Opinion Piece – The Close Season

Yes, I would like to see the close season as a piece of legislation done away with because it’s relevance in today’s angling scene together with our current knowledge renders it obsolete. There are much better ways of dealing with the protection of breeding areas at the times when vulnerable fish are about to spawn and as modern thinking adults we should be pursuing those instead.

History and reason

First, just a look at one of the main reasons for introducing the close season. Back in 1878 fishing was largely conducted in matches, most likely between pub teams. There were no specimen anglers, no Barbel Society, no barbless hooks (I believe), no carp anglers with accompanying bivvies, and one other very important item of equipment that was also missing – there were no keepnets!

Keepnets didn’t come into use until the early part of the 20th century and therefore in all of these matches, all the fish caught were killed in order for them to be weighed in at the end of the match. The LAA even brought in size limits for fish that could be weighed in the hope that this would save some of the juveniles and allow them to achieve better weights.

Well, back to 1878 when Queen Victoria was still in mourning over Prince Albert, the belief amongst the London and Sheffield anglers was that by introducing a close season a lot of fish life could be saved, particularly the gravid (pregnant) females. Kill a female about to spawn and you also kill off several thousand eggs and thus reduce the potential fish stock for the future. You don’t have to be Einstein to work that out.

So an MP was found in the name of Mr. A.J. Mundella, the member for Sheffield, to propose to Parliament the fixing of a fence between two dates. Even the two dates couldn’t be entirely agreed upon since one group wanted April, May, and June whilst the other group wanted March, April and May. It was therefore agreed to split the months of March and June and thus we have today the 15th March to the 15th of June inclusive.

I have asked EA fisheries officers about these dates as to their relevance and I have been told that they cover the majority of species for most of the time, but there will be anomalies depending on regions and temperatures from one year to another. Now, lets us address the three old wives tales as to why we should retain the close season.

The Three Myths

“It gives nature a rest and the banks a chance to recover.”

Now we’re supposed to be a group of botanists as well as anglers. Unfortunately, most anglers haven’t got a clue about botany as witness the above statement. Come the spring months (post 21st March) all plants get an enormous kick out of the longer daylight hours and warmer spring temperatures. There is nothing, absolutely nothing you can do to stop nature recovering anyway and grass will literally grow under your feet.

Each day I walk across three busy football pitches run by the council and by the end of February (this year in particular) they are a quagmire, especially around the goal areas and the centre. By the beginning of May just before the football season finishes, they have not only fully recovered, but the council are already cutting the grass despite their heavy use right up until the end.

Even towpaths along the Thames are becoming overgrown by the end of May and these are extremely popular with walkers of all descriptions. You cannot and will not stop that recovery and it matters little whether anglers are there or not.

“The fish deserve a rest whilst they get on with spawning”

A fish expects nothing. It carries out its life from day to day, a matter of survival and anglers are almost an irrelevance. There are far greater threats every minute of every day to a fish than the risk of the modern angler hooking it and the releasing it, especially with modern barbless hooks and kind landing net meshes. I know not everyone fishes this way now, but many do and so many more do NOT use keepnets either.

I’m afraid that far too many anglers these days, in their determination to prove how good they are to the fish can bestow anthropomorphic feelings and emotions on their quarry. This can be sometimes seen in the way they argue about what a fish feels by way of pain or their feeding behaviour. It’s completely wrong and especially when it comes to the fitness and abilities of a spawning fish, but that doesn’t mean we just ignore them or abuse their circumstance.

I think many anglers believe that because their wives have six months off work now in order to have their babies, fish need similar. I once heard a story of a mill girl who was half an hour late for work one morning and told the overlooker that she had given birth the night before. Providing she got straight to her machine he agreed to only dock her one hour of her money. Times change, sometimes for the better.

“It makes us look good in the eyes of the public.”

This is by far the biggest myth of all as the vast majority of the public just do not give a damn what we do, they have no idea about close seasons, and all they ever say when you catch a fish is “That’ll be nice for your tea.”. What the public knows about fish and angling can be written on a postage stamp and still leave room for licking it, so counting on the public’s support based on the fact that we have a close season is a complete fallacy.

The ones that do know we have a close season are usually fellow field sports followers and when they hear that we don’t kill our quarry they ask why then do we have a close season? At the time the Mundella act was brought in, catches after the matches were often shared out amongst friends and a nice 5lbs chub can make a good meal for a large growing family. Nowadays, we hear that chub don’t taste nice at all, but a 5lbs chub has the same nutritional value as a cod and needs only a good amount of fennel or dill to make it more palatable. Well, almost.

The only other groups that would be interested are those who would demand a 12 months close season, the anti-anglers and you will never please them until you burn your rods.
The Rod License

Ten years and more ago, I believed that the Rod license was nothing more than another tax by Government on anglers. After all, you don’t have to do anything at all to qualify for one except hand over your hard-earned, give your name and address and that’s it. In many respects it’s no different to the road tax, but at least they’re honest about that and call it a tax and then distribute it elsewhere. Talk about calling a spade a “ground breaking device”!

OK, so you got your rod licence and what rights does that give you? None whatsoever except the right to use a rod to catch fish, even if those fish are in the pond in your very own front garden? So what if the money goes to the NRA (now it’s the EA, but what’s in a name?), what exactly did they do for you? Well, I thought that I had found out exactly what they did for me, as an angler.

