River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[Ray Wood 1]

We seem to be getting diverted from the main topic of the thread.

Apologies,
Is it time for a re-think? NO

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Here's something for you folks that don't believe a close season of different dates for different areas would work. (I had to do this for someone else.)

River, stream etc Trout close seasons
Thames Area - 1st October to 31st March inclusive
Southern Area (part of the same Thames EA Management now) - 1st November to 2nd April
Southerners get an extra month? How about one guy fishing in October a river in Southern area (legally), decides to move upstream and without knowing has moved in Thames area and is now ILLEGAL!

North East – 1st October to 21st March inclusive.
Midlands - 8th October to 17th March inclusive
Anglian – 30th October – 31st March inclusive
North West – 1st October to 14th March inclusive

Now, be very careful in the South West for these are OPEN seasons -
Trout Rainbow and Brown (migratory and salmon are different again.

Camel & Fowey 1 Apr to 30 Sept
Other rivers in Devon & Cornwall 15 Mar to 30 Sept
All rivers in Wessex Area 1 Apr to 15 Oct

As for Wales, it might just as well all be written in Welsh - or Greek. Best if you look at it yourselves - Look at Page 7.

Firstly to all you coarse/fly anglers that have commented on the fact that variable dates of close seasons cannot possibly work – yah boo sucks! See above. Unless you're implying that coarse anglers are thicker than fly anglers and wouldn't understand.

Secondly, you would think in this day and age with a NATIONAL Environment Agency they could use the same dates throughout the UK, just as with the coarse close season and if there are valid reasons for differences then why not allow different dates for coarse fish in different regions also? Or are we really just too thick to understand? :wh

 

[cg74]

CG,
Can you explain just how a species and area close season would be a workable arrangement then? It seems to me that having two/three sets of rules for larger rivers or any river for that matter would just be chaos and a recipe for disaster.

Kind regards
Ray

Accepting that the key period for fish to be protected is just before spawning through until just after they've spawned:


Species:

1, Brown trout spawn Nov/Dec. So to avoid accidental captures; a ban on fishing with maggots, worms and bread during that period should be implemented. Conversely I can't recall ever catching a trout on a pellet, boilie or paste, so they are safe options.


2, Pike and perch spawn March/April, so a ban on fishing with livebaits, deadbaits, worms, maggots and lures in those two months will see them alright.


3, Roach, dace, bleak, grayling... spawn somewhere between late Feb to early May, so a no maggots, worms and bread rule, plus maybe even a minimum hook size as well.


4, Bream, chub and Barbel spawn in May and June, these eat pretty much all coarse baits but can be excluded fairly successfully if certain patterns of fly are used, along with a minimum lure and live/deadbait size was brought into play.


Not an exact science I accept but then this is what the thread is about; calling for a rethink and decisions made on scientific based evidence.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

OK, to bring this back on track as requested and to analyse things. I have re-read MS re-think article and would like to ask both MS and Steve Pope some questions.

Not sure if they will answer given they have not participated in the debate and dialogue MS asked for so far.

MS stated in his rethink article and I quote

“It has also caused others to ask us to re-ignite the river close season debate and to make formal approaches to the Environment Agency and to government."

Martin does this paragraph mean that the trust intend to formally approach both the EA and Government regardless of any results derived from this debate? Can you assure “ALL” interested parties both for and against change to the CS that these formal approaches are not a done deal on behalf of the others who have asked you to re-ignite the river close season debate (who ever they are)?

As you have suggested that a trial could take place and have named the River Severn as a possibility
that this is also not a done deal with let's say the Barbel Society on its Pixham Ferry venue?

Will Steve Pope assure the readers of FM and more importantly his membership that he has not already committed the BS to any agreement regarding any suggested trial or commitment to change the CS. Will he assure his membership that no such agreement has already been entered into should the trust get the consensus from both the EA and Government on such a trial? If the BS venue was to be considered for such a trial that he will consult fully his membership and if the membership are against any agreements regarding both a trial and change to the CS he will abide by his memberships wishes?

I ask these questions of him due to his own admission that the BS is not a democracy and his own explanation of the way the BS is run is as a benevolent dictatorship by an unelected chairman and committee officers.

CG, I will respond later just about to have my tea.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Here's something for you folks that don't believe a close season of different dates for different areas would work. (I had to do this for someone else.)

River, stream etc Trout close seasons
Thames Area - 1st October to 31st March inclusive
Southern Area (part of the same Thames EA Management now) - 1st November to 2nd April
Southerners get an extra month? How about one guy fishing in October a river in Southern area (legally), decides to move upstream and without knowing has moved in Thames area and is now ILLEGAL!

