River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[black kettle]

Ray Daywater Clarke quoted;

"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 ?? ."

Actually Ray, that's not quite true. The JAGB, or Joint Angling Governing Bodies used to be just three orgs. The Salmon and Trout Association (S&TA) The National Federation of Anglers (NFA) and the National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA) So named because Sport England recognised them as being that. There were various attempts at trying to unify the main angling bodies including the three above with SAA, NAFAC, the Angling Trades Association and others. We had the NAA National Anglers Alliance then FACT (Fisheries and Angling Consultatives)

In 2006-2007, seven Angling Governing Bodies composed of: Anglers Conservation Association , Fisheries and Angling Conservation Trust (FACT), National Association of Fisheries and Angling Consultatives (NAFAC), National Federation of Anglers (NFA), National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA), Salmon and Trout Association (S&TA) and Specialist Anglers' Alliance (SAA) began a series of meetings and consultations to create a stronger and more unified governing body. Other bodies were consulted but did not merge for various reasons. Salmon & Trout Association (S&TA) pulled out of the merger consultations due to problems with their charitable status and Charities Law in England and Wales. Nevertheless, the merger was completed on 12 Jan 2009.

So just three angling governing bodies jumped to seven. I don't know how that one came about but there you are, seven joint angling governing bodies when there used to be just the three. The Salmon and Trout Association are not in the AT partly due to them having a charitable status which would make it almost impossible for them to be in the AT which has been refused charitable status (they won't get it either) and partly because being in the AT will do the S&TA no good what so ever. Its interesting to read on the AT website that the AT represent all game anglers. " The Angling Trust is the new, single organisation to represent all game, coarse and sea anglers and angling in England." Oh no they don't and I think you might find that the S&TA might take a different view as would their members?

This bit might shock you Ray; The S&TA have been formed since 1903 and they have over 100,000 individual and club members. They are operated by a small professional staff from offices in London. They have "enviable" contacts in both Houses Of Parliament and the devolved UK Governments whilst having excellent relations and contacts with senior officials inside the European Commission. Go look at their website on Salmon Conservation | Trout Conservation | Sea Trout Conservation | Fish Farming | River Ecology

Any idea what the S&TA think about close seasons on rivers?

On their website Ray if you look at their "partners" you will see that they are partners with the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. These have been going for 80 years and are also a charitable trust. This organisation also has a very strong fishing element within its structure. They run the research center in East Stoke Dorset with the S&TA where they have been researching salmon.

Taken from their website;

" We have been monitoring Atlantic salmon numbers in the River Frome at the site since 1973, creating one of the most comprehensive records of salmon movement in England and Wales. We work in collaboration with teams throughout Europe to study the global decline in salmon numbers.
Our trout studies aim to understand the ramifications of stocking in order to ascertain what methods are most favourable to the natural wild stock. In addition, we are undertaking and evaluating habitat restoration programmes on selected river catchments."

Any idea what the GWCT think about close seasons on rivers?

Ok, these are game fishing organisations. And fair enough there are loads more out there as well who are also game fishing orientated like the Wild Trout Trust who incidentally is not a fishing organisation but a conservation one with around 2,500 members and also a charitable trust but all these organisations, and many other course fishing organisations have one thing in common, they want to see the rivers coarse close season remain.

But getting back to where I started. Yes the AT claim to represent game, sea and coarse anglers. Truth is, they don't and they never have. Some say "Oh but its all we have". No it ain't, but its the one that government, for now, recognises.

At the end of the day Ray you will find that because of their perceived status the AT think they can do as they please. The certainly have the contacts but forget so do others. They also forget that the army being assembled to oppose them is far bigger than them, has more members more support more money and much more CLOUT. Ultimately it will be this army via all their organisations who will get the public's support. And from that watch the AT friends in government take their coats off and start to wear them back to front.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

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)

Sorry for the late reply Binka,
I have been working in the garden and technical operations centre (shed to you) all day finished now. If I may I will start with a reply to something Jeff Woodhouse posted hope you don’t mind.

