Abondonment of the Close Season

Having read an article in a similar publication where three differing perspectives were offered, i.e. retention of the present close season,scapping of the close season, and movement of the closure. I thought that the debate should be moved on. Personally I am in favour of moving the dates, but with certain guidlines and codicils, these should be implimented by owners of, and clubs that have rights to waters. As was shown last year the scientific evidence points to there being no detrimental effect on fish habits or populations. However as we are endeavoring to promote ourselves as guardians of the waterside/riverbank the environmental impact that may occur must be considerd. I genuinely feel that the presence of anglers on the bank will enhance the protection of wildlife and may prevent the misuse of the riverside by certain elements of society. I fully understand how emotive this subject is, but it must be taken in context with the other environmental changes that we are witnessing at present, the merging of seasons, torrential downpours etc. I gladly await comments from all corners.

The current close season is a nightmare, it's misunderstod, abused, even various factions of the EA have different interpretations of the river close season in different parts of the country. The byelaws say that the river close season should be extended to any private waters off the river system which are connected to the system and through which fish can pass. I have recently found that this ruling is ignored by the EA, where for whatever reason, it suits them to do so. I have been told that Wissey Pool is conected to the
ouse and yet the season is not observed on the pool. Grafham Water is connected to the ouse that's how the zander got into the water and it's coarse fish population suffer no close season. I have also examples of this on the Nene and on the Thames. The EA have so far not been prepared to offer me a logical reason for this.In short, the close season is not working and should be abandoned. Ireland manages quite well without one, we can too. Sadly for the lobby in favour of a close season, fish do not all play the game and spawn at the same time, thus making a further mockery of the close season. If individual landowners decide to impose a close season then their right to do so should be recognised and respected. Other than than that, the close season should go. Pike spawn before the current close season starts. If the argument is that they deserve a three month rest after spawning then the same argument works for barbel, carp, gudgeon et al. I know, lets have a six month close season so that fish can not only spawn but have a long rest too, except for stillwaters of course but not those which are connected to the river system...well except certain examples on the thames,nene,ouse, or anywhere else where the local EA office wish for an exception to be made..............

Wissey Pools is where the River Wissey flows through a wider bit that was dug out for embankments/flood defences. It does have a close season as its a river. You might be thinking about Roswell Pits in Ely. They are connected via a couple of lagoons and a couple of drains. I think the rule is something about having only one entrance into the 'stillwater' from the river. Mark Barrett knows more about it than me, I'll see what I can find out.

Mark I think that you will find that this subject has been done to death on this and other sites....A quick use of the search facillity will reveal all.

On the subject of local close season differentials the sad reality is that there is a percentage of anglers that are so thick that they can't even work out that the rivers are presently closed from the 15th march to the 15th June for coarse fishing and this has been the case for over a hundred years........Heaven help us if these poor little numpties had to try to learn about different dates in different areas!!!!

No better not to overtax the last remaining synapses of these poor dumb creatures with added learning or they may try and sue us for the stress and anxiety that this activity might cause them

Apologies Andy, you're right, I was somewhat p&*^ed off when I wrote it and wasn't thinking. I would appreciate if you could check it out with Mark, I'm trying to make sense of a local issue with the EA at Reading and would find any information from anyone about examples of where the river close season does not apply to stillwaters which have a connection to the river from which fish may enter. From what I've seen so far the 'one entrance' rule seems to be also applied on a yes/no/maybe basis.

If Folk want information that is correct, the answer is simple! get it from the horse's mouth just ring your local and regional EA Fisheries office and ask for a copy of the regional and national byelaws- the number is on the licence if anyone is bothered to read at the time of purchase !!!
also check out the EA Website for the national Byelaws
If guy's can't do that and read carefully whats required before going fishing then they shouldn't have a rod in their hands.
It could be classed as a dangerous weapon in the eventuality that it helps to unburden one's pocket of hard earned cash in a court room

Keith, I did that with regard to one paticular 'stillwater' and after consultation with the EA at Reading HQ. was told it was not covered by the river close season. The local EA officer had the opposite view. I've been back to Reading and am currently awaiting the words of Solomon. However whilst the byelaws may be regarded as tablets of stone, when it comes to the issue of stillwaters connected to rivers, the bye laws are not always adhered to by the EA and nobody so far can tell me why. I get the distinct impression that individual members of the EA are as confused
as I am. Forget the 'horses mouth' nonsense, that doesn't always provide clarity.

I'd like to make a suggestion. We'll never agree on this question but we all agree there IS a question. We could all write to our MP, suggesting that the government might like to clarify the issue for us, and pass new legislation.
We all know they won't do it. But we can make the legitimate claim - should it prove useful later - that we TRIED of our own accord. This would be another small proof of our all-round good intentions. We can also legitimately point out that we had a healthy and very good debate about then subject.

I think things will change and the close season will disapear on all waters except for where riparian owners will be allowed discretion as to whether there will be a close season on their property. Also sites of special interest might retain a close season to allow the environment to recover. But it's the old, old story, nobody wants to make a quick decision about this, so we creep along, stillwaters first (but not all stillwaters) canals next (but not all canals) rivers next (most probably). On another froum there has been a lively discussion about whether the EA resources are sufficient to do a reasonable job. If the close season was to dissapear or at least all of the 'ifs'and 'buts' removed, just think how much of the EA resources could be freed up to deal with pollution, illegal netting, resstocking etc. Sorry if any of you have heard it all in a previous thread, clearly some of us haven't.

I agree with Chrisx Ess, we need to show a united front in at least attempting to have a useful debate and to prove to govt. that we do actually care what happens to our sport.As this govt. has done before, and other parties before them, they listen most carefully to the most vociforous minority.As I stated before it is a very emotive subject but I do seriously think that a change will come, driven not by the govt. or the EA but by larger clubs such as the BAA who see revinue falling along with membership(although in some instances this has been arested).Unfortunetly comerce is the main driver of society today and has an affect on all that we do.