River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[sam vimes]

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.

It doesn't really matter, chucking a few trout into a lower river, that would never naturally hold them, isn't going to cut the mustard. Hopefully, there's no way anyone would get permission to do it anyway. Even if the river concerned, that holds trout naturally, is fly only, the coarse fish are effectively recieving no protection whatsoever. All of the half decent reasons for imposing a closed season are totally negated. You don't even need a dodgy old worm only bye law for that to be the case. The reality for my local rivers is that all that's really happening is that the fish are denied a steady food source at just the time of year that they may really benefit from it. Like it or not, disagree or not, for the rivers of the old Yorkshire/Northumbria regions, the closed season is an absolute joke. The bye law and trout present render it difficult to police and quite ineffectual in protecting anything. Unless rivers are shut to all human traffic, the closed season is a half baked measure, at very best.

 

[tiinker]

It doesn't really matter, chucking a few trout into a lower river, that would never naturally hold them, isn't going to cut the mustard. Hopefully, there's no way anyone would get permission to do it anyway. Even if the river concerned, that holds trout naturally, is fly only, the coarse fish are effectively recieving no protection whatsoever. All of the half decent reasons for imposing a closed season are totally negated. You don't even need a dodgy old worm only bye law for that to be the case. The reality for my local rivers is that all that's really happening is that the fish are denied a steady food source at just the time of year that they may really benefit from it. Like it or not, disagree or not, for the rivers of the old Yorkshire/Northumbria regions, the closed season is an absolute joke. The bye law and trout present render it difficult to police and quite ineffectual in protecting anything. Unless rivers are shut to all human traffic, the closed season is a half baked measure, at very best.

If anglers are worried about the fishes well being at this time they can go and feed them like we do on our fishery during the close season and yes they do benefit from a supplementary feed.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

If anglers are worried about the fishes well being at this time they can go and feed them like we do on our fishery during the close season and yes they do benefit from a supplementary feed.

The same aanswer is equally applicable to those who raise the point about not having anglers on the banks encourages EE's to pillage Coarse fish stocks.
I've argued in the past that you do not need to be fishing in order to walk along a river, and in my club and syndicate we "police" the river during the Close Season.

 

[no-one in particular]

This close season argument has been going on for years. Everyone has a different perspective according to how, what and where they fish. Knowledge attained or not, priorities vary widely; environment, fish, commercial interests and so on. I think Martin Salter is right in one respect, which I guess is what he wants. Its high time a proper study and debate was conducted by the EA and a good look at all view points and a decisions made with reasons and results made public. I think the EA would be the right people rather than the angling trust but, they could exert pressure to have it done. So much talk about it every year and nothing happens.
I wish they would just get on with it

 

[tiinker]

The same aanswer is equally applicable to those who raise the point about not having anglers on the banks encourages EE's to pillage Coarse fish stocks.
I've argued in the past that you do not need to be fishing in order to walk along a river, and in my club and syndicate we "police" the river during the Close Season.

We have had the same ploy used on the Bec by a few the very same people as it happens that when you do your rounds they say so and so was away from his rods for a few minutes but they never get off their backsides and pull the person. Ask them to come and do one or two night patrols no way .Every member is told when they join you are a bailiff you are to challenge anyone no matter who if you see them infringing the rules.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

This close season argument has been going on for years. Everyone has a different perspective according to how, what and where they fish. Knowledge attained or not, priorities vary widely; environment, fish, commercial interests and so on. I think Martin Salter is right in one respect, which I guess is what he wants. Its high time a proper study and debate was conducted by the EA and a good look at all view points and a decisions made with reasons and results made public. I think the EA would be the right people rather than the angling trust but, they could exert pressure to have it done. So much talk about it every year and nothing happens.
I wish they would just get on with it

The problem with any study is, similar to political polls, is that it can be made to favour whoever is paying for it . . . . . . . . .

Now, I remember 4 or maybe 5 years ago, here on FishingMagic when Mike Heyling who was championing the formation of the Angling Trust at the time stated that the Trust had far more important topics to get their teeth into than the Close Season. Also that he was very cogniscent that the issue that could well divide the Angling Trust membership.

I think he was right.

 

[sam vimes]

If anglers are worried about the fishes well being at this time they can go and feed them like we do on our fishery during the close season and yes they do benefit from a supplementary feed.

