|
|
Those regular readers of Coarse Fisherman will know that I have written many times before on the matter of the close season, but John Bailey’s recent article has prompted me to write yet again. This time it is more of an article because I feel there is so much to say on the subject and yet even this is not enough – perhaps more pictures? Then again, what do pictures of an otter or kingfisher have to do with the close season other than to highlight the emotive aspects of the debate?
I was one of the many who attended that TFCC meeting (well organised by John Ellis, by the way) and expecting to hear these arguments put forward by John Bailey, but where were you dear prophet? John Williams was there to put the opposing view, but the main man was elsewhere (fishing in India, I heard, lucky so-and-so). In John’s place was Mike Heylin who argued the case for retaining the close season and before going any further let me tell you he finished by saying that beyond this debate we are all fishermen at heart and that we should all live in harmony afterwards; well spoken.
 Nature’s own ‘close season’, where to fish? |
John Williams, Secretary of Birmingham AA, opened the debate by explaining how the close season came about via the ‘Mundella Act’ as it became known and acknowledged that at that time there was a definite need for it since most coarse fish were killed and either eaten or fed to chickens. He rounded on the fact that there was “no evidence” to support the retention of the close season any longer and this was supported by the publication of the Government’s Response to the findings of the ‘Review of Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries’. This clearly stated “Byelaws should be introduced to abolish the close season for coarse fish on canals and rivers except where its retention is necessary to avert serious risk of damage to fish stocks”. This claim was then supported at the meeting by the author of the initial review, Professor Lynda Warren, who said that she received “no evidence” whatsoever that would support the retention of the close season, but that did not suggest that such evidence couldn’t be found by adequate research.
Those words “no evidence” are important since they relate quite specifically to the Law of this land in that where no evidence can be found to prove someone guilty then that person is free to go. If we interpret that to the close season then where no evidence can be found to retain it then it should be abolished, which is what the Government’s Response was. This happened in part, in that on those areas of canal that weren’t connected to rivers, the close season was abolished.
Mike Heylin’s response was interesting and he did quote how the fishing in Ireland had declined over the years that English anglers had visited during our close season. Unfortunately, and from my point of view, he didn’t have any specific evidence to support this and his statement could easily have been attributed to the ups and downs of breeding success rates or even global warming. Who knows? For now I’ll give him the benefit of doubt and agree that there might be a grain of truth in what he says, but then there are still ample amounts of coarse fish to be caught and many anglers do make the visit every year.
That’s all I want to say on that debate since many of you weren’t there and cannot comment on whether I am putting over a balanced view. I will tell you that before the debate started and again afterwards, a vote was taken as to how many were in favour or retention, abolition, or undecided. A majority, although nowhere near an overall majority, it was said, was in favour of retaining the close season. These were mostly committee members of clubs, many of whom were older than my 57 years and who had lived their entire lives with the close season, which may to some degree colour their view a little.
 Where are the purists on work parties? |
I say this because there are many laws in this country that us older “TOGS” (if I my borrow Terry Wogan’s fan club acronym for a moment) have grown up with and that we are unwilling to let go of. For example, if you ask older people if they wanted to bring back hanging they almost all would do just that. How many anglers, though, would like to see the old 1852 Law forbidding the use of profane language in public places reinstated after having been repealed in the sixties? Not a one, if any, I would suspect, since many anglers would be breaking the law each and every day of their lives. So we surely must agree that laws and Acts of Parliament should sometimes be abolished, or do we argue that history cannot be changed once it becomes law, as one man from the audience argued in the debate?
So what do the rank and file members think? It is said that “You have learn to listen to what isn’t being said”. Which means that the great majority have an opinion, but they don’t express it simply because they will be ignored anyway (often the case), or are frightened of the abuse they will receive, or simply cannot be bothered, and vote instead with their feet. Conversely, as Colin (McMad) McHardy found when he got involved in local politics, everyone you meet is right and everyone you meet has a complaint to make. Those are the people that get their way.
Some clubs have carried out a survey amongst the vast majority of their members and found that many support the abolition of the close season, my own club in particular. However, when I reported the figures in a letter to CF, it was contradicted by a notable angler who used the ‘don’t knows’ to support his case to retain the close season. Now I will say again, I don’t think that there is an overall majority on either side that wants it retained or abolished, but neither side can use the waverers to their own advantage either. If we used that principle we would never have an electable Government in this country.
Let me come to the arguments that John Bailey put forward in his feature. John is very correct in one of his statements when he says “…make it logical, factual and not personal.” and I concur with that. However, I do not believe that the abolition of the close season on stillwaters (and more recently, canals) has led to a downturn in the tackle trade. Neither would I rely on a quote from a writer in Waterlog magazine since to me it’s like asking the man who wrote The Holy Bible if he believes in God. That’s not personal, just an observation since Waterlog is written by ‘purists’ for ‘purists’.
I do think that one of the mains reasons for the downturn in the tackle trade was largely due to the recession of the early 90s and the fact that we no longer have a presence of fishing tackle on the high street since Woolies gave it up. I have no evidence, but this to me is logical since many other sports have picked up a lot of business from setting up sports shops on the high streets – except fishing. Our own local tackle shop is beautifully stocked with thousands of items, but it is 3 miles from the town centre and directions are very hard to give unless you know the area.
