caution until a greater body of evidence was gathered. That's an entirely sensible attitude to take, but it shouldn't mean that we never bother to look for genuine evidence to support making changes or not.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Close_season_rationale.pdf

 

[black kettle]

Of course there are vast amounts of papers written on specific species within the rivers habitat. Huge amounts far too many to list here but I'm guessing you could easily do some research to find out what even a small number of these are? A clue is to look at the Wildlife Trusts, the Rivers Trusts, Natural England, the EA, (more specifically the outside experts they use like APEM) the Institute of Fisheries Management, the RSPB, the BTO, the Wild Trout Trust, the S&TA and a vast amount of other organisations all with a vested interest in the rivers habitat and river systems. A great deal of these species will be impacted upon if the rivers close season goes.

As for the specific support. Rest assured its coming. Lets await their response and what camp they decide to pitch their tents in. I'll bet a gold clock it wont be within the tiny lets scrap the close season camp.

Nothing much more to say really. There are those who have nailed their colours to the mast, the 14.9% against, and those in the majority, the 39.5% who want to see the rivers close season retained. Plus all the others we will be calling for support with a vested interest.

Not much point in me saying anything else really.

Regards,

BK.

 

[bennygesserit]

Of course there are vast amounts of papers written on specific species within the rivers habitat. Huge amounts far too many to list here but I'm guessing you could easily do some research to find out what even a small number of these are? A clue is to look at the Wildlife Trusts, the Rivers Trusts, Natural England, the EA, (more specifically the outside experts they use like APEM) the Institute of Fisheries Management, the RSPB, the BTO, the Wild Trout Trust, the S&TA and a vast amount of other organisations all with a vested interest in the rivers habitat and river systems. A great deal of these species will be impacted upon if the rivers close season goes.

As for the specific support. Rest assured its coming. Lets await their response and what camp they decide to pitch their tents in. I'll bet a gold clock it wont be within the tiny lets scrap the close season camp.

Nothing much more to say really. There are those who have nailed their colours to the mast, the 14.9% against, and those in the majority, the 39.5% who want to see the rivers close season retained. Plus all the others we will be calling for support with a vested interest.

Not much point in me saying anything else really.

Regards,

BK.

If there are so many of these papers supporting , specifically , the continuance of the closed season in its current form then they should be easy to produce, taking less time , indeed, than composing your latest reply.

In fact it should be the work of minutes to cite numerous research papers backing up your argument and specifically relating to the close season , I am surprised the EA or other C.S. supporters don't mention them on the numerous C.S. debates.

 

[Titus]

Hi Adrian,
Regarding the 19th century bubble you quote, you should be aware that back in the 19th century most of the coarse fish caught ended up either on anglers tables or in the local fish markets. You don't have to go back that long to a time when most inland residents never tasted a sea fish and eating coarse fish was quite normal.

Your whole argument has no foundation whatsoever for the principle of protecting and preserving of our wild fish stocks, the rivers habitat or the wild creatures that live there. Your argument also supports the relentless pursuit of wild creatures, a principle I might add that no other sporting body either supports or condones in the UK. Your argument will see UK angling cast back in time to when man had little comprehension of conservation. Your view that the current rivers close season remains a anachronism stuck in history is the admission and belief that all conservation measures put in place for the protection of our wildlife is wrong. Clearly that is not the case.

This argument has nothing to do with wanting to fish more. Its about the protection and preservation of fish and the whole of the river environment. Its also about NOT wanting to pursue fish relentlessly. And no amount of scientific evidence will encourage those who support the rivers close season to pursue our quarry relentlessly.


Regards,
Ray

Hi Ray,

Your argument for retaining the close is my reason for scrapping it.
If you had followed any of my earlier posts on this subject you would see that I am well aware of the reasons for it's inception having studied it in depth from both sides as an assignment on a course I did 15 or so years ago when it was scrapped on lakes and canals.

As you acknowledge in your post above those conditions which were behind the inception of a close season no longer exist and catch and release is the norm in british waters, apart that is from the few thousand recent migrants to this country who will take any fish at any time and for whom the close season is open season where they can carry out their 'sport' without fear or hindrance from law abiding anglers who if they were present would provide a visible deterrent but instead are all at home catching up on the chores, this fact alone makes the law counter productive to it's original intent.

Add to that the fact that nowhere else in Europe, including half of the United Kingdom has such a law and it soon becomes apparent that the wildlife seems to get on quite well in it's absence.

In fact it could be said that nesting birds in particular are more at risk of disturbance due to the close season being a perfect time for clubs to carry out maintenance to their fisheries in the form of work parties just at the time when the birds are sitting. As a conservationist and a countryman you surely know that the best time to do that sort of work is during the winter when everything is dormant and the fishing is generally poor and any disturbed ground will provide a welcome feast for the birds.

How you manage to extrapolate that I believe, "that all conservation measures put in place for the protection of our wildlife is wrong", from my belief that the close season is a law which has been made redundant by changing angling practices is beyond me but I suppose some people will stoop to anything to win an argument.

