thecrow
Well-known member
Last edited:
River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
maverick 7
Well-known member
Thanks for your response Peter....and although you have answered the issues that I put forward........I'm afraid the answers were nothing more than those of unwavering and blind loyalty to the cause called the Close Season. They were answers from an angler who simply refuses to see the ever so obvious cracks in the system....not to mention the not so obvious dodgy reasons why we are STILL putting up with one now.
I admire your stance on the CS Peter...but your answers are not in the slightest convincing mate....
Maverick
The bad one
Well-known member
The above is what you stated is it not? The highlighted green in my post is the same is it not? So where have I misquoted you? I've comment on what you wrote have I not? Now you may not like what I've said but it's my right to comment on it is it not?
You may feel it a cop out re PP, that's your view you're entitled to it. But it's an established fact that the status quo remains in the absence of evidence either way as far as the EA goes. The status quo being the CF will remain until evidence emerges to change that view. Oh and Jeff wouldn't you like to have been a fly on the wall in the meetings over hydros when fisheries and land and revenue were arguing over the installation of them.
Was I being sarcastic? No I wasn’t! I was asked you a question with 3 options - All the time, Sometimes, now and again? So if you see that as sarcasm, so be it! But it doesn’t detract from the fact you haven’t given an answer to it.
And further to that, is it the first, second or third spawning to happen that year! In case you didn’t know that does happen on rare occasions.
As to do I refute it, and not withstanding the above (those rare occasions) in general terms yes I do, on the rivers I fish which span from the Welsh Wye to the Scottish boarders. It is the latter of the 3 options I gave you - now and again. Ie in very cold springs and summers.
"If the public are given access to none sensitive areas of rivers why not anglers, its the EA that stops it not the landowner."
Now who ascribing words which weren't wrote?
And as a matter of record my club has some landowners that insist on CS's on stillwaters. Some of which also control river lengths as well. We have a CF in position policed by the EA enshrined under SFFA and legislators made that act for them to police, so the buck stops with them not the policemen. As to the public using areas of rivers "legally" it's because that right has been given them sometimes dating back to the Magna Carta. Good luck to you in arguing that should be changed because you want the same right to fish those areas during the close season.
Ah the Angling Times report that would be they with a vested interest and has campaigned for many years for the abolition of the CS. And wrote the 57% in an ambiguous way.
Last edited:
chub_on_the_block
Well-known member
TheCrow makes a valid point that only 16% of the respondents to the EA survey were primarily river anglers. It would be interesting to see what percentage of those anglers wanted to retain the closed season. They, after all, would presumably have the most first hand knowledge of rivers and understanding of whether a CS was justified. I was one of the respondents in that category and at the time i actually wanted to retain the CS. I no longer hold that opinion.
thecrow
Well-known member
You seem to be a very angry person, if you read my posts you may see that I am not for getting rid of the CS nor am I for keeping it --- until it is proved either way which is beneficial to fish ( note not anglers).
I also think that you knew that I meant the ANGLING TRUST NOT THE ANGLING TIMES, the piece I copied was from their site.
I didn't ascribe any words to you they were my own, I was advised not to join this site I can see why now, no wonder there are some good anglers that have left if this is how new members get treated.
The bad one
Well-known member
Ha Ha Ha! You make a lot of assumption my friend. Sadly none are true! If you think it a bearpit now, what you would have thought of it 10 years ago would have really put the frighteners on you for sure!
thecrow
Well-known member
First point I am not your friend I don't know you or you me.
Secondly posts on forums are not things that frighten me.
I find it appalling that someone would take pleasure in thinking someone would be frightened, I am not an aggressive person and think that anyone that is should look at themselves and the reasons they are how they are towards others. it would seem that the advice I was given was correct.
black kettle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 0
For clarity and information I am indebted to that fine fellow "The Monk" for compiling the FM article copied here below. One might note that the drafting of the bill was done by two salmon anglers Spencer Walpole and frank Buckland.
I am indebted to Stewart Allum for sending me the following abstract from Bernard Venables book, 'Fishing' (British Sports, Past & Present Series), Batsford Press, 1953. I also acknowledge Ron Clay, founder of the Northern Specimen Hunters Group, for further research material from Waterlog and other publications.