North East – 1st October to 21st March inclusive.
Midlands - 8th October to 17th March inclusive
Anglian – 30th October – 31st March inclusive
North West – 1st October to 14th March inclusive

Now, be very careful in the South West for these are OPEN seasons -
Trout Rainbow and Brown (migratory and salmon are different again.

Camel & Fowey 1 Apr to 30 Sept
Other rivers in Devon & Cornwall 15 Mar to 30 Sept
All rivers in Wessex Area 1 Apr to 15 Oct

As for Wales, it might just as well all be written in Welsh - or Greek. Best if you look at it yourselves - Look at Page 7.

Firstly to all you coarse/fly anglers that have commented on the fact that variable dates of close seasons cannot possibly work – yah boo sucks! See above. Unless you're implying that coarse anglers are thicker than fly anglers and wouldn't understand.

Secondly, you would think in this day and age with a NATIONAL Environment Agency they could use the same dates throughout the UK, just as with the coarse close season and if there are valid reasons for differences then why not allow different dates for coarse fish in different regions also? Or are we really just too thick to understand?

How about wondering for a moment why you never seem to hear fly anglers calling for changes in their restricted seasons on the rivers then?

Would that be because there is less commercial interest or maybe that they appreciate the necessity for allowing their quarry to spawn in peace?

You raise a question Jeff and then answer it yourself, the variable date(s) wouldn't work because firstly you cannot totally target a specific species with coarse fishing baits and secondly because of the geographical limits (as has already been pointed out) where different "ownership" covers different banks or adjacent stretches of the same river.

Also, when you examine those different dates you see there is only a very marginal difference between different regions, of what, a week or two, so hardly a trump card now, is it?

In order to convince me or others to the contrary it would take an awful lot more than that . . . . . . .

 

[rollingpinboy]

I would also like to know 'Who Are The Others/Individuals' that Martin Salter is referring too, who have asked him/AT to re-ignite the Close Season Debate. That is important as they may be the same old... I know the AT is jumping on the compensation bandwagon like farmers and businesses and going down the same route like a TV accident damage claims company to gain compensation for the Tackle Shops and Tackle Trade from the government/public purse. Personally, i think that is a bit of a joke seeing that angler’s just travel elsewhere where venues are not affected by flood conditions. Anglers also still buy tackle all year no matter what the river and lake conditions are like as they know weather conditions change for the better soon after. Barbel Society members and Barbel Anglers generally love flood conditions in Autumn and Winter and are often promoted by all, barring those that are summer only anglers who only fish for barbel 4-5 months of the year in comfortable and warmer sunbathing conditions. Martin Salter states that the Tackle Trade is now losing 6 months (inc the CS) of sales due to the weather/flood conditions/CS. Hey, c’mon; it has always been like that no matter what time of year in rains or floods. The opening up of lakes/canals and the dumping of the original Close Season will have certainly bumped up their income and been highly profitable for the Tackle Trade. It seems like the Angling Trust, Tackle Trade and those Anglers who have a material business interest and Profiteering out of Angling want even more...and are now siding with the current Government policy in relaxing Environment Protection, De-Regulation of wildlife and fish protection laws and the countryside etc...to help promote the corrupt Economy at the expense of disturbing/damaging/destroying riverine habitat and its life forms (including fish and recruitment)... and with no regard for conservation any longer.

For your interest…This is what Steve Pope has stated in the past regarding the Close Season.

Quote: “What in heavens name is Terry Mansbridge doing in re-opening a debate that has been discussed and written about more times than fox hunting.
Last time around myself and Fred Crouch, together with the rest of the Barbel Society Committee spent many, many hours organising, lobbying, arguing for the retention of the closed season.
We even went to the Houses of Parliament with a six thousand name petition.
I have letters on file from Martin Salter among others and I really cannot see what can be gained other than a decision reversal by the continual revisiting of this kind of issue.
I wonder if some of the angling politicians actually go fishing, or are they more interested in just having a seat at their perceived seat of power.
I've purposely kept out of some of the "recent" political debates, and with good reason.
They tend to go nowhere.
Sorry if that upsets, but its how I see it and I've been around and involved for some time.
So Lee, if the close season comes under threat from the likes of the BAA, rest assured both myself and Fred will once again muster the support that is needed to maintain a bastion that gives our sport some dignity.
But why oh why when there are so many far more pressing and important issues affecting all anglers, should we have to go down this road again so soon?”
END

Regarding the successful Petition
2012 Quote: “One of my proudest moments Jeff - Although I must stress I was just one of many - and I would fight just as hard if the question crops up again.
I have the letter from Martin Salter filed away where he expressed the same view as myself and many others.” end quote.

