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

[Ray Wood 1]

Dear All,

The rivers close season is fast approaching and the Angling Trust have not updated UK angling regarding its apparent call for a change to the existing closed season on rivers along with some so called "Names" within angling who are also calling for the close season to be altered or axed completely.

The AT started a debate on*05/03/14. That debate appears on face value to have fallen flat on its face and come to a standstill. There has been no recent updates either on FM or on the AT website. Does the angling majority agree that it is about time the AT gave us some idea of just where it is on this subject as we are the ones they claim to be representing? I had noticed that the "Names" have been conspicuous by their absence save for one among their number who called for change originally only to find himself having to do a u turn presumably due to pressure coming from a membership he claims to represent.

Flooding in particular coupled with predicted forecasts in climate change were put forward as the main reason for altering/scrapping the rivers close season, some presuming that they were to become a yearly event that would leave rivers virtually un fishable during the winter months. Well so far this year river anglers are enjoying a bumper year with January throwing up some magnificent*catches with some really big fish being caught up and down the country. It would appear that the scare mongers who stated that river angling would be lost within ten years if the rivers*CS was not changed were way off the mark. Perhaps their own individual and collective commercial interests blinded them*into believing this? I am also particularly concerned that commercial angling interest and opinion seems to be influencing what direction the AT takes over this issue.

Are we yet again to go through the yearly arguments for and against the rivers close season or can we at last put this subject to bed once and for all?

The rivers close season is already enshrined and protected in law. The Environment Agency, the government and a massive amount of conservation and wildlife organisations already support the retention of the rivers close season in its current form. Will the AT attempt to change the rivers close season against all this overwhelming support by acting on the whims of a handful of commercially based anglers? Or will it stand shoulder to shoulder with other sporting, conservation, wildlife organisations not to mention the majority of angling in support of our rivers close season? Its high time that the AT nailed its colours to the wall over this issue once and for all. They should either be for it or against it and say so firmly and concisely so that wider angling can know exactly where the AT stands. Allowing Martin Salter to air his own opinions on the AT website merely fuels conjecture as to what the AT stance is?

Angling is a sport like so many other sporting pastimes. We catch fish for pleasure. We catch fish for sport. And like every other sporting pastime we owe it to our quarry to help protect and preserve stocks not only for those who come after but to enable the species itself to flourish and survive. We should not let the opinions of a few commercially based anglers with their biased views on conservation sway this issue. Our rivers close season is based upon the precautionary principle to uphold the conservation and protection of our rivers habitat and all the wild creatures that dwell within it and NOT for a few more bums on seats that bring in a few more quid each year for the selfish few.

Ray Wood.

 

[sam vimes]

I don't understand why you've bothered starting the annual closed season "debate" quite so early.

Does the angling majority agree that it is about time the AT gave us some idea of just where it is on this subject as we are the ones they claim to be representing?

Personally, I don't really care whether they do or don't, they'll do as they will. As I'm not an individual member, I have no right to make any demands of the ATr. I do get to see regular email correspondence from them via one of my club memberships, but I don't recall seeing anything about the closed season recently.

While I don't think that there's any great point to the closed season, at least with regards to my local rivers, I'm not overly bothered whether it stays or goes. I certainly won't be going any further than countering some of the undeserved, misty eyed romanticism that, for many folks, is the only real defence of the closed season. No doubt that it might work for some, might work for some rivers. For many different reasons, it doesn't really work, and isn't really enforceable, in my area or for most of the rivers I fish.

 

[black kettle]

Of course the AT should give us some idea as to the direction it is going to be taking seeing as it was them who started this debate here in the first place?

I am 100% in favour of retaining the rivers close season as it stands. Not for any romantic reason but for the reasons that the EA and government itself have already given for retaining it. This is a conservation issue based upon expert opinion that the river environment requires the protection it receives from having the close season in place.

On a moral stance, angling would do itself a great injustice if it allowed the close season to be removed when so many other sporting organisations embrace the need for a close season to protect and preserve the species that they target. Keep the close season. It shows we care about the fish we catch.

Regards,

BK.

 

[no-one in particular]

Putting aside the pros and cons of a close season ; perhaps the Angling Trust should have a proper referendum of their members and make whatever the result their official stance. After all, its their members that have paid money to have their views represented by them to whomever they need to represent them to.
These endless surveys get nowhere.