The Coarse fishing season first saw the light of day under the Mundella Act of 1878. Mr Mundella was a Member of Parliament for Sheffield, although not an angler himself, he was lobbied by the local angling fraternity of the city (Sheffield at the time was a centre of intense coarse fishing activity), to help place some form of legislation to help protect coarse fish. The drafting of the bill was left to Messrs Spencer Walpole and Frank Buckland. Spencer Walpole was an inspector of Salmon Fisheries and Frank Buckland a prominent member of the Piscatorial Society. Interestingly, both men were salmon anglers.
The Piscatorial society pledged its support for Mr Mundella in his endeavours to obtain an Act of Parliament for the protection of Freshwater Fish and the Society contacted the seventy four angling societies of London and the Provinces to see if they were favourable of a general close period for freshwater fish. The Piscatorial Society called a meeting in to be held in April 1878 to discuss the bill, but this meeting was too late for the first reading which took place in March, a month earlier, by which time no one had been consulted.
The Bill was made known at the April meeting under the auspices of the Piscatorial Society, the result of which threw the angling world into great tumult. The Bill gave considerable attention to Salmon and made amendments to the Salmon Fisheries Act, but yet only gave limited attention to coarse fish, the coarse angling fraternity being the instigators of the Act. The Bill in its broad aspects was approved along with the suggestion of a close season for coarse fish from 15th March to the 15th June, (the original draft had stated from the 1st March to the 31st of May.
In April the Bill had its second reading and was referred to the Select Committee. Mr Buckland wrote a letter to Land and Water.
"I am much pleased to learn that Mr Mundella's Bill passed the second reading on Tuesday, 11th, and that there is to be a Select Committee to consider the question. This is a great compliment on the part of Mr Cross and the House of Commons to freshwater anglers. Mr Lander, Secretary of the Piscatorial Society, who has already done so much for this good cause will, I trust, assist in getting up the evidence for the committee. We shall see whether the objectors to the Bill, who did not appear at the late conference at the Society of Arts, will have pluck enough to appear before the Select Committee and state their views."
The more furious objectors didn't attend this meeting, but others worked through the amendments with the Piscatorial Society. Many, however, felt that the Piscatorial Society was not representative of the coarse angling world, especially the various London Angling Societies. A storm was raised with the West Central Association which represented a number of coarse anglers in the London area. Mr Leo Bonvoisin, the clubs Vice-Chairman, wrote to the Fishing Gazette.
"Mr Mundella's Bill, The various London Angling Societies have quite recently received on the above from the Piscatorial Society (sic), but as it was reproduced last week among your excellent correspondent, Gaff Hook's notes, I will not trouble your readers with it. I wish, however, to state I think it is greatly to be regretted. Nothing will teach these gentlemen that they are adopting a mode of procedure towards their brother anglers which is uncourteous as it is impolite. There are, as your readers may be aware, two bodies in London to whose monthly meetings any society is entitled to send delegates. When I mentioned that the W.C. Association and the E.C. Committee represent between them some four thousand practical anglers, you will at once see their importance as mediums for ascertaining the views of the London disciples of Walton. Until a week ago, when they sent in their resignation on the grounds that they did not find it advantageous to belong to us, the Piscatorials were represented at the W.C. Association's meeting, and theirs being an old established club would have given just weight to any opinions they might have been pleased to express, but the Association have from the first protested against their taking separate action in this or any other matter and the majority of the clubs have refused to attend to any but circulars or notices sent through the recognised channels.
"Exclusive, or select (you can choose which you like) in the extreme, never striving to carry out the law of good fellowship or Angling Freemasonry, so eloquently and practically preached by honest old Izaak Walton, never caring to visit, or be visited by, members of other societies, but firmly shutting their doors against all not provided a formal introduction, the Piscatorials could never pretend to rank as a representative society, and the line of conduct they have adopted is therefore all the more unaccountable. Anglers are, as a body, a quiet, easy-going lot, but if the Piscatorial Club thinks the course they have adopted is not appreciated at its true worth, they are indeed mistaken. One instance is sufficient. At a meeting the other evening some twenty-five societies represented during the call of the roll, the long-continued groans and hisses which greeted the words "Piscatorial Society" would have satisfied the most sceptical of gratitude the London Anglers bear those who have striven to humble and annoy their legitimate representatives by acting counter to their intentions, thus ignoring them altogether.