Jeff,
As you made reference to the BS I have to pick up on your comments. I am some what confused by the above, you say the BS wouldn’t have you as a member now due to you being unwilling to swear to the holy CS. Yet you must have joined in the full knowledge that the BS were/are staunch supports of the holy CS. That stance has been well documented over the years one could have hardly missed it could one.

Perhaps you were one of those who joined to procure change from within. You probably over looked the fact that it is not a democracy and is in fact a benevolent dictatorship
(A benevolent dictatorship is a form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state through elected representatives. A benevolent dictator may allow for some democratic decision-making to exist).

You may have overlooked that fact, and also the fact that not one of the BS committee are elected and that no elections have ever taken place since 1995. That should have told you all you needed to know about a society you were about to join. To my knowledge the benevolent dictator has allowed no such democratic decision making.

Moving on, you say your federation uphold a CS on all your waters including the navigation.

I looked at the web-site and noted that all your waters bar one are river stretches, so in essence you have no choice other than to abide by the law of the land regarding the CS.

I was intrigued by the reference to the National Trust regarding having to show membership cards to any NT staff if asked. Could it be that the NT impose a CS season on you regarding the navigation or the member clubs that form your federation or your members?

You make it sound that your federation are doing something by choice when in fact it is a requirement by law and not by choice.


Binka,
The BS, perhaps more than any other single species group have done a huge amount for rivers and the retention of the CS, and I would not discard any opinions that the BS membership might have.

Although they might be small in numbers the good work they have done for research and conservation and the money they have raised (and I mean the members not its chairman).

I would not discard their collective views. As this debate is about changing the CS, I rather think they are entitled to be listened to IMHO.

I would most definitely discard anything that it’s chairman has to say, unless I knew he was speaking for the “FULL” membership (which I doubt) by the way.

Not sure there is any internal power struggle going on. what I am aware of is a difference in opinion between the R&C officer and the chairman regarding the CS.

One wants change it, one fully supports the retention of the current CS. If that is what you are referring to it is you who suggests that there is a power struggle not I.

Given the BS membership stance and support over the past 19 years regarding research and conservation and retaining the CS I would urge them to side with the R&C officer.

You say you find it hard to understand how an organisation of 1100-1200 eg the BS can claim to add weight to the debate when the AT with many thousand of members dwarfs it and should be swept aside.

That might be true, however the BS is an angling trust member club are you suggesting the the AT should disregard one of the very clubs that support the trust?

Now if you were saying to me that the views of Steve Pope should be swept aside because he is a single voice that would make more sense.

But in reality it seems the trust are willing to listen to him, and likewise MS who readily used his Barbel Society Chairman position (clearly aimed at misleading the angling public) IMHO.

My information is that the Angling Trust membership are split on the CS debate and that the trust is likely to lose many,many members if it pursues either change or the abolition of the CS.

I am sure your aim is to try and take the BS out of this debate, I do not agree that their rather small number is insignificant (I am sure they would be most offended by that remark)

Or perhaps you consider all the trusts member clubs to be “Insignificant”? If that is the case and you are actually a trust officer (as I know not whom you are) you may very well find your membership will be as insignificant as you claim the BS membership to be.

I can concede that there have been articulate posts from the anti CS side.

Your last point has been answered above, and I repeat the angling trust membership are split over the CS debate so they may not be representing the many thousands you presume them to be.

So Binka, this is my reply to you, time to come out of the cupboard so I know who you really are (I have an idea from times past and the way you post) only you stating who you are will either tell me if I am right. My name is Ray Wood what’s yours?

I intentionally do not look at peoples profile page on FM, some who are paranoid consider it stalking.

Regards
Ray

 

[black kettle]

Hi Binka,

Accused of being a socialist by the Daily Mail perhaps? Or once a socialist activist maybe?

Actually the Barbel Society "DO" have considerable standing in the scheme of things concerning the rivers close season debate and its outcome. Why? Because of the massive amount of man hours and unpaid time that BS officials and members put in the last time the close season came under threat. And lets not forget that back then, the BS and guys like myself working in other arenas were completely out numbered so its far from being an issue of who has the most voices or members.

