Anglers have voted to scrap the close Season . . . .

Peter Jacobs · Jul 20, 2018

This is the claim made by the angling Times this week . . . on the face of it that seems pretty clear cut, right?

Anglers have voted to scrap the close season AS it stands — Angling Times

As always, the "devil" is in the detail . . . . . or my alternative sub-title being, "what a crock of *****"

If you read the content you'll see that things are not quite as black and white as the Angling Ttimes would like
you to think, but then they have a vested interest, don't they . . . . .

The "Times" headline "Anglers have voted to scrap the close season etc" is a huge leap away from the facts in
the article . . .

So, let's look at these "amazing" numbers:

The EA only asked 20,000 licence holders to complete and return the survey

Given that there are supposed to be around 1 million licenced anglers that is already a tiny a sample for starters, or approx a whole 2% sample already chosen by the EA so as to be fully representative(?)

Then, only 5,147 of those asked actually returned the survey, so now that is just below 50% of those selected to respond, and a minute percentage of all licence holders. (approx 2% )

Out of those who responded, only 1,695 (or 32% of those polled who actually replied, or just 8% of those originally given the opportunity to make their views known . . . .

Thankfully, this poll result is not being given much credence in DEFRA and their spokesman has stated:

“We plan to hold a consultation later in the year which will examine all the arguments and evidence, to help
inform any future change in the close season byelaw.”

Let's hope and pray that any future consultations will be held openly and honestly . . . .

thecrow · Jul 20, 2018

Imo all licence holders should be given a vote but even then some will not respond and then there are the fluff chuckers that have a licence that would also have a vote so can any vote be truly representative? not imo.

Peter Jacobs · Jul 20, 2018

The last time around the EA told us (or was that a promise?) that no changes would be made until and unless lonf term, detailed, and peer reviewed, studies had been undertaken.

Relatively recent events seem to prove that full scale votes do not necessarily result in the correct course of action, as a full poll would only be based on personal preferrences and certainly not on facts . . . .

Accordingly, I would not want to see a full scale poll on this emotive topic.

nottskev · Jul 20, 2018

Is it like the referendum? Some think we should keep voting til the desired result comes up.

I'm sure, or rather, I think I'm sure, that this survey was intended to test the water to see if a wider consultation was justified, rather than a decisive vote.

It would be odd if people are considered well enough informed to elect Prime Ministers and to opt to dissolve treaties, but anglers considered unqualified to vote on the Close Season.

mikench · Jul 20, 2018

The online application could be changed to ask the question of the applicant and over a period of , say 18 months, a view can be taken of all licence holders! It could be set up so you have to answer the question !

tigger · Jul 20, 2018

Peter Jacobs said:
Let's hope and pray that any future consultations will be held openly and honestly . . . .

As with anything political that will never happen!

Peter Jacobs · Jul 20, 2018

nottskev said:
It would be odd if people are considered well enough informed to elect Prime Ministers and to opt to dissolve treaties, but anglers considered unqualified to vote on the Close Season.

Firstly Kev, the general populace do not vote for a Prime Minister, that task is reserved to members of the relevant political party only . . . .

I'll refrain from commenting on the earlier part of you comment . . . . . other than to say that I disagree with your contention.

nottskev · Jul 20, 2018

Peter Jacobs said:
Firstly Kev, the general populace do not vote for a Prime Minister, that task is reserved to members of the relevant political party only . . . .

I'll refrain from commenting on the earlier part of you comment . . . . . other than to say that I disagree with your contention.

Indeed, they vote for MP's. But surely do so with an eye on who leads that MP's party. Why else the obsessional attention to party leaders' profiles, personality, political record etc at election times?

sam vimes · Jul 20, 2018

I don't want a referendum on abolishing the closed season. I'll happily go with benign dictatorship, provided the decision is arrived at logically. However, I increasingly feel that almost all of the angler's views are an utterly irrelevant smokescreen. I get to feeling that an inability to adequately police the closed season will be the prime driver in its removal. Whether anyone in a position of authority ever admits that is another matter entirely.

rich66 · Jul 20, 2018

It’s a sad reflection on anglers of how many where asked to vote and actually how many could be bothered. Wish I’d had the chance.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

sam vimes · Jul 20, 2018

nottskev said:
Indeed, they vote for MP's. But surely do so with an eye on who leads that MP's party. Why else the obsessional attention to party leaders' profiles, personality, political record etc at election times?

Mainly because many people don't seem to have a clue about what they are really voting for. There are some downright despicable people that manage to get elected as local MPs because so many people believe that they are voting for a prime minister.

rich66 · Jul 20, 2018

sam vimes said:
Mainly because many people don't seem to have a clue about what they are really voting for. There are some downright despicable people that manage to get elected as local MPs because so many people believe that they are voting for a prime minister.

So very true

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

O.C.F.Disorder · Jul 20, 2018

I will be blunt. Anyone who wants to keep the closed season is an idiot. Having anglers on the bank is the only protection afforded to our rivers. Get rid of the closed season and just ban the use of keep nets in the hotter months. Simple sh*t really.

EDIT: I would ban keep nets altogether really but I know that would only further deter people from fishing our rivers.

thecrow · Jul 20, 2018

Peter Jacobs said:
Relatively recent events seem to prove that full scale votes do not necessarily result in the correct course of action, as a full poll would only be based on personal preferrences and certainly not on facts . . . .

There were no fact gathered prior to its abolition on still waters.

Democracy works great when it goes the way a person wants it to go but when it doesn't ?

thecrow · Jul 20, 2018

O.C.F.Disorder said:
I will be blunt. Anyone who wants to keep the closed season is an idiot.

Rather than blunt I would say that statement is insulting, your opinion is just that an opinion nothing else and carries no more weight than any others!

One could say that those that want to keep it are living in laa laa land as it serves no purpose and certainly doesn't do what it was brought in to do but that would be rude so I wont.

Peter Jacobs · Jul 20, 2018

O.C.F.Disorder said:
I will be blunt. Anyone who wants to keep the closed season is an idiot.

Moderation note:

While I understand your fervour, I would however remind you of the T's & C's of this site for forum use, and in particular Section 6.1

nottskev · Jul 20, 2018

Sam's "benign dictatorship" - let the experts decide - can be translated as "elective democracy" ie vote for people who (hopefully) have the expertise to make decisions in our best interests. That's very different to the referendum model, where people's vote is decisive.

With the CS, is there expert consensus? There isn't an abolition precedent to go by, so nobody really knows what, if anything much, will happen. In the Review of Scientific Literature ( or whatever they called it), the general conclusion, if a weak one, seemed to be that since all the things that affect fish welfare and lifespan, ie being hooked, being handled, being retained, are likely to increase with an extended season, damage to fish is likely to increase, but only, it seems, marginally, and the base of evidence was only small.

I don't know whether there is, or will come to be, a "factual" sense of the effect of abolition, in advance of seeing what actually happens.

Perhaps rather than retain or abolish, there may be relaxation of the blanket CS with provision to set conditions and rules locally? Where there are experts claiming abolition would seriously damage their local projects, it's possible for anglers in other areas to say that the conditions and concerns cited bear no relation to the nature of rivers and river stocks in their own areas.

I don't favour simply retaining the status quo, and I'm not unhappy to see anglers given direct input into the decision.

john step · Jul 20, 2018

There is another thread running about why so few people fish rivers. May I suggest that as most anglers fish still waters the question of a close on rivers is immaterial to them and that could be why those still water anglers didn't bother with a reply to the survey.

fishcatcher60 · Jul 20, 2018

If you do not ask the anglers who are you going to ask.
If people choose not to take part that is up to them or maybe they don't fish rivers.
Some stretches of rivers are closed now and probably rightly so.
The reasons for not abolishing the close season on rivers are the same as when the close season on still waters was abolished and as we all know there has been no detriment to abolishing it on still waters.
The people afraid of a vote are the ones who want to keep things as they are.

O.C.F.Disorder · Jul 20, 2018

I am sorry for my poor choice of wording. Having had encounters with poachers I feel very strongly about this. It boils my blood when people dont think sensibly. Could someone kindly direct me to the forum rules so I can familiarize myself with them?

Anglers have voted to scrap the close Season . . . .

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

O.C.F.Disorder

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

O.C.F.Disorder

Guest