River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[black kettle]

I have just posted this on the AT website. Really in response to Pete Reading's post and to lend him my support. Not that Pete needs it. He knows his stuff. Pete should be the next BS chairman in my opinion. Anyway, here is my post.

I strongly agree with Pete Reading for all the reasons he has listed (I could write more) and strongly disagree with Jeff Woodhouse over all of his.

Wild fish, because that’s what river fish are, wild, both in classification and in law, are not ours to use as a commodity as and when we please for our sporting pleasure. We have a duty of care to ensure that our sporting instincts adopt provisions that take steps to protect and preserve the species we pursue in the same vein that all sportsmen do with their quarry. Are we river based coarse anglers superior to river based game anglers who revere the close seasons for their quarry? Do we read about the shooting fraternity pushing the BASC or the Game Conservancy Trust to abolish or alter their close seasons? I remember well when coarse and game anglers leant their support to sea anglers when the pair trawlers came sweeping through bass spawning grounds destroying centuries old sites for bass spawning. Would this organisation now lend a hand to see rod and line sweep over our nations river spawning grounds? Or will they put their shoulders to the wheel to stop this madness?

I am unashamedly passionate about rivers and river fishing. The rivers close season is for me a huge part of my love affair and a chance to be involved in putting something back via my abstinence for three months a year. But now, I see the very organisation I thought would fight tooth and nail to keep the rivers close season gather at the abyss seemingly eager and keen to sweep hundreds of years of angler conservation away. Many here, believe they are right in their belief that our wild fish no longer require the support we give them via the close season. Who among us then will speak for our quarry? The Angling Trust? We cannot count on your support.

Anglers who believe in retaining the rivers close season will not stand by and watch this happen. We will call upon every single conservation based organisation across the nation to back us in retaining the close season on our cherished rivers. How many can you bring into the clearing? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?

We can bring millions and yes, they will come.

Bird watches, wildlife lovers, land owners, shooters, game anglers, farmers, every conservation organisation we can contact, MP,s (especially those who want re-election so like to be on the biggest side) and yes, even royalty.

You have sown the seed. Now reap the whirlwind.

Regards,

Lee.


The battle is of their choosing not ours. Like I said in my post, "who among us will speak for our quarry?" We will, and others that will come.

Let this be a line drawn in the sand. We retreat no further from now on.

---------- Post added at 10:14 ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 ----------

The thread on the AT site is not bad actually. Rob Burt is coming under a fair bit of parliamentory flack from his nibs ex MP Reading West for standing his ground and telling it like it is and of course "they don't like it up em Mr Mainwaring" so old Salty is threatening to chuck Rob out! No surprises there then.

I'm actually quite surprised that the AT let me in. Mind you, my post is "awaiting moderation" so the trust cranken cart might well come for me in the night.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I have just posted this on the AT website.

No, You couldn't get that right. It's Martin Salter's own website.

I just posted this -

I shouldn’t hold your breath Lee. We’ve had these arguments on Fishingmagic so I’m not going to respond on here also. But I think you’ll find that the correct legal term for a river fish is “feral”! They belong to no one until they are caught whereupon they belong to the captor. It might be that under his licence he is obliged to return it (AS WE ALL SHOULD!) in which case it becomes feral once more. (source ‘Angling and the Law’ – Simon Payne and Peter Carty, the latter is now one of the EA’s top solicitors.)

Clumsy fingers though, I must have hit the enter key before I finished typing my name. Martin may correct it.

Oh and I'm still not going to respond on here other than the above. It's not as if you've added anything to the debate that can be debated. It's all too whimsical.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I have just posted this on the AT website. Really in response to Pete Reading's post and to lend him my support. Not that Pete needs it. He knows his stuff. Pete should be the next BS chairman in my opinion. Anyway, here is my post.

I strongly agree with Pete Reading for all the reasons he has listed (I could write more) and strongly disagree with Jeff Woodhouse over all of his.

Wild fish, because that’s what river fish are, wild, both in classification and in law, are not ours to use as a commodity as and when we please for our sporting pleasure. We have a duty of care to ensure that our sporting instincts adopt provisions that take steps to protect and preserve the species we pursue in the same vein that all sportsmen do with their quarry. Are we river based coarse anglers superior to river based game anglers who revere the close seasons for their quarry? Do we read about the shooting fraternity pushing the BASC or the Game Conservancy Trust to abolish or alter their close seasons? I remember well when coarse and game anglers leant their support to sea anglers when the pair trawlers came sweeping through bass spawning grounds destroying centuries old sites for bass spawning. Would this organisation now lend a hand to see rod and line sweep over our nations river spawning grounds? Or will they put their shoulders to the wheel to stop this madness?