Its actually about who puts forward the best case for the river environment and the wild creatures and flora within it. And the glaring truth is, with limited members and self generated funding the Barbel Society has contributed to the river environment far more in practical terms than most who want to see an end to the close season! As such the BS are stake holders in all this as much as anyone.

Regards,

Lee

 

[stu_the_blank]

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...

I am in a state of mild shock, I completely agree with CG74!

Stu

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Black Kettle,
The Angling trust only govern their members, and are just a very very small drop in the ocean of Anglers. The fact they are friends with who ever, makes no difference what so ever.

Mike b,

Your statement did make me laugh, what a complete load of rubbish. If what you say was true, nature would have been wiped out by now.

All,

I hear the same old same old time and time again on the subject, the closed season. I have not yet, and doubt i ever will, hear anything thats proves a closed season should stay. The Trout boys want it, just so they can keep the rivers to themselves for a few extra weeks, they talk of fish welfare, then smack the first thing they catch over the head. Lets not forget, they also catch many other species in this closed season time, but thats ok, because it's them. They also know that if the closed season goes, that many fishery owners would open their waters to all anglers, the one thing they don't want.

You can not trial run one river, and come up with the sums for all rivers. You would have to open all rivers for a number of years to see what impact, if any, angling has on it.

As for the nature side of things, well how many on here have caught spawn bound fish ?? last year waters around here had up to 8 weeks difference in fish spawning, right into the second week of July. A spawn bound fish feeds for one reason, it's hungry, i don't know of anyone catching a fish whilst it is in the act of spawning. Other wildlife also have their young at this time of year, and they need feeding also. They are plenty on here who feed birds etc etc whilst fishing, and that extra feed can only help them while they have young to feed, thus helping the wildlife, just as we do for the rest of the year. NOT harming it.

The only facts that are on the table are from still waters that stay open all year, and they, and the wildlife are doing very well.

One last thing, if someone, no matter who, changes their mind regarding the close season so what. Steve Pope has seen the Light.

 

[peter crabtree]

Hallo Ray it's a very nice day for the...
Welcome back.

 

[barbelboi]

Hallo Ray it's a very nice day for the...
Welcome back.

Yep, welcome back Ray - we need someone to organise the next Marsh Farm fish'in..

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

As you made reference to the BS I have to pick up on your comments. I am some what confused by the above, you say the BS wouldn’t have you as a member now due to you being unwilling to swear to the holy CS. Yet you must have joined in the full knowledge that the BS were/are staunch supports of the holy CS. That stance has been well documented over the years one could have hardly missed it could one. Perhaps you were one of those who joined to procure change from within. You probably over looked the fact that it is not a democracy and is in fact a benevolent dictatorship

Perhaps that's a fair enough point. I joined, stupidly enough, thinking I could do something that might benefit one of my favourite specie, barbel. Never gave the close season a second thought since it was there, enshrined in law, so whatever I thought then didn't matter. During the time I was with the BS I became a regional organiser (?) for BON (Bucks Oxford and Northants) and helped, together with Martin Ford (pic below - who has a passing resemblance to Tommy Lee Jones, IMO), in the organisation of a couple of events that raise almost £1000 for the BS.

Whilst attending a committee of regional or area organisers (whatever), Mike (somebody or other who was then their conservation officer) asked if I could get the BS into the local catchment consultatives and as I was in the Thame and the Middle Thames I said I could and that it would cost £xx. He said I should pay that and I asked when I would get the money back to which he said no, treat it as a contribution to the BS (this on top of my normal subs and I didn't get expenses for travelling over past Worcester). So I told him to shove his request where the sun don't shine. I didn't rejoin after that and was told in 2000 by Fred Crouch to find another sport as I didn't deserve to be an angler because I didn't believe in the CS. So as far as I am concerned the BS can disappear into the oblivion.

