River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[chub_on_the_block]

I would suggest that for those coarse rivers that dont hold barbel the closed season is not needed because those river stretches are so rarely fished. Accordingly i should be able to wander out to fish one on a nice evening in late May to winkle out a few roach without hurting anything. If i can do that on a canal i see no ethical reason why not.

If barbel or other trophy fish need special protection then a closed season appropriate for them should be used - as any sensible river fishery containing them could do with its local rules.

Concern for fish welfare has improved beyond belief since the closed season was introduced, and the numbers fishing rivers has also changed dramatically. In my opinion it would be better for fishing as a whole (and certainly for older folks or casual anglers) if the closed season was only imposed where it was needed and for a period or timing that was appropriate. Once the CS was abolished on stillwaters any claim that coarse angling exhibits an ethical position on the issue was thrown away. Now it is just hypocritical to have a different attitude depending on whether the fish are feral or owned.

 

[sam vimes]

Nice to see this has turned into little more than point scoring and what should be an internal Barbel Society power struggle.

Someone asked in either this, or the closed season poll, thread why so few have bothered to respond, this rubbish is precisely why. They don't care to be involved, or associated, with the angling glitterati and the power struggles of small angling groups that are way more powerful than their pinfully low memberships should entitle them to be.

Angling politics, and the personal vendettas born from them, you can keep them. However, I thank you all for reminding me not to get involved in the multitude of different angling groups. Occasionally I forget and think they might be a good idea, then something like this comes along.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

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).



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



Can I do it tomorrow?

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



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.

Binka,
Ah those famous words “Join and be heard” of course in reality they are empty words ask the many who have tried to be heard and change things. The organisation we have spokenof is just one example of how “Joining and be heard” has not made one jot of difference.

Like you I am in favour of the current CS, it covers most species as best can be expected of course no it is not perfect but what others have put up isn’t either. All through this debate you will not have seen the pro CS side resort to swearing in **** they have kept calm and tried to put their views over in a nice way. This debate should never have been asked for it has been visited enough times in the past and the result has been the same the CS remains in place.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that a small minority of voices aren’t being listen to and also ask yourself just what the Angling Trust’s motives opening up this issue again?

Thank you for your response.

Regards
Ray

 

[rollingpinboy]

"Quote:"I would suggest the EA are quite happy with a close season – it’s when electro-fishing/river management takes place"...end quote

That should be outlawed as well, especially in the ‘Closed Season’ as electro-fishing damages/kills fish eggs and fry and can damage/disturb/kill spawning fish.
If EA river management takes place like weed cutting, dredging and gravel cleaning etc etc, this also destroys spawning grounds, already laid eggs, fry, established macro invertebrate colonies etc etc... thus destroying the riverine food chain which then affects the survival of amphibians, mammals, wildfowl, birds and so on. On some rivers, they undertake this carnage of the natural riverine habitat in Spring, Summer and Autumn....and they wonder why there are population declines/low recruitment of fish and declines in populations of birds and wildlife etc... to which a good number are protected species. (see vid link at end to see what the EA did to an SSSI/SAC protected river in the close season/summer and autumn each year.)
If anyone didn't know, Pete Reading is a founder member of the Barbel Society as well as a few others on here. The current membership is probably as mentioned around the 600+ mark give or take. I'm sure the BS are very worried about how many will renew in June, hence SP panicking a bit and saying clubs, tackle shops and river fishing will die...if we don't open the close season and fish all year, as we no longer have enough time to go fishing (losing 4 months) due to rainfall and flooding (in so many words). That is part of my interpretation of events, as well as a few others concerning his new found commercialism, sponsorship’s, online website tackle shop and guiding business etc. all gained off the back of being The BS Chairman for 18+ years. The BS don't seem to have changed the membership card numbers since its formation, so if you joined as a new member today, your card membership number might be No 13,000 or more, which does not take into account the in-out turnover and how many have left since 1995/6 or when they joined. In the past, i think the membership reached around 1500 max, but it has fluctuated and nosedived considerably since then. I am sure if the ‘well respected’ Pete Reading was put in the Chair, together with his 'permanent' Close Season stance and Conservation Initiatives, the membership would flourish again, and all the previous 'I'm Out' members ...would re-join and totally back the Closed Season.

