River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[rollingpinboy]

I think the Barbel Society have been always been the most prominent single species club to promote and fight for the keeping of the Closed Season, probably more so than any other in the UK. So it is only right that the BS 'total' membership's voice should be heard and understood, and not just the personal voice from the dictator which is conceived by others as representative as being total BS view and policy. I am sure most barbel anglers join the BS because of the conservation principles and to which a major protocol is the continued fight for the retention of the Closed Season.
The late Peter Stone and Fred Crouch were both the Presidents of the BS over the years and led the way on preserving the Closed Season since its formation in 1995 along with all its other 30 founder members.
Peter Stone and Fred Crouch's positive views on the keeping of the Close Season are well documented and have always been voiced, used and promoted by Steve Pope (the ongoing 18+ years un-elected Chairman) and themselves in articles, press and other media. Both Peter and Fred were Steve’s Idol's, as he often states in his own writings.

Now, what I find highly disturbing and very worrying for the BS and all believers, is that now both Fred Crouch and Peter Stone have both sadly passed on, their once supported lifetime views on the Close Season have been unwittingly or purposely forgotten, turned over and tossed away up into the ‘Skies of Fire’ by the Chairman Steve Pope, as he no longer supports them and/or are detrimental to his voyage into angling commercialism and sponsorship etc.
I and others find his current views and writings on the CS to be a total disgrace to all conservation minded river anglers, and are that of a turncoat and traitor to the memories of Peter Stone and Fred Crouch.
What would they think of him now!

Peter Stone quote - “I’ve been fishing for 65 years and I’ve seen a lot of change. Currently, what makes me really angry is the threat to the Closed Season. We just can’t let it go on the rivers. It’s only 12 weeks of the year! Every field sport has a closed season, so why should angling be any different? There are some vital environmental issues here and I don’t want to sacrifice those for the sake of another notch on my landing net handle.”

Over to you Steve!

 

[chav professor]

I don't know if I feel completely comfortable with the debate taking a personal slant towards individuals..... As I see it, interested parties invited the discussion. Forums can be constructive in that in this instance we were invited to share our views.

Martin Salter indeed welcomed the debate with an article that begins:

Martin Salter opens what is likely to be the biggest debate in angling, yes it has been debated many times before, but now it’s getting serious...

Of course, its been a devastating season and business has suffered - but is it the Angling Trust principle objective to loby on behalf of business interests? or as a representative body united to speak for the interests of angling and anglers as a whole?

Its been debated many, many, many times before...... its as contentious as ever.

Given the division and passion demonstrated by both sides - its a subject that risks fracturing core membership/affiliated membership of the Angling Trust... or will it?

I respect Martin for inviting the debate... It is the big topic this time of the year... If the trust did not engage with the debate it would be accused of ducking out....... Thats politics.... Angling needs a political voice!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Given the division and passion demonstrated by both sides - its a subject that risks fracturing core membership/affiliated membership of the Angling Trust... or will it?

Having seen the intensity over the years that is inherent in this topic I think you can be very safe in the knowledge that the risk is quite high.

Those in favour of getting rid of the Close Seaon will, in all probability, remain as members regardless of the outcome.
However, I can envisage an exodus of pro Close Season anglers in the event of the Angling Trust supporting a move to abolish it.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I don't know if I feel completely comfortable with the debate taking a personal slant towards individuals..... As I see it, interested parties invited the discussion. Forums can be constructive in that in this instance we were invited to share our views.

Martin Salter indeed welcomed the debate with an article that begins:

Martin Salter opens what is likely to be the biggest debate in angling, yes it has been debated many times before, but now it’s getting serious...

Of course, its been a devastating season and business has suffered - but is it the Angling Trust principle objective to loby on behalf of business interests? or as a representative body united to speak for the interests of angling and anglers as a whole?

Its been debated many, many, many times before...... its as contentious as ever.

Given the division and passion demonstrated by both sides - its a subject that risks fracturing core membership/affiliated membership of the Angling Trust... or will it?

I respect Martin for inviting the debate... It is the big topic this time of the year... If the trust did not engage with the debate it would be accused of ducking out....... Thats politics.... Angling needs a political voice!

chav professor,
While I would agree in most cases I don’t in this instance, the interested parties that invited this discussion have taken no part in it why is that?