 

[thecrow]

Putting aside the pros and cons of a close season ; perhaps the Angling Trust should have a proper referendum of their members and make whatever the result their official stance. After all, its their members that have paid money to have their views represented by them to whomever they need to represent them to.
These endless surveys get nowhere.

And that stance becomes what the trust talks to government about while representing a tiny amount of the anglers in this country?

Paying money to an organisation doesn't make an anglers opinion any more valid than one that has the good sense to keep his money in his pocket. Better to give it to a poor OAP so that he can fish every day of the week

Your right about surveys being a waste of time as questions that may be asked about the rivers C/S are always going to be answered by anglers that never fish a river and their answers might be a lot different had the question been asked about the still water C/S.

 

[steph mckenzie]

It all seems like Marmite to me.

 

[Craig Hunt]

I wouldn't say there is overwhelming support to change the close season as there are numerous anglers such as myself who would like it kept.
It's easy to say the dates should be moved later in the year, but it seems to get forgotten that perch and like spawn a lot earlier than our other species, and nobody takes a lot of notice when they are spawning.
The rivers are fishing well so why change? And if I only a small percentage of anglers support the Angling Trust they won't have as much say as they could if every angler joined. But with what they have at the moment they are doing a pretty good job with their campaigns.

 

[black kettle]

I agree with the Crow. Just because some join the AT, who by the way, "claim" to represent all anglers when they actually don't, what gives them or the AT the right to vote on a subject that effects the majority of anglers who are not in the AT and have no intention of being members? Remember the AT invented itself. Its a quango and not something democratically set up by "all" UK anglers.

And, why should anglers be making any decision that effects a whole river and drains habitat when there are so many other interested parties like wildlife organisations who will have a vested interest in retaining the rivers close season? The number of river anglers are actually dwarfed by the total number of other interested parties and river based stakeholders. Has the all seeing AT considered their opinion over this matter?

Regards,

BK

 

[theartist]

Why not push for simplifying the close season making it apr-may inclusive - easier to enforce and easier to understand. On all waters.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I don't understand why you've bothered starting the annual closed season "debate" quite so early.

This is not the "Annual Close Season Debate" it is an attempt to find out just where the AT are on a subject they started on FM. I think it is time they gave angling some answers, you may or may not agree that it is time they did so.

They represent a minority of anglers in the UK, but what they do affects all of us and that will also effect our river systems.

Why should this un-elected body and a few so called named anglers who have only their own commercial interests and agendas in mind decide what affects us all?

Regards
Ray

 

[sam vimes]

This is not the "Annual Close Season Debate" it is an attempt to find out just where the AT are on a subject they started on FM. I think it is time they gave angling some answers, you may or may not agree that it is time they did so.

They represent a minority of anglers in the UK, but what they do affects all of us and that will also effect our river systems.

Why should this un-elected body and a few so called named anglers who have only their own commercial interests and agendas in mind decide what affects us all?

Regards
Ray

That's fine, but why not ask them, or those you see as representing them, directly? Surely that's got to be better than hoping that someone from the trust picks up on one post amongst thousands of other fishing forum posts?

 

[peter crabtree]

I guesstimate that any angler born in the 20th century will never live to see any change in the current close season. Look at the cormorant debate for instance..
20 odd years later and the consultations with all the groups and associations involved still rumbling on with no final result. Imagine the amount of consultations and studies nationwide with many taking 2 or more years to assess with no conclusion. How many years would it would take to change the the close?
Forget it and go fishing innit!

 

[Ray Wood 1]

That's fine, but why not ask them, or those you see as representing them, directly? Surely that's got to be better than hoping that someone from the trust picks up on one post amongst thousands of other fishing forum posts?

I'm asking here as this is where the AT started the debate, and as they did so I expect them to answer exactly here where they started this call for change to the rivers CS.

I have no doubt that this topic will not be missed amongst the other thousands of other fishing forum posts. To the contrary, I suspect that they are already aware that this topic has been opened. Why do I suspect that, simple I look to see who is active on this forum.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[maverick 7]

Of course the AT should give us some idea as to the direction it is going to be taking seeing as it was them who started this debate here in the first place?

