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

[loggerhead]

We could of course manipulate the figures another way, if any study is carried and I say "if" as we do not know that is going to happen. Now lets say that a study is carried out and it is found that it would be detrimental to our rivers if the CS was altered or indeed abolished. The 26.5% who say they would only support change if it was found not be detrimental would then side with the 38.5% who do not want to see any change giving us 65.0% of anglers in favour of keeping the CS as it is. By the way only 3.5% thought the dates should be changed.

All conjecture of course

Answered your own supposition. In effect you were making a meaningless statement, a dream perhaps, but with no foundation to current results.

So what right do you think they have to suggest changes to the Close Season with only 17,000 odd individual members when there are over 1,000000 anglers in this country ?

From what is being said, Bob, the survey was open to every angler to complete. The fact that 98% or more didn't bother doesn't nulify the results they received. They are the representative of ALL anglers whether they like it or not.

How many people don't vote at a general election? Doesn't stop a Goverment ruling the country whether you like them or not.

The usual terminology from someone to none members of the trust

What makes you think I'm a member? As it happens I'm not, for financial reasons mainly. I'm also not bothered whether they get rid of the close season or not since river fishing could be very poor at that time of year anyway, but if there's no reason (proven by the science about to be gathered, such as it is) to maintain it then it should be abolished. As far as I am concerned it just a load of old fashioned traditionalism that doesn't have much impact any longer.

I have asked several EA fisheries officers before if it would do any harm and when you actually pin them down to brass tacks, all they have come up with is that repeated captures may weaken the fish to some degree. Now how often does that really happen in a river? In a carp lake I could understand, but rivers are wild and the chances of repeated captures within the CS are more than extremely slim, perhaps twice, but no more. However, getting an EA fisheries man to make a public statement to that effect is rather like getting the Pope (the real one) to question the existance of God except that the EA man could get sacked for it.

 

[thecrow]

What makes you think I'm a member? As it happens I'm not, for financial reasons mainly. I'm also not bothered whether they get rid of the close season or not since river fishing could be very poor at that time of year anyway, but if there's no reason (proven by the science about to be gathered, such as it is) to maintain it then it should be abolished. As far as I am concerned it just a load of old fashioned traditionalism that doesn't have much impact any longer.

The trust said the same thing on their website, unfortunately they haven't done that as far as we know but with expected statement from we shall see.


I have asked several EA fisheries officers before if it would do any harm and when you actually pin them down to brass tacks, all they have come up with is that repeated captures may weaken the fish to some degree. Now how often does that really happen in a river? In a carp lake I could understand, but rivers are wild and the chances of repeated captures within the CS are more than extremely slim, perhaps twice, but no more. However, getting an EA fisheries man to make a public statement to that effect is rather like getting the Pope (the real one) to question the existance of God except that the EA man could get sacked for it.

And your evidence for that sweeping statement is?



Can you show me where I said you were a member of the trust?

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

He can't because you didn't.

However he has answered your question, so no real need to be pedantic for the sake of it.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Well done Ray on your belligerence, pig headedness, terrier like qualities, and everything else you've been called over the years BUT...........





















Good looking never

Phil,
I know you are only kidding, tis true that I am good looking and at nearly 70 I can put most youngsters to shame.

It looks like I have to add "miscreant" to the long list of names, it appears that the person who insulted me and other FM members has no wish to withdraw his insult.

He appears more content to manipulate figures and be very choosy with quotes from other posters input to this topic.

You and I have been around long enough to know how things really work within angling.

I am taking it on trust that an update will be published in due course. I hope others can do the same, so lets see what happens.

Regards the good looking one-

 

[thecrow]

He can't because you didn't.

However he has answered your question, so no real need to be pedantic for the sake of it.

For once you are correct, I didn't.

Also needs you to stand up for him does he. Perhaps more careful reading of others posts and less haste to insult them would help.

