bennygesserit
Well-known member
It's not likely then that they have been displaced there by floods ?
The Angling Trust and the Rivers Close Season is it time for some answers?
- Thread starter Ray Wood 1
- Start date
It's not likely then that they have been displaced there by floods ?
cg74
Well-known member
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!
Canals are often interconnected with rivers, I'd say most are. That said it's just another factor that needs adding into the equation.
These things are never clear cut, and are always up for interpretation.
Like your claim that clubs used to (and still do) move catches from rivers to canals, I always thought it was the opposite way around....
bennygesserit
Well-known member
Post 95 was a work of genius but was roundly ignored in all the hoo hah
cg74
Well-known member
Yep, a work of pure genius, I would've 'Liked' it back then but didn't want to offend your modesty.
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
Benny
Both pits are on the wider Kennet floodplain but the Kennet doesn't flood right across that area, not in recent memory anyway.
We, in the wider sense, appear to be getting bogged down in a "can they can't they reproduce in stillwaters" specifically in regards to the Chub.
It was not so long ago that folks thought that all the barbel in the Lower Severn had to travel to the Teme to spawn, which is nonsense as the Teme would need to be a massive waterway to accommodate that many fish, and outside of the Teme no one would catch any barbel for weeks on end as they all travelled back and to. It's now accepted by those regular anglers that the majority spawn in other areas with less so called favourable conditions.
People of science often make me wonder if book learning is the way forward, or is the better way to listen to the uneducated gamekeeper/countryman ?
Both pits are on the wider Kennet floodplain but the Kennet doesn't flood right across that area, not in recent memory anyway.
We, in the wider sense, appear to be getting bogged down in a "can they can't they reproduce in stillwaters" specifically in regards to the Chub.
It was not so long ago that folks thought that all the barbel in the Lower Severn had to travel to the Teme to spawn, which is nonsense as the Teme would need to be a massive waterway to accommodate that many fish, and outside of the Teme no one would catch any barbel for weeks on end as they all travelled back and to. It's now accepted by those regular anglers that the majority spawn in other areas with less so called favourable conditions.
People of science often make me wonder if book learning is the way forward, or is the better way to listen to the uneducated gamekeeper/countryman ?
maverick 7
Well-known member
As Colin (cg74) says....many canals (probably most) have connections with rivers and the Chesterfield Canal which I spoke about earlier runs into the River Idle I believe (will double check that though) and my local canal the South Yorkshire Navigational Canal runs into the River Don at some point too.
Whether or not that helps the fish to reproduce successfully is not the real issue here......It was claimed that chub cannot reproduce successfully in canals...which I take to be any canal and I think the evidence shown on this thread means it has been proven beyond doubt that they can indeed breed and reproduce successfully in many canals and other stillwaters.
We all now know that canals are connected to rivers...but doesn't that make the Close Season on rivers a bit of a mockery?...With regards to movement of fish from canal to river and vice versa.....means effectively you can still catch the fish which are originally from the river by being on the bank of the canal that runs into it....particularly close to the point where the canal actually enters the river. Why is that legal when sitting on the bank of the river and catching the very same fish is not?
I hope all that makes sense...
Maverick
Whether or not that helps the fish to reproduce successfully is not the real issue here......It was claimed that chub cannot reproduce successfully in canals...which I take to be any canal and I think the evidence shown on this thread means it has been proven beyond doubt that they can indeed breed and reproduce successfully in many canals and other stillwaters.
We all now know that canals are connected to rivers...but doesn't that make the Close Season on rivers a bit of a mockery?...With regards to movement of fish from canal to river and vice versa.....means effectively you can still catch the fish which are originally from the river by being on the bank of the canal that runs into it....particularly close to the point where the canal actually enters the river. Why is that legal when sitting on the bank of the river and catching the very same fish is not?
I hope all that makes sense...
Maverick
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,225
- Reaction score
- 3
Can anyone think of a canal where wild brown trout can be caught? It's not a trick question, The Llangollen canal is a feeder branch fed from the river Dee and actualy has a gravel shoal just 'upstream' of the marina at Llangollen where the trout spawn. Despite this it is still classed as a canal and as such not subject to a coarse fishing close season though it is illegal to fish for trout out of season (not that that ever stopped a Welshman who sees it as a birthright).
This anomaly brings us on to a possible solution, instead of a blanket ban on coarse fishing, which I think most people are agreed is not ideal, what is wrong with a season for each individual species as it is well known that not all species actually spawn, or shed if you prefer at the same time? In fact the individual seasons for each species could be different for each area of the country as well (like the salmon season) to accommodate the mean drop in temperature of 1 degree fahrenheit for every 100 miles north you travel.
Of course that 1 degree drop is only true at sea level, to get a truly accurate timing for each species you would also need to factor in the 3 degrees fahrenheit drop in temperature for every 1000 feet in altitude above sea level you are situated.
Calculating that lot for the whole country should keep a few ecologists busy for a while or we could just scrap the close as has been done on lakes (and the Llangollen canal) without any undue effect on the wildlife.