I am 100% in favour of retaining the rivers close season as it stands. Not for any romantic reason but for the reasons that the EA and government itself have already given for retaining it. This is a conservation issue based upon expert opinion that the river environment requires the protection it receives from having the close season in place.

On a moral stance, angling would do itself a great injustice if it allowed the close season to be removed when so many other sporting organisations embrace the need for a close season to protect and preserve the species that they target. Keep the close season. It shows we care about the fish we catch.

Regards,

BK.

Correct me if I am wrong but I am certain that I have read someplace where the EA have already admitted that they really can't see any benefit by retaining the CS but feel they must "err on the side of caution"......whatever that is supposed to mean.

.......Basically, I reckon what they are saying is that they would like to abolish the CS but don't want to upset a lot of gullible anglers who mistakenly believe that there is actually a genuine reason other than "tradition" to retain the CS.

The situation is a joke......and always has been.

Maverick

 

[MRWELL]

Why not just abolish it and those who don't want to fish during these months not bother,easy way round it :wh

 

[maverick 7]

Why not just abolish it and those who don't want to fish during these months not bother,easy way round it :wh

I love it...what a great idea!.....

It's funny how a lot of anglers are dead against people fishing a river because they think the anglers would disturb fish during spawning ....despite the canoeists, boats, swimming dogs, brick throwers, swimmers and whatever else that finds it's way into our rivers that is a million times more likely to disturb spawning fish than any angler is.......they still appear to believe it's only the anglers that can cause damage to spawning fish....

....but then the same pro CS supporters are quite happy to fling a 2 oz lead amongst a shoal of spawning carp in some CS free lakes,ponds or canals.

It is hard to understand.....

Maverick

 

[binka]

I'm asking here as this is where the AT started the debate, and as they did so I expect them to answer exactly here where they started this call for change to the rivers CS.

I have no doubt that this topic will not be missed amongst the other thousands of other fishing forum posts. To the contrary, I suspect that they are already aware that this topic has been opened. Why do I suspect that, simple I look to see who is active on this forum.
Kind regards
Ray

Talk about the plot thickening

To be fair Ray I’ve been on and off of FM for most of the day and often look to see who else is on and I haven’t seen anyone who I would associate with the Angling Trust in that context… Maybe I’ve missed something?

Or perhaps you would like to qualify your comment with some fact and enlighten us all as to who you are referring to?

And, (not specifically referring to you Ray but those that pedal this particular bike) whilst I've taken the bait and I'm at it, for those who feel referred to...

Is this just like the tired old numbers game that assumes that every angler who is not a member of the Trust is by default against them and don’t wish to be represented by them, instead standing as a single consolidated voice of a better alternative regardless of whether anyone knows if these non-members even know the Trust exists, or whether they are apathetic or maybe just a bit hard up etc etc?

Can you imagine a low turnout election based on the same principle?

“Only 39% of the electorate turned out of which 32% voted X but they were denied power because we assumed the abstaining 61% would have voted for Y”!

Utter fantasy.

It’s the same as the tired old argument that overlooks the fact that no one else seems to be prepared to challenge them by standing up and providing an alternative which WILL represent them... It shouldn't be so difficult working on that principle that everyone who's not a member is disagreeable and wants an alternative, should it?

Accepting those that genuinely are disagreeable with the Trust and therefore won’t join for their own genuine views, I honestly don’t believe that anyone is daft enough to accept the face value of this groundless, fact-less numbers game.

Unless of course anyone wishes to poll all anglers and supply some actual facts instead of assumptions to the contrary with regards to why more anglers don’t sign up… It’s not as if any former organisations were supported in their millions is it?

On the subject of the close season I am actually for keeping it but I refuse to base that point of view on fact-less comments as an aid to forcing my opinion on others and I will comply with the consensus regardless of whether or not that is what I personally want.

In short it is democracy.

As far as I'm concerned i'm not interested in the least about the conception of the ATr, if those that are crying foul now were so on the ball at the time then they would have negotiated in a manner and framework that would have prevented whatever it is they currently object to and if they were not capable of doing that at the time then I question their ability to cut it in present day circumstances.

The Angling Trust represent the largest single body of anglers and therefore have centre stage and the ear of those that matter, if everyone who disagrees with that wish to collaborate and provide an alternative which signs up more anglers then they are entirely free to do so and in the name of democracy I will abide by the outcome, if I think you are doing a better job you will even get my vote.