I started to get to know a lot of their fishery officers and found that not only are they willing to help a lot of clubs with waters, most actually enjoy doing it. I also found that sometimes there is a little spare funding knocking around and if you can get your name in the hat with a positive proposal that will benefit a good majority, then it will be spent in that direction. For the past ten years now I have supported their cause and helped publish information passed down to let other anglers know of their good work.

So why am I now hacked-off with them?

We will soon be in the annual throws of the usual debates on the close season and one question I have always wanted to ask is “why can’t we have a democratic vote on it?” Well, it seemed logical to me and this last year, I don’t know about the licences issued at the Post Office, but the ones that were sent to direct debit payers and those buying on-line had half a page that was empty. Why couldn’t that be used to print a voting slip, it was after all on watermarked paper that would be difficult to forge and the entire process could have been supervised by the Electoral Reform Society to ensure fairness.

Now, I’m not putting forward here the arguments for or against the close season, I am simply asking for a vote. It has, however, been pointed out to me that this has never been a voting matter. To some extent I would agree, but it certainly was when the close season was first implemented, angling groups being the first to vote and adopt it, even decide on the dates, before it was presented to Parliament.

Legislation states that I must have a rod licence, but that the Chancellor doesn’t have to specify where the money raised goes. So I infer from this that the rod licence is after all, a tax! The fact that all of our money from licences goes to fund a respectable part of fisheries works means nothing whatsoever? The fact that we anglers are the only group to have a vested interest in the sub-surface life of lakes and rivers means nothing?

In order to be able to vote on an issue such as the close season, you the angler must be made aware of all the scientific evidence pointing out the benefits and hazards of abolishing the close season. So where is the evidence?

Well, for that you have to read the Environment Agency’s own website to discover the sad fact that – there is no evidence!

It (the EA) states – “While sound scientific evidence was available to support the case for removing the close season on canals, it was not available in respect of rivers. Because all river coarse fisheries have a close season, it is virtually impossible to gather the required evidence – a scientific comparison similar to that done for canals would be needed. The Agency’s view is that in the absence of scientific evidence, we must take a precautionary approach towards rivers, retaining the current close season.”

This bit I do not understand at all. The Environment Agency, the “regulator” of all of our fisheries, cannot lift the close season on some stretches of rivers whilst a scientific study is carried out to provide the necessary evidence? Come on and pull the other!

What they are really saying is they don’t want to be bothered spending the money and upsetting the so-called “traditionalists” so they’re not going to even try, despite the fact that the majority of anglers would like to see it.

In short, the EA is not doing its job or fulfilling its obligation to the nation by carrying out vital research!

Take a look at the first sentence of that quotation about the canals, now you ask your local EA Fisheries Department for a copy of that evidence to support the case for removing the close season on canals. The answer they would give you may be – can’t find it, take too much time, needs putting together. My guess – it never existed in the first place and was pure conjecture.

I believe we should have a national debate to include fish recruitment in our rivers and the likely damage we could do (or not) to the rivers by fishing the full year. We should also be able to compare it with the success, or otherwise, to the recruitment in lakes since the dispensation of the close season went through back in the early 90s (the canals were a little later). Can’t they just try out a few stretches of river with all year round fishing just to see or are they afraid of what the results may produce?

Don’t we have a right to know that information and all the statistics and shouldn’t we be given the right to compare and question them? And if that information has not been gathered or noted in any way, then what the hell are the EA doing? They are a government agency entrusted with the wellbeing of our waterways and the Government is elected by the people, you and me, and therefore shouldn’t they be serving us in this way?

For ten years now I have been trying to work with the EA for the betterment of our fisheries, please note – OUR fisheries! I have given my spare time FREELY where, unlike EA employees, they are paid and I wouldn’t take that away from them. But surely, when I and many like me have given so much free time do they think that we anglers have no rights whatsoever to the knowledge that such research could bring? Do we not deserve a free vote, whatever the subject, or is democracy in angling a no-go area?

I have a mountain of papers produced by the EA, Local Agency Plans, Fisheries Actions Plans, Periodic Reviews, Coarse Fisheries Strategies, “Our Plan … 2006-2011”, and now the “Water Framework Directive” – and for what?

Is anything actually done with them or are they merely litter fit only for the recycling bin? Yet on an highly important and emotive issue such as the close season on rivers – nothing! Not a single printed word of research or evidence.

In 2000, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review was published and it recommended on the subject of the close season –

“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. (Recommendation 25)”

Great, but what has happened since? Well there were some objections from some small but very influential groups and individuals (mostly not democratically elected, I later gathered) and is stated as such – “It should also be noted that the above recommendation resulted in a great deal of representation to Government from angling and fisheries interests opposing the removal of the close season on rivers.”

That “great deal of representation” was those small groups and individuals by the way, probably representing no more than 2% of licence holding anglers, but then came the big retraction “The Agency’s view is that in the absence of scientific evidence, we must take a precautionary approach towards rivers, retaining the current close season.”

What a contradiction and an about turn if ever I saw one! Obviously none of the EA decision makers were followers of the “Thatcher” principle of leadership (“…this lady’s not for turning ….” etc.) So forget what a large portion of the remaining 98% of anglers want!

I always thought it better to be on the inside of the tent spitting out than vice versa, but now I am not so sure anymore. You may or may not agree with my view on the close season and you may be very happy with the status quo.

I cannot foretell what the outcome of any research would reveal or what the result of a free vote on the close season would be, but I do passionately believe we should have one. If only to put this topic to bed once and for all – and know the reasons why.

Yours faithfully,
Bitter and Twisted Moaner of Marlow