This anomaly brings us on to a possible solution, instead of a blanket ban on coarse fishing, which I think most people are agreed is not ideal, what is wrong with a season for each individual species as it is well known that not all species actually spawn, or shed if you prefer at the same time? In fact the individual seasons for each species could be different for each area of the country as well (like the salmon season) to accommodate the mean drop in temperature of 1 degree fahrenheit for every 100 miles north you travel.
Of course that 1 degree drop is only true at sea level, to get a truly accurate timing for each species you would also need to factor in the 3 degrees fahrenheit drop in temperature for every 1000 feet in altitude above sea level you are situated.
Calculating that lot for the whole country should keep a few ecologists busy for a while or we could just scrap the close as has been done on lakes (and the Llangollen canal) without any undue effect on the wildlife.
sam vimes
Well-known member
Debatable as to whether it's a real canal (and I believe it may well be subject to the closed season as much as any flowing water in Yorkshire is), but I seem to recall that feat being possible on the Ripon canal.
The bad one
Well-known member
Here my first post on the subject Colin. Nitpick if you must about different words with the same meaning.
mg: Yes silt on gravel does have a significant impact, as recognised by the EA and why they spend £10,000s a year jet washing it off spawning gravels on some rivers. Boats don't help the situation either on canals, which tend to be silty anyway, constantly lifting and churning it into suspension.
As to bye-washes, or more precisely just over the lip, I wouldn't discount them providing a "very" limited spawning habitat. The same goes for lakes reservoirs with strong brooks/streams entering them. However, for them to have a self-sustaining population they'd have to have been stocked at sometime.
Many canals do have water transfer between river and canal and vice versa.
Likewise many have river locks, as does the Chesterfield Canal east of the M1 at the Trent Confluence, that when opened to allow boats access to the river fish of all sizes also enter the canal. Once in the canal the fish have free movement along it, negotiating any further locks the same way. Many canals have what the CRT call a draw on it (slow flow) created by the Header Reservoir where most, but not all get their top up water from. Fish are inclined to face this flow and will swim against it. This allows them to be distributed throughout many sections of it.
Others have direct inflow input from the nearby river and clearly this route allow fish of most sizes to access the canal.
As to why these types don't have a close season on them? You'll have ask the EA about that!
As to post 97 I ignored it then and will do in this post, with the comment only, you're entitled to your view.:wh
Last edited:
no-one in particular
Well-known member
I think there are cases of sea fish that have got land locked and went on to survive and breed; forming a new species in their own right. . I cannot remember the name of them off hand but, it shows how adaptable living things are. Should it be a surprise if Chub are adapting and breeding in still water in some situations.
Eventually there could be a recognized still water sub species of Chub or even a new species altogether. Nothing in nature is fixed for ever.
I don't think your allowing for this possibility Bad One. Chub may have been in still waters long enough for their breeding requirements to have adapted/evolved enough to suit this new environment.
Scientists and their books may have not caught up with it yet.
Eventually there could be a recognized still water sub species of Chub or even a new species altogether. Nothing in nature is fixed for ever.
I don't think your allowing for this possibility Bad One. Chub may have been in still waters long enough for their breeding requirements to have adapted/evolved enough to suit this new environment.
Scientists and their books may have not caught up with it yet.
B
binka
Guest
There may already be a distant relative of the chub that has evolved to successfully reproduce in sillwater, I would stick my neck out and guess on a relationship to the chub but the truth is I honestly don't know whether it is a genuinely separate species or even if they do reproduce in stillwater but I know a few lakes that are isolated from other water courses and hold them without any stocking to my knowledge.
So I'm staying quiet on the subject as IDE only be speculating
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 2,225
- Reaction score
- 3
When I had a general mixed pond the orfe would spawn every year, to the point where they became a bit of a nuisance. it was only when the koi got bigger and started eating the spawn and the fry that things started to level out.
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Dear All,
I have been made aware via a communication from Mr George Hollinbery MP's personal assistant that the Angling Trust and Martin Salter are in receipt of the update they were pushing the EA for in regard to the rivers close season. I am aware of the contents of the update but due to a UK Parliamentary Disclaimer I am not at liberty reveal the contents of it.
I would expect that once Martin Salter publicisess the update on the AT website and informs AT members he will publicise the update on FM where he along with Mark Lloyd facilitated the debate regarding the rivers close season in the first place.
Kind regards
Ray
I have been made aware via a communication from Mr George Hollinbery MP's personal assistant that the Angling Trust and Martin Salter are in receipt of the update they were pushing the EA for in regard to the rivers close season. I am aware of the contents of the update but due to a UK Parliamentary Disclaimer I am not at liberty reveal the contents of it.
I would expect that once Martin Salter publicisess the update on the AT website and informs AT members he will publicise the update on FM where he along with Mark Lloyd facilitated the debate regarding the rivers close season in the first place.
Kind regards
Ray
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
Cheers for the update Ray, I await with baited breath.
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
The awaited statement from the EA on the rivers close season that the AT were waiting for is available on the AT website under fresh water campaigns.
