In the interests of a balanced viewpoint I am replying to Mr. Salter's points as noted below:
1) There is no point expecting a risk averse organisation like the EA to do anything without testing both opinion and the science.
If I remember correctly did the EA not conduct an opinion piece back in 2000 and again in 2003? I also think it somewhat disingenuous to refer to the EA as being averse to risk.
Given their position they are naturally in the firing line, as recent events have more than shown, so maybe that gives pseudo credence to your point, but nothing more. The EA are probably best equipped to study the pros and cons of the Close Season on our Rivers compared to individual clubs, associations and/or riparian Owners who after all have a vested interest in seeing its’ demise.
2) This is a live issue amongst a minority of anglers, particularly focused around the Midlands, but there are strong views on the other side of the argument too.
Why do you consider this firstly a Midlands issue and secondly why do you consider it an issue of relevance to only a “minority” of anglers in that area? Believe me it is a very important issue in my local Hampshire Avon Valley area and one that the vast majority of anglers hold a position on. Let us not forget either that the entire Hampshire Avon Valley in a SSSI, and I am still waiting for someone to give me a reasoned response as to what we could do about the loss of the Close Season in these areas as well as the problem of shared parts of the rivers with fly anglers?
3) There are risks attached to compromising the conservation credentials of angling. The impacts of any disturbance to spawning areas are clearly more acute in smaller streams than in larger ones. And of course we use the presence of the river close season to argue against unfettered canoe access to smaller, non navigation, rivers and streams.
Indeed there are, and to my mind we do not want to compromise our position where our conservation principles are concerned. The disturbance of spawning areas is just as important overall on larger rives as it is on smaller ones or streams, it is just not as instantly obvious on the large rivers.
As to the argument concerning the Paddlers, then yes, we do use the Close Season as an important augment, and again, not only on the smaller streams and rivers either.
4) Issues that divide angling opinion are more tricky for us, however, that is no reason not to engage with them but it is a restraint.
If speaking from an Angling Trust standpoint then I would remind you of Mike Heylin’s view some 5 or so years ago. That was that the Angling Trust had far more non-divisive issues to be getting on with; abstraction, predation and poaching for starters than to embark on a membership-splitting issue like the Close Season . . . .
5) There are differing close seasons on different game rivers, depending on local fish spawning patterns, so why not on coarse rivers?
I think that different Close Seasons would lead to infringement and confusion; we already have some rather daft ideas about allowing fishing with a hook of a given size of gape etc., and have seen the likes of Des Taylor attempting a law-busting exercise some years ago, and that was in the midlands if I am not mistaken? And again we see the same angler supporting the loss of the Close Season.
Then there was the thin end of the wedge on stillwaters where greedy fishery owner stocked a few trout and then advertised "any method Trout fishing" through the old Close Season. We don't want to see that again, thank you very much.
6) Although close seasons are about protecting fish rather than tackle shops there is an issue about impacts on businesses.
No there isn’t!
Not in the slightest!
The vast majority of tackle shops that are more than a few years of “age” went into their businesses with a proper business plan that took account of the Close Season and the possibility of reduced income during mid-March to mid-June.
If they didn’t then they were short sighted and deserve to go out of business. This line of argument smacks of the “greed” that saw the loss of the Close Season on still-waters and canals. It was wrong then and would be equally wrong now.
7) The existing close season does not have a huge basis in science and is overdue for a review.
It was reviewed in 2000 and again in 2003. Those calling for more or different reviews only do so because the previous ones did not fit with their position.
I would support a science-based review over a prolonged period myself, just not knee jerk reactions based on poor knowledge.
8) Part of this review could include an experiment in a specific catchment. Perhaps the Severn?
See 7 above,
9) Some fish do feed when spawning. At the start of the 2013 season captured Wye barbel were secreting milt in mid June. On the other hand species like dace, whilst readily caught when shoaled up prior to spawning, seem to disappear once spawning commences.
Yes, “some” do however, as a blanket protection measure the current dates are still more than worthwhile for the majority of species, in most areas in most average annual weather conditions.
10) Dace and pike are the early spawners, often in March, followed by a lull in April. Roach and perch tend to spawn next and then chub and barbel in the May / June period. So I guess there’s an argument for closing the river pike season off on March 1st and shifting the river break to May and June. This way we would be delivering a longer river season at the optimum time for both anglers and fish and without compromising our conservation credentials.
No, I don’t agree at all, although the idea of stopping the trophy hunting and greedy pike anglers from catching artificially heavy but gravid fish is very attractive. Most thinking anglers would not target gravid fish in any event, which is why many will not fish for Trench until later in the season.
This is seemingly a poor compromise based on nothing but the hope of reinforcing your, otherwise weak, argument.