"My main object, however, in writing is to advise clubs enrolled east or west to adopt the same course as the Hammersmith, North Western, Silver Trout and many other societies have been or intend doing, namely, inform Mr Lander that when it becomes necessary to adopt any measures in the above matter, they will do so through their recognised representatives, the Association and the Committee.
Yours obediently
Leo Bonvoisin
Vice Chairman West Central Association."
During the committee stage the Bill had many objections and attempted amendments, with considerable debate as to the close time, some towards a shorter time and others suggested a longer period. The Bill finally received its third reading and went to the House of Lords to become law. Further amendments to the Mundella Act continued until the advent of the 1923 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, which encompassed all the previous legislation. The 1923 Act also established the Fishery Boards. The next major change didn't take place until 1948 with a legislative change over to the River Boards Act.
So there you have it.
Regards,
Lee.
I am indebted to Stewart Allum for sending me the following abstract from Bernard Venables book, 'Fishing' (British Sports, Past & Present Series), Batsford Press, 1953. I also acknowledge Ron Clay, founder of the Northern Specimen Hunters Group, for further research material from Waterlog and other publications.
The Coarse fishing season first saw the light of day under the Mundella Act of 1878. Mr Mundella was a Member of Parliament for Sheffield, although not an angler himself, he was lobbied by the local angling fraternity of the city (Sheffield at the time was a centre of intense coarse fishing activity), to help place some form of legislation to help protect coarse fish. The drafting of the bill was left to Messrs Spencer Walpole and Frank Buckland. Spencer Walpole was an inspector of Salmon Fisheries and Frank Buckland a prominent member of the Piscatorial Society. Interestingly, both men were salmon anglers.
The Piscatorial society pledged its support for Mr Mundella in his endeavours to obtain an Act of Parliament for the protection of Freshwater Fish and the Society contacted the seventy four angling societies of London and the Provinces to see if they were favourable of a general close period for freshwater fish. The Piscatorial Society called a meeting in to be held in April 1878 to discuss the bill, but this meeting was too late for the first reading which took place in March, a month earlier, by which time no one had been consulted.
The Bill was made known at the April meeting under the auspices of the Piscatorial Society, the result of which threw the angling world into great tumult. The Bill gave considerable attention to Salmon and made amendments to the Salmon Fisheries Act, but yet only gave limited attention to coarse fish, the coarse angling fraternity being the instigators of the Act. The Bill in its broad aspects was approved along with the suggestion of a close season for coarse fish from 15th March to the 15th June, (the original draft had stated from the 1st March to the 31st of May.
In April the Bill had its second reading and was referred to the Select Committee. Mr Buckland wrote a letter to Land and Water.
"I am much pleased to learn that Mr Mundella's Bill passed the second reading on Tuesday, 11th, and that there is to be a Select Committee to consider the question. This is a great compliment on the part of Mr Cross and the House of Commons to freshwater anglers. Mr Lander, Secretary of the Piscatorial Society, who has already done so much for this good cause will, I trust, assist in getting up the evidence for the committee. We shall see whether the objectors to the Bill, who did not appear at the late conference at the Society of Arts, will have pluck enough to appear before the Select Committee and state their views."
The more furious objectors didn't attend this meeting, but others worked through the amendments with the Piscatorial Society. Many, however, felt that the Piscatorial Society was not representative of the coarse angling world, especially the various London Angling Societies. A storm was raised with the West Central Association which represented a number of coarse anglers in the London area. Mr Leo Bonvoisin, the clubs Vice-Chairman, wrote to the Fishing Gazette.
