- 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?
River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
Seemingly yet another case of greed and commercialism affecting an environmental issue.
The Angling trust would do well to avoid this issue otherwise risk losing a large number of Close Season Supporters as members.
Despite the typical polictician's trick of labelling the opposition as a "minority" Mr Salter's biased view is easily uncovered.
The Angling trust would do well to avoid this issue otherwise risk losing a large number of Close Season Supporters as members.
Despite the typical polictician's trick of labelling the opposition as a "minority" Mr Salter's biased view is easily uncovered.
sam vimes
Well-known member
I don't follow the logic of the closed season, and I never have. However, that is inevitably coloured by the area I live. There are no canals locally. Pretty much all of the rivers and becks contain trout. There is also a bye law that allows people to fish for trout with worms. So, the time that absolutely no one should be fishing amounts to a whole ten days.
I can understand the argument for allowing bankside flora and fauna a rest, but it doesn't really hold water because of the scenario explained above. That's also before you consider that there are no similar restrictions on any number of other types of human bankside visitor (walkers, birdwatchers, poachers and even canoeists etc, whether they are there legitimately or not).
Then you need to consider whether the closed season dates actually cover the bulk of spawning times. I'd contend that in my neck of the woods, they don't. Barbel and chub usually spawn after June the 16th, pike often manage to start just before the season closes. That means that the closed season is little more than a sop to a totally ignorant public to prove "the conservation credentials of angling". The reality is that, depending on the region, coarse anglers are already fishing through the spawning periods of various coarse fish and that's before you consider the salmonids, if they are present on the river in question. In a similar vein, trout anglers are merrily fishing right through the bulk of the coarse fish spawning periods. If the rivers were closed to encompass all spawning periods properly, we'd barely be able to fish outside of a few winter months.
I can accept that the closed season may make more sense on those southern rivers, where the dates do encompass more species of fish (except pike) and there are no trout to speak of. However, in much of the Yorkshire and Northumbrian regions, it's pretty damned pointless.
I can understand the argument for allowing bankside flora and fauna a rest, but it doesn't really hold water because of the scenario explained above. That's also before you consider that there are no similar restrictions on any number of other types of human bankside visitor (walkers, birdwatchers, poachers and even canoeists etc, whether they are there legitimately or not).
Then you need to consider whether the closed season dates actually cover the bulk of spawning times. I'd contend that in my neck of the woods, they don't. Barbel and chub usually spawn after June the 16th, pike often manage to start just before the season closes. That means that the closed season is little more than a sop to a totally ignorant public to prove "the conservation credentials of angling". The reality is that, depending on the region, coarse anglers are already fishing through the spawning periods of various coarse fish and that's before you consider the salmonids, if they are present on the river in question. In a similar vein, trout anglers are merrily fishing right through the bulk of the coarse fish spawning periods. If the rivers were closed to encompass all spawning periods properly, we'd barely be able to fish outside of a few winter months.
I can accept that the closed season may make more sense on those southern rivers, where the dates do encompass more species of fish (except pike) and there are no trout to speak of. However, in much of the Yorkshire and Northumbrian regions, it's pretty damned pointless.
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 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 would totally agree.
As a blanket coverage the current dates are probably the very best that account for most species, in most years, given most average climatic conditions
Given that this winter was the wettest on record, and in all honesty a statistical blip, I fail to see why or how it could be used as a measure of the effectiveness of the Close Season, and certainly not as an "excuse" to temp change.
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!
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.
cg74
Well-known member
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.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
I still believe a 6 to 8 week total close season is the best compromise. The commercial interests could with stand that. Anglers could with stand that. It would still give all nature a bit of a rest, cannot be a bad thing. A flexible 6 or 8 week ban would not be a bad idea either, given so many unknown climate changes in the future.
A fair judgement could be made by the EA each year as to when the close season should be and printed clearly on the March 31st License. Even I could have worked out by March 31st that it was going to be a late spawning season last year and I am pretty sure its going to be an early one this year. With the EA employing so many university grads and with the latest climate predictions from the experts; they would make a better job of it than me.
Be interesting wouldn't it, to see what they come up with each year, plenty of scope for a bun fight each year, we would miss that with no close season at all.
In this modern age and with all the latest information and technology around it would be a progressive and modern way of tackling the close season. Time to move with the times or at least take advantage of what we have now compared with 100-300 years ago (whenever it was)
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.
A fair judgement could be made by the EA each year as to when the close season should be and printed clearly on the March 31st License. Even I could have worked out by March 31st that it was going to be a late spawning season last year and I am pretty sure its going to be an early one this year. With the EA employing so many university grads and with the latest climate predictions from the experts; they would make a better job of it than me.
Be interesting wouldn't it, to see what they come up with each year, plenty of scope for a bun fight each year, we would miss that with no close season at all.
In this modern age and with all the latest information and technology around it would be a progressive and modern way of tackling the close season. Time to move with the times or at least take advantage of what we have now compared with 100-300 years ago (whenever it was)
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.
Last edited:
sam vimes
Well-known member
The whole "leave it to the scientists" argument pre-supposes that the closed season was based on real scientific evidence in the first place. The truth is that it wasn't. The truth is that it was based on little more than the whim of those with a vested interest (financial interests included) at the time with a bit of additional common sense thrown in. The continuation of the closed season is essentially a tradition born out of the initial introduction of law. Science will never successfully prove that the closed season is pointless unless it is actually abolished, even if only for a trial period. However, it is the ultimate trump card for those that wish to see the continuation of a closed season. Whilst it seems perfectly acceptable to slate anyone proposing change as having a vested interest, financial or otherwise, those wishing for it to remain also have a vested interest, though generally not financial. It simply suits the lifestyles, ideals and traditions for some. Most of the arguments (giving bankside flora and fauna a break etc.) put forward are simply to disguise this and are usually quite easy to counter.
cg74
Well-known member
Is a professor's opinion worth twice that of a doctor's?
Where in the order of credence would you put a statistician (mathematician)?
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.
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.
Last edited:
sam vimes
Well-known member
Most of the pike anglers chasing the big girls in the last few weeks of the season.:wh
no-one in particular
Well-known member
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.
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.
cg74
Well-known member
Yes but it's already well within the EA's powers to close a river on welfare/environmental grounds.
sam vimes
Well-known member
The problem here is that we can't have it all ends up. Whenever scientists are wheeled out to suggest that Archimedes Screws will have no negative impact on our rivers, anglers tend to be up in arms. However, as soon as they support something we might believe in, we're hell bent on believing every last word they say. Remember that these are the same scientists that can't explain why some rivers seem to be suffering catastrophic downturns in fish stocks.
The bottom line is that there's no way of scientists proving anything either for or against the closed season. No one is going to pay for a study and, until the closed season is abolished, even if only temporarily, they can only hypothesize about the potential effects.
cg74
Well-known member
I don't tend to fish rivers from March 15th to about mid too late September, I have no desire to catch gravid fish but would like to coarse fish certain rivers up until about mid April.
Take the Windrush, I can fly fish it from the 1st April and will get plagued by coarse fish, especially chub. Same goes for the Wey.
What useful purpose does the CS serve on those two rivers?