 

[The bad one]

As no one on this planet is anywhere near as intelligent as you (despite your abysmal spelling that is)...it may seem like an impossibility for some to actually comprehend or even believe that beyond all expectations someone as densely stupid as me could even dream of understanding the mind boggling, complex phrase of "struggle to reproduce".....

......but you know what funny little man.........and as far fetched as it may seem......I do!...

......and here is what you originally said:

"Do you really understand what’s meant by riverine species? Last time I checked Chub, dace, barbel and grayling were not native to canals and lakes in the UK. And where they have been stocked in them, 3 of them don’t reproduce and the 4th struggles badly to reproduce and failing in most situations. But of course I’ll stand to be corrected on that if you can produce the evidence where it happens as a general rule and not a rarity."


Which of course is basically saying......out of these "stocked" 4 species only ONE could reproduce...but to use your words again....even that one "would struggle badly to reproduce and failing in most situations".....we are not quite sure which species this is as yet but let's assume it is the humble chub....the situation would be even worse if it wasn't chub.

Now Einstein......what I am saying is .....there has been just TWO blokes on here who knows at least 6 venues with chub that has sustained themselves for years and seem to be doing everything but "struggling to reproduce" ....JUST TWO BLOKES....how many more blokes know about venues like this....so I strongly believe, despite your far superior knowledge on all things Earthly....I think there is a possibility that you may be wrong...and I reckon that could make the 10 o' Clock News.

So funny little man......here is a question for you to answer......WHY do you say chub "struggle badly to reproduce and fail in most situations"...when there is lots of crystal clear evidence that this is simply not true?.......

As for my club...some of my club pals are quite animalistic and really belong in cages...so the reason you were not hung up on Winthorpe Bridge is because you definitely haven't done work for us...or you WOULD have been hanging from Winthorpe Bridge ....believe me!

Tight Lines and have a great day.

Maverick

I’ll ignore your provocative rhetoric just one mind you! And hey one of my other users name on here in the past was “Phil Hackett the disability Bad Speller! Disability as in Dyslexia, but so was Albert, Hawkin and many others, didn’t stop them and hasn’t stopped me.

Chub need a particular and precise habitat for spawning to be successful and the eggs to hatch into fry. They need an average current velocity 0·4 m s−1 of well oxygenated water flowing over the spawned eggs, on a shallow riffle (rapid) of depths of 0·1–0·8 m and a stony bottom, where most eggs adhered.

And that is why they “struggle to reproduce” in most cases, as Stillwater generally don’t offer that particular and precise habitat.

So does the Chesterfield town section of the canal offer that or is down to other reasons?

 

[Titus]

That's rich coming from you after the abusive PM you sent me the other day!

PMs are meant to be private, it's implied in the name, but seeing as you have chosen to make it look as though I have sent you something abusive I have now got to put it into the open to clear the smear you have left on my character.

I used to have idiotic conversations like this with _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [name deleted as he is no longer a member] where when he ran out of sensible points to debate he would pick at one tiny loose thread and try and turn it into a hole. It didn't work then and it won't work now, by continuing in this vein you are making yourself look daft. Grow up and accept that some peoples minds are not clouded by sentimentality or living in a 19th century paradise which probably never existed outside of your own mind and might not have the same view of the close season as yourself.

If you consider that abusive you have lived a very sheltered life. I won't print your reply but feel free to do so if you wish.

Like I said before, attack the argument by all means but don't abuse the person.

 

[The bad one]

The full text of both
Originally Posted by Titus
I used to have idiotic conversations like this with Fred Bonney where when he ran out of sensible points to debate he would pick at one tiny loose thread and try and turn it into a hole. It didn't work then and it wont work now, by continuing in this vein you are making yourself look daft. Grow up and accept that some peoples minds are not clouded by sentimentality or living in a 19th century paradise which probably never existed outside of your own mind and might not have the same view of the close season as yourself.

ME,I
Now that is the biggest load of bollox you've come out with to date! If you want to debate it then do it in public not by pms.

Yes it was abusive and I found it so! And unlike you I don't hide anything.