Ever think your being Sold Out!

Other SP Quote: "Had an interesting, perhaps I should say disturbing discussion with Angling Times today regarding a story for next week.
Bearing in mind all the hooha regarding the CA, I'll put this one to you.
If the NFA start to push for the abolition of the rivers close season how are things likely to develop within the corridors of power? Men like John Williams will continue to exert pressure and men like Ken Ball might just listen.
Once again people will be put to the test and I for one would not want to see this issue given up in the name of unity.
I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN HERE, TOO MANY PEOPLE PLAYING THE POLITICAL GAME ARE WEARING TOO MANY HATS. THIS BELIEVE IT OR NOT GOES TO THE ROOT OF ALMOST ALL THE ISSUES THAT CAUSE SUCH GREAT DIVISION." end quote.

Yes...Too true with that last bit about 'one wearing too many hats' Steve! Spot on!

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Accepting that the key period for fish to be protected is just before spawning through until just after they've spawned:


Species:

1, Brown trout spawn Nov/Dec. So to avoid accidental captures; a ban on fishing with maggots, worms and bread during that period should be implemented. Conversely I can't recall ever catching a trout on a pellet, boilie or paste, so they are safe options.


2, Pike and perch spawn March/April, so a ban on fishing with livebaits, deadbaits, worms, maggots and lures in those two months will see them alright.


3, Roach, dace, bleak, grayling... spawn somewhere between late Feb to early May, so a no maggots, worms and bread rule, plus maybe even a minimum hook size as well.


4, Bream, chub and Barbel spawn in May and June, these eat pretty much all coarse baits but can be excluded fairly successfully if certain patterns of fly are used, along with a minimum lure and live/deadbait size was brought into play.


Not an exact science I accept but then this is what the thread is about; calling for a rethink and decisions made on scientific based evidence.

As promised CG,
Peter has beaten me to the punch once again (message to self eat faster) and answered pretty much as I would have. I agree with his response your system would not work for obvious reason. I find it strange you are unwilling to accept or agree with the system that is in place which to be fair is not an exact science but does as best possible cover most species (Trout excluded). But offer up and expect your own suggestions which you point out yourself is not an exact science to be accepted as an alternative to what we have.

I would sooner keep what we have than adopt a system the would be hard if not impossible to implement. Just my honest opinion, those who want change have still to debate and convince me or anyone that they have a better solution.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[black kettle]

Hi Ray (Walton)


I was looking through this entire thread for other information and came across your post. Apologies for missing it at the time of your posting but this thread grew fairly rapidly so I missed it. Therefore I would like to answer some of the points you made in your post copied below which said:


“When anglers bait is not about in the close season, fish return to the naturals/macro inverts etc to survive, as they have always done. There is no problem with that, although there are many anglers nowadays that continue to supplement/pre-bait all through the Close Season to gain an edge for the coming season. In is inevitable that fishing in the close season will damage future populations if/when a female barbel drops 8-10,000 eggs or male milt on your lap, your mat, weigh sling or when playing the fish to the net, etc. thus killing/destroying future year classes and future generations. The same goes for all coarse species. Yes, we know fish can spawn early or late and sometimes more than once. Anglers should refrain from fishing during any spawning period when they are knowingly targeting their own specific species, in or out of season. The current March-June Close Season is still a good bet, and if you want to include a few other species, then extend the close season from Feb-July (as someone suggested), and not shorten or abolish it which is detrimental. Perhaps river species may recover even more so.
Black Kettle...The problem with the dye or other ****, is that fish do not always detect/sense chemicals in the water! Some can kill outright but others can take longer to kill or cause problems, and are accumulative in fish vital organs and flesh over a period of time, so they may eventually die a slow lingering death and you'll wonder why they have all disappeared. Discharges like that are usually illegal if it discolours the receiving water, so it should be reported to the EA and checked.”


Totally agree concerning the valid points you make concerning unnatural loss of milt or spawn and how this could have an impact on recruitment. Rivers like the Wensum for example where barbel recruitment especially has always been poor for a variety of reasons would undoubtedly be at risk if the close season were to be removed.


Concerning your reply made directly to me, which I also agree with, I have the following information to divulge seeing as was referring to the river Trent in my post.