"Mr Mundella's Bill, The various London Angling Societies have quite recently received on the above from the Piscatorial Society (sic), but as it was reproduced last week among your excellent correspondent, Gaff Hook's notes, I will not trouble your readers with it. I wish, however, to state I think it is greatly to be regretted. Nothing will teach these gentlemen that they are adopting a mode of procedure towards their brother anglers which is uncourteous as it is impolite. There are, as your readers may be aware, two bodies in London to whose monthly meetings any society is entitled to send delegates. When I mentioned that the W.C. Association and the E.C. Committee represent between them some four thousand practical anglers, you will at once see their importance as mediums for ascertaining the views of the London disciples of Walton. Until a week ago, when they sent in their resignation on the grounds that they did not find it advantageous to belong to us, the Piscatorials were represented at the W.C. Association's meeting, and theirs being an old established club would have given just weight to any opinions they might have been pleased to express, but the Association have from the first protested against their taking separate action in this or any other matter and the majority of the clubs have refused to attend to any but circulars or notices sent through the recognised channels.
"Exclusive, or select (you can choose which you like) in the extreme, never striving to carry out the law of good fellowship or Angling Freemasonry, so eloquently and practically preached by honest old Izaak Walton, never caring to visit, or be visited by, members of other societies, but firmly shutting their doors against all not provided a formal introduction, the Piscatorials could never pretend to rank as a representative society, and the line of conduct they have adopted is therefore all the more unaccountable. Anglers are, as a body, a quiet, easy-going lot, but if the Piscatorial Club thinks the course they have adopted is not appreciated at its true worth, they are indeed mistaken. One instance is sufficient. At a meeting the other evening some twenty-five societies represented during the call of the roll, the long-continued groans and hisses which greeted the words "Piscatorial Society" would have satisfied the most sceptical of gratitude the London Anglers bear those who have striven to humble and annoy their legitimate representatives by acting counter to their intentions, thus ignoring them altogether.
"My main object, however, in writing is to advise clubs enrolled east or west to adopt the same course as the Hammersmith, North Western, Silver Trout and many other societies have been or intend doing, namely, inform Mr Lander that when it becomes necessary to adopt any measures in the above matter, they will do so through their recognised representatives, the Association and the Committee.
Yours obediently
Leo Bonvoisin
Vice Chairman West Central Association."
During the committee stage the Bill had many objections and attempted amendments, with considerable debate as to the close time, some towards a shorter time and others suggested a longer period. The Bill finally received its third reading and went to the House of Lords to become law. Further amendments to the Mundella Act continued until the advent of the 1923 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, which encompassed all the previous legislation. The 1923 Act also established the Fishery Boards. The next major change didn't take place until 1948 with a legislative change over to the River Boards Act.
So there you have it.
Regards,
Lee.
The bad one
Well-known member
As the kids say "Whatever!"
I'm northern (proud of it), were blunt and don't **** about with nicey, nicey midleclassy won't say what they mean garbage, we tell it like it is up here, eyeball to eyeball. And don't give a **** whether you like it or not!
I'd also give up if I were you on the armature psychoanalysis and psychobabble with me because that stuff is a bigger fraud than some think the CF is. It’s an opinion masquerading as Science! As to taking pleasure of frightening , that's you inference of what I wrote, wrong as it happens, only stating factually what it was like 10+ years ago, nothing more nothing less.
Now what does puzzle me is if you were given advice about joining this site, whatever that was, you could have got a very good flavour of what it’s like by looking back through contentious threads (its an open site) before ever joining. And if what you read didn’t suit you, you were under no obligation to join were you!
Last edited:
thecrow
Well-known member
Oh dear you are so wrong, you have no idea where I am from but spew out the standard were ard up north rubbish. there are ways of saying what you think without being aggressive and using expletives, your firs part of your post is really quite rude and only serves to confirm my opinion of what type of person you are.
I am nowhere near middle class, I have worked in foundries all my life no cushy numbers there, no idea why you thought I was.
I have never heard of "armature phsycoananalysis" always thought an armature was an electrical component.
Yes I looked through some threads on the site before joining and didn't like what I saw, however it seemed looking at the more recent threads that the mods had decided to clamp down on the sort of aggressive post I saw I may be wrong about that though.
Could you explain please what the CF is are you referring to Coarse Fisherman?
---------- Post added at 01:07 ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 ----------
An interesting post showing that the CS came about because of a need for conservation and had nothing to do with keeping coarse anglers off the rivers.
For all you who think anglers would respect a river if the close season was abolished just read the problems the Somerly Estate had with the much vaunted Christchurch Angling Club, CAC.
