- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?
Its a bit of a muddle, with regional climate/environmental variations and different species in different parts of the country. I guess the byelaws try to cover this, but it comes across as being confusing. The scientists/biologists that put the legislation together will be up against it (don't forget the recent cuts backs in EA staff etc? assuming they provide the data) as it is a complex subject to monitor, assess and recommend on.
I suppose there will always be some overlapping from different species and different seasons but I figure they are mostly covered. Pike seem to loose out a bit along with the Barbel. I guess changes could be made there, but it would mean making changes to classification?
I think to provide new legislation would be a costly and timely exercise, and with there being so many pressing issues, lack of funds, lack of staff etc that it would only be put on the back burner for a while
I think 'the powers that be' ought to look at historically why the close season was introduced. This, for those who are not sure, was introduced at a time when nearly all freshwater fish captures ended up on a plate! Thus it was introduced to prevent fish being taken / killed for food at a time when they should be reproducing.
As, except for the minority that we all know about, anglers return their capture unharmed it follows that the requirement for the close season does no longer exist.
And for anyone who thinks that fishing during the close season is harmful to fish or fish stocks all I would say is take a look at how well the canals and lakes are fishing now as opposed to years ago.
One final point - as most commercial fisheries try to protect their fish stocks would they allow fishing to continue during the 'close season' if the fish stocks were seen to be affected?? I think we all know the answer to that.
Perhaps a ban on keepnets from March to July would be a more intelligent idea?
Enjoy your fishing, especially if like me you will be out on your favourite canal or lake from March to June!
The "powers that be" did look at it, and as recently as 2000 and 2003 and decided that there were no good reasons, scientific or otherwise to alter the close Season on rivers. That is until and unless long term scientific studies could prove no long term ill effects.
You can read some of the history and the rationalle here:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Close_season_rationale.pdf
There is a huge difference between most (note use of word) stillwaters and "most" rivers inasmuch as the vast majority of stillwaters are stocked artificially whereas the rivers are not.
Hence it is not possible to study the true potential detrimental effects of losing the close Season on stillwaters by any amount of stocktaking on resident fish stocks.
I believe without scientific evidence to the contrary it should stay as it is. It does not matter what anglers say one way or the other. Only the scientific and environmental experts can come up with the true answers of what is best for the rivers to thrive and that is what is the best for angling in the long term.
How can accurate scientific evidence be collated without implementing a trial abolition of the Close Season?
The closest environment to a river is a canal, are they suffering as a direct result of no longer having a Close Season?
That is the biggest old red herring Just leave it to the people with the knowledge. I am sure they will know what they are doing. Let the scientists do their job and see what they say with no interference from the outside for or against. In my opinion that is the way to go no interference from outside interests commercial or leisure just let them do their job. Whatever the result it then be abided by one way or other.
who in their right mind would want to catch an artifically overweight gravid fish?
Just to add to that and on a personal note, I would rather the close season be conducted in the hottest period of the year. I reckon a lot more harm is done to fish and the environment during this than the spawning time. Festering ground bait/ fish stress, low oxygen levels etc. And as the fishing is often not very good at this time, it would not bother me at all. However, I recognize that would not wash or be popular at all, just a thought though.
Who would you rather leave a decision to. Educated people who have spent years studying a subject with maybe years of experience IE environment scientists and the like or just ordinary people with a limited knowledge. I don't have a total faith in these people and there are many examples of where they get it wrong but, I would bet money the non experts and less educated would get it wrong a lot more and with more disastrous results !
I don't mind giving nature a rest sometimes, Sure, maybe the amount harm done is small but, if all it means I have to give up a few weeks fishing and I am sure it does some good. I have plenty of things I can do, I have plenty of other interests and I enjoy my fishing all the more after break.
Given that most of our fish spawn within the current windows, give or take a few weeks for regional differences, then, pray tell; who in their right mind would want to catch an artificially overweight gravid fish?
It gives no credence to the angler, (indeed far from it IMHO) and cannot do the fish much good either, so, what is the point?
To allow tackle dealers and manufacturers to sell more? (assuming you buy into that argument, which I don't)
The fact of the matter is that river anglers won't buy more but may merely spread out their purchases over a protracted period.