Prior to the formation of the EA in 1996, its predecessor was the National Rivers Authority which ran from 1989 to 1996. Prior to the NRA, regulation of the aquatic environment fell upon the Regional Water Authorities (RWAs) The oldest of the autonomous water resource organisations was the Court of Sewers who were largely responsible for draining low lying areas and flood prevention dating right back into the sixteenth century. Such functions were taken over by the river Catchment Boards later to become the River Authorities after the passing of the Land Drainage Act in 1930.


In regards to the Trent Catchment, The River Trent Catchment Board was followed by the creation of the Trent River Board in 1951 then the River Trent Authority in 1965. I started fishing as a six year old in 1960 and started fishing the Trent (Nottingham style) around the age of nine. Back then it was a common sight to see the river running different colours due to dye house outfall into the river further upstream. The river Trent has a chequered history of pollution since its heyday as a recognised salmon fishery. Prior to 1880 the river was producing 3,000 rod caught salmon per annum but only a decade later this number fell to just 100 due to the industrial revolution. The potteries at Stoke Upon Trent combined with sewage pollution from the Fowlea Brook which became so bad the river in some locations were completely devoid of fish along huge stretches.


It’s fair to say that from 1960 onwards there has been a steady increase in the water quality of the Trent but even so I can remember huge fish kills during the early sixties when thousands of fish lay dead along the margins of the river in the Long Eaton to Beeston area. Changes to antiquated sewerage systems was expensive and slow to complete but changes made had a dramatic effect on better water quality returning to the river. Also, an end to Town Gas with the switch over to Natural Gas in 1963 heralded an eventual end to pollution from emissions of toxic coal tar into the river.


From the 1950’s onwards, chemical monitoring of the river took place which showed significant reductions in ammonia and the biochemical oxygen demand which showed corresponding increases of dissolved oxygen. In the 1960’s the River Trent Board was responsible for taking the first biological samples as well as chemical ones which resulted in the first biotic indices being used for assessing the ecological quality of the river. Using invertebrates as an indicator for pollution the Trent Biotic index was created. From that William M Beck then created the Family Biotic Index which is a simple measurement technique for measuring pollution levels using the river biology.


As I said in my earlier post, roach appeared to thrive in the river Trent during the 1960’s even though pollution continued. My theory is they thrived due to the tremendous amount of match anglers along the river at the time when roach populations literally depended on match man’s bait for a substitute for what must have been a poor natural diet at the time. And whilst barbel were still present in the river around that time they represented only a few ragged individuals which continued to survive. The barbel revival was to come much later when original stockings made into the Derwent, Dove and Soar saw those introduced stockings migrate into the main river where they spread and multiplied rapidly in what was, and is, an ever increasing cleaner river.


Did you know Ray that with increased water quality also comes increased numbers of aquatic parasites? And furthermore that England is setting new records for the rises in these parasites in fish? More threats to add to the wild fishes lot.


You are one angler Ray who knows well the many threats facing our nations rivers. Cleaner rivers does not necessarily mean the threats facing our rivers have been removed, it merely means we have faced a few threats and reacted accordingly. Many more threats remain and we have not even begun to deal with most of them.


All sportsmen revere a close season for good reason. Man simply cannot be a perpetual taker, he has to put something back if his quarry is to flourish. To say that wild river fish stocks would not suffer if we abolished the rivers close season puts nothing back. It merely demonstrates we want what we want when we want it and care little for the consequences.


I have looked over this entire thread and it might surprise some to learn there has only been 36 different people posting on a thread that stretches for 30 odd pages. Trust me, that is good news for some who are watching this and other threads like it.


Regards,

Lee.

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 ----------

Too many hats Ray (Walton)?

Its like a mad hatters tea party.

How on earth can one express sentiment over an issue so boldly, with so much passion and supposed belief before, to later make statements in the opposite direction with little or no passion writing it with little more gusto to that of a shopping list!?