I could go on and on about why this law is counter productive but the buzzer has just gone on the oven and it's time to serve dinner.

Finally and just to clarify, I have nothing to gain either financially or from a sporting point from the abolition of this law as I will be too busy fishing for tope and gravid tench (sic) at this time of the year, only heading for the rivers when the schools break up for summer.

 

[The bad one]

Add to that the fact that nowhere else in Europe, including half of the United Kingdom has such a law and it soon becomes apparent that the wildlife seems to get on quite well in it's absence.

In fact it could be said that nesting birds in particular are more at risk of disturbance due to the close season being a perfect time for clubs to carry out maintenance to their fisheries in the form of work parties just at the time when the birds are sitting. As a conservationist and a countryman you surely know that the best time to do that sort of work is during the winter when everything is dormant and the fishing is generally poor and any disturbed ground will provide a welcome feast for the birds.

How you manage to extrapolate that I believe, "that all conservation measures put in place for the protection of our wildlife is wrong", from my belief that the close season is a law which has been made redundant by changing angling practices is beyond me but I suppose some people will stoop to anything to win an argument.

I could go on and on about why this law is counter productive but the buzzer has just gone on the oven and it's time to serve dinner.

Finally and just to clarify, I have nothing to gain either financially or from a sporting point from the abolition of this law as I will be too busy fishing for tope and gravid tench (sic) at this time of the year, only heading for the rivers when the schools break up for summer.

Second time you’ve said this so let unpick it eh? Across many European countries there are close seasons based on individual species, where you are not allowed to fish for them during a given point.

Half the UK doesn’t have a close season. NI doesn’t have indigenous stocks of dace, chub, barbel and grayling. The salmon/seatrout seasons are enforcing stringently there.

Scotland doesn’t have a close season on the above either, true, but you be hard pressed to find a river up their where they allow you coarse fish during the Salmon Season as salmon/seatrout fishing on its rivers are dominant.

You are clearly unaware and/or are choosing not to acknowledge it that on all AONB, RAMSAR, SSSIs, SBIs, land owned by Government Agency, Local Authority, County Council, Parish Council, Conservation Area designated under Planning Law, Royal Arboriculture Society, Arboricultural Association (Code of Practice) the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the European Habitats Directive 1992/Nesting Birds Directive there is a General moratorium on work being carried out between the 1 March to 1 September for this very reason.
Where work can’t be avoided, an emergency, there has to be a pre-work survey carried out by a suitably competent person. E.g. Ecologist, Ornithologist, Bird Biologist.
Therefore any club or landowner carrying out such work during this period could well be falling foul of any or all of the above.

Any Work Party Organiser worth his/her salt should know all this and adhere to all of it. And if they don’t they fully need to avail themselves of it to avoid dropping themselves and the club in the courts.

Outdated as much as you think the CS is, the Conservation Laws of the UK are not! Any club landowner who disregards them, does so at their own peril.

So Titus would you like to tell us all the clubs who are not compliant with the laws please?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Hi Ray,

Your argument for retaining the close is my reason for scrapping it.
If you had followed any of my earlier posts on this subject you would see that I am well aware of the reasons for it's inception having studied it in depth from both sides as an assignment on a course I did 15 or so years ago when it was scrapped on lakes and canals.

As you acknowledge in your post above those conditions which were behind the inception of a close season no longer exist and catch and release is the norm in british waters, apart that is from the few thousand recent migrants to this country who will take any fish at any time and for whom the close season is open season where they can carry out their 'sport' without fear or hindrance from law abiding anglers who if they were present would provide a visible deterrent but instead are all at home catching up on the chores, this fact alone makes the law counter productive to it's original intent.

Add to that the fact that nowhere else in Europe, including half of the United Kingdom has such a law and it soon becomes apparent that the wildlife seems to get on quite well in it's absence.

In fact it could be said that nesting birds in particular are more at risk of disturbance due to the close season being a perfect time for clubs to carry out maintenance to their fisheries in the form of work parties just at the time when the birds are sitting. As a conservationist and a countryman you surely know that the best time to do that sort of work is during the winter when everything is dormant and the fishing is generally poor and any disturbed ground will provide a welcome feast for the birds.

How you manage to extrapolate that I believe, "that all conservation measures put in place for the protection of our wildlife is wrong", from my belief that the close season is a law which has been made redundant by changing angling practices is beyond me but I suppose some people will stoop to anything to win an argument.

I could go on and on about why this law is counter productive but the buzzer has just gone on the oven and it's time to serve dinner.

Finally and just to clarify, I have nothing to gain either financially or from a sporting point from the abolition of this law as I will be too busy fishing for tope and gravid tench (sic) at this time of the year, only heading for the rivers when the schools break up for summer.

Hi Adrian,
I hope your dinner as done to a T. This issue is about if it is right or wrong to pursue wild creatures relentlessly. I guess you will have worked out what my views are.

Kind regards,

Ray