Many of those that John refers to as buying new tackle for the 16th in fact only ever bought a spool of line, two packets of ready-tied hooks, a pint of maggots and gave up fishing when any one of them ran out or on August Bank Holiday, whichever came first. I have researched it and keep my ear to the ground and I believe that tackle sales are spread almost evenly throughout the year, with no peaks and troughs, which every business wants to achieve anyway. And before anyone else chips in, our desire to abolish the close season is not greed (as another commentator preached at the debate, he even spelt ‘greed’, but that wasn’t too difficult with only four letters, one of which is repeated) for what do we have to gain financially?
John also says that we are the “Guardians of the stream”, but that cannot be the case since for three months of the year, no-one gives a stuff about the stream. You can’t fish it so no-one visits it (too busy decorating) and to be truthful, four thousand gallons of sheep dip could go through your ‘stream’ in May and the first anglers might hear of it is on the 16th June when you don’t get a bite. Hopefully someone, somewhere, would notice it and report the incident, but hardly the anglers since they’re tied up doing the wallpapering instead of fishing and keeping up their responsibilities on the stream. And I’ll tell you now, I have yet to meet any of these ‘purists’ who can be bothered to attend a work party during the close season, but they still expect their swims nicely cut for June 16th and they really do believe that nature does it all for them!
One point John did make that almost comes close to supporting the argument for retention of the close season and that is removal of fish from the water. He is right in that a fish only weighs what we say it weighs once it’s out of the water. Normally it is weightless and has water pressure helping to hold it together, but here we have to be very careful because this can be a double-edged sword and used as an argument for banning fishing altogether, in that: if it causes severe harm to a fish when it’s out of water then we should ban angling completely to prevent any more damage. I don’t believe it does cause much of a problem overall and I don’t like to use the word ‘stress’ when linking it to animal behaviour. We are dealing with a fish here and too close to the NSPCC advert.
 Night time is better for weighing and photographing fish – scary face though! |
On warm sunny days dehydration can be a problem with all fish and they should, wherever possible, be unhooked in the water and very quickly returned with the least fuss. Hence I too disapproved of any society’s rule on taking down dimensions of all barbel caught since this will, as John says, cause a lot of unnecessary threat to the wellbeing of the fish. At night, however, the conditions are different and I don’t mind taking a little extra trouble weighing the fish and taking commemorative pictures, in honour of the fish more than me.
Where I will always agree with John, even John Williams of the BAA agrees also, is that where there is a proven risk to fish that are gathered ready to breed at whatever time of the season, we should refrain from fishing for them. It’s difficult, I know, when you see a shoal and there you are in the season with rod in hand, not to try catching a few of them, but that is precisely when you should muster all the resistance you can to cast a bait. To this end I do believe we can draw up sets of rules for each individual club or water to shut down certain stretches at very precise times during the season.
It’s often thrown at me that you can’t possibly do this because one club may hold the rights on one bank of a river and a club, with a completely opposing view on the close season, hold the rights from the opposite bank. What utter bunk and nonsense! If a club’s committee cannot approach another club in a diplomatic way and negotiate for a reasonable settlement then it’s time both clubs ceased operating and their members give up fishing. Some concessions will have to be made, obviously, and the club supporting a complete close season may have to accept that the river will be closed during the months of May and June only or perhaps just 6 weeks prior and up to the 16th June.
Another argument is that a club cannot keep altering the closure date of a fishery, but again this is a load of old ‘pony’. Many clubs now have a rule that certain of their waters are closed on match fishing days and they can be held at any time throughout the year. Yet all of their members readily accept that rule and usually stay away from that fishery on those dates. But if you are of the opinion that anglers are so thick and stupid they cannot adapt to this then don’t forget to include yourself in there. There is nothing wrong, in my mind, in splitting up the season either. For example, I have a self-imposed rule not to fish for pike from mid-February through till April since this is typically when they breed, but in May out come the spoons again. Also, I don’t fish for barbel until July, but I’d love a crack at them in early April.
I have said it before – many of the points that John raises can be achieved by proper tuition and education through magazines and other books, you just have to keep going on and on. I feel just as concerned that one day during a close season we are going to hear about a massive fish-kill on one of our major rivers that will have been spotted by a passer-by with no connection to fishing who will publicly ask on TV, “Where were the anglers who should be watching for this?” That will be the one damning comment that will cause us more damage than any of our unfounded fears about the public’s disapproval of us fishing all year round. Quite honestly, I don’t think the majority of the public could give a stuff about the fish or what we do, they think we’re half-mad most of the time anyway.
Whatever your thoughts are on this subject I would ask you to remember what Mike Heylin closed with during the debate when he said – we are all fishermen at heart and that we should live in harmony afterwards. If we can’t or won’t then that’s how civil wars start. And remember also the words of D.H. Lawrence on self-pity – “I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.” Nature can be very hard at times and animals have learned to deal with these problems in their own way, close season or not!