EA River Destruction - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeIvqo9rDhg

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

The Angling trust is jobs for the boys nothing else. You can join, and vote, but you won't be heard. It's not down to the AT to say if we have a close season or not, they are NOT Anglings governing body, they answer to it's members only. What if the AT members should vote for river fishing all year round ?? .

Your going round and round as always every year. Wildlife will not and does not suffer from anglers, if it did, there wouldn't be any wildlife left by now. Most wildlife does well, thanks to anglers being on the bank, be it, Rivers or Stillwaters. A Fish is a Fish, river or still water, fish all year, all waters.

 

[binka]

Binka,
Ah those famous words “Join and be heard” of course in reality they are empty words ask the many who have tried to be heard and change things. The organisation we have spokenof is just one example of how “Joining and be heard” has not made one jot of difference.

Hi Ray,

Which in turn must surely invalidate any opinion of The Barbel Society and their collective "might" in this debate despite the references to them?

And again in turn emphasises my suspicions of any ulterior motives of those within it in relation to their internal politics/power struggle and the influence on the closed season debate?

I've put a question mark on that just to be speculative and on the safe side but it's clear that internal politics have already come into a thread on the wider issue from previous posts without having to quote them.

I find it hard to understand how an organisation of 1100 - 1200 eg The Barbel Society can claim to add weight to a debate when an organisation such as the Angling Trust, with a membership of many, many thousands more and which dwarfs it, should be swept aside?

It's like you're asking me to listen to the opinions of a few hundred and then go and ignore the opinions of many, many thousands (if that transpires to be the case and neither of us know at this point)?

Or is this becoming too polarised on The Barbel Society and their rather insignificant, by membership numbers, opinion?

Like you I am in favour of the current CS, it covers most species as best can be expected of course no it is not perfect but what others have put up isn’t either. All through this debate you will not have seen the pro CS side resort to swearing in **** they have kept calm and tried to put their views over in a nice way.

Agreed on the closed season but in fairness some who are opposed to it, and my point of view, have posted their opinions in an articulate and constructive manner too.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that a small minority of voices aren’t being listen to and also ask yourself just what the Angling Trust’s motives opening up this issue again?

So how do I fool myself into believing the views of a body which represents many thousands more anglers even if I do (potentially) disagree with it ?

 

[chav professor]

It has been suggested 'a study' could determine whether the close season was a practical conservation issue.... once and for all.

It seems to be the preferred method for people who have already made their mind up. But lets suggest a format:

Lift the close season on a trial river?
Measure biodiversity before/after?
Collect fish survey data?

Biological studies are massively flawed.... My river is electrofished by a local college (in the close seasonmg just for education... annually... The EA carry out a major survey every 3/4 years.

I interpret the data as: big pike are easily electrofished for..... larger chub are absent from data.... no fish over 4lb have been recorded (I catch hundreds... literally)......

Apart from flawed data, it would take decades to determine for certainty.... Peaks and troughs in biodiversity could be due to natural cycles outside the control of the original study.

Thirdly, different rivers would respond differently... would a massive river like the Wye be comparable to a smaller river?

Anyway, the EA carry out work they know to be detrimental to biodiversity because they wear different hats..... the flood defence hat is the one that responds by cutting back cover, trees and massacres weed... possibly desilting/dredging..... It will look very attractive as different regions apply for funding to secure jobs in the short term. It has far more funding and wields far more 'clout'...

So in response to the rational argument for a 'study'.....as a scientist..... I suggest any such study needs to be seen with significant limitations (anyway, we all know we can't believe the way the media interprets scientific findings?)