Martin Salter’s claims of “its getting serious” serious for who? Certainly not ordinary anglers or the general public. It appears that the only ones it is getting serious for are the few celebrity anglers who were ready to voice opinions in blogs, diary's and in the angling press but not in a debate they invited.

By not joining in and debating a topic they considered was getting serious obviously leads one to rightly (IMHO) question their motives. One individual in particular I’m afraid, his apparent dithering one minute he wants change then the next he supports the CS has left his motives doubly exposed to scrutiny.

I have no idea why the trust through Martin Salter invited this debate, only that a few celebrity anglers asked them to open up a debate that has been visited in the past many times.

You say
”Its been debated many, many, many times before...... its as contentious as ever.

Given the division and passion demonstrated by both sides - its a subject that risks fracturing core membership/affiliated membership of the Angling Trust... or will it?”

Yes it’s contentious and there is a clear division between the pro and anti CS lobby (old saying divide and conquer) comes to mind. All the trust have achieved through Martin Salter and a few celeb anglers is to prove that angling unity is impossible. I believe that the end result of this debate will fracture the core membership and affiliated membership of the trust if it has not already done so.

Angling may need a political voice no doubt, but not one that is willing to listen to the few celebs at the drop of an hat and divide the very anglers it claims to represent.

I stress the word claims because in reality they do not represent all anglers of the UK. I for one would not accuse them of ducking out, there was no need for them to ignite a topic that has been visited so many times and the end result has always been the same the CS remains in tact.

These are my honest views of this debate and the angling trust, and on some individuals involved and their motives.

Sadly,I find myself in total agreement with Ray Walton’s latest post. You may tear me to bits for that as I am sure others will try. I will have no problem with that, all through my life my principles have remained constant.

No amount of sponsorship money or owt else would allow me to compromise them.

Others do so at their peril.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[chav professor]

We have always been in this ridiculous situation where a few celebrity anglers have the clout to influence the future of a pastime... That's why the Angling Trust needs to position itself in the debate..... to represent Angling and Anglers.

Its damned if it does, damned if it don't.....

Has the debate been constructive? I re-read Martins original post (the theme usually gets lost in the fog). Its been one of the better ones! Regarding the 'science'.... our ancestors were far more in tune with the natural world. Those 12 weeks were not chosen at random. The bulk of spawning has generally taken place - even to this day!

Amazing isn't it... no expensive environmental impact study. For reasons I'll happily expand on... it would be a waste of resources.

BTW - It doesn't have to divide and conquer... I'm in a single species group. My best friend and mentor within the group is passionately opposed to the close season. I suspect in any group there would be a wide variety of opinions graduating in passion and encompassing the grey areas - as there are on here.

I am however - not naive. The Angling Trust relies on celebrity endorsement..... Now, can we trust a politician?

Abstraction
Hydroelectricity
Dredging
Pollution
Predation (oh boy, there's another onemg
Close season debate
Harmful river management practices
Engaging the 'next generation'
Regenerating struggling rivers

If it represents the views of a few vocal celebrities and their commercial interests?

It needs to think long and hard what it stands to gain from its involvement.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

We have always been in this ridiculous situation where a few celebrity anglers have the clout to influence the future of a pastime... That's why the Angling Trust needs to position itself in the debate..... to represent Angling and Anglers.

Its damned if it does, damned if it don't.....

Has the debate been constructive? I re-read Martins original post (the theme usually gets lost in the fog). Its been one of the better ones! Regarding the 'science'.... our ancestors were far more in tune with the natural world. Those 12 weeks were not chosen at random. The bulk of spawning has generally taken place - even to this day!

Amazing isn't it... no expensive environmental impact study. For reasons I'll happily expand on... it would be a waste of resources.

BTW - It doesn't have to divide and conquer... I'm in a single species group. My best friend and mentor within the group is passionately opposed to the close season. I suspect in any group there would be a wide variety of opinions graduating in passion and encompassing the grey areas - as there are on here.

I am however - not naive. The Angling Trust relies on celebrity endorsement..... Now, can we trust a politician?

Abstraction
Hydroelectricity
Dredging
Pollution
Predation (oh boy, there's another one)
Close season debate
Harmful river management practices
Engaging the 'next generation'
Regenerating struggling rivers

If it represents the views of a few vocal celebrities and their commercial interests?

It needs to think long and hard what it stands to gain from its involvement.

It (the Angling Trust) and angling in general needs to think really long and hard about what it will lose as well as its' possible gains.