Oh, and what was the Middle Thames Consultative has now been merged into my own TVAA and I am it's representative (being secretary) to the ATTRF (the Trust's area forum)

Saying all that, I have just read Steve Pope's view on the Trust's website and I feel I can agree with him 99% - all bar the continuation of the CS as it stands. I honestly think you've all been trying to tear him apart for no good reason. He now sounds to me like someone I could work with, unlike Pete Reading. Just an opinion.

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:44 ----------

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.

I'd like to see that 'sound science' please. Can you sum it up in a nutshell, say 500 words on here, if you don't mind.

 

[cg74]

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

For greater clarity I think it should be - it's just the coarse anglers that aren't invited...

I am in a state of mild shock, I completely agree with CG74!

Stu

Steady, that'll be a black cross against your name - 3 strikes and you're out...

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.

Yes Peter it is more complex than a blanket (half cocked) Close Season but it's not exactly hard to follow.
An example; I want to fish the Thames in Oxford and it's Jan.... errm, the only trout in the area is a pub.... no restriction is applicable.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Thank god all humans haven't got that mind set; else we'd all be living in mud huts in Africa... mg:

---------- Post added at 21:19 ---------- Previous post was at 21:17 ----------

I'd like to see that 'sound science' please. Can you sum it up in a nutshell, say 500 words on here, if you don't mind.

Me too.....

 

[binka]

Sorry for the late reply Binka,
I have been working in the garden and technical operations centre (shed to you) all day finished now. If I may I will start with a reply to something Jeff Woodhouse posted hope you don’t mind.

Jeff,
As you made reference to the BS I have to pick up on your comments. I am some what confused by the above, you say the BS wouldn’t have you as a member now due to you being unwilling to swear to the holy CS. Yet you must have joined in the full knowledge that the BS were/are staunch supports of the holy CS. That stance has been well documented over the years one could have hardly missed it could one.

Perhaps you were one of those who joined to procure change from within. You probably over looked the fact that it is not a democracy and is in fact a benevolent dictatorship
(A benevolent dictatorship is a form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state through elected representatives. A benevolent dictator may allow for some democratic decision-making to exist).

You may have overlooked that fact, and also the fact that not one of the BS committee are elected and that no elections have ever taken place since 1995. That should have told you all you needed to know about a society you were about to join. To my knowledge the benevolent dictator has allowed no such democratic decision making.

Moving on, you say your federation uphold a CS on all your waters including the navigation.

I looked at the web-site and noted that all your waters bar one are river stretches, so in essence you have no choice other than to abide by the law of the land regarding the CS.

I was intrigued by the reference to the National Trust regarding having to show membership cards to any NT staff if asked. Could it be that the NT impose a CS season on you regarding the navigation or the member clubs that form your federation or your members?

You make it sound that your federation are doing something by choice when in fact it is a requirement by law and not by choice.


Binka,
The BS, perhaps more than any other single species group have done a huge amount for rivers and the retention of the CS, and I would not discard any opinions that the BS membership might have.

Although they might be small in numbers the good work they have done for research and conservation and the money they have raised (and I mean the members not its chairman).

I would not discard their collective views. As this debate is about changing the CS, I rather think they are entitled to be listened to IMHO.

I would most definitely discard anything that it’s chairman has to say, unless I knew he was speaking for the “FULL” membership (which I doubt) by the way.

Not sure there is any internal power struggle going on. what I am aware of is a difference in opinion between the R&C officer and the chairman regarding the CS.

One wants change it, one fully supports the retention of the current CS. If that is what you are referring to it is you who suggests that there is a power struggle not I.

Given the BS membership stance and support over the past 19 years regarding research and conservation and retaining the CS I would urge them to side with the R&C officer.

You say you find it hard to understand how an organisation of 1100-1200 eg the BS can claim to add weight to the debate when the AT with many thousand of members dwarfs it and should be swept aside.

That might be true, however the BS is an angling trust member club are you suggesting the the AT should disregard one of the very clubs that support the trust?

Now if you were saying to me that the views of Steve Pope should be swept aside because he is a single voice that would make more sense.

But in reality it seems the trust are willing to listen to him, and likewise MS who readily used his Barbel Society Chairman position (clearly aimed at misleading the angling public) IMHO.