I would suggest that comparing still waters to rivers is not significant - funding, management, stocking, environmental pressures are very different.... even angling behavior is very different.

Some rivers needed to be brought 'back to life'. I can refer to my local river... I am familiar with its history (which I guess many could relate to). The river was essential for business.... first as a means of transport... it was canalised to allow material to be moved from town to town. Industry followed. Tanneries and other industries flourished and the river was seen as a convenient sewage outfall system. In the 1950's, my father remembers massive fish kills.... a raft of dead fish in the summer making slow progress down stream. Eels were prolific - and made up a part of local diet from time to time (imagine the bio-accumulation of toxins)....

At around the same time, gravel extraction was a thriving business and we have a flourishing network of still waters... they are very rich in flora and fauna and have massive shoals of silver fish - they are thriving.

It was the work of a few dedicated fishing clubs in conjunction with the various water authorities/EA that restocked and provided the fishing we have today... Chub have never been indigenous to Suffolk water ways. They were first stocked in 1957.

I see rivers and still waters very differently..... river fish/fishing is in decline. Still waters are flourishing. I can think of a number of smaller rivers where the distorted balance between specimen fish and recruitment numbers are way out of kilter. Of course we can look to otters, crayfish, and comorants.... but its much deeper than that. I would suggest we need to look a lot closer to home. I can see how my river has changed in my lifetime.

Additional time fishing is not what many rivers need right now.

and large stretches are now no longer seen as viable by fishing clubs...

Get rivers healthy.... campaign against abstraction, pollution, flood defence destruction, mismanagement - then you would have all the fishing you want.

Get that sorted and I'll happily have the debate.....

 

[Ray Wood 1]

It has been suggested 'a study' could determine whether the close season was a practical conservation issue.... once and for all.

It seems to be the preferred method for people who have already made their mind up. But lets suggest a format:

Lift the close season on a trial river?
Measure biodiversity before/after?
Collect fish survey data?

Biological studies are massively flawed.... My river is electrofished by a local college (in the close seasonmg just for education... annually... The EA carry out a major survey every 3/4 years.

I interpret the data as: big pike are easily electrofished for..... larger chub are absent from data.... no fish over 4lb have been recorded (I catch hundreds... literally)......

Apart from flawed data, it would take decades to determine for certainty.... Peaks and troughs in biodiversity could be due to natural cycles outside the control of the original study.

Thirdly, different rivers would respond differently... would a massive river like the Wye be comparable to a smaller river?

Anyway, the EA carry out work they know to be detrimental to biodiversity because they wear different hats..... the flood defence hat is the one that responds by cutting back cover, trees and massacres weed... possibly desilting/dredging..... It will look very attractive as different regions apply for funding to secure jobs in the short term. It has far more funding and wields far more 'clout'...

So in response to the rational argument for a 'study'.....as a scientist..... I suggest any such study needs to be seen with significant limitations (anyway, we all know we can't believe the way the media interprets scientific findings?)

I would suggest that comparing still waters to rivers is not significant - funding, management, stocking, environmental pressures are very different.... even angling behavior is very different.

Some rivers needed to be brought 'back to life'. I can refer to my local river... I am familiar with its history (which I guess many could relate to). The river was essential for business.... first as a means of transport... it was canalised to allow material to be moved from town to town. Industry followed. Tanneries and other industries flourished and the river was seen as a convenient sewage outfall system. In the 1950's, my father remembers massive fish kills.... a raft of dead fish in the summer making slow progress down stream. Eels were prolific - and made up a part of local diet from time to time (imagine the bio-accumulation of toxins)....

At around the same time, gravel extraction was a thriving business and we have a flourishing network of still waters... they are very rich in flora and fauna and have massive shoals of silver fish - they are thriving.

It was the work of a few dedicated fishing clubs in conjunction with the various water authorities/EA that restocked and provided the fishing we have today... Chub have never been indigenous to Suffolk water ways. They were first stocked in 1957.