I am unashamedly passionate about rivers and river fishing. The rivers close season is for me a huge part of my love affair and a chance to be involved in putting something back via my abstinence for three months a year. But now, I see the very organisation I thought would fight tooth and nail to keep the rivers close season gather at the abyss seemingly eager and keen to sweep hundreds of years of angler conservation away. Many here, believe they are right in their belief that our wild fish no longer require the support we give them via the close season. Who among us then will speak for our quarry? The Angling Trust? We cannot count on your support.

Anglers who believe in retaining the rivers close season will not stand by and watch this happen. We will call upon every single conservation based organisation across the nation to back us in retaining the close season on our cherished rivers. How many can you bring into the clearing? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?

We can bring millions and yes, they will come.

Bird watches, wildlife lovers, land owners, shooters, game anglers, farmers, every conservation organisation we can contact, MP,s (especially those who want re-election so like to be on the biggest side) and yes, even royalty.

You have sown the seed. Now reap the whirlwind.

Regards,

Lee.


The battle is of their choosing not ours. Like I said in my post, "who among us will speak for our quarry?" We will, and others that will come.

Let this be a line drawn in the sand. We retreat no further from now on.

---------- Post added at 10:14 ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 ----------

The thread on the AT site is not bad actually. Rob Burt is coming under a fair bit of parliamentory flack from his nibs ex MP Reading West for standing his ground and telling it like it is and of course "they don't like it up em Mr Mainwaring" so old Salty is threatening to chuck Rob out! No surprises there then.

I'm actually quite surprised that the AT let me in. Mind you, my post is "awaiting moderation" so the trust cranken cart might well come for me in the night.

Regards,

Lee.

Lee,
Pete Reading is a well respected man, the BS were lucky to get him on board as their Research Conservation officer, he is absolutely right and his post on the trust’s site should be applauded by all BS members. If they don’t back their chosen Research and Conservation officer who has done outstanding work and back Steve Pope in his call to change (more like abolish) the close season I fear for the BS and for Pete.

The BS membership have a chance very soon at the coming AGM to have their say , and to ensure that Steve Pope takes forward to the Angling Trust that their desire (if that is what it is) is to maintain the BS stance of protecting the CS. They must not allow the desire of one man to be put forward as the stance of the whole membership.

Ask yourself what good will a two week extension do to help? Nothing thats what! Don’t be fooled into thinking this all the “Names” calling for change want.

 

[binka]

I'm intrigued with the posts referring to The Barbel Society in this debate.

As a frequent, non-Society barbel angler who's completely dis-interested in their internal politics and as a genuine question (overlooking the obvious connection of species to, in general, a river fish and the closed season debate) how many members does The Barbel Society have and how influential should they be by proportional (as I think this would/should work) representation?

Why aren't other organisations such as The Chub Study Group actively engaged in the debate... or are they, albeit elsewhere?

And... Let's just say for example that The Barbel Society can boast 30,000 members why should that add weight to a debate when, for example if there are four million anglers in the UK (?) and if you conservatively estimate half of those fish rivers, it leaves a heck of a lot more possibly holding an opinion opposed to that of The Society?

Does it simply come down to those that can make themselves heard?

Do these non-Society anglers have to band together to give themselves a badge and a collective name so that their collective views can be registered and assessed before their opinions qualify with the influence of a "Society"?

Many posts have also mentioned other species of coarse fish so clearly this is my way of questioning influence and what that influence is made up of in terms of actual numbers.

I think it's already been sorted...

Be selective by species except it's complicated and almost impossible to enforce which brings us back to the existing closed season... mg:

 

[black kettle]

Oops Jeff. Just heard both barrels go off and blow your slippers off again.

Go to the AT website and click on "Campaigns" Its along the scroll bar at the top Jeff. Hover over campaigns and a drop down box appears entitled "Close Season Debate". Click that and Salty's article comes up clear as day Jeff. Scroll down to Salty's article and it says "read the full article HERE"

Now call me picky Jeff but I accessed the article as a AT article seeing as he wrote it for them? PLUS Jeff, and this is the bit that you have missed, AGAIN. On the top it says very clearly, "Martin Salters Angling Trust Blog"

"No, You couldn't get that right. It's Martin Salter's own website."