I don't trust domestic politicians, together with the overall majority of our country no doubt if one believes the polls. I trust angling politicians a lot less.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Hi Ray (Walton)


I was looking through this entire thread for other information and came across your post. Apologies for missing it at the time of your posting but this thread grew fairly rapidly so I missed it. Therefore I would like to answer some of the points you made in your post copied below which said:


“When anglers bait is not about in the close season, fish return to the naturals/macro inverts etc to survive, as they have always done. There is no problem with that, although there are many anglers nowadays that continue to supplement/pre-bait all through the Close Season to gain an edge for the coming season. In is inevitable that fishing in the close season will damage future populations if/when a female barbel drops 8-10,000 eggs or male milt on your lap, your mat, weigh sling or when playing the fish to the net, etc. thus killing/destroying future year classes and future generations. The same goes for all coarse species. Yes, we know fish can spawn early or late and sometimes more than once. Anglers should refrain from fishing during any spawning period when they are knowingly targeting their own specific species, in or out of season. The current March-June Close Season is still a good bet, and if you want to include a few other species, then extend the close season from Feb-July (as someone suggested), and not shorten or abolish it which is detrimental. Perhaps river species may recover even more so.
Black Kettle...The problem with the dye or other ****, is that fish do not always detect/sense chemicals in the water! Some can kill outright but others can take longer to kill or cause problems, and are accumulative in fish vital organs and flesh over a period of time, so they may eventually die a slow lingering death and you'll wonder why they have all disappeared. Discharges like that are usually illegal if it discolours the receiving water, so it should be reported to the EA and checked.”


Totally agree concerning the valid points you make concerning unnatural loss of milt or spawn and how this could have an impact on recruitment. Rivers like the Wensum for example where barbel recruitment especially has always been poor for a variety of reasons would undoubtedly be at risk if the close season were to be removed.


Concerning your reply made directly to me, which I also agree with, I have the following information to divulge seeing as was referring to the river Trent in my post.


Prior to the formation of the EA in 1996, its predecessor was the National Rivers Authority which ran from 1989 to 1996. Prior to the NRA, regulation of the aquatic environment fell upon the Regional Water Authorities (RWAs) The oldest of the autonomous water resource organisations was the Court of Sewers who were largely responsible for draining low lying areas and flood prevention dating right back into the sixteenth century. Such functions were taken over by the river Catchment Boards later to become the River Authorities after the passing of the Land Drainage Act in 1930.


In regards to the Trent Catchment, The River Trent Catchment Board was followed by the creation of the Trent River Board in 1951 then the River Trent Authority in 1965. I started fishing as a six year old in 1960 and started fishing the Trent (Nottingham style) around the age of nine. Back then it was a common sight to see the river running different colours due to dye house outfall into the river further upstream. The river Trent has a chequered history of pollution since its heyday as a recognised salmon fishery. Prior to 1880 the river was producing 3,000 rod caught salmon per annum but only a decade later this number fell to just 100 due to the industrial revolution. The potteries at Stoke Upon Trent combined with sewage pollution from the Fowlea Brook which became so bad the river in some locations were completely devoid of fish along huge stretches.


It’s fair to say that from 1960 onwards there has been a steady increase in the water quality of the Trent but even so I can remember huge fish kills during the early sixties when thousands of fish lay dead along the margins of the river in the Long Eaton to Beeston area. Changes to antiquated sewerage systems was expensive and slow to complete but changes made had a dramatic effect on better water quality returning to the river. Also, an end to Town Gas with the switch over to Natural Gas in 1963 heralded an eventual end to pollution from emissions of toxic coal tar into the river.


From the 1950’s onwards, chemical monitoring of the river took place which showed significant reductions in ammonia and the biochemical oxygen demand which showed corresponding increases of dissolved oxygen. In the 1960’s the River Trent Board was responsible for taking the first biological samples as well as chemical ones which resulted in the first biotic indices being used for assessing the ecological quality of the river. Using invertebrates as an indicator for pollution the Trent Biotic index was created. From that William M Beck then created the Family Biotic Index which is a simple measurement technique for measuring pollution levels using the river biology.


As I said in my earlier post, roach appeared to thrive in the river Trent during the 1960’s even though pollution continued. My theory is they thrived due to the tremendous amount of match anglers along the river at the time when roach populations literally depended on match man’s bait for a substitute for what must have been a poor natural diet at the time. And whilst barbel were still present in the river around that time they represented only a few ragged individuals which continued to survive. The barbel revival was to come much later when original stockings made into the Derwent, Dove and Soar saw those introduced stockings migrate into the main river where they spread and multiplied rapidly in what was, and is, an ever increasing cleaner river.


Did you know Ray that with increased water quality also comes increased numbers of aquatic parasites? And furthermore that England is setting new records for the rises in these parasites in fish? More threats to add to the wild fishes lot.


You are one angler Ray who knows well the many threats facing our nations rivers. Cleaner rivers does not necessarily mean the threats facing our rivers have been removed, it merely means we have faced a few threats and reacted accordingly. Many more threats remain and we have not even begun to deal with most of them.