The Somerly Estate waters were regarded as 'the jewel in the crown' of the CAC river fishing, set in a stunningly beautiful river valley, the river running through an old private Estate that was managed with great sympathy and skill for wildlife and countryside sport by its owners.
The CAC had a huge membership, many from across the country, who joined the Club simply because of the sheer milage of superb fishing it controlled on the Somerly Estate Hampshire Avon (for species and weights just read their Club book, its the stuff of dreams (or was).
However because of problems with the CAC and the way it managed the property the Somerly Estate has taken their waters back under their own control and will, in future manage it themselves.
If a top club, renting what is arguably the finest coarse fishing in England cannot manage it with respect it deserves what hope for any club controlling its 'friends of the countryside' as they trample and encamp on our river banks during the most sensitive time of the year for wildlife.
I despair at some of the attitudes being presented here.
What is wrong with you people that you cannot respect that which you say you value the most?
.
The Somerly Estate waters were regarded as 'the jewel in the crown' of the CAC river fishing, set in a stunningly beautiful river valley, the river running through an old private Estate that was managed with great sympathy and skill for wildlife and countryside sport by its owners.
The CAC had a huge membership, many from across the country, who joined the Club simply because of the sheer milage of superb fishing it controlled on the Somerly Estate Hampshire Avon (for species and weights just read their Club book, its the stuff of dreams (or was).
However because of problems with the CAC and the way it managed the property the Somerly Estate has taken their waters back under their own control and will, in future manage it themselves.
If a top club, renting what is arguably the finest coarse fishing in England cannot manage it with respect it deserves what hope for any club controlling its 'friends of the countryside' as they trample and encamp on our river banks during the most sensitive time of the year for wildlife.
I despair at some of the attitudes being presented here.
What is wrong with you people that you cannot respect that which you say you value the most?
.
Last edited:
thecrow
Well-known member
I thought it was Christchurch that had Somerly Mick, they have from what I have read lost it due to not fulfilling contractual agreements, i.e. not looking after the water as they should although I don't know what that means.
---------- Post added at 03:16 ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 ----------
After reading some informative posts on here I have been swayed the same way as yourself, I can see no proven reasons for retaining it and the reasons for it initially no longer apply, the close season on all waters should be left for the owners of the waters to implement when/if needed.
The bad one
Well-known member
CF should have read CS, but you knew that, big fingers small keyboard.
Armature can be, can be a frame for a sculpture and/or the kinematic chains used in computer animation. In this case a spellchecker correction (wrongly) for the misspelled word "Amateur." Oh the vagaries of Mr Gates infernal operating software.
Oh you miss one to pick up on, "were" should have been "we're" missed the apostrophe out. Pedantic I know, but as we’re (got it right this time), or should I say you, are being corrective, it’s important I think.
Did I accuse you of being middle class?... Nop! Yet again you misunderstood the subtlety of the general point being made. So for clarity and correctly this time I'll restate it.
"I'm northern (proud of it), we’re blunt and don't **** about with nicey, nicey midleclassy won't say what they mean garbage, we tell it like it is up here, eyeball to eyeball. And don't give a **** whether you like it or not!"
Note the final sentence as it’s a salient point here. And as the kids say “am I bothered”…. what you think of me! Nop!
Just spotted this after I posted ....."your firs part of your post....." I presume you meant "first?" Kettle pot black eh!
Armature can be, can be a frame for a sculpture and/or the kinematic chains used in computer animation. In this case a spellchecker correction (wrongly) for the misspelled word "Amateur." Oh the vagaries of Mr Gates infernal operating software.
Oh you miss one to pick up on, "were" should have been "we're" missed the apostrophe out. Pedantic I know, but as we’re (got it right this time), or should I say you, are being corrective, it’s important I think.
Did I accuse you of being middle class?... Nop! Yet again you misunderstood the subtlety of the general point being made. So for clarity and correctly this time I'll restate it.
"I'm northern (proud of it), we’re blunt and don't **** about with nicey, nicey midleclassy won't say what they mean garbage, we tell it like it is up here, eyeball to eyeball. And don't give a **** whether you like it or not!"
Note the final sentence as it’s a salient point here. And as the kids say “am I bothered”…. what you think of me! Nop!