The same aanswer is equally applicable to those who raise the point about not having anglers on the banks encourages EE's to pillage Coarse fish stocks.
I've argued in the past that you do not need to be fishing in order to walk along a river, and in my club and syndicate we "police" the river during the Close Season.

Both points are perfectly true, but they instantly negate one of the other big justifying reasons given of reducing footfall to give bankside flora and fauna a break. That point already being dubious anyway because the banks aren't closed to legitimate bankside visitors, walkers, canoeists, fly anglers etc.

The reality is that the only reasons for the close season are intuative and historical. It does seem to make sense to have a closed season. However, many of the justifications for having one are not supported by reality or science. They don't withstand even minimal scrutiny. There's no more proof for the continuance of the closed season than there is to abolish it. Most of the arguments for are based on little more than it seeming to suit the individual, tradition and the intuative feeling that it, at least, can't do any harm. Unfortunately, even that may not actually be the case, there's always a chance that it actually does more harm than good. After all, supplementary feeding and bankside patrolling wouldn't be necessary at all if you were entirely convinced.

 

[chav professor]

I'm going to retire on this particular subject..... time for a re-think? No... Scientific study? nope - parameters too wide.

Happy with the way things are as they stand? I'm with the approximate 'half' that obstinately fail to see 'reason' and wish to see it abolished.....

I'm happy to keep the close season on rivers as I feel there are significant differences (principally, recruitment, floods, complete year classes washed out in spate, pollution, extraction.. oh.. the list goes on)... But its still here... I win!!! ha ha!!!

But I'll be hammering seven bells out of still waters.... probably to cries of hypocrite. that and fish spotting and keeping in touch with my river - with the dog...

 

[peter crabtree]

The close season is here to stay and is unlikely to change for many years.
Look at the cormorant issue. How many years has that been rumbling on?
Every time some progress is made we are told that another x years of consultation must take place first.
Imagine how many years consultations etc on a subject so diverse as our National river systems would be before the close season is ever changed?

 

[richiekelly]

The close season is here to stay and is unlikely to change for many years.
Look at the cormorant issue. How many years has that been rumbling on?
Every time some progress is made we are told that another x years of consultation must take place first.
Imagine how many years consultations etc on a subject so diverse as our National river systems would be before the close season is ever changed?

And who would pay for such extensive studies that would be needed, I cant think of anyone that would be willing.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

In an alternative reality there could be a closed season on stillwaters but no closed season on rivers. In many ways i think that would be more easily justified as it would be harder for fish in a stillwater (especially a small one) to avoid the attentions of anglers when they should be spawning, whereas in rivers they might migrate to spawning grounds (if theres no weirs in their way). Perhaps the angling world would have evolved differently with commercial river sections proving popular for their year-round profitability.

 

[martinsalter]

Some interesting comments here. Thanks for taking the time to contribute. You can find some useful arguments, both for and against, on the dedicated AT webpage here The River Close Season Debate - The Angling Trust
I'm perplexed as to why Peter Jacobs thinks I'm biased or seeking to do down a minority point of view. The opinions in my article are mine alone and I've set out a range of arguments both for and against change. Personally, I tend to be in favour of retaining a revised river close season but only if the science justifies it's continuation. This probably puts me in the minority if the responses I've seen are anything to go by!
And surely even the most ardent supporters of the close season must accept that it should be based on some kind evidence?

 

[no-one in particular]

I don't get all this years of scientific study and spending a fortune. Its not as if we are trying to change the world. A think tank could convene for a week or two and debate all the up to date relevant information with submissions made by the top people from interested organizations and the best expert advice available and a recommendation could be submitted to the EA. Then a recommendation could be submitted to parliament by the EA. The cost of it should come from license and taxpayers fees. Would not cost a fortune and could be done and dusted in a short time.
I don't know really know how these things run but, surely its not that difficult. Why don't you instigate something like this Mr Salter through your contacts and influence with the EA, Government and the angling trust.? Why do they seem to only want another debate and no action.?
Otherwise we are all just going to be left with another interesting but, pointless debate on the close season.

 

[geoffmaynard]

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?

Well, to be fair he has been discussing it for some time with his Facebook friends, many of whom are probably BS members. People have opinions based on conditions of the day; when they think conditions have changed, they change their opinions. Nothing wrong with that. One day I might even agree with otter releases. (BTW that would be the day the rivers are filled with fish).