My information is that the Angling Trust membership are split on the CS debate and that the trust is likely to lose many,many members if it pursues either change or the abolition of the CS.

I am sure your aim is to try and take the BS out of this debate, I do not agree that their rather small number is insignificant (I am sure they would be most offended by that remark)

Or perhaps you consider all the trusts member clubs to be “Insignificant”? If that is the case and you are actually a trust officer (as I know not whom you are) you may very well find your membership will be as insignificant as you claim the BS membership to be.

I can concede that there have been articulate posts from the anti CS side.

Your last point has been answered above, and I repeat the angling trust membership are split over the CS debate so they may not be representing the many thousands you presume them to be.

So Binka, this is my reply to you, time to come out of the cupboard so I know who you really are (I have an idea from times past and the way you post) only you stating who you are will either tell me if I am right. My name is Ray Wood what’s yours? I intentionally do not look at peoples profile page on FM, some who are paranoid consider it stalking.

Regards
Ray

Hi Ray,

Thanks for the reply.

I seem to have struck a bit of a nerve with The Barbel Society stuff but just my humble opinion and I appreciate the information which you have replied with.

It's interesting you mention "paranoid" in the text I've highlighted in red as I seem to detect a little of that in you due to your suspicions of who I am (or certainly am not as the case is).

Ray... let me assure you that I have not corresponded with you on any other forum (as I don't belong to any other angling or angling related fora) or via any other kind of media.

Prior to this discussion I can honestly state that I'd never heard of you and there are plenty here on FM with whom I chat via email and the private message system who know exactly who I am and what my name is, and that is what I'm comfortable with.

I will drop you a pm to let you know though just to put your mind at rest.

I think this is my "retreat to bunker and bolt the door" point as this is all getting a little bit satirical for my liking and there comes a point where it's no fun anymore, I've probably said as much as I can/need to and can't really say that anything I've read has changed any of my opinions either.

Thanks for the chat, good luck with keeping the existing closed season and tight lines

Edited to add: PM sent Ray, you'll now know exactly who I am and I hope you'll take up the offer of the fishing

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Theres a lot of poorly thought through stuff about how angling during the CS affects wildlife. Any human disturbance may conceivably affect birds or mammals but not necessarily fish, plants or insects. Those concerns have more to do with angling pressure and specifically the numbers of ignorant humans on the bank causing disturbance or littering issues etc.

In rarely or lightly fished waters these aspects are often trivial. A little human disturbance can be good for wildlife - it can prevent banks becoming completely overgrown and helps to create patches of different ground or bank conditions which can increase the diversity of plants and insects in an area. But dont forget, we live in highly managed countryside anyway - theres not much pristine stuff that exists in the absence of people.

The fact that anglers may also be managing rivers during the closed season renders the whole consideration of our presence being damaging as pointless in any case. We are back to the issue of whether coarse CS is really required to safeguard fish populations. In my opinion this this would only apply on ethical grounds, which would be inconsistent and hypocritical nowadays given that we can fish on ponds, lakes or canals. The only case where fish populations might be threatened is where certain species congregate in confined areas. I can only think of gravid salmonids taken for food or larger trophy fish such as barbel at risk of repeat capture that could be at risk in terms of their populations.

I honestly think that rivers would be more valued assets if they were used by anglers throughout the year. Ideally there should be some attempt to restrict angler numbers as much as the timing of their visits, unless special considerations apply.

In large rivers such as the Thames it is very difficult to justify a closed season in my opinion. The river is essentially a canal anyway from Buscot-Richmond. Many miles of it barely ever sees an angler anyway.

All fish are of course at risk of capture by anglers whenever angling is permitted, but if we thought that was such an abhorrent thing we couldnt be anglers. In terms of affecting wild populations angling is so insignificant that no study could prove an effect in my opinion. The only time it might ever do so is if all caught fish are killed or if a water was subjected to twice weekly 1000 peg matches which insisted on the use of knotted gudgeon mesh keepnets.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Perhaps that's a fair enough point. I joined, stupidly enough, thinking I could do something that might benefit one of my favourite specie, barbel. Never gave the close season a second thought since it was there, enshrined in law, so whatever I thought then didn't matter. During the time I was with the BS I became a regional organiser (?) for BON (Bucks Oxford and Northants) and helped, together with Martin Ford (pic below - who has a passing resemblance to Tommy Lee Jones, IMO), in the organisation of a couple of events that raise almost £1000 for the BS.