Just spotted this after I posted ....."your firs part of your post....." I presume you meant "first?" Kettle pot black eh!
Last edited:
thecrow
Well-known member
As you knew AT meant angling trust :wh
Subtlety from someone who is proud to be blunt, don't **** about and don't give a **** ?
Good spot on the missing t, shows that you are reading the post.
Wont say anything about the deliberate mistake with the nope, oops just did but poor bait really
I think that we should perhaps get back to the more important debate on the CS instead of carrying this on don't you?
---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 ----------
Your post does show what can happen to a club that doesn't look after the waters it has the fishing rights to, as far as I know the water is to go syndicate, who knows what that will cost, probably as much as the CAC membership was which included their other waters. I can see the loss of somerly costing the club dear.
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Back on track.
“The Angling Trust will not take any formal position in lobbying for a change in the river close season until we see what the evidence would be on fish stocks and the views of our members and the various groups of anglers. As an organisation committed to conservation, it would be irresponsible of us to do anything else. However, we do accept that this is a live issue and we want anglers on both sides of this debate to have their voices heard and for the arguments to be tested.
We will be seeking further contributions from prominent voices within angling and will publish them on this page. We've listed ways that you can get involved in the debate on the right hand side of this page and look forward to hearing your point of view”
So the AT will not by its own admission take a formal position on lobbying for a change to the rivers CS until it sees evidence on fish stocks. As it unlikely the EA will carry out any such studies that the AT trust could use to support lobbying for change to CS its hands are tied. If it wants the views of its members and various groups of anglers, and if that is a genuine desire should it not be consulting its membership and the various groups of anglers it refers to in writing?
In turn would it not be reasonable to expect the member clubs of the AT to consult their membership to see if they want to see the rivers CS changed? Or will the trust just accept the views of committee members of its member clubs, or will it ensure that all member clubs consult their members. Not to ensure this will be a disservice to both the members of those clubs and societies but also to angling IMHO. Just how it intends to test the arguments regarding this debate will be interesting to read.
Asking for views on facebook/twitter or the AT site can hardly be a way to form any formal position for lobbying for change to the CS can it? The only way for the AT to formulate a proper position is quite clear, it has to be via its member clubs and individual members to a man nothing else will do. Likewise those member club committees are duty bound to consult its memberships, to do anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
I await to be convinced that the AT will not take an irresponsible position on lobbying for change to the CS, and likewise that some member clubs will do the same without consulting their memberships.
Kind regards
Ray
“The Angling Trust will not take any formal position in lobbying for a change in the river close season until we see what the evidence would be on fish stocks and the views of our members and the various groups of anglers. As an organisation committed to conservation, it would be irresponsible of us to do anything else. However, we do accept that this is a live issue and we want anglers on both sides of this debate to have their voices heard and for the arguments to be tested.
We will be seeking further contributions from prominent voices within angling and will publish them on this page. We've listed ways that you can get involved in the debate on the right hand side of this page and look forward to hearing your point of view”
So the AT will not by its own admission take a formal position on lobbying for a change to the rivers CS until it sees evidence on fish stocks. As it unlikely the EA will carry out any such studies that the AT trust could use to support lobbying for change to CS its hands are tied. If it wants the views of its members and various groups of anglers, and if that is a genuine desire should it not be consulting its membership and the various groups of anglers it refers to in writing?
In turn would it not be reasonable to expect the member clubs of the AT to consult their membership to see if they want to see the rivers CS changed? Or will the trust just accept the views of committee members of its member clubs, or will it ensure that all member clubs consult their members. Not to ensure this will be a disservice to both the members of those clubs and societies but also to angling IMHO. Just how it intends to test the arguments regarding this debate will be interesting to read.
Asking for views on facebook/twitter or the AT site can hardly be a way to form any formal position for lobbying for change to the CS can it? The only way for the AT to formulate a proper position is quite clear, it has to be via its member clubs and individual members to a man nothing else will do. Likewise those member club committees are duty bound to consult its memberships, to do anything less would be a dereliction of duty.
I await to be convinced that the AT will not take an irresponsible position on lobbying for change to the CS, and likewise that some member clubs will do the same without consulting their memberships.