All sportsmen revere a close season for good reason. Man simply cannot be a perpetual taker, he has to put something back if his quarry is to flourish. To say that wild river fish stocks would not suffer if we abolished the rivers close season puts nothing back. It merely demonstrates we want what we want when we want it and care little for the consequences.


I have looked over this entire thread and it might surprise some to learn there has only been 36 different people posting on a thread that stretches for 30 odd pages. Trust me, that is good news for some who are watching this and other threads like it.


Regards,

Lee.

---------- Post added at 12:51 ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 ----------

Too many hats Ray (Walton)?

Its like a mad hatters tea party.

How on earth can one express sentiment over an issue so boldly, with so much passion and supposed belief before, to later make statements in the opposite direction with little or no passion writing it with little more gusto to that of a shopping list!?

I don't trust domestic politicians, together with the overall majority of our country no doubt if one believes the polls. I trust angling politicians a lot less.

Regards,

Lee.

Hi Cheyenne leader,
Top post in your usual way with words, can I ask just what you mean by “good for others watching this and other threads like it”?

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Judas Priest]

Hi Ray W and Lee

If you are waiting for answers on here from certain individuals I would pull up a comfy chair, put your slippers on and settle back for a very long wait. Whilst they are quick to use the site to promote themselves and their views they are less enthusiastic about joining in with any thread or post.

 

[cg74]

How about wondering for a moment why you never seem to hear fly anglers calling for changes in their restricted seasons on the rivers then?

Would that be because there is less commercial interest or maybe that they appreciate the necessity for allowing their quarry to spawn in peace?

You raise a question Jeff and then answer it yourself, the variable date(s) wouldn't work because firstly you cannot totally target a specific species with coarse fishing baits and secondly because of the geographical limits (as has already been pointed out) where different "ownership" covers different banks or adjacent stretches of the same river.

Also, when you examine those different dates you see there is only a very marginal difference between different regions, of what, a week or two, so hardly a trump card now, is it?

In order to convince me or others to the contrary it would take an awful lot more than that . . . . . . .

So game anglers don't want to change the rules governing their season; that would have nothing to do with fly fishing for trout in coloured water being a waste of time, would it?

"you cannot totally target a specific species with coarse fishing bait"
You're right there but how many dace, grayling, roach, perch, bleak, minnows, gudgeon, bullheads and ruffe have you caught on a 12-14mm pellet, boilie or paste bait?

As promised CG,
Peter has beaten me to the punch once again (message to self eat faster) and answered pretty much as I would have. I agree with his response your system would not work for obvious reason. I find it strange you are unwilling to accept or agree with the system that is in place which to be fair is not an exact science but does as best possible cover most species (Trout excluded). But offer up and expect your own suggestions which you point out yourself is not an exact science to be accepted as an alternative to what we have.

I would sooner keep what we have than adopt a system the would be hard if not impossible to implement. Just my honest opinion, those who want change have still to debate and convince me or anyone that they have a better solution.

Kind regards
Ray

The reason I think the existing Close Season is in need of a review is simple; it could be improved to give greater coverage to ALL species, whilst also offering anglers a longer season to indulge in our sport.

Bearing in mind; you can fish with worms on some northern rivers during the Coarse Close Season and eel fish the Severn with hooks that have gape of 1/2" or more...

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Its very simple, close all waters, or open all waters all year. You can't and won't get the facts unless, you fish, all rivers all year, and you would have to do that for several years. You can't fish one river, or a few, and claim that any results from those rivers apply to all rivers. I was all for a closed season, but not any more. Open all waters all year.

 

[mick b]

Many thanks to rollingpinboy for his post re: previous statements on the CS made by Steve Pope, especially;

"Last time around myself and Fred Crouch, together with the rest of the Barbel Society Committee spent many, many hours organising, lobbying, arguing for the retention of the closed season."

I used to respect Steve Pope for the work he has done on behalf of rivers and for his chosen species and have asked myself more than once why he had changed his mind on the CS subject........now I know the answer.


FYI I never intentionally fish for Barbel.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

So game anglers don't want to change the rules governing their season; that would have nothing to do with fly fishing for trout in coloured water being a waste of time, would it?

That argument would only hold good if all fly anglers only fished in coloured waters, very few do, particularly in the South. Fishing in the Southern Chalk Streams there is rarely, if ever, any arguments put forward to alter the closed periods on the river.