Really? Not what it says on the tin. Should have gone to specsavers mate

Is this all really the best you can come up with Jeff? Frankly I'm getting disappointed in you. You'll be telling me my wellies are on the wrong feet next.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

If they don’t back their chosen Research and Conservation officer

Hang on. How is he "CHOSEN"? I thought you were accusing the BS of being a dictatorship -

You can interoperate that as you will, but I think you will find that it ultimately means the membership have no say.

For one comment from you.

Stab 'em in the back why don't you?

---------- Post added at 20:11 ---------- Previous post was at 20:08 ----------

Let's just say for example that The Barbel Society can boast 30,000 members

No way, Binka. Probably about 1000-1100. Our federation has more more than twice as many members.

 

[cg74]

Ask yourself what good will a two week extension do to help? Nothing thats what! Don’t be fooled into thinking this all the “Names” calling for change want.

And when you've asked yourself that, for balance ask yourself what harm will a two week extension actually do - I'd say absolutely none!

If the two weeks were added to enable us to fish all of March, then it'd bring me enjoyment which at the end of the day is the reason I fish.
And when I fish for barbel the only by-catches I tend to get are bream and chub, which will be way off spawning.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Now call me picky Jeff but I accessed the article as a AT article seeing as he wrote it for them? PLUS Jeff, and this is the bit that you have missed, AGAIN. On the top it says very clearly, "Martin Salters Angling Trust Blog"

Like many other bits and pieces on webpages it merely provides a link to another site to save the author inputting teh entire script again. You are arguing a very silly point now if you do not understand the differences. Martin does work for the Trust, but he is also his own man or are you saying that the Trust paid for all his Australian visits that he writes about on his site. Do climb down of your little perch.

 

[binka]

No way, Binka. Probably about 1000-1100. Our federation has more more than twice as many members.

Hi Jeff... good to see you around again and thanks for the clarification

That's an amazingly low figure in my opinion given the fuss that is often made regarding them, I'm coming from behind on this and haven't really been too interested other than the frequent, casual glance in on the thread but what is the federation you are referring to?

Apologies in advance for my ignorance...

 

[black kettle]

Ah Ray,

But will any vote over the close season get onto the agenda for the BS AGM?

BS with 30,000 members!!! My my Binka, my Lord Vader would take over the world with that many members!!!! He's bad enough with just 50. Actually, I don't know how many members they have. But its no where near as popular an organisation since Tony Rocca and Dave Burr left. OOps thats me bundled off in the Darth spaceship and flown off to the dark side of planet Barbeldom.

Whats a frequent none- Society barbel angler by the way? I also tend to fish on my own a lot am I one of them?

Very good points you make about being heard. Of course the vast majority of anglers won't be heard because they won't be asked. Well not by the AT anyway. One has to join the AT to get that and I doubt they would listen then anyway. Plus the vast majority of angler won't join the AT so its kind of looking like its back to square one?

Not exactly. More on that in about four weeks time. Can't say any more than that Darth's spaceship is overhead as I type.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I may be wrong Binka, they might have 1125 or even 1200. When I was a member they had around 1350 I think, but they wouldn't have me as a member now because I won't swear my life to the holy close season.

My federation is Thames Valley Angling Association I started it in 1997 and they said it wouldn't last. Mwahahahahahahahaha! In fact, we are hungry for more waters. Can't get enough and we uphold a close season on all of them, even the navigation. It costs each member £3 per year, but you have to join an associated club. (To the Trust we are a federation - hence my reference)

 

[black kettle]

"or are you saying that the Trust paid for all his Australian visits that he writes about on his site."

No Jeff. You just said that all on your own. Now't to do with me. Trawl back through any of my anti AT posts I ever made, take a couple of years off in a dark room to do it, and you'll be very disappointed to find that I have never made any reference to Salty in connection to what he may get paid by the AT or anyone else. For your record, and for Salty cos I know he looks in, (he can call me Fletch and we can be mates) I actually thought as an MP he made quite a good un. And yes Jeff, I have read a lot about his career as an MP so know all about the various committees he sat on etc etc. Would they all be like him.

