Need to understand why

Clive (Compact Angler ACA)

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
I have always wondered why there is a closed season for course angling.

It would appear to have little to do with spawning and even less about the recovery of vegitation on river banks, after all the start of the season is way after spring and and within a few days of mid summer.

I have heard many theories on the matter over nearly 50 years but none sit conclusively in mind.

I can not take a view on the future of the closed season unless I know why tradition has led us to this point.?????????????
 
T

The Monk

Guest
Its an historic thing going back to the Mandeller act, can somebody put the link up please
 

captain carrott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
4
ignorance, superstition and tradition yes.

fish welfare, you're having a laugh mate.
 
E

Evan

Guest
I'm more than a bit confused by the hundreds of different things that I have read on the net and elsewhere about the origins of the close season. Has anyone actually done some proper research to establish the real reasons it was introduced, such as looking at the parliamentary debates and papers at the time ?

Mind you, the reasons why it was brought in are quite irrelevant to the real question, whether or not it should be continued as is, varied or abolished.

Can any icthyologist express a properly qualified view as to what %ge of coarse fish spawning is covered by the present close season in a normal year ?

(Plainly this year isn't normal so could we please be spared innumerable anecdotal accounts of what has happened this year ?)

I ask that question in general overall terms rather than on a species by species basis as there is plainly no reality in a partial close season related to species, it's either all or nothing.
 

captain carrott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
4
(Plainly this year isn't normal so could we please be spared innumerable anecdotal accounts of what has happened this year ?)


so why would a year where fish are spawning out of the closed season and not dieing in droves. far from it it is having no effect. have no baring on whether the closed season gives them any benefit or not.

secondly why are all the people who call for a closed season (which must be obeyed because it protects the fish in their most vulnerable time when they are spawning and if we didn't have it then they would all die) currently discussing how they are catching fish which are shedding milt, rather than saying do not under any circumstances go fishing at the moment because the fish are still spawning and they will die because of it.
 

Graham Whatmore

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
9,147
Reaction score
9
Location
Lydney, in the Forest of Dean
If you are looking for a common sense reason why the closed season was originally decided the last place you should be looking is Hansards, since when did MP's ever talk any sense?
 

Clive (Compact Angler ACA)

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
The following may be of interest to the thread.

I have gleaned this list from a little internet research. These are alleged to be the traditional spawning periods for the following fish.

Tench June to July

Roach April to june

Perch April and May

Pike March and April

Barbel early May

Chub May to mid June (refer to Fred?s recent thread on Chub spawning)

Bream May

Grayling early March

Gudgeon April to June

Rudd May

Zander March and April

Catfish June and July

Carp Crucian May to August

Carp Common spawning is rare as Water temperature must exceed 20 deg C

These periods may be varying a little with current climate change, however, the list does lend some credence to the closed season being imposed because of spawning periods.
 

captain carrott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
4
"These periods may be varying a little with current climate change, however, the list does lend some credence to the closed season being imposed because of spawning periods."

this is not in dispute.

however you have missed the most important fact of it's creation.

At the time of it's creation all fish caught were killed, then either eaten in the vast majority of cases or disposed of.
i do not dispute that total removal of a spawn laden fish from the breeding stock by killing it and eating it is hazardous to future stock levels.

i do however dispute returning said fish to the water completely unharmed will cause it to die and stock levels to crash.

if this was the case then all of these spawning fish that the closed season supporters are catching nowwould be in for a quick death with a degadation in stock levels.

"Tench June to July"

you may notice from this that during the 100 or so years of the imposition of the closed season tench have not really had the benefit of it and they have not so far gone extinct, despite that fact that they have always been a major quarry come june 16th.


you may also notice that at the time of imposition the general class distinctions were as follows, lower classes were coarse fishermen, upper classes were fly anglers.

you may notice the coincidental end of the coarse season with the commencement of the trout season, thus ensuring that the lower classes were safely off the rivers in time for the start of the fly anglers season.
 

Clive (Compact Angler ACA)

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
Jason Jason Jason

I have not missed any f*****g thing..!!

I am the one who is asking the f*****g question..!!

I will post whatever information I want on the f*****g thread in an attempt to illicit good reasoning, proper research and fair comment.

We all need to listen and learn which is exactly what I am trying to do..!!
 
T

The Monk

Guest
heres a piece I wrote sometime ago on its history

The Coarse fishing season first saw the light of day under the Mundella Act of 1878. Mr Mundella was a Member of Parliament for Sheffield, although not an angler himself, he was lobbied by the local angling fraternity of the city (Sheffield at the time was a centre of intense coarse fishing activity), to help place some form of legislation to help protect coarse fish. The drafting of the bill was left to Messrs Spencer Walpole and Frank Buckland. Spencer Walpole was an inspector of Salmon Fisheries and Frank Buckland a prominent member of the Piscatorial Society. Interestingly, both men were salmon anglers.

The Piscatorial society pledged its support for Mr Mundella in his endeavours to obtain an Act of Parliament for the protection of Freshwater Fish and the Society contacted the seventy four angling societies of London and the Provinces to see if they were favourable of a general close period for freshwater fish. The Piscatorial Society called a meeting in to be held in April 1878 to discuss the bill, but this meeting was too late for the first reading which took place in March, a month earlier, by which time no one had been consulted.

The Bill was made known at the April meeting under the auspices of the Piscatorial Society, the result of which threw the angling world into great tumult. The Bill gave considerable attention to Salmon and made amendments to the Salmon Fisheries Act, but yet only gave limited attention to coarse fish, the coarse angling fraternity being the instigators of the Act. The Bill in its broad aspects was approved along with the suggestion of a close season for coarse fish from 15th March to the 15th June, (the original draft had stated from the 1st March to the 31st of May.

In April the Bill had its second reading and was referred to the Select Committee. Mr Buckland wrote a letter to Land and Water.

?I am much pleased to learn that Mr Mundella's Bill passed the second reading on Tuesday, 11th, and that there is to be a Select Committee to consider the question. This is a great compliment on the part of Mr Cross and the House of Commons to freshwater anglers. Mr Lander, Secretary of the Piscatorial Society, who has already done so much for this good cause will, I trust, assist in getting up the evidence for the committee. We shall see whether the objectors to the Bill, who did not appear at the late conference at the Society of Arts, will have pluck enough to appear before the Select Committee and state their views.?

The more furious objectors didn't attend this meeting, but others worked through the amendments with the Piscatorial Society. Many, however, felt that the Piscatorial Society was not representative of the coarse angling world, especially the various London Angling Societies. A storm was raised with the West Central Association which represented a number of coarse anglers in the London area. Mr Leo Bonvoisin, the clubs Vice-Chairman, wrote to the Fishing Gazette.
 
T

The Monk

Guest
?Mr Mundella's Bill, The various London Angling Societies have quite recently received on the above from the Piscatorial Society (sic), but as it was reproduced last week among your excellent correspondent, Gaff Hook's notes, I will not trouble your readers with it. I wish, however, to state I think it is greatly to be regretted. Nothing will teach these gentlemen that they are adopting a mode of procedure towards their brother anglers which is uncourteous as it is impolite. There are, as your readers may be aware, two bodies in London to whose monthly meetings any society is entitled to send delegates. When I mentioned that the W.C. Association and the E.C. Committee represent between them some four thousand practical anglers, you will at once see their importance as mediums for ascertaining the views of the London disciples of Walton. Until a week ago, when they sent in their resignation on the grounds that they did not find it advantageous to belong to us, the Piscatorials were represented at the W.C. Association's meeting, and theirs being an old established club would have given just weight to any opinions they might have been pleased to express, but the Association have from the first protested against their taking separate action in this or any other matter and the majority of the clubs have refused to attend to any but circulars or notices sent through the recognised channels.

?Exclusive, or select (you can choose which you like) in the extreme, never striving to carry out the law of good fellowship or Angling Freemasonry, so eloquently and practically preached by honest old Izaak Walton, never caring to visit, or be visited by, members of other societies, but firmly shutting their doors against all not provided a formal introduction, the Piscatorials could never pretend to rank as a representative society, and the line of conduct they have adopted is therefore all the more unaccountable. Anglers are, as a body, a quiet, easy-going lot, but if the Piscatorial Club thinks the course they have adopted is not appreciated at its true worth, they are indeed mistaken. One instance is sufficient. At a meeting the other evening some twenty-five societies represented during the call of the roll, the long-continued groans and hisses which greeted the words ?Piscatorial Society? would have satisfied the most sceptical of gratitude the London Anglers bear those who have striven to humble and annoy their legitimate representatives by acting counter to their intentions, thus ignoring them altogether.

?My main object, however, in writing is to advise clubs enrolled east or west to adopt the same course as the Hammersmith, North Western, Silver Trout and many other societies have been or intend doing, namely, inform Mr Lander that when it becomes necessary to adopt any measures in the above matter, they will do so through their recognised representatives, the Association and the Committee.

Yours obediently

Leo Bonvoisin

Vice Chairman West Central Association.?

During the committee stage the Bill had many objections and attempted amendments, with considerable debate as to the close time, some towards a shorter time and others suggested a longer period. The Bill finally received its third reading and went to the House of Lords to become law. Further amendments to the Mundella Act continued until the advent of the 1923 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, which encompassed all the previous legislation. The 1923 Act also established the Fishery Boards. The next major change didn't take place until 1948 with a legislative change over to the River Boards Act.


Ron was at the meeting
 

Clive (Compact Angler ACA)

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
Interesting - from 1878 to 1923 - 45 years to make a simple piece of legislation.

I think this to be an important fact to remember when everybody is shouting for new legislation.
 

captain carrott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
4
no nead to get f*****g narky. :)

the bold was there to emphasise the point that this was the sole reason for creation of a closed season, and the fact that it was enshrined in law at the time rests solely on this single concept.

and you had f*****g missed it because it wasn't mentioned in your post. :)


oh and isn't a debate a discussion of viewpoints which should be supported with f*****g facts :)=
 
T

The Monk

Guest
yes many consider it was a ploy to keep the great unwashed away from the game fishing. it makes no ecological sense at all.
 
E

Evan

Guest
Now that Carrot has had his customary rant can we get back to some objectively and scientifically established facts ?

For which thanks Clive.

Interesting to note that in your list only Grayling and possibly some Pike and Zander start to spawn before the start of the conventional closed season, while only three species potentially go on to spawn after it, Tench, Catfish and Crucian Carp.

I don't know how far those 'average' spawning periods reflect lower temperatures / later spawning towards the north of the country but certainly 'ere darn sarf the Tench are generally spawned out by opening day and Crucian Carp ditto, see Marsh Farm's experience in a normal year.

On that basis the present close season looks like a pretty good stab at the right bracket of dates to cover the overwhelming proportion of spawning activity.

Which begs the primary question, what is the justification for a close season at all ?

The conventional answer being that it protects fish from damage by angling pressure whilst vulnerable in spawn.

Is that conventional answer right ? Is it justified by any real research or is it just an old wives tale ?

Or is it (as I suspect) somewhere in the middle; it may be right but we have no objective research to say so one way or the other ? So we carry on with the close season as "better safe than sorry" and the British fixation with tradition....
 

captain carrott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
4
"Is that conventional answer right ?" no

"Is it justified by any real research" absolutely none at all.

or is it just an old wives tale ? all evidence shows that once you stop killing the fish then yes.


"it may be right but we have no objective research to say so one way or the other "

The only research performed so far has been on still waters, which in general don't tend to benefit from water agitation induced by flow to the same degree as rivers and therefore also consequently tend to have lower dissolved oxygen contents in periods of drought and warm weather, but this does show that a closed season has no effect when fish are not deliberately killed, in these less fish friendly ecosystems.
 

Clive (Compact Angler ACA)

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
I think that we can look at it a bit more closely than that Evan.

If the closed season were only about protecting game species as has been suggested then of course it would be a farce to continue down the road of protecting it.

There seems to be reasoning in protecting fish during this sensitive spawning season but with changes in climate these sensitive periods may change. Of course that is pure speculation at the moment but keep it in the back of our minds all the same.

I think that the most important thing we can do here is to research thoroughly until we are sure that we have dispelled the miths and be left with a residue of scientific logic that can take us forward.
 
F

Fred Bonney

Guest
Clive,it took all that time to think about it yet,in the 70's, it was partially removed,without research.
To satisfy commercial interests?

There is a need to protect all fish during spawning, but dates of spawning are arbitary, as you've highlighted above.
The trouble is,unless spotted actually in the act, nobody will be able to legislate, for when the act of spawning occurs.
There is a way around this of course,but it will involve study and expense over a number of years.
That would be, to have a species close season!
Well,it's done for pike and trout!

But,let's be sensible, and suggest to all Riparian owners, that they introduce their own close season,to conserve their own specific fish stocks.
About 2 months should be enough, from the date they spot activity, to the day it ends, and a couple of weeks to allow recovery.

Pigs and flying comes to mind!
 
T

The Monk

Guest
If the closed season were only about protecting game species as has been suggested then of course it would be a farce to continue down the road of protecting it.


actually it is believed by many to have been set up to protect game anglers from the riff raff

yes many consider it was a ploy to keep the great unwashed away from the game fishing. it makes no ecological sense at all.
 

Clive (Compact Angler ACA)

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
Hmmmm - comes to my mind as well Fred.

I reserve judgement on this one as there may actually be someone out there who can think latterelly enough to come up with an off the wall system which is practical in application and satisfies the masses. Back to pigs I suppose..!!
 
Top