"you cannot totally target a specific species with coarse fishing bait" You're right there but how many dace, grayling, roach, perch, bleak, minnows, gudgeon, bullheads and ruffe have you caught on a 12-14mm pellet, boilie or paste bait?

Seeing as I rarely ever use pellet or paste baits the answer is zero.
Nonetheless, how would you propose to target a single species with a more popular (for pleasure anglers) bait such as bread or maggot?
The short answer, of course, is that you cannot, and neither can anyone else.

I think it is worth noting that in all probability the vast majority of anglers are not dedicated specimen anglers and that any rule (Law) changes would have to be applied equally across the broad spectrum that is Coarse Angling today.

---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 ----------

The reason I think the existing Close Season is in need of a review is simple; it could be improved to give greater coverage to ALL species, whilst also offering anglers a longer season to indulge in our sport.

To those of us who strive to preserve the current window those two ideals are wholly mutually exclusive.

You cannot provide more protection if you couple that with a shorter close season.

As the good chief engineer was used to say: it's just not logical Jim!

 

[mick b]

The reason I think the existing Close Season is in need of a review is simple; it could be improved to give greater coverage to ALL species, whilst also offering anglers a longer season to indulge in our sport..

This view totally ignores the fact that our sport impacts on the countryside and involves direct contact with a wild animal in its natural surrounding, few other sports are its equal.

The countryside and the animals should come first when considering any OPEN season changes.
Not the selfish attitudes of personal indulgences!

'Anglers, friends of the Countryside' are proving to be nothing but empty words in this discussion.


What legacy do you think we will we pass to our grandchildren?
Just bland lists of fish weights or a natural resource they can be proud of?


.

 

[cg74]

This view totally ignores the fact that our sport impacts on the countryside and involves direct contact with a wild animal in its natural surrounding, few other sports are its equal.

The countryside and the animals should come first when considering any OPEN season changes.
Not the selfish attitudes of personal indulgences!

'Anglers, friends of the Countryside' are proving to be nothing but empty words in this discussion.


What legacy do you think we will we pass to our grandchildren?
Just bland lists of fish weights or a natural resource they can be proud of?
.

Mick, you've crucially missed out one significant factor; there is only a 2 week gap from the end of the coarse season to the start of the trout season... A rather busy 2 weeks if nature is repair and replenish itself!

Besides exactly what harm am I inflicting to the environment whilst sitting fishing?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Mick, you've crucially missed out one significant factor; there is only a 2 week gap from the end of the coarse season to the start of the trout season... A rather busy 2 weeks if nature is repair and replenish itself!

., . . . only on a very few shared rivers CG.

This is one of my main concerns that any change to the current dates could (or is that would) result in the possible loss of those shared venues.

On many of the southern streams coarse anglers are, let's just say tolerated rather than welcomed, so any changes would firstly probably not happen on those rivers as the fly monet would rule, or else we would end up losing that venue for ever.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 ----------

The countryside and the animals should come first when considering any OPEN season changes. Not the selfish attitudes of personal indulgences!

. . . and that is exactly the sort of responses I am getting from other interested parties who, although not angling related, are certainly river and/or countryside oriented.

To think that we (anglers) are the only ones that need convincing is to stretch the bounds of selfishness to breaking point

 

[cg74]

Peter, I'm finding answering your post very hard as when I quote it, half of it goes AWOL....

Of course you can offer a greater level of protection to all the fish in our rivers and reduce the close period, you simply make rulings more relevant to the species you're looking to protect. Unless of course they're brown trout, as it appears they're less deserving!

It seems to me (looking at your post) that you are the selfish one; you're the "pleasure angler" that wishes to catch any species and thinks nothing of catching brown trout in December when trotting maggots for dace and grayling - As bycatches are inevitable!

If you were to go and fish the Thames around Oxford today using 14mm pellets, boilies and paste baits, what do you think you'd catch?

---------- Post added at 10:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------

., . . . only on a very few shared rivers CG.

This is one of my main concerns that any change to the current dates could (or is that would) result in the possible loss of those shared venues.

On many of the southern streams coarse anglers are, let's just say tolerated rather than welcomed, so any changes would firstly probably not happen on those rivers as the fly monet would rule, or else we would end up losing that venue for ever.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 ----------



. . . and that is exactly the sort of responses I am getting from other interested parties who, although not angling related, are certainly river and/or countryside oriented.