I always thought that Salty had a nine month break going to Oz after he resigned as an MP way before he had any official connections with the AT? I actually saw him on the telly talking about his Australian trip. I thought it was just the one actually?

Don't tell me you got that wrong as well??

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I'm intrigued with the posts referring to The Barbel Society in this debate.

As a frequent, non-Society barbel angler who's completely dis-interested in their internal politics and as a genuine question (overlooking the obvious connection of species to, in general, a river fish and the closed season debate) how many members does The Barbel Society have and how influential should they be by proportional (as I think this would/should work) representation?

Why aren't other organisations such as The Chub Study Group actively engaged in the debate... or are they, albeit elsewhere?

And... Let's just say for example that The Barbel Society can boast 30,000 members why should that add weight to a debate when, for example if there are four million anglers in the UK (?) and if you conservatively estimate half of those fish rivers, it leaves a heck of a lot more possibly holding an opinion opposed to that of The Society?

Does it simply come down to those that can make themselves heard?

Do these non-Society anglers have to band together to give themselves a badge and a collective name so that their collective views can be registered and assessed before their opinions qualify with the influence of a "Society"?

Many posts have also mentioned other species of coarse fish so clearly this is my way of questioning influence and what that influence is made up of in terms of actual numbers.

I think it's already been sorted...

Be selective by species except it's complicated and almost impossible to enforce which brings us back to the existing closed season... mg:

Binka,
I don't think the trust is listening to anyone other than the "Names" and the others Martin Salter refers to. Are you one of them? I’m not, just who are they? I don't think numbers matter the trust will do what its members and member clubs want and nothing else.

The BS is being mentioned simply because if you read Pete Readings post on the site mentioned by Lee (black kettle) you will see he appears to be of the opposite view to the chainman (Steve Pope) of the BS.

Go over and have a look at what Pete has posted, there is a clear difference in opinions between Research and Conservation Officer and its Chairman. Who would you be backing, my monies on the R&C officer.

Regards
Ray

 

[black kettle]

BOOM BOOM!! No slippers left now Jeff just smoldering remains on the carpet!!

Its nearer 620 Jeff. I've got a copy of the minutes from the last AGM.

This is getting daft now Jeff. Sooner or later you've just got to get one right?

Ray......Me........Ray.......Me.......Ray.........Me.......Ray.......Me

If this is ping pong we are winning and we ain't got any bats.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[binka]

I may be wrong Binka, they might have 1125 or even 1200. When I was a member they had around 1350 I think, but they wouldn't have me as a member now because I won't swear my life to the holy close season.

My federation is Thames Valley Angling Association I started it in 1997 and they said it wouldn't last. Mwahahahahahahahaha! In fact, we are hungry for more waters. Can't get enough and we uphold a close season on all of them, even the navigation. It costs each member £3 per year, but you have to join an associated club. (To the Trust we are a federation - hence my reference)

Thanks Jeff, much appreciated.

I'm still amazed at what in my opinion is an amazingly low number of members of The Barbel Society!

Given the afore-mentioned fuss that often seems to surround it with posts on here if not elsewhere too (?)... I would think that in context they would hold little weight to the overall debate in terms of actual numbers of anglers and it demonstrates to me just how easy it is to get side tracked/influenced by such organisations.

Not overlooking the good work which they have done in many instances it does make me question what, in some cases with quite clever minds it would seem, ulterior motives are held by some in relation to their true feelings when reading of them in this closed season debate?

For me The Barbel Society waters are too muddy and I can only discard the opinions of those who are involved in internal politics as I simply can't/won't trust them.

I think we should stop talking about The Barbel Society on the basis of their general insignificance in terms of numbers and get on with the debate in terms of the overwhelming majority of average river anglers on an all species basis...

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Its nearer 620 Jeff. I've got a copy of the minutes from the last AGM.

Look, I said I might be wrong and that it was a guess. I didn't realise I'd taken that many members with me when I left them - or the reality is - they've probably p'ed off a lot more than they thought - or - those so-called supporters only wanted certain fishing rights on rivers the BS no longer have. How the **** should I know. It all just goes to prove the point Binka is enquiring about, what right has a miniscule group like the BS to have a bigger voice than anyone else?