 

[maverick 7]

I’ll ignore your provocative rhetoric just one mind you! And hey one of my other users name on here in the past was “Phil Hackett the disability Bad Speller! Disability as in Dyslexia, but so was Albert, Hawkin and many others, didn’t stop them and hasn’t stopped me.

Chub need a particular and precise habitat for spawning to be successful and the eggs to hatch into fry. They need an average current velocity 0·4 m s−1 of well oxygenated water flowing over the spawned eggs, on a shallow riffle (rapid) of depths of 0·1–0·8 m and a stony bottom, where most eggs adhered.

And that is why they “struggle to reproduce” in most cases, as Stillwater generally don’t offer that particular and precise habitat.

So does the Chesterfield town section of the canal offer that or is down to other reasons?

To be totally honest with you....the answer to that question is...I don't know and the reason for that is I don't fish the canal in Chesterfield....and I don't think that many anglers do......but could be wrong about that.

The canal runs for 45 miles according to Google and I fish it nearer to Worksop.... just off the A57 to be precise. I wouldn't have thought there is any shallow, fast water on any canal, however, the canal does have some little "run ins" for the want of a better phrase. Wherever there is a lock on that canal.....there is extra water that runs into the canal at a point just below the lock. It is carried into the main water by means of a small channel that starts above the lock and finishes just below it.... and it creates a small weir type environment...but I do mean small. I think it must be excess water that is generated when the locks open and this excess of water runs back into the canal below the lock ....if all that makes sense.

These are the areas I tend to aim for and I have had some very good fish from these "weirs".......been broken on many occasions too. It apparently holds fish over 6lb....I haven't had any that big yet...well, not on the canal anyway but I may have hooked one or two of them.

Anyway, could it be these small weirs that are aiding with self sustainment of the chub in there? There always seems plenty of tiny chublets in there too indicating further that there is definitely spawning fish in these waters.

I am not sure whether the canals that Colin mentioned have these tiny weirs or not but I do think there could me more of these type of venues than you realise Phil......maybe the chub are beginning to adapt to different types of environment...I don't know but if what you say is true then something different must also be happening.

I'll leave that with you.....

Maverick

 

[black kettle]

An emotive issue as always but one has to admire Ray's pluck for trying to nail the AT down for some answers.

Nailing my colours to the mast. I am a 100% staunch supporter of retaining the rivers close season. And I'm sure there are many just like me out there. In the same vein, there are those who don't agree. Which of course is their absolute right to hold an opposing view and whilst I may not agree with their views, I support their right to have and air them 100%.

For those who are interested in supporting the retention of our rivers close season you can do so by reading the "River Telegraph" campaign statement on facebook.

Regards,

BK

 

[Titus]

The full text of both
Originally Posted by Titus
I used to have idiotic conversations like this with Fred Bonney where when he ran out of sensible points to debate he would pick at one tiny loose thread and try and turn it into a hole. It didn't work then and it wont work now, by continuing in this vein you are making yourself look daft. Grow up and accept that some peoples minds are not clouded by sentimentality or living in a 19th century paradise which probably never existed outside of your own mind and might not have the same view of the close season as yourself.

ME,I
Now that is the biggest load of bollox you've come out with to date! If you want to debate it then do it in public not by pms.

Yes it was abusive and I found it so! And unlike you I don't hide anything.

Not hiding anything other than the name of someone who was not involved. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with this persistent vindictiveness. Find someone else to pick on, I'm done with you.

Lee (Black Kettle), apologies for ever confusing you with this bloke.

 

[black kettle]

I never knew you did Adrian? If we are talking about The Bad One?

 

[Titus]

Pm for you Lee.

 

[cg74]

Thank you for your most gracious reply :wh

What else do you expect when you quote my post then 'choose' not to respond to it, instead you ramble on about unconnected rubbish.
Fine if you 'choose' not answer questions put to you but why quote an unrelated post?