I see rivers and still waters very differently..... river fish/fishing is in decline. Still waters are flourishing. I can think of a number of smaller rivers where the distorted balance between specimen fish and recruitment numbers are way out of kilter. Of course we can look to otters, crayfish, and comorants.... but its much deeper than that. I would suggest we need to look a lot closer to home. I can see how my river has changed in my lifetime.

Additional time fishing is not what many rivers need right now.

and large stretches are now no longer seen as viable by fishing clubs...

Get rivers healthy.... campaign against abstraction, pollution, flood defence destruction, mismanagement - then you would have all the fishing you want.

Get that sorted and I'll happily have the debate.....

Great post chav professor,
The ones calling for change and a longer fishing season should be concentrating on the very things you have outlined and the Angling Trust should be at the forefront leading the way to bring some of our rivers back to life and not backing a few celeb anglers who want more.

Respect
Ray

Binka, I will respond later, got a lot to do right now.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Additional time fishing is not what many rivers need right now. and large stretches are now no longer seen as viable by fishing clubs... Get rivers healthy.... campaign against abstraction, pollution, flood defence destruction, mismanagement - then you would have all the fishing you want.

. . . . and therein is one of the best set of points made so far.

The Angling Trust should sit up and take notice, and when, only when, that has been accomplished maybe start to reconsider the Close Season . . . . . . .

Remember, the Trust only have around 17,000 individual members, and as for the "associated members" by virtue of their club having joined; well, segregate Fish Legal from the Angling Trust and see how many of those would stay . . . . . .

Not only do the Trust not represent even a small percentage of all anglers it apparently only listens to a very few, those of the celebrity ilk

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Good ol' Chav, a voice of reason, but strange again how we all take our own view on what you say. Here are my points

Measure biodiversity before/after? Collect fish survey data?

The EA are supposed to do that before allowing any hydros to be built. They missed it at Romney, but say they will continue to monitor the situation - even though they have no standard now to measure against. Still, their attitude is - building hydros is a calculated risk, but as such they don't see why it cannot go ahead...

big pike are easily electrofished for.....

Every river survey takes in a large proportion of pike. This is because they do take the hit very well being long in the body and also lying up in the shallows where the electrofishing is far more effective, doesn't work below around 6ft. However, by far the largest quantity of fish are bleak, dace and roach. Chub feature rarely and whoops of joy (not literally) go up if a barbel is caught since both of these species tend to sit very much on the bottom of deeper parts of the river.

Get rivers healthy.... campaign against abstraction, pollution, flood defence destruction, mismanagement - then you would have all the fishing you want.

Completely with you and have to say I am changing my opinions about TW. Once I would have hung their directors for every pollution incident, but I have been assured (and this may be due to Martin Salter's work for them) that they are trying very hard to reduce the incidents to zero. It's just that they are dealing with an infrastructure that is actually older than the close season in many areas.

On abstraction they have fitted new filters on one of their abstraction intakes and that should save a good many juvenile fish. On flood defence I disagree with the ATr on that, I put human life above fish, so call me. There are lots to be learned from protecting the uplands and stopping water falling immediately into the rivers and stopping building on flood plains. But the only thing worse, in this country, than a flood is to have your property completely consumed by fire. Flood defences must continue.

Additional time fishing is not what many rivers need right now. and large stretches are now no longer seen as viable by fishing clubs...

But then these two statements beat me? You don't think we should be able to able to fish the rivers more, even though most clubs/anglers are giving them up. I'm puzzled, that's all.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

But then these two statements beat me? You don't think we should be able to able to fish the rivers more, even though most clubs/anglers are giving them up. I'm puzzled, that's all.

If you had quoted more of the same sentance then it should have been easily understood.

What CP also said was: "Get rivers healthy.... campaign against abstraction, pollution, flood defence destruction, mismanagement - then you would have all the fishing you want."

i.e., there are many more ways of obtaining more fishing than compromising our conservation and sporting principles on the altar of commercialism or greed.

Puzzle solved?