 

[Judas Priest]

Geoff

You use the wording "to be fair" to try and defend Steve in some way and his article.
As the Chairman of the group that has and still does staunchly support the retention of the Close season in all it's forms "to be fair" would have been to discuss it with his membership first and then represented their views rather than his own or those of a few mates on Facebook, or have I got the wrong end of what someone who promotes himself as Chairman of said group is supposed to do ?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Well, to be fair he has been discussing it for some time with his Facebook friends, many of whom are probably BS members. People have opinions based on conditions of the day; when they think conditions have changed, they change their opinions. Nothing wrong with that. One day I might even agree with otter releases. (BTW that would be the day the rivers are filled with fish).

Geoff, I have to agree with Judas. As chairman of a society that supports the retention of the close season in its current form surely the place to discuss any change or the abolition of the close season was on the BS forum to gauge the memberships view not on FM or Facebook. If as I suspect the BS membership do not support his views his chairmanship is untenable. The right thing for him to do would be to step down and pursue the changes he wants as an individual and not use his position as chairman of said society. Unless of course he has their full backing regarding change.

Just my honest opinion Geoff, and I won’t be changing my mind as I believe this change of mind is nothing more than self interest driven.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[The bad one]

Like Chav I’m happy the way it is, irrespective of the failings it undoubtedly has sometimes. Which in my view is still the best compromise for a rivers close season.

Ray why is you only come on here when SP name is mentioned?

A chair of an organisation can hold an “individual” differing point of view than the membership and it happens quite a lot in many organisations. His job is to uphold the will, policies of the majority of the membership, even though his personal view may differ. If he’s doing that, then he’s doing the job of Chair and his position is tenable.

So are you saying he’s not doing that by holding a differing view?
If so, what evidence do you have to show that he’s not?

Oh BTW I’m not, nor have I ever been a member of the BS.

 

[tiinker]

Well, to be fair he has been discussing it for some time with his Facebook friends, many of whom are probably BS members. People have opinions based on conditions of the day; when they think conditions have changed, they change their opinions. Nothing wrong with that. One day I might even agree with otter releases. (BTW that would be the day the rivers are filled with fish).

Or totally void of them fish that is.

 

[tdrozdow]

Firstly, thanks to Martin for kicking off the debate - its overdue and I think an appropriate subject for the Angling trust.
I am a keen river and stiillwater angler and in fact run a small stillwater syndicate comprising three irrigation reservoirs in Essex and have done so for over 30 years. I have also tended to support retention of the close season for mainly emotional and conservation based reasons. However, having spent many times in the distant past watching Pike, Carp and Tench spawn during the old season (and suffering total blanks as a result) we lifted the close season. The effect; members now experience their very best fishing of the year, we have not lost ANY fish due to "stress" and in fact, the fish have grown on considerably as they now get to see bait for 12 months of the year; the banks do NOT show any signs of not recovering from the winter. So, despite my reservations, eliminating the Close season has shown NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON OUR THREE WATERS whatsoever.
Now I accept that Rivers are not irrigation reservoirs but lets be honest, in the main they dont get fished that much relative to stillwaters in crowded areas in Essex and I cannot see why they would suffer any more.
I also know for a fact that the poachers (including our friends from overseas) also understand the close season very well and get extra busy at these times as they know there is a massively diminished chance of getting caught or disturbed.
The arguement about protecting our tackle industry is also a very strong one. We HAVE to support our tackle shops - imagine losing your favouriste tackle shop - its really tough for those guys now and the internet is making it tougher every year.
I do not see the need for the EA to conduct a detailed study. They didnt study the effects on my stillwaters and any study they do would not be relevent for all rivers and all climatic scenarios. It would be largely pointless.
Using logic and facts puts me in a very different place to what my heart tells me and I am now very firmly in the camp of leaving it to the fishery owner or manager - they know the reality as it affects their specific fishery better than anyone else so leave it with them as we do on stillwaters. Tony Drozdowicz.

 

[sagalout]

How many anglers really care one way or another? Given the number of members on fishing magic how many would respond to a poll for keep, abolish and don't care.

I believe this issue is the same as all the others, a small number will argue from opposite views points and the rest don't care.