My guess is that this alternative collective won't even be able to agree on the wallpaper.

Ps... Hope you're keeping well Ray

 

[MRWELL]

To try and keep in line of the original topic Question,i too feel the AT should make it clear how they stand on the CS,what is the latest updates and so on,is the CS debate shelved yet again for another ten years or so,did it ever get any debate?..i don't know,it seems it just gone away.

We will never find a suitable solution to this because no one want's to find one,it is cast in solid stone that the close season is needed,makes no difference how the climate changes or how the fish change with it in the way they live or the flora/fauna,have you noticed how your gardens are in flower quicker now,those lawns need cutting sooner don't they and why?..climate changes thats why and our Rivers and what lives in them adapt to this only us anglers never change,oh well carry on regardless as they say.

Stan.

 

[no-one in particular]

I agree with the Crow. Just because some join the AT, who by the way, "claim" to represent all anglers when they actually don't, what gives them or the AT the right to vote on a subject that effects the majority of anglers who are not in the AT and have no intention of being members? Remember the AT invented itself. Its a quango and not something democratically set up by "all" UK anglers.

And, why should anglers be making any decision that effects a whole river and drains habitat when there are so many other interested parties like wildlife organisations who will have a vested interest in retaining the rivers close season? The number of river anglers are actually dwarfed by the total number of other interested parties and river based stakeholders. Has the all seeing AT considered their opinion over this matter?

Regards,

BK

They perfectly have the right to take a vote from their members and formulate their official stance from their members vote.
Whats the official stance of non members on the CS issue, no one knows so, how can any official body formulate a policy on that. Its not the angling trusts fault if official bodies look to them for any guidance on anglers views. Where else can they look? Are they supposed to read all the non members views on these forums. Not going to happen I would think and they just end up in the electronic dustbin.
Which is a real shame as they should be heard, correlated, organized and represented properly because its all just wasted..

The situation as it stands is a bit like if you don't register to vote, you don't get a vote. A wrong as that is to many, nevertheless its a bit of a reality.
The fact that the angling trust does not represent non members is not their fault. Thats just the way these things work and the views of their members have precedent and should have precedent. The board of the angling trust have no choice in this.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Morning Binka,
I am very well thanks for asking I hope this post finds you the same. Let me make it clear for all concerned, this is not annual debate on if the rivers close season should go/stay or the dates of it altered.

What I am trying to achieve is to get the AT to tell us just where it is on this issue. The AT opened a debate some eleven ago on FM to discuss the rivers close season asking if it was time for a re-think. When they did so they were not only asking AT members to become involved in the debate but also non members. So one could be forgiven if one thought that non member opinions meant something. The AT also had the results of a National Survey it carried, which by the way if I read the figures right would not have given them a mandate to go ahead and ask both the EA or the government to either change the dates or alter the current rivers close season in anyway.

Personally I believe that the AT having had eleven months to analyse the debate it asked for on this forum and the information from it's National Angling Survey is time enough. Time enough to have formed an opinion if it should or not go forward in trying to get the rivers close season altered in anyway. The AT polled anglers via its National Angling Survey on FM and it's own website regarding this call for change, I honestly believe they do not have a mandate to take this issue forward.

Democracy, now theres a word, we all know that in a general election that there is never a 100% turnout but we all have the right to vote. If you don't vote no good crying after if you don't get the result you wanted. But heres the rub, I don't have to be a member of any club or organisation to have that vote. Whereas I have to be a member of an undemocratic organisation that no one voted for or even had a chance to vote for to have a say. An organisation that created itself via amalgamation of other bodies and now claims to be the voice of all anglers in the UK. If that's democracy you can keep it as far as I'm concerned. But that aside the AT asked for our opinions members or not, so I am going to presume that they really wanted all opinions to form a basis on what it should do regarding the rivers close season. Of course it could all be a rouse and it will just do what a few named anglers and commercial interests dictate and push for change regardless of opinions they asked for.

Binka, you don't expect me to tell you how I know things do you? Trust me when I say the AT will be aware of what is going on here. There are no plots being thickened no agendas being worked to no secret service out on the streets. Just me asking the AT to tell us where they are on an issue they asked us to become involved in.

Have a nice day regards
Ray