You may be wondering like me why the AT have not published it on FM. The place Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd facilitated the debate on the rivers close season in the first place?
Martin Salter is apparently on holiday, however Mark Lloyd or another member to the Angling Trust could quite have easily done this in his absence.
Regards
Ray
You may be wondering like me why the AT have not published it on FM. The place Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd facilitated the debate on the rivers close season in the first place?
Martin Salter is apparently on holiday, however Mark Lloyd or another member to the Angling Trust could quite have easily done this in his absence.
Regards
Ray
The bad one
Well-known member
Not sure why Ray didn't do this?
Source Angling Trust Website
"The coarse fish close season on rivers remains a complex and emotive issue. We need to make sure any decision to change from the current close season is based on the best available evidence, as it could have a widespread and lasting impact on river fish stocks and the performance of our river fisheries. We need to get it right.
When we last reviewed the close season in 2003, we asked APEM, an aquatic and fisheries consultancy, to propose areas of research that could give us a better understanding of the potential risks to fisheries of removing the close season from rivers. APEM identified a range of studies, all of which had considerable resource implications and given that anglers’ opinions on the close season were (and to a large extent remain) divided and that the results from these studies could well be inconclusive, we felt at the time this was not a priority.
In recent months and with renewed angler interest in the close season, we have been looking afresh at the APEM proposals (and other proposals of our own) to see which are most likely to provide useful evidence to help inform the debate. These include examining the evidence of increased physiological stress in fish caught and handled during the close season; comparing the spawning success of fish in waters with and without a close season; and looking for any changes in fish survival rates in rivers where fish are caught and handled during the close season.
None of this work is certain - many of the practicalities still need to be considered and they all cost rod licence money. The Environment Agency will continue to work with the Angling Trust, the England Fisheries Group and other to look at which, if any, are likely to offer greater insight into this issue and whether they offer good value for money. Initial discussions on options, costs and how the issue might be addressed are expected to take place over the next 2 months."
Source Angling Trust Website
"The coarse fish close season on rivers remains a complex and emotive issue. We need to make sure any decision to change from the current close season is based on the best available evidence, as it could have a widespread and lasting impact on river fish stocks and the performance of our river fisheries. We need to get it right.
When we last reviewed the close season in 2003, we asked APEM, an aquatic and fisheries consultancy, to propose areas of research that could give us a better understanding of the potential risks to fisheries of removing the close season from rivers. APEM identified a range of studies, all of which had considerable resource implications and given that anglers’ opinions on the close season were (and to a large extent remain) divided and that the results from these studies could well be inconclusive, we felt at the time this was not a priority.
In recent months and with renewed angler interest in the close season, we have been looking afresh at the APEM proposals (and other proposals of our own) to see which are most likely to provide useful evidence to help inform the debate. These include examining the evidence of increased physiological stress in fish caught and handled during the close season; comparing the spawning success of fish in waters with and without a close season; and looking for any changes in fish survival rates in rivers where fish are caught and handled during the close season.
None of this work is certain - many of the practicalities still need to be considered and they all cost rod licence money. The Environment Agency will continue to work with the Angling Trust, the England Fisheries Group and other to look at which, if any, are likely to offer greater insight into this issue and whether they offer good value for money. Initial discussions on options, costs and how the issue might be addressed are expected to take place over the next 2 months."
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
So in other words a lot of trumpeting and hooraying and then little progress or definition bar we're going to talk a bit more for a bit more of a while.
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Why didn't Ray do this? Simple Phil it was not my place or prerogative to copy, then paste and then post a statement from the EA to the Angling Trust on FM.
It was without doubt the prerogative of the Angling Trust to do so on FM a website where they facilitated the debate in regard to the rivers close season.
One could say that the AT showed little respect to the members of FM by not doing so seeing as this was where they chose to start the ball rolling. Some may take a different view, and of course they are free to do so.
As you have read it now you may agree with me that the statement has more holes that a sieve, and many areas left unmentioned. Then again perhaps you won't?
I would point out I am not a member of the AT as an individual, I am however a member via angling clubs that I belong to that are club members. I have no axe to grind with either the AT or members of its board.
I am however at odds with the AT due to the fact that it is pursuing an agenda both on the rivers close season and rod license fees. Two areas best left to the EA in my humble opinion. The EA have set rod license fees and should be left to do so in the future.
This call for a change to the rivers close season remains a mystery, just who is it that is calling for change? The AT have been very reluctant to say just who it is, other than name a few anglers.
Regards
Ray
Last edited:
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
As you know Ray, politics at any and every level is a murky business. Straight answers to straight questions are a very very rare thing.
I too would love to know what or who triggered this so called look at the retention of the Close season, who are involved in discussions, and particularly their commercial interests. Until there is clarity on this then suspicions will fall squarely on the tackle trade and those with a commercial interest in seeing it's abolition.
I too would love to know what or who triggered this so called look at the retention of the Close season, who are involved in discussions, and particularly their commercial interests. Until there is clarity on this then suspicions will fall squarely on the tackle trade and those with a commercial interest in seeing it's abolition.