(BTW you aren't obliged to provide an answer)

Chub need a particular and precise habitat for spawning to be successful and the eggs to hatch into fry. They need an average current velocity 0·4 m s−1 of well oxygenated water flowing over the spawned eggs, on a shallow riffle (rapid) of depths of 0·1–0·8 m and a stony bottom, where most eggs adhered.

And that is why they “struggle to reproduce” in most cases, as Stillwater generally don’t offer that particular and precise habitat.

So does the Chesterfield town section of the canal offer that or is down to other reasons?

Phil, another canal that has a self-sustaining chub population (though not one I'm that well acquainted with) is the Kennet and Avon canal.

I don't know if the canals I've mentioned meet the criteria you say must be met for successful chub spawnings but they are self-sustaining.
I imagine the lock overflow channels and inlet streams provide a fairly suitable, although limited habitat.
Certainly in the case of the Oxford canal, there isn't much of a predation burden, that obviously helps their cause.

"why they “struggle to reproduce” in most cases"
I like the inclusion of "in most cases" - did you say that in your original post re chub spawnings in stillwaters and canals??

---------- Post added at 10:40 ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 ----------

Not hiding anything other than the name of someone who was not involved. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with this persistent vindictiveness. Find someone else to pick on, I'm done with you.

Lee (Black Kettle), apologies for ever confusing you with this bloke.

Ade, I think post #97 goes some way to summing up TBO: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/...ishing-generally-declined-10.html#post1325462

 

[thecrow]

What else do you expect when you quote my post then 'choose' not to respond to it, instead you ramble on about unconnected rubbish.
Fine if you 'choose' not answer questions put to you but why quote an unrelated post?

I refer the poster to the answer I gave some posts ago

 

[greenie62]

....another canal that has a self-sustaining chub population (though not one I'm that well acquainted with) is the Kennet and Avon canal.

I don't know if the canals I've mentioned meet the criteria you say must be met for successful chub spawnings but they are self-sustaining.
I imagine the lock overflow channels and inlet streams provide a fairly suitable, although limited habitat.......

It might appear to be a self-sustaining population but - there's a clue in the name - The Kennet & Avon Canal does mix it's waters with a couple of rivers allowing fairly free transfer of fish between them - as does the GUC and the Leeds & Liverpool!
Hardly an overwhelming case to show that riverine species are moving into canals and breeding there!
Additionally, it has not been unknown for clubs to unofficially encourage members to return their river match nets across the towpath into the adjacent canal to boost stocks! - not that that would happen nowadays, of course!

 

[no-one in particular]

One question, do chub just not spawn in still water full stop, or do they spawn and the eggs/fry just do not survive?

If the latter, then some of those eggs/fry might survive and through natural selection go on to produce eggs/fry that will adapt more and more to breeding in still water.
Just wondering if this could happen, it all depends on the first question.

 

[cg74]

One question, do chub just not spawn in still water full stop, or do they spawn and the eggs/fry just do not survive?

If the latter, then some of those eggs/fry might survive and through natural selection go on to produce eggs/fry that will adapt more and more to breeding in still water.
Just wondering if this could happen, it all depends on the first question.

My understanding is (and TBO will correct me if I'm wrong) the main reason for chub struggling to breed successfully is the lower oxygen levels and silted up gravel.

As for adapting, yes it could happen but it'd be a very long process; more like evolution than adaption.

 

[Judas Priest]

There's a couple of pits on the RDAA book that have, and have had for many years, populations of chub of all year classes indicating the ability to reproduce. Nothing scientific just witnessed with my own eyes.

 

[greenie62]

There's a couple of pits on the RDAA book that have, and have had for many years, populations of chub of all year classes indicating the ability to reproduce. Nothing scientific just witnessed with my own eyes.

Which RDAA is that? Is it Reading where some of the pits are very close to the Kennet or Thames? Any chance of human modes of transfer? as per earlier post:

Additionally, it has not been unknown for clubs to unofficially encourage members to return their river match nets across the towpath into the adjacent canal to boost stocks! - not that that would happen nowadays, of course!

After all Barbel have mysteriously appeared in west-flowing rivers in a very short period of time! mg: