River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[john step]

As an aside.. the flora and fauna part of the argument is irrelevant as most working parties seem hell bent on hacking around at the vegetation at this time of year.

 

[Tee-Cee]

Does the close season run parallel to the World Cup.....I do hope so, but I think not!


'hack around John', perish the thought! We try to trim gently..............that's very gently.

I know what you mean though..I always think working parties should be made up of good gardeners!


Personally I like the close season as it removes one choice as to where I fish. It's stillwaters or nothing!

 

[bennygesserit]

Isn't it more about introducing change into a system?
If it's a significant change then it is done with caution and a study first , if the study can be afforded politically or financially.

Would the revocation of the season warrant that caution on a selected river?

 

[tiinker]

Is a professor's opinion worth twice that of a doctor's?

Where in the order of credence would you put a statistician (mathematician)?

Believe it or not there are people out there who know what they are doing when it is in their specialist field. You do not believe it because it does not suite you but it will not be up to you will it. It will be done by people whose findings will be recognised by the powers that be. That is why they will be employing them to do their recognised job.

 

[tookadum]

Truth is, no matter who they are - no-one knows what the effect of removing the close season would be.
Scientists after all have been known to make mistakes and history is plagued by examples of this! The only real way for the truth to be known is to have a trial on a river / section of river. I seem to recall certain individuals stating removing the close season on canals and stillwaters would dessimate fish stocks in these area's - someone else who got it wrong eh? In reality I don't really care if there is a closed season or not as I fish canals and stillwaters during this time - and guess what, the fishing is fantastic -and the canals are only restocked 'naturally' - further proof that removing the close season has not been unbeneficial!

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I dont have much faith that "a scientific study" would be much use at all really - if it was the typical long grass review based on years of monitoring data on selected representative rivers around the country where trialling was being done as part of the study - there would simply be far too many variables to ever prove anything.

Scientific opinion, however, is most certainly required to inform any decision. So how can an opinion be drawn without any evidence?. Seems to me that the first thing that needs to be established are answers to the question "What is the Closed Season For?". Once a list of objectives for the closed season have been drawn up, it should be straightforward to seek the opinion of relevant scientists on how best to pursue those objectives - closed season or not or anything in between.

I suspect that it boils down to ethical questions concerning catching gravid fish or disturbing spawning, or just giving fish a break to act naturally in a less pressurised environment during their spawning period. I would doubt that many fish populations could ever be impacted by fishing - certainly not as much as by habitat alteration, pollution, or random good or bad spawning years caused by natural events. Only exceptions might be Salmon or others that are taken for food and congregate in small areas with potential to be over exploited.

 

[cg74]

Believe it or not there are people out there who know what they are doing when it is in their specialist field. You do not believe it because it does not suite you but it will not be up to you will it. It will be done by people whose findings will be recognised by the powers that be. That is why they will be employing them to do their recognised job.

"There are people out there who know what they are doing"
That has to be one of the most naïve statements I've read in a long time!

The reason I don't believe that an informed decision can be made for or against a change in the current Close Season set up, is because there simply isn't enough accurate relevant data available; hence me saying a trial period would be required.

The closest case scenario to a no Close Season on rivers is impact studies conducted on canals. Which going by what I've read, actually show improvements in fish recruitment.
But I wouldn't be happy if such data was the sole basis for a decision - Even though 'it will not be up to me will it'.

 

[geoffmaynard]

If we said "the closed season for all fish will be x date to y date" everyone would be outraged. Yet we have almost that now Much better to follow the American model whereby the local fishery managers observe when the fish are spawning and close the fishing for that species whilst they get their fins over.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Seemingly yet another case of greed and commercialism affecting an environmental issue.

The Angling trust would do well to avoid this issue otherwise risk losing a large number of Close Season Supporters as members.

Despite the typical polictician's trick of labelling the opposition as a "minority" Mr Salter's biased view is easily uncovered.

Totally agree Peter, personally I believe the minority to be those who want change and those who want things to stay the same the majority.

Having read who the so called "Names" are calling for this change is it any coincidence that most are river guides and have a vested commercial interest in changing the river close season. The argument put forward that he (Martin Salter) and they are concerned about tackle shops is a smoke screen. Martin Salter remarks that the Chairman of the Barbel Society has repositioned his thinking on the close season, I wonder just what his membership will make of that?

The BS has been 100% in favour of retaining the close season from the very day it was born will Steve Pope poll his membership to see if they agree with him?

If change is really needed let it be for the right reasons, and not for the few to gain extra time on the bank to charge their inflated prices. It would be a real shame if anglers are swayed by these few individuals.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Neil Maidment]

Totally unscientific in my thought process but I've a feeling such a move, based on the reasoning outlined in Martin's article, could be seen as selfish anglers and angling businesses jumping on the bandwagon that the Government must legislate and compensate.

Very few of the non angling public understand why "we" go fishing, but in my opinion and experience, those that do know something of our passion also know something of the closed season and directly relate that to conservation and caring for the environment. Seems to me we could risk losing or at least damaging whatever small measure of public support we currently have.