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

What CP also said was: "Get rivers healthy.... campaign against abstraction, pollution, flood defence destruction, mismanagement - then you would have all the fishing you want."

I did also quote him on that point AND said I was completely with him.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I did also quote him on that point AND said I was completely with him.

Given that added light then it should not be too dificult to see where CP's point was heading . . . . . . . . .


Anyhows, I have a mass of e-mails to reply to today so time is limited on this thread, but not the topic.

Laters . . . . .

 

[mick b]

Wildlife will not and does not suffer from anglers, if it did, there wouldn't be any wildlife left by now

This is completely ridiculous statement and absolute rubbish!


The presence of humans in the countryside is always detrimental to wildlife.

Anglers, especially coarse anglers, remain on a river or lake bank far longer than any other user and their presence disturbs the normal behaviour of wildlife, especially mammals and waterbirds.

Areas fished by anglers always have a lower density and fewer species of plants and invertebrates than areas that are not fished.

Coarse anglers habitually use surrounding habitat for their toilet, a habit which greatly enriches the soil and damages sensitive environments.

Plastics, tins, food items etc have no place in the countryside, something anglers often seem to forget, they leach chemicals, present death traps and cause an imbalance in the micro-climate.

The foreign un-natural material often used as hook-bait or dumped into the water is untested and its long term consequences totally unknown, even though anglers admit to their waters being 'sick' following a 'heavy' weekend or their fish develop un-naturally distended bodies.

I realise the above may be hard reading for some, but I didn't 'facilitate' this discussion, the Angling Trust and a few of its anonymous 'members' did, but now lines have been drawn no-one should see any problem in having ALL the cards on the table OPENLY, HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY.


.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

but now lines have been drawn no-one should see any problem in having ALL the cards on the table OPENLY, HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY.

. . . . or indeed having all of the concerned players sat around the same table

 

[cg74]

I keep hearing that a more species targeted fishing season would be too complicated and unenforceable, I suggest that isn't the case.

-All of Nov, Dec and Jan - No fishing with maggots, worms and bread on rivers with brown trout present.

-All of Feb, March, April - No fishing with baits smaller than 14mm on rivers with silver fish present. No fishing with lures, deadbaits and livebaits if perch and pike are present.

-All of May and June - No fishing with baits if bream, barbel and chub are present.

Obviously the exact dates will need refining but surely that's what research is for, isn't it? A few have stated that they're happy that the current set up offers a good-reasonable level of protection to all fish present, what data/info/research is that based on?

Regards enforcement; it's no harder to enforce than checking the current arrangement is being adhered to or checking rod licences. I can't help thinking that some are just erecting fences, not because of what has been asked for BUT because of who has asked!

This is completely ridiculous statement and absolute rubbish!


1, The presence of humans in the countryside is always detrimental to wildlife.

2, Anglers, especially coarse anglers, remain on a river or lake bank far longer than any other user and their presence disturbs the normal behaviour of wildlife, especially mammals and waterbirds.

3, Areas fished by anglers always have a lower density and fewer species of plants and invertebrates than areas that are not fished.

4, Coarse anglers habitually use surrounding habitat for their toilet, a habit which greatly enriches the soil and damages sensitive environments.

5, Plastics, tins, food items etc have no place in the countryside, something anglers often seem to forget, they leach chemicals, present death traps and cause an imbalance in the micro-climate.

6, The foreign un-natural material often used as hook-bait or dumped into the water is untested and its long term consequences totally unknown, even though anglers admit to their waters being 'sick' following a 'heavy' weekend or their fish develop un-naturally distended bodies.

I realise the above may be hard reading for some, but I didn't 'facilitate' this discussion, the Angling Trust and a few of its anonymous 'members' did, but now lines have been drawn no-one should see any problem in having ALL the cards on the table OPENLY, HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY.


.

That is a completely ridiculous post!

1, But humans being on the riverbank is a 100% natural occurrence!