Whilst attending a committee of regional or area organisers (whatever), Mike (somebody or other who was then their conservation officer) asked if I could get the BS into the local catchment consultatives and as I was in the Thame and the Middle Thames I said I could and that it would cost £xx. He said I should pay that and I asked when I would get the money back to which he said no, treat it as a contribution to the BS (this on top of my normal subs and I didn't get expenses for travelling over past Worcester). So I told him to shove his request where the sun don't shine. I didn't rejoin after that and was told in 2000 by Fred Crouch to find another sport as I didn't deserve to be an angler because I didn't believe in the CS. So as far as I am concerned the BS can disappear into the oblivion.

Oh, and what was the Middle Thames Consultative has now been merged into my own TVAA and I am it's representative (being secretary) to the ATTRF (the Trust's area forum)

Saying all that, I have just read Steve Pope's view on the Trust's website and I feel I can agree with him 99% - all bar the continuation of the CS as it stands. I honestly think you've all been trying to tear him apart for no good reason. He now sounds to me like someone I could work with, unlike Pete Reading. Just an opinion.

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the reply, I think the Mike you speak of was probably Mike Burdon. So you were one of those who sought change within, like many others you found it could not be done. So it surprises me when you say Steve Pope is someone you can work with. Many others thought the very same (they soon came to the conclusion they could not) Yet you feel you could not work with Pete Reading (is that because Pete supports the CS 100%?)

I have just been over to the trust sight and read SP words, having called for change to the CS he seems to have now done a “Maggie” a lady who was not for turning he seems to be.

I am left wondering just what he really wants. You you’ve all (I presume that includes me) have been trying to tear him apart for no good reason (can’t agree). He came out for change and wanted the fishing season extended going against all his previous statements and his undying devotion to keeping the CS at all costs.

So in my book he is fair game, like he states in his post on the trust site “we can’t have it both ways” quite right he can’t have it both ways. One minute he wants change the next he states he supports a CS well which one is it?

You may not like it, he may not like it, when you go against all your previous principles that’s what happens.

As you have read his post you will note he has deliberately tried to be contentious “If it doesn’t change now I don’t think river fishing will be there for us in ten years’ time.”
An exaggeration on my part, but purposely said to draw attention to certain aspects of this subject.”

So he wanted an an argument about the CS (you can call it a debate if you like)

He goes on about old school and baby boomers, (I’m one of them) has the nerve to suggest “One could argue that our generation is beset by self-interest”

I for one am not beset by self interest. That hat seems to fit his head rather nicely however.

Unlike you Jeff I cannot agree with him even 50%, simple reason is I don’t think he knows what he really wants, or where he stands where the CS is concerned.

These are my honest opinions, you can agree, or disagree that’s fine by me. This debate will continue with views from both camps. SP would appear to want to have a foot in both (to many hats).

That’s it for tonight, my view is the CS isn't broken so leave it alone.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

So you were one of those who sought change within, like many others you found it could not be done.

You see, you are reading something that isn't there again. That's your trouble all along with the Trust and with Steve Pope. I have not even mentioned that, you have inferred it.

Let me spell it out - when I was in the BS I never even considered the Close season or anything else as being a topic to talk about. It was only when I left and responded to the Coarse Fisherman letters that I was told by FC and other to find another sport, as now by some ignorant fool called Rob Burt. All I wanted to do was to improve the stocks of barbel, especially in the Thames.

And FYI, I did sufficient moaning to friends at the EA about the lack of barbel in the Thames that they launched a stocking campaign with an initial 10,000 barbel all elastomer dye marked. That was down to ME and the EA Fisheries people, nothing to do with BS.

Edited - Methinks you are suffering from 'Papal paranoia' Ian Paisley had the same problem.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Hi Ray,

Thanks for the reply.

I seem to have struck a bit of a nerve with The Barbel Society stuff but just my humble opinion and I appreciate the information which you have replied with.

It's interesting you mention "paranoid" in the text I've highlighted in red as I seem to detect a little of that in you due to your suspicions of who I am (or certainly am not as the case is).

Ray... let me assure you that I have not corresponded with you on any other forum (as I don't belong to any other angling or angling related fora) or via any other kind of media.

Prior to this discussion I can honestly state that I'd never heard of you and there are plenty here on FM with whom I chat via email and the private message system who know exactly who I am and what my name is, and that is what I'm comfortable with.

I will drop you a pm to let you know though just to put your mind at rest.

I think this is my "retreat to bunker and bolt the door" point as this is all getting a little bit satirical for my liking and there comes a point where it's no fun anymore, I've probably said as much as I can/need to and can't really say that anything I've read has changed any of my opinions either.

Thanks for the chat, good luck with keeping the existing closed season and tight lines

Edited to add: PM sent Ray, you'll now know exactly who I am and I hope you'll take up the offer of the fishing

Hi Steve,
PM replied to so much to catch up on only just seen this post.

No paranoia on my part, suggesting I might know you was the sprat to catch a mackerel. Just to see if you would let me know who you are. Thanks for doing so.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[binka]

No paranoia on my part, suggesting I might know you was the sprat to catch a mackerel. Just to see if you would let me know who you are. Thanks for doing so.

Of course it was

Actually that sounds a bit spooky... I'm not gonna get a midnight visit from the Barbel Mafia and wake to find a severed barbel head on the pillow next to me am I?

Only joking of course... don't forget to let me know if you're up in these parts and we'll do that river session, in season

 

[Ray Wood 1]

You see, you are reading something that isn't there again. That's your trouble all along with the Trust and with Steve Pope. I have not even mentioned that, you have inferred it.

Let me spell it out - when I was in the BS I never even considered the Close season or anything else as being a topic to talk about. It was only when I left and responded to the Coarse Fisherman letters that I was told by FC and other to find another sport, as now by some ignorant fool called Rob Burt. All I wanted to do was to improve the stocks of barbel, especially in the Thames.

And FYI, I did sufficient moaning to friends at the EA about the lack of barbel in the Thames that they launched a stocking campaign with an initial 10,000 barbel all elastomer dye marked. That was down to ME and the EA Fisheries people, nothing to do with BS.

Edited - Methinks you are suffering from 'Papal paranoia' Ian Paisley had the same problem.

I did not infer you joined to try and get the CS changed, I presumed wrongly it seems that you wanted to procure some sort of change. I was wrong (hands up)

As for the trust and SP what is it you think I am reading that is not there?

You are welcome to think what you like, same as I am so no offence taken.

Who's Papal Paranoia? Is he in the Labour Party?

---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:41 ----------

Of course it was

Actually that sounds a bit spooky... I'm not gonna get a midnight visit from the Barbel Mafia and wake to find a severed barbel head on the pillow next to me am I?

Only joking of course... don't forget to let me know if you're up in these parts and we'll do that river session, in season

No mate the EAST END BROTHERHOOD ARE FAR WORSE

 

[binka]

No mate the EAST END BROTHERHOOD ARE FAR WORSE

You're not wrong...



mg: mg: mg:

Back on topic...

 

[bennygesserit]

I have read lots of these closed season threads over the years I must say this seems to be one of the best !

Those who favour , change though have to realise that very popular stretches ( are there any ) will remain popular and heavily fished throughout the year and gravid fish will certainly be caught in greater numbers than they are now.

i also wonder how many who adhere to the CS now would fish if it was abolished purely on principal ? If the split is roughly fifty fifty then the effect of opening rivers would only be half as bad , or good , as you think.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

You're not wrong...



mg: mg: mg:

Back on topic...

Not them, these they would enforce the CS

 

[binka]

Not them, these they would enforce the CS

Morecambe & Wise?