 

[no-one in particular]

Could it be time for the EA to set up a think tank that could convene for a week or two with every type of individual, expert or otherwise taking part. Including those with a commercial interest. Be it tackle trade, gillies etc. After all, these are people who make their living from fishing and that should be part of any discussion. Granted the scientific input would be limited but, it would be more significant than when the close season was first decided or changed. And any law should be reviewed from time to time especially one that has not changed for so long. We wouldn't be happy if nobody had bothered to do this with various laws historically and just left things as they were. Progress should at least be attempted. It may be they would decide it is the best it can be the way it is so, fair enough. At least it would have had a good reviewing and a good report published with all the reasons given.
It may cost some money but, money well spent in my opinion. I wouldn't mind some of my license fee being spent on it.

 

[tiinker]

If we said "the closed season for all fish will be x date to y date" everyone would be outraged. Yet we have almost that now Much better to follow the American model whereby the local fishery managers observe when the fish are spawning and close the fishing for that species whilst they get their fins over.

That may well work but we do not have the staff or the mind set for that to work in the UK Fishery a game in the USA is a totally different game. EA officers in the UK do not have anywhere near the kit or the or carry the weight of there counterparts in the USA. Why is it that you never hear salmon and brown trout anglers asking for a the changing or scrapping of their close seasons yet they are of even more commercial interests. A fair few angling situations have been ruined by over fishing but never by being cautious and listening to fishery scientists and ecology experts.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Totally unscientific in my thought process but I've a feeling such a move, based on the reasoning outlined in Martin's article, could be seen as selfish anglers and angling businesses jumping on the bandwagon that the Government must legislate and compensate.

Very few of the non angling public understand why "we" go fishing, but in my opinion and experience, those that do know something of our passion also know something of the closed season and directly relate that to conservation and caring for the environment. Seems to me we could risk losing or at least damaging whatever small measure of public support we currently have.

Hear hear!

The fact that we maintain a proper Close Season on our rivers, and especially those we share with fly anglers, speaks volumes about coarse anglers as conservationalists.

How, I wonder, would any proposed alterations to either the dates or the very existance of the close Season affect those rivers that we share, not to mention how would Nature England react particularly w.r.t. SSSI's?

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Hear hear!

how would Nature England react particularly w.r.t. SSSI's?

I would imagine they would roll over and go away if confronted by conflicting commercial interests - they are about as toothless as can be.

 

[Judas Priest]

Sorry Peter but I find the hypocrisy of some ( not aimed at you) who defend the Close season on running water yet are quite happy to target spawn laden Tench etc during this same time on stillwaters absolutely disgusting.

To base their reasoning that scrapping that Close season on moving water is to save a few tackle shops is ridiculous. As far as I'm aware no shops were saved when the Stillwater close was scrapped.

Far better for them to be honest and say that it's for their own selfish reasons, be that monetary ( guiding/ sponsorship etc )or the need to up their PBs and be seen in the press as an "expert".

Personally I find that non anglers cannot understand why we have a 3 mth shutdown on moving water yet people can still fish stillwaters when we are basically " just catching fish". So in reality coarse anglers being seen by the wider audience as holding some sort of conservationist moral high ground doesn't hold water.

 

[richiekelly]

In the article Dave Harrel is mentioned as one for the abolition of the closed season.

Would that be the same Dave Harrel that said in a weekly some years ago that all Pike caught on the Warwickshire Avon should be bashed against a tree after being plagued by them during a match.

Speaks volumes to me on his conservation credentials. not someone IMO that should be speaking about the Closed season.

the current closed season is a joke and not fit for purpose, any trial done on a river will always be flawed in monitoring any damage done on that stretch, even the experts cannot stop fish from moving on a river so how is damage to be assessed? unless a trial is done on the whole river.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Sorry Peter but I find the hypocrisy of some ( not aimed at you) who defend the Close season on running water yet are quite happy to target spawn laden Tench etc during this same time on stillwaters absolutely disgusting.

I couldn't agree more!

As most FM members know I don't fish for Coarse fish at all during the Close Season on stillwaters or canals.

For those who would argue that our licenses are only valid for 9 months I would simply say; get yourself a fly rod, reel, fly line and a few flies and get the full 12 months value from your license.

The current Close Season is most certainly not a "joke" as suggested by some.
As a blanket instrument it provides protection for most species, during most years, given most average climatic conditions.

 

[sam vimes]

The current Close Season is most certainly not a "joke" as suggested by some.
As a blanket instrument it provides protection for most species, during most years, given most average climatic conditions.

I wouldn't disagree, provided that the river concerned doesn't have trout present and is genuinely closed to all.

 

[richiekelly]

Peter, the reasons I have for saying that the current closed season is a joke are.

I believe that all waters should be closed not just rivers.

the reasons that we have this closed season are not what it was designed for.

currently some rivers can be fished for trout some for eels with certain baits and hook sizes. madness.

the conservation argument doesn't work for me as anglers can still fish still water.

there is no difference in being able to fish still water and rivers at the same time, all waters deserve some rest and I would bet that during the old closed season tackle dealers were very busy during it, cant fish? next best thing buy tackle, get ready for the season.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I wouldn't disagree, provided that the river concerned doesn't have trout present and is genuinely closed to all.

My main concern regarding having local bye laws etc., is that they become the thin end of the wedge.

Many of us here will remember the late 70's and early 80's "Any Method Trout Fishing" which was proliferated especially in the South.

So, by putting a few trout into a Carp Lake greedy fishery owners managed to circumvent the law on the Close Season, and it was this, more than anything else, that led to the demise of the Close Season on Stillwaters and Canals.

I would hate to see similar ruses employed on our rivers.