Now for Martin - I never said you'd accused him .... (ah forget it!) Last post to you. Add something significant to the debate why don't you?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

BOOM BOOM!! No slippers left now Jeff just smoldering remains on the carpet!!

Its nearer 620 Jeff. I've got a copy of the minutes from the last AGM.

This is getting daft now Jeff. Sooner or later you've just got to get one right?

Ray......Me........Ray.......Me.......Ray.........Me.......Ray.......Me

If this is ping pong we are winning and we ain't got any bats.

Regards,

Lee.

Lee,
Talking of Martin Salter, here is an extract from an e-mail I sent to an organisation outlining my concerns over this call to change the CS. I have left out just who responded to me for privacy reasons.

“Dear Ray,

I understand your concerns, which are entirely valid. I am copying Martin Salter into this email by way of introduction and to take your thoughts forward (although it sounds like you may have already been in touch). I think Martin could better represent your views than I, and when Martin and I spoke, your views actually sounded like they aligned in many ways.”

You can see MS had a conversation about my concerns with the person, who had my express permission for them to let MS have my contact details. Guess what, he hasn’t even had the decency to acknowledge to say he had been forwarded my concerns (already sent to the trust by the way) and guess what neither have they.

They don’t want to talk or debate with us ordinary anglers mate, oh no just the chosen few, it all stinks.



Regards

Ray

 

[black kettle]

Not sure I like the new BS website. Its the same colour as our dustbin.

Pete Reading is a giant for river conservation in his area and beyond and the work he has done for the BS R&C is remarkable. The money that the BS membership has raised to fund Pete's R&C efforts is also remarkable. I am involved with a few angling clubs who do the same so I know the amount of unpaid hard work that goes into these projects. The one thing that has remained constant within the BS membership is their consistent affiliation to river conservation especially the way the BS embraces the need for a rivers close season. Long may that continue.

Regards,

Lee.

---------- Post added at 13:00 ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 ----------

Off for tea and telly now Jeff. I won't be returning till tomorrow so take the rest of the night off. Relax and put your feet up.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Not sure I like the new BS website. Its the same colour as our dustbin.

Pete Reading is a giant for river conservation in his area and beyond and the work he has done for the BS R&C is remarkable. The money that the BS membership has raised to fund Pete's R&C efforts is also remarkable. I am involved with a few angling clubs who do the same so I know the amount of unpaid hard work that goes into these projects. The one thing that has remained constant within the BS membership is their consistent affiliation to river conservation especially the way the BS embraces the need for a rivers close season. Long may that continue.

Regards,

Lee.

---------- Post added at 13:00 ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 ----------

Off for tea and telly now Jeff. I won't be returning till tomorrow so take the rest of the night off. Relax and put your feet up.

Regards,

Lee.

I rather think he is miffed Lee, he has resorted to swearing, usual thing when some lose an argument.

What you got for tea?

 

[binka]

Binka,
I don't think the trust is listening to anyone other than the "Names" and the others Martin Salter refers to. Are you one of them?

Hi Ray, thanks for the reply

I'm not one of the names calling for the abolition of the closed season but am a continuous member of the ATr.

I'm actually in favour of the current closed season as it stands on the basis that this debate must surely have taken place every few years since who knows when and the same conclusions drawn (ie. a species specific closed season would be perfect except it would be complicated and almost impossible to practice/enforce).

Binka,
I don't think numbers matter the trust will do what its members and member clubs want and nothing else.

So join the Trust and be heard...

As an aside, why are the Angling Trust instructing this debate?

I have to confess that's a knock and a further aside from the main thread to those that claim they have no influence

Binka,
The BS is being mentioned simply because if you read Pete Readings post on the site mentioned by Lee (black kettle) you will see he appears to be of the opposite view to the chainman (Steve Pope) of the BS.

Go over and have a look at what Pete has posted, there is a clear difference in opinions between Research and Conservation Officer and its Chairman. Who would you be backing, my monies on the R&C officer.

Regards
Ray

Can I do it tomorrow?

---------- Post added at 21:16 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------

It all just goes to prove the point Binka is enquiring about, what right has a miniscule group like the BS to have a bigger voice than anyone else?

And Jeff...

My initial estimate of 30,000 members in relation to the stink that they frequently give off bares no relation to the actual, miniscule figure of 1100 - 1200 members.

And hand on heart that was my genuine guess.

He who shouts loudest and all that...

Well said Jeff.