2, Most creatures learn to adapt, as without the ability of adaption, they'd be extinct.

3, I think you'll find the biggest threat to biodiversity is agriculture and who governs agricultural policy; DEFRA through the EA!

4, Long before I'd be concerned about anglers answering a call of nature on the bank, I'd be looking at the EA's over-leniency in how much sewage gets allowed into our rivers.

5, Littering is inexcusable and indefensible...

6, If anglers baits are potentially that harmful; why isn't, no that should be why hasn't the EA been conducting studies to establish this?

"OPENLY, HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY" - And when the EA get involved we'd all expect the same from them, sadly in many of my dealings with them, they've not displayed the slightest hint of candour...

 

[Peter Jacobs]

All of Nov, Dec and Jan - No fishing with maggots, worms and bread on rivers with brown trout present.
-All of Feb, March, April - No fishing with baits smaller than 14mm on rivers with silver fish present. No fishing with lures, deadbaits and livebaits if perch and pike are present.
-All of May and June - No fishing with baits if bream, barbel and chub are present.

Obviously the exact dates will need refining but surely that's what research is for, isn't it?

A few have stated that they're happy that the current set up offers a good-reasonable level of protection to all fish present, what data/info/research is that based on?

Hardly as simple as no fishing between midnight on March 14th until midnight on June 15th eh?

Your proposal above would be a nightmare to administer, not to mention then that some would argue the dates and geographical differences.

Nope, sorry, what we have is the best blanket solution to protect most species of fish in most regions during the most average wearther conditions.

The current range of dates is baesed on the experience of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So, until and unless a science-based study over a lengthy period can conclusively prove that it is broke, then what we have is the best possible solution nationwide and for all freshwater species.

 

[cg74]

Hardly as simple as no fishing between midnight on March 14th until midnight on June 15th eh?

Your proposal above would be a nightmare to administer, not to mention then that some would argue the dates and geographical differences.

Nope, sorry, what we have is the best blanket solution to protect most species of fish in most regions during the most average wearther conditions.

The current range of dates is baesed on the experience of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

So, until and unless a science-based study over a lengthy period can conclusively prove that it is broke, then what we have is the best possible solution nationwide and for all freshwater species.

I look at it like this; brown trout are in reality offered no protection whatsoever and I assume they're doing alright in mixed fisheries on the Wey, Kennet, Wye, Lugg etc (they always seem abundant)
So why not ditch the Close Season as it's clearly not needed, or have I got that all wrong?

 

[mick b]

cg67

In the interests of clarity should have posted the quote to which my statement referred, namely;

Originally Posted by Ray Daywalker Clarke
"Wildlife will not and does not suffer from anglers, if it did, there wouldn't be any wildlife left by now"

I said that statement was 'completely ridiculous and absolute rubbish'


Ridiculous because for someone of Ray's standing to even think that is true (I initially thought is was a joke) and then to write it on a public forum is ridiculously misleading to young anglers and non-anglers alike.

Rubbish because it is completely untrue.

The Points I raise points can be supported by sound science and clear example.


You may not know it but when rest days were advised (on Nature Conservation grounds) to an angling group they not only accepted the advice but added extra rest days themselves.
What a brilliant example of anglers working WITH nature rather than the opposite you and others propose.

Human beings have a choice when to be on the river bank, plants and invertebrates do not, many simply cannot relocate at all or cannot adapt fast enough.

Many small and seemingly insignificant plants are decades old and might have been growing in the same location even before you were born.
What right have we to trample them into the ground during their breeding season just because we want (MUST) be on the bank at their most important time.

Besides what is wrong with anglers working WITH wildlife, surely coarse anglers cannot be so selfish as to trample roughshod over everything our forefathers have protected just to fish a few more days a year?

At present we can PROVE our conservation ethics by leaving the rivers to themselves for three months, what will anglers prove if they dont?

.

 

[barbelboi]

Mick, the rivers aren't left to themselves for three months - it's just the anglers that aren't invited....