To think that we (anglers) are the only ones that need convincing is to stretch the bounds of selfishness to breaking point

"Very few shared rivers"
I think you're playing down the number of rivers...
Hampshire Avon, Cherwell, Colne, Coln, Culm, Creedy, Eden, Evenlode, Exe, Frome, Itchen, Kennet, Itchen, Leam, Lugg, Mole, Nene, Great Ouse, Ouzel, Severn, Dorset Stour, Warks Stour, Teme, Thames, Wey, Windrush and Wye
There are some "shared rivers" I've fished - Strikes me as more than "a few"...?

"To think that we (anglers) are the only ones that need convincing is to stretch the bounds of selfishness to breaking point"
What! So dog walkers letting their mutts charge through reed beds etc isn't selfish and mindless behaviour?

Can you tell me how sitting still and quiet on a river bank makes me selfish and/or does any environmental harm?

 

[thecrow]

., . . . only on a very few shared rivers CG.

This is one of my main concerns that any change to the current dates could (or is that would) result in the possible loss of those shared venues.

On many of the southern streams coarse anglers are, let's just say tolerated rather than welcomed, so any changes would firstly probably not happen on those rivers as the fly monet would rule, or else we would end up losing that venue for ever.

---------- Post added at 09:53 ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 ----------



. . . and that is exactly the sort of responses I am getting from other interested parties who, although not angling related, are certainly river and/or countryside oriented.

To think that we (anglers) are the only ones that need convincing is to stretch the bounds of selfishness to breaking point

I think that we as anglers should be very wary of involving other none angling parties in the c/s debate, they have their own agendas which are nothing to do with angling and I dare say some of them would like to see anglers away from the rivers full time.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Peter, I'm finding answering your post very hard as when I quote it, half of it goes AWOL....

No idea why that happens, but I am having a few problems in quoting as well - techie errors i guess

Of course you can offer a greater level of protection to all the fish in our rivers and reduce the close period.

I am sorry but I fail to see the logic in tha statement especially when viewing the known diverse spawning periods of our coarse fish.

It seems to me (looking at your post) that you are the selfish one; you're the "pleasure angler" that wishes to catch any species and thinks nothing of catching brown trout in December when trotting maggots for dace and grayling - As bycatches are inevitable!

I am not being selfish at all Clive but I am simply trying to state an overall case to account for the many different types of anglers using the banks, from the dyed-in-the-woll specimen hunters to the Dads and Lads who go for a day's fishing; plus everyone else inbetween.

If you were to go and fish the Thames around Oxford today using 14mm pellets, boilies and paste baits, what do you think you'd catch?

Maybe that is the case for your type of fishing, however not everyone fishes that way now, do they.

---------- Post added at 10:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------



"Very few shared rivers"
I think you're playing down the number of rivers...
Hampshire Avon, Cherwell, Colne, Coln, Culm, Creedy, Eden, Evenlode, Exe, Frome, Itchen, Kennet, Itchen, Leam, Lugg, Mole, Nene, Great Ouse, Ouzel, Severn, Dorset Stour, Warks Stour, Teme, Thames, Wey, Windrush and Wye
There some "shared rivers" I've fished - Strikes me as more than "a few"...

How many of those rivers are open to the general public? How many of thosehave a public right of way compared to having banks that are owned by farmers etc?

"To think that we (anglers) are the only ones that need convincing is to stretch the bounds of selfishness to breaking point"
What! So dog walkers letting their mutts charge through reed beds etc isn't selfish and mindless behaviour?

Again, try walking a dog along almost anby stretch of some of thsoe rivers and see how far you'd get. As for other river users, and I think you know this full well, (but you chose to use the one commonly disliked group to all angers as your example)

What I actually refer to are the many and diverse organisations ranging from the Rivers Trust, to Nature England right up to the Dragonfly Conservation society and many other wildlife, flora and fauna groups inbetween. Each and every one has a vested interest in ensuring that we don't lose some of the protection (for their interest group) along the river banks.

Can you tell me how sitting still and quiet on a river bank me selfish and/or does any harm?

Sitting there targeting (or catching a by-catch of) gravid fish would that be? Why would you want to do that in the first place?



---------- Post added at 10:55 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------

I think that we as anglers should be very wary of involving other none angling parties in the c/s debate, they have their own agendas which are nothing to do with angling and I dare say some of them would like to see anglers away from the rivers full time.

So, rather than engage them you would prefer what exactly?

That we (and I used the term very lightly) forge ahead in secrecy and attempt some sort of coup d'etat in splendid isolation?

And this in the age of information availability and internet searches?

Good luck with that!

We (anglers) should not think that we are so bloody insular as to expect to ride rough shod over other interested parties.