This will not simply be an internal struggle between anglers, ordinary and celebrity, but one that will most definitely involve many other interested parties from outwith the angling world.

These other parties nonetheless have vested interests in the maintenance of the status quo, and in quite a few cases it is only the current system that allows coarse fishing at all on quite a few southern stretches of rivers.

If it is broke then fix it, if it ain't broke leave it be, because the fix (and the fall-out from said fix) might just be a whole lot worse than the original problem . . . . . . . . .

 

[black kettle]

Ray Walton (Rollingpinboy)

Makes absolute sense when he talks about the BS membership in specific regards to their overall views on the retention of the rivers close season. The issue for them is far too big to allow Steve Pope to speak on their behalf without so much as a by or leave to gain their opinions. Apart from being grossly undemocratic, its actually a very unsafe practice for Steve to be adopting. Steve knows my views on how he operates because I have told him so on more occasions that we can both remember. BUT! That's only my opinion and in the scheme of things meant very little to the existing BS membership on previous occasions. The severe danger here for Steve however arises when previous support is withdrawn by the BS membership over his stance on this issue. Yes I'm aware that he appears to be making a U-turn now that support for him is diminishing but has the damage already been done? Pete Reading is a giant when it comes to river conservation and I know that Peter Stone and Fred Crouch had tremendous support and respect for him. I am certain had these men still been alive, their support for Steve Pope would be withdrawn and they definitely would not have supported Steve over his former stance and for me that speaks volumes.

Ray Skywalker,

You are absolutely correct in that the AT only represent their members. A problem on that arises on two counts. 1. They say otherwise quite openly when they state categorically that they represent "ALL" anglers (when they clearly don't as you say) and 2. The AT have the ear of the government whilst the vast majority simply don't.

And there Ray lies the significant difference. The AT or should I say those running the AT have years and years of experience so have built up considerable contacts within organisations like DEFRA and the EA (and the previous orgs prior to those being formed) The vast majority of anglers have put all their sporting efforts into supporting their local fishing clubs whilst well,.. just concentrated on going fishing at the same time. The vast majority of anglers don't get involved in the type of angling politics that the AT practices and the AT individual membership numbers reflect that. I know there are individuals on this thread for example who champion the AT but the facts are undeniable. The AT has had long enough now to win the hearts and minds of grass roots angling but so far have only earned their contempt.

I have always campaigned for political angling to have pure angling running side by side all of the political initiatives they get involved with simply because its a pure angling content that will attract grass roots anglers to join. Even at the time of forming the SAA some of us wanted a pure angling content in the SAA magazine after the groups formation. Alan Acarza asked the question and was told there will be no pure angling content. Alan resigned and I could just not see the logic of that original decision to have no angling content.

When the AT was originally formed there were no provisions at all to have individual members. I was one who criticised the AT strongly over this as did many others. As a life member of the ACA I was fiercely critical over the ACA being disbanded to form Fish Legal inside the AT. I have also been fiercely critical about the AT not originally having a pure fishing content and a previous almost none existing content for specialist anglers. Specialist content is still poor even though the AT was formed by certain specialist angling based activist's not giving up (Mike Heylin for instance) Many specialist angling activists left the AT over this issue.

Along the way the AT have made a series of blunders, but this latest one to drag up the close season when those of us previously working within political angling fought so hard to keep it takes the mickey not only out of everyone who campaigned to keep it but the AT themselves. I remind everyone to visit the AT website and read the sheer amount of times they mention championing the conservation of the watery environments. Hypercritical? You betcha!

Angling, both the majority grass roots and many AT members will judge the AT over their involvement with this issue of that I have no doubt.

As for those who are greasing the wheels of this anti close season campaign for purely selfish greedy commercial reasons well......who among us are really surprised about that??? People such as these will always put up smoke screens to hide their agenda's. Its nothing new and nothing that honest men and women can't see straight through.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

We have always been in this ridiculous situation where a few celebrity anglers have the clout to influence the future of a pastime... That's why the Angling Trust needs to position itself in the debate..... to represent Angling and Anglers.

Its damned if it does, damned if it don't.....

Has the debate been constructive? I re-read Martins original post (the theme usually gets lost in the fog). Its been one of the better ones! Regarding the 'science'.... our ancestors were far more in tune with the natural world. Those 12 weeks were not chosen at random. The bulk of spawning has generally taken place - even to this day!