Kind regards
Ray
Judas Priest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 2
Would this be the same group of so called bigwigs that now form the AT that stood by whilst the Close season on stillwaters was abolished without so much as a murmmer ?
Hypothetically speaking I suppose if the Trade thought that the abolishment of the Close season would increase their members income significantly then fence sitting would not be an option open to the AT.
I'll reiterate that there is no scientific evidence to support the Close season in its present or any form when those same waters are open to every other Tom, **** or Harry water and bankside user.
Hypothetically speaking I suppose if the Trade thought that the abolishment of the Close season would increase their members income significantly then fence sitting would not be an option open to the AT.
I'll reiterate that there is no scientific evidence to support the Close season in its present or any form when those same waters are open to every other Tom, **** or Harry water and bankside user.
maverick 7
Well-known member
As well as me easily respecting a river if the CS was abolished (in fact I would respect them all)....I must be missing something here Mick......but I can't see the connection in what you have written and the Close Season.....What has that got to do with abolishing or keeping the Close Season?.....
Just sounds like a story of bad river management to me...or at the very least...river management that wasn't apparently good enough in the eyes of the owners of the stretch.......so what?
......and just to note.....even at the "most sensitive time of the year" the wildlife seems to be doing pretty good around all the trampled and encamped banks of the venues that are exempt from the Close Season....AND..... I am absolutely certain they would on the banks of the rivers too should the CS be abolished.
Maverick
Last edited:
black kettle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Ray,
I can't see the relevance of the AT paragraphs;
"“The Angling Trust will not take any formal position in lobbying for a change in the river close season until we see what the evidence would be on fish stocks and the views of our members and the various groups of anglers. As an organisation committed to conservation, it would be irresponsible of us to do anything else. However, we do accept that this is a live issue and we want anglers on both sides of this debate to have their voices heard and for the arguments to be tested.
We will be seeking further contributions from prominent voices within angling and will publish them on this page. We've listed ways that you can get involved in the debate on the right hand side of this page and look forward to hearing your point of view”
The AT should know well what the legal parameters are concerning any change to the rivers close season, and its certainly not anything to do with an issue live or dead. Its about government legislation which states within its text that the close season will remain until scientific research proves it is safe to alter the present close season.
I wonder who their "prominent voices within angling?" are? I bet its not our fishing dustman that's for sure. Frankly Ray, I am very suspicious as to the AT motives regarding the close season issue.
Regarding the consultation of members within angling clubs, I can speak on behalf of the procedures and protocols of the various clubs that I have held office in before. It would be normal procedure to hold a vote on certain issues at AGM providing said issue was proposed and seconded. In emergency where a vote was sought pre or post AGM then an EGM would be called. On the issue of voting over any alterations to the rivers close season I would argue the case in committee for a full paper ballot of the membership.
On the face of it some might assume that clubs would relish the idea for an end to the rivers close season. Not so with the clubs I am/have been involved with. Previously I have been heavily involved in negotiations for fishing leases with riparian owners, farmers mostly. These are men that know the value of their land and everything on it that can give them the best yields. Gone are the days of peppercorn fishing rents with most farmers asking a pretty penny for their fishing rights. Any increase in the river fishing season will certainly see these farmers asking more money for their fishing leases. The NFU jungle drums would be beating right across the country. More costs more it's as simple as that.
Now I'm sure that some specimen anglers perhaps, or the above average keen as mustard angler might well turn a blind eye to any substantial increase in their club memberships for the opportunity of more fishing but from my experience the vast majority of our nations club members are either once a week or occasional anglers that whinge like hell if their club fees go up 50p once every five years!!!
With this in mind whilst taking into consideration the way that the Angling Trust does business I seriously doubt they will be asking for the ballot papers to come out of the deep dark dungeon where they keep them locked away.
Is voting blasphemy in the Ivory Towers?
Regards,
Lee.
I can't see the relevance of the AT paragraphs;
"“The Angling Trust will not take any formal position in lobbying for a change in the river close season until we see what the evidence would be on fish stocks and the views of our members and the various groups of anglers. As an organisation committed to conservation, it would be irresponsible of us to do anything else. However, we do accept that this is a live issue and we want anglers on both sides of this debate to have their voices heard and for the arguments to be tested.
