River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[Ray Wood 1]

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.

Bad One,
To answer your question, I have no evidence that he is not following his memberships wishes or that he is for that matter. Having read his comments both in his diary and in the Angling Times he appears to be speaking for himself. If that is the case no mention should be made of the position he holds within the BS, that could lead to many thinking he speaks for the membership. But of course you will know that using that position gives or supposedly gives his comments more credence rather than him speaking as a lone angler.

I’m glad you have highlighted what a chairs job is within an organisation and how and what he should be doing. If he has the full backing of the BS regarding the changes he wants then there would be no problem for him. If however he does not have the full support of his membership there would be a clear conflict of interests would there not? How could he remain in his position and pursue the changes he wants knowing it to be against the will of his membership that would surely make his position untenable in my honest opinion and I suspect in many others opinion. If the latter is the case surely the gentlemanly thing to do would be to step down and pursue the change in dates or the abolition of the close season depending on what he really wants as an ordinary angler.

Not sure why you are telling me that you are not and never have been a member of the BS as it is of no interest to me. As for when and how I post that will depend on the subject matter and what I may want to comment on and this subject is one such subject, it matters not who is involved.

Hope that will suffice in answering you question.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I'm perplexed as to why Peter Jacobs thinks I'm biased or seeking to do down a minority point of view

. . . maybe it is because your piece is negatively slanted?

Your first 3 paragraphs only record the down side of an otherwise very good year for river fishing, and that the tackle trade has had an (unusually) difficult time is neither here nor there in a debate regarding the close Season on our rivers. Yet it certainly adds to the negativity of the piece in general.

You go on to highlight what Steve may, or may not, now feel about the close season while only paying cursory lip service to Keith Arthur's stance.

Your 10 "key points" are also hardly a positive feature of the article either, so Martin, it is evident to most readers that your piece is heavily weighted on the negative side of the argument.

You have, obviously, picked up on this one point (of the many I have made) and yet chosen to comment on just this one.

 

[tiinker]

I am a member of the AT since its conception and my membership has just been renewed. Maybe it is me but everybody knows that the AT is not every ones cup of tea I hope this sudden move towards rethinking the close season is not a join us ploy . I do not know about the BS but perhaps there is some membership pressure there for such a move as I think has already been suggested. It seems a bit odd that not so long ago there was a photo of the main movers in AT literature saying they thought the close season was a good thing including Dave Harrell. I think it all smells a bit of filling the coffers.

 

[richiekelly]

I am a member of the AT since its conception and my membership has just been renewed. Maybe it is me but everybody knows that the AT is not every ones cup of tea I hope this sudden move towards rethinking the close season is not a join us ploy . I do not know about the BS but perhaps there is some membership pressure there for such a move as I think has already been suggested. It seems a bit odd that not so long ago there was a photo of the main movers in AT literature saying they thought the close season was a good thing including Dave Harrell. I think it all smells a bit of filling the coffers.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that and if there had been I am sure it would have been mentioned.

A join us ploy could turn into a loose us ploy. they haven't a clue.

 

[sam vimes]

I haven't seen anything to suggest that and if there had been I am sure it would have been mentioned.

A join us ploy could turn into a loose us ploy. they haven't a clue.

If that happens it will demonstrate the hypocrisy of those that suggest to those that won't join the ATr, because they disagree with some policy, they join regardless. After all, surely the "only option we have" applies equally to all?

 

[geoffmaynard]

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.

I know the man and he's not driven in a self interested way at all. He's just giving a personal opinion which is completely seperate from his position in the BS - I'm not a member either btw.
I've been anti closed season for many years, ever since I saw the way the yanks handle it, which makes a lot more sense than any other I've heard of. It's species specific, appropriate for the individual waters and avoids economic hardships for the industry - and avoids tarring everything with the same brush. Common sense in other words.

 

[richiekelly]

If that happens it will demonstrate the hypocrisy of those that suggest to those that won't join the ATr, because they disagree with some policy, they join regardless. After all, surely the "only option we have" applies equally to all?

Sorry Sam I don't understand what your post means,

I cannot see this as a PR exercise to gain members but could it loose members that feel very strongly about the closed season not wanting to be involved in changing it?

The same could be said of the BS as well.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I know the man and he's not driven in a self interested way at all. He's just giving a personal opinion which is completely seperate from his position in the BS - I'm not a member either btw.
I've been anti closed season for many years, ever since I saw the way the yanks handle it, which makes a lot more sense than any other I've heard of. It's species specific, appropriate for the individual waters and avoids economic hardships for the industry - and avoids tarring everything with the same brush. Common sense in other words.

Geoff, as this sudden call for change appears to only be coming from a few anglers who have a vested interest in changing the close season I must I’m afraid disagree with you. I have seen nothing from the tackle trade this time around calling for change.

Given that some of the same few anglers have been staunch supporters of retaining the close season in its current form common sense tells me that self interests are involved. You have your views and state you don’t agree with mine regarding that. I respect your views and likewise I disagree with them regarding this change being nothing but self interest driven by those involved.

So it must be we will have to agree to differ on the subject, like I have said, I have seen nothing to change my mind so won’t be changing it.

I know nothing regarding how the US deal with imposing any sort of close season on their rivers or still waters, and so I am unable to comment.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[sam vimes]

Sorry Sam I don't understand what your post means,

I cannot see this as a PR exercise to gain members but could it loose members that feel very strongly about the closed season not wanting to be involved in changing it?

The same could be said of the BS as well.

Some trust members have suggested that people join regardless of them disagreeing with policy. The thinking being that it's the best (only) option we've got. If they then don't rejoin because they disagreed with the ATr looking at changing the closed season, they would be being hypocrital.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Some trust members have suggested that people join regardless of them disagreeing with policy. The thinking being that it's the best (only) option we've got. If they then don't rejoin because they disagreed with the ATr looking at changing the closed season, they would be being hypocrital.

I was one of those who were opposed to the Angling trust from the outset mainly due to the way they went about the inauguration. Also, in the early days prior to formation they had stated that they did not really want individual memberships preferring to only have clubs, associations and trade members.

It was pointed out to me that it takes a big man to get over a few personal hurdles in order to see the larger picture by an angler who I have the greatest respect for.

So, I joined and was a member for 3 or 4 years also giving donations on top of my annual subs.
Unfortunately, the lack of real action on predation and another poorly worded (and uninformed) piece featured on here turned me right off to the point where I did not re-new my membership.

I know a good many anglers who are currently members who would walk away the very day that the Angling Trust supported abolishing the close Season.
We discussed this last night at an annual meeting of the river syndicate where I am a member, so I think i know the mood of those anglers, very well.

 

[sam vimes]

I was one of those who were opposed to the Angling trust from the outset mainly due to the way they went about the inauguration. Also, in the early days prior to formation they had stated that they did not really want individual memberships preferring to only have clubs, associations and trade members.

It was pointed out to me that it takes a big man to get over a few personal hurdles in order to see the larger picture by an angler who I have the greatest respect for.

So, I joined and was a member for 3 or 4 years also giving donations on top of my annual subs.
Unfortunately, the lack of real action on predation and another poorly worded (and uninformed) piece featured on here turned me right off to the point where I did not re-new my membership.

I know a good many anglers who are currently members who would walk away the very day that the Angling Trust supported abolishing the close Season.
We discussed this last night at an annual meeting of the river syndicate where I am a member, so I think i know the mood of those anglers, very well.

I'm not knocking the fact that they won't rejoin, if it comes to pass. All I'm saying is that if those members have previously berated non-joiners, that refuse on a point of policy, they are hypocrites. I'm not denying the right of anyone to do as they see fit with their money.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Geoff, as this sudden call for change appears to only be coming from a few anglers who have a vested interest in changing the close season I must I’m afraid disagree with you. I have seen nothing from the tackle trade this time around calling for change.

Given that some of the same few anglers have been staunch supporters of retaining the close season in its current form common sense tells me that self interests are involved. You have your views and state you don’t agree with mine regarding that. I respect your views and likewise I disagree with them regarding this change being nothing but self interest driven by those involved.

So it must be we will have to agree to differ on the subject, like I have said, I have seen nothing to change my mind so won’t be changing it.

I know nothing regarding how the US deal with imposing any sort of close season on their rivers or still waters, and so I am unable to comment.

Well there's nothing sudden about it, the argument has been going on for decades with people (including me) arguing against the present closed season dates and others (including SP) arguing for the opposite. No need to fall out over it though, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Over time, some peoples views have moved as they've perceived the times have changed. This time SP for one has moved his views, next year it could be me, or you. To even suggest that there is some level of self-interest involved is complete misdirection imo, angling isn't golf or motor racing. The amount of money extra in individuals pockets, including guides, would hardly change to any significant extent - though the tackle trade could pick up some extra coins I grant you. (And for those of you interested, I know SP retired from a lucrative job managing a prosperous building company to move west and earn peanuts as a guide - in comparison it's just a paying hobby; the self-interest claim is therefor a total joke).
The last time we had changes we had all kinds of stunts played to get around rules, including any-method trout waters etc and it is all so unnecessary if common sense is applied. Do away with nationwide closed seasons and localise it: If a fishery manager sees a species spawning, then he stops people angling for it. Simple. It works elsewhere and it will work here.
Of course there will always be by-catch but that's never been seen as a problem when grayling anglers catch trout in january, or fly anglers catch roach or barbel in May. Indeed, no different from the present conditions when i.e. carpers catch spawn laden fish in July.

 

[richiekelly]

Some trust members have suggested that people join regardless of them disagreeing with policy. The thinking being that it's the best (only) option we've got. If they then don't rejoin because they disagreed with the ATr looking at changing the closed season, they would be being hypocrital.

Thanks for explaining Sam, I can be a bit slow on the uptake in the morning.

I also think you are correct in what you said.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Well there's nothing sudden about it, the argument has been going on for decades with people (including me) arguing against the present closed season dates and others (including SP) arguing for the opposite. No need to fall out over it though, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Over time, some peoples views have moved as they've perceived the times have changed. This time SP for one has moved his views, next year it could be me, or you. To even suggest that there is some level of self-interest involved is complete misdirection imo, angling isn't golf or motor racing. The amount of money extra in individuals pockets, including guides, would hardly change to any significant extent - though the tackle trade could pick up some extra coins I grant you. (And for those of you interested, I know SP retired from a lucrative job managing a prosperous building company to move west and earn peanuts as a guide - in comparison it's just a paying hobby; the self-interest claim is therefor a total joke).
The last time we had changes we had all kinds of stunts played to get around rules, including any-method trout waters etc and it is all so unnecessary if common sense is applied. Do away with nationwide closed seasons and localise it: If a fishery manager sees a species spawning, then he stops people angling for it. Simple. It works elsewhere and it will work here.
Of course there will always be by-catch but that's never been seen as a problem when grayling anglers catch trout in january, or fly anglers catch roach or barbel in May. Indeed, no different from the present conditions when i.e. carpers catch spawn laden fish in July.

Like I said Geoff, I must agree to disagree with your point of view on self interest driving this call for change. I thought SP was a quantity surveyor and worked free lance I could of course be mistaken, it really does not matter though.

Yes the debate has been going on for many years and will no doubt go on for many more as I see no change coming about in the near future. It has been raised in the past by ordinary anglers who say they think it unfair that they can’t fish rivers all year round (self interest). It has been raised by the tackle trade due to loss of revenue (self interest). It is now being raised by some who guide on rivers who are complaining that they have not been able to wet a line due to the floods, that in turn suggests that they have not been able to guide and earn (self interest)

You maybe right that the US way might work here in the UK, you may also be wrong. As for what these guides earn from plying their trade I know of one at least who charges £150 a day and is booked up for 90% of the river season. Some charge even greater prices and are very busy throughout the river season so there is a good living to be earned. I can see why they would like things changed but that does not make it right.

These are only my honest opinions and like you say I do not want to fall out with you because our views differ.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[The bad one]

To answer your question, I have no evidence that he is not following his memberships wishes or that he is for that matter. Having read his comments both in his diary and in the Angling Times he appears to be speaking for himself. If that is the case no mention should be made of the position he holds within the BS, that could lead to many thinking he speaks for the membership. But of course you will know that using that position gives or supposedly gives his comments more credence rather than him speaking as a lone angler.

Yes I agree he is speaking for himself. Where he make comment to MS comments on Facebook (his name, not the BS or SP of the BS) he does say he makes it abundantly clear he is not calling for the abolition of the CS "but I will say again, there is absolutely no way I would support a total abolition of a close season."
I think you'll find it's the Press that ascribes the Chair of the BS to him over this, not the man himself.

I’m glad you have highlighted what a chairs job is within an organisation and how and what he should be doing. If he has the full backing of the BS regarding the changes he wants then there would be no problem for him. If however he does not have the full support of his membership there would be a clear conflict of interests would there not? How could he remain in his position and pursue the changes he wants knowing it to be against the will of his membership that would surely make his position untenable in my honest opinion and I suspect in many others opinion. If the latter is the case surely the gentlemanly thing to do would be to step down and pursue the change in dates or the abolition of the close season depending on what he really wants as an ordinary angler.

As he's not speaking as the Chair of the BS or for the BS, but for himself SP, there is no conflict of interest over it. All he’s doing is expressing a partially different view to the membership as I alluded to in my first post. Ergo it’s a tenable view to hold providing he’s doing the job as Chair and upholding the views of the membership.

He even, I suspect, has the right to raise the issue for discussion/debate within the BS and argue his case to the membership of why he feels there should be a partial change to CS. That’s democracy in action! However, if membership doesn’t side with him, it’s also democracy that as Chair, it mandates him to uphold the BS membership’s views.
Failure to do that would then make his position as chair untenable.
And it goes without saying he does have the prerogative to resign as chair if he fails to carry the membership his way.

Not sure why you are telling me that you are not and never have been a member of the BS as it is of no interest to me. As for when and how I post that will depend on the subject matter and what I may want to comment on and this subject is one such subject, it matters not who is involved.

So there was no ambiguity or suggestion of bias on my part.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Until we see Steve's new Diary piece none of us truly knows what will be in it, what his thoughts are, or how (if at all) he had changed his views and for what reasons.

Accordingly, it is far better for the debate to focus back onto the originall topic and wait to see what Steve has to say at a later date?

I don't for one moment agree with individual clubs or associations making up their own Close Season for their river rentals, neither do I for riparian Owners either.
My view is to leave it to the experts at the EA and let them do their job nationally.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Bad One,
Thanks for the detailed response to my own response to your question

QUOTE.
Yes I agree he is speaking for himself. Where he make comment to MS comments on Facebook (his name, not the BS or SP of the BS) he does say he makes it abundantly clear he is not calling for the abolition of the CS "but I will say again, there is absolutely no way I would support a total abolition of a close season."
I think you'll find it's the Press that ascribes the Chair of the BS to him over this, not the man himself.
...........................................................................................................
I maintain my honest opinion that when he speaks as SP he should ensure that the press or anyone else make no mention of his position within the BS as it could lead readers to think he speaks or his views are that of the BS.

Quote
As he's not speaking as the Chair of the BS or for the BS, but for himself SP, there is no conflict of interest over it. All he’s doing is expressing a partially different view to the membership as I alluded to in my first post. Ergo it’s a tenable view to hold providing he’s doing the job as Chair and upholding the views of the membership.

He even, I suspect, has the right to raise the issue for discussion/debate within the BS and argue his case to the membership of why he feels there should be a partial change to CS. That’s democracy in action! However, if membership doesn’t side with him, it’s also democracy that as Chair, it mandates him to uphold the BS membership’s views.
Failure to do that would then make his position as chair untenable.
And it goes without saying he does have the prerogative to resign as chair if he fails to carry the membership his way.
...........................................................................................................
Pretty much what I had said although worded differently, you may agree with that or not. It will be interesting to follow this and see just how SP progresses with his views both on here and with the membership of the BS.

I would hope that he does raise the issue of the CS within the BS it would be remiss of him if he did not in my opinion. I have no wish to make comment on democracy and how it might or might not work within the BS.

QUOTE
So there was no ambiguity or suggestion of bias on my part.
...........................................................................................................
The thought of ambiguity or bias on your part never crossed my mind, it would make no difference to me or the debate on the CS if you were a member of the BS why would it?

Thanks again for you response.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Steve Pope]

I appreciate your last post Peter, many thanks.

I have been concentrating on other things quite a bit of late which are very much BS related.

This evening I will be catching up with a number of old friends as we meet up to celebrate the life of Fred Crouch, there will be many BS people in attendance.

I've also been very busy putting together a tribute magazine and I'm really pleased with how it's coming along, I'm hoping to have it ready for the publishers this time next week.

Plus I'm hoping to have a couple of days on the Severn next week and then I'll concentrate all my attention to putting my words together that relate to this subject for my next Diary.

Much of what I will say has been said already, there's nothing new about any of this, in some ways it's just a revisit ten years or so down the line from when the subject last came under serious scrutiny and I believe that is a reasonable course of action.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Good luck with the tribute to Fred, I know like me many will be looking forward to reading it.

 

[geoffmaynard]

I don't for one moment agree with individual clubs or associations making up their own Close Season for their river rentals, neither do I for riparian Owners either.
My view is to leave it to the experts at the EA and let them do their job nationally.

Another nation-wide fudge then? Even if it were catchment based it would be a step forward.