Amazing isn't it... no expensive environmental impact study. For reasons I'll happily expand on... it would be a waste of resources.

BTW - It doesn't have to divide and conquer... I'm in a single species group. My best friend and mentor within the group is passionately opposed to the close season. I suspect in any group there would be a wide variety of opinions graduating in passion and encompassing the grey areas - as there are on here.

I am however - not naive. The Angling Trust relies on celebrity endorsement..... Now, can we trust a politician?

Abstraction
Hydroelectricity
Dredging
Pollution
Predation (oh boy, there's another onemg
Close season debate
Harmful river management practices
Engaging the 'next generation'
Regenerating struggling rivers

If it represents the views of a few vocal celebrities and their commercial interests?

It needs to think long and hard what it stands to gain from its involvement.

Can we trust politicians? Now that is a debate that would surely bring 100% agreement would it not?

The lyrics of “this is a world of confusion” (Genesis) come to my mind while I sit here and wonder just what is happening to a sport/pastime I love and the world around me.

Too many men
There's too many people
Making too many problems
And not much love to go round
Cant you see
This is a land of confusion.

Now this is the world we live in
And these are the hands were given
Use them and lets start trying
To make it a place worth fighting for.

Think long and hard on those words and wonder.

Regards
Ray

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I did not infer .......... I presumed

Same thing Ray. I "imply", you "infer".

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.

Fish start to build up eggs within a month of so of having spawned the last lot so by August time they are once again gravid. It's when they start to hydrate those eggs from the beginning of winter and spring that they put on the real weight. It's not a great problem for them right up until they are ready to spawn, mother fish at Calverton fish farm that are kept in large bins are lifted quite often to see if they're ready to be milked for their spawn. Not much different to catching and returning one.

I walked about a mile of the Thames yesterday and didn't find one single angler fishing so I don't think there would be an enormous increase in numbers. :wh :wh :wh :wh mg:

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.

Good point!


EDITED BIT:

Just as an aside, do any of you Thames area barbel anglers like fishing at night?

 

[chav professor]

yea.... but

Originally Posted by bennygesserit View Post
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.


Can't just flip an established period of close season - just because its half as bad/good.. whatever... from which ever stand point.

That's the view of someone who either has no opinion one way or the other, or the abolitionist

Win the debate......

I would add, its ironic that environmental catastrophe (floods) illicits a response that is widely thought to be harmful by a majority.

Floods... lets dredge rivers
Floods... lets lift close season

I know which topic requires the most energy...

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Same thing Ray. I "imply", you "infer".


I rather thought I had put my hands up for the mistake I made Jeff, you'll be wanting my collection of vintage centrepin reels by way of an apology next

Ray

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Originally Posted by bennygesserit 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.

Good point!

It is a purely hypothetical question boardering on the rhetorical one . . . . . . the only point you can truly make is that currently virtually no one fishes for coarse fish on our rivers during that period.

Regardless, I personally wouldn't fish at those times if the Close Season were to be lifted; I don't fish for Coarse fish even now in the close season on those venues where it is allowable.

 

[rollingpinboy]

In my opinion, every individual who has been asked to participate in the 'Closed Shop' debate, should be scrutinised as to what their personal material interests are in all this, and as to why they have been chosen. Everyone on this panel seems to be commercially orientated and has an angling business or sponsorship of some sorts, and all would benefit monetarily in some way if the 'Closed Season' was abolished. Can you see anybody on that panel who is speaking on behalf of conservation and to retain the Closed Season as it is?.....

No! It is totally Biased.
My mate Steve has 'attempted' to suggest change thus flying in the face of BS Conservation Objectives/Policy and BS Research and Conservation initiatives carried out by his own group. Fair enough, if he personally wants to go down that alternative commercial route then so be it, but he should not attempt and assume to others that he can force the BS membership or committee and all river anglers to follow like lemmings. Those days are now gone! He has a personal choice, one way or the other, similar to the Scarecrow hanging around at the crossroads on the yellow brick road to Oz

 

[thecrow]

It is a purely hypothetical question boardering on the rhetorical one . . . . . . the only point you can truly make is that currently virtually no one fishes for coarse fish on our rivers during that period.

Regardless, I personally wouldn't fish at those times if the Close Season were to be lifted; I don't fish for Coarse fish even now in the close season on those venues where it is allowable.

That's the only none hypocritical post I have seen from the pro c/s side in all of this debate.

 

[black kettle]

Hi Ray, (Wood and Walton) Peter, Mick and many others,

The 1979-Bern Convention primary aims and objectives were to;

conserve flora and fauna
conserve habitats
protect endangered habitats and species including migratory species
encourage European co-operation in conservation
The UK ratified the convention and adopted the European Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (among other directives).
(Council of Europe, 2011)

1979-European Directive79/409/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds. The main provisions included:

protection of vulnerable species
classification of SPAs
protection for all wild birds
restrictions on killing/selling/keeping wild birds

Then in 1981-The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 along with several other acts were passed as UK legislation to comply to the European Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds: Natural England are regulators of the Act.

Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985
Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands Order 1985
Conservation Regulations 1995
Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations 2007
Conservation Regulations 2010

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 strengthened protection of SSSIs introduced by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

The pre-dated acts:

Protection of Birds Acts of 1954, 1964 and 1967
Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975
were repealed by the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Part 1 Wildlife.

Part I includes sections 1 to 27 of the Act. The legislation contained in these sections covers:

Protection of wild birds, their eggs and nests
Protection of other animals
Protection of plants
Miscellaneous
Introduction into the wild of species that are not native to Great Britain or are otherwise banned
The import or export of endangered species.

In this regard research is going on behind the scenes to establish and compile a full list of threatened or endangered species of both flora and fauna that could be endangered more by the threat of scrapping the close season on rivers.

Furthermore, there is ongoing data being collected to establish river catchments which are suffering poor recruitment whose fish populations could also be placed at higher risk should the rivers close season be scrapped.

This, together with pledges of support being sought from many conservation organisations, who are also going to be asked to supply their own data that could help and assist the KEEP THE RIVERS CLOSE SEASON campaign is being asked for.

I call upon all anglers who support retaining the close season on rivers to be ready to sign a petition in this regard when the call comes. All those conservation organisations lending us their support will also be asked to put their names to it together with as big a list of dignitaries that we can muster. It will take a while to organise all this but we are working on it.

Please support the KEEP THE RIVERS CLOSE SEASON campaign and help give back something of real value to our rivers and those who will come after us.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[thecrow]

Where can the "keep the rivers close season campaign" be found?

Sorry just noticed there isn't one yet, what with all this doom and gloom about the damage that anglers do when on the bank I am surprised that rivers don't run through wastelands where nothing exists.

If some anglers really believe that much damage is done by anglers sitting on a bank perhaps they should not be there at all.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Where can the "keep the rivers close season campaign" be found

We are currently working on just that.

It takes time to get it set-up properly . . . . . . .

 

[Ray Wood 1]

In my opinion, every individual who has been asked to participate in the 'Closed Shop' debate, should be scrutinised as to what their personal material interests are in all this, and as to why they have been chosen. Everyone on this panel seems to be commercially orientated and has an angling business or sponsorship of some sorts, and all would benefit monetarily in some way if the 'Closed Season' was abolished. Can you see anybody on that panel who is speaking on behalf of conservation and to retain the Closed Season as it is?.....

No! It is totally Biased.
My mate Steve has 'attempted' to suggest change thus flying in the face of BS Conservation Objectives/Policy and BS Research and Conservation initiatives carried out by his own group. Fair enough, if he personally wants to go down that alternative commercial route then so be it, but he should not attempt and assume to others that he can force the BS membership or committee and all river anglers to follow like lemmings. Those days are now gone! He has a personal choice, one way or the other, similar to the Scarecrow hanging around at the crossroads on the yellow brick road to Oz

Ray,
You say that all those sitting on the panel (which panel are you talking about) should be scrutinised and reason given as to why they have been chosen. If it is right that not one pro CS person is sitting on any panel to discuss the current CS it will obviously be biased towards what the anti CS panellists want.

So some if indeed they are on this panel you speak of, will not I’m afraid stand up to much scrutiny regarding where their personal/material interests lay when they post this sort of stuff.

“Species that live in stillwaters are essentially the same as those that live in rivers so I struggle to see
the logic. Although I fought hard to try to prevent it and I don’t like it, we now have barbel residing
in many stillwaters and they can be fished for – another anomaly surely?”

Yet is now sponsored by Dynamite Baits who also sponsor Makin Fisheries (yes you’ve guessed it) they stock barbel in their