We will be seeking further contributions from prominent voices within angling and will publish them on this page. We've listed ways that you can get involved in the debate on the right hand side of this page and look forward to hearing your point of view”
The AT should know well what the legal parameters are concerning any change to the rivers close season, and its certainly not anything to do with an issue live or dead. Its about government legislation which states within its text that the close season will remain until scientific research proves it is safe to alter the present close season.
I wonder who their "prominent voices within angling?" are? I bet its not our fishing dustman that's for sure. Frankly Ray, I am very suspicious as to the AT motives regarding the close season issue.
Regarding the consultation of members within angling clubs, I can speak on behalf of the procedures and protocols of the various clubs that I have held office in before. It would be normal procedure to hold a vote on certain issues at AGM providing said issue was proposed and seconded. In emergency where a vote was sought pre or post AGM then an EGM would be called. On the issue of voting over any alterations to the rivers close season I would argue the case in committee for a full paper ballot of the membership.
On the face of it some might assume that clubs would relish the idea for an end to the rivers close season. Not so with the clubs I am/have been involved with. Previously I have been heavily involved in negotiations for fishing leases with riparian owners, farmers mostly. These are men that know the value of their land and everything on it that can give them the best yields. Gone are the days of peppercorn fishing rents with most farmers asking a pretty penny for their fishing rights. Any increase in the river fishing season will certainly see these farmers asking more money for their fishing leases. The NFU jungle drums would be beating right across the country. More costs more it's as simple as that.
Now I'm sure that some specimen anglers perhaps, or the above average keen as mustard angler might well turn a blind eye to any substantial increase in their club memberships for the opportunity of more fishing but from my experience the vast majority of our nations club members are either once a week or occasional anglers that whinge like hell if their club fees go up 50p once every five years!!!
With this in mind whilst taking into consideration the way that the Angling Trust does business I seriously doubt they will be asking for the ballot papers to come out of the deep dark dungeon where they keep them locked away.
Is voting blasphemy in the Ivory Towers?
Regards,
Lee.
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Lee,
The relevance of the AT paragraphs was to illustrate that they cannot really lobby for a change to the CS unless it abandons its claim of being an organisation committed to conservation. Or other pressures are brought to bare on the trust, which I suspect is the case.
You've been around long enough to know how things work, there will be no ballots by the AT and at least one of its member clubs that’s for sure. Joe angler will not have a say in anything and that’s a given. You should already be aware who the “prominent voices are” Martin Salter mentions three of them in his “River Close Season-Is it time for a rethink? A few more can be found on the AT website."
I agree with what you say more costs more, so in that light this call for change in the CS could actually backfire on those that are calling for it. Clubs and societies could find themselves paying far more for the fisheries they have on their books. That in turn could lead to losing both waters due to increased rents and members due to loss of waters or increased subs to pay the rent increases.
The river CS is in place it maybe right it maybe wrong, what I am sure of is whatever happens you will never please everyone. Someone asked if “Angling Unity is it possible” this debate clearly indicates not and never will be.
Keep your head down me duck.
Kind regards
Ray
The relevance of the AT paragraphs was to illustrate that they cannot really lobby for a change to the CS unless it abandons its claim of being an organisation committed to conservation. Or other pressures are brought to bare on the trust, which I suspect is the case.
You've been around long enough to know how things work, there will be no ballots by the AT and at least one of its member clubs that’s for sure. Joe angler will not have a say in anything and that’s a given. You should already be aware who the “prominent voices are” Martin Salter mentions three of them in his “River Close Season-Is it time for a rethink? A few more can be found on the AT website."
I agree with what you say more costs more, so in that light this call for change in the CS could actually backfire on those that are calling for it. Clubs and societies could find themselves paying far more for the fisheries they have on their books. That in turn could lead to losing both waters due to increased rents and members due to loss of waters or increased subs to pay the rent increases.
The river CS is in place it maybe right it maybe wrong, what I am sure of is whatever happens you will never please everyone. Someone asked if “Angling Unity is it possible” this debate clearly indicates not and never will be.
Keep your head down me duck.
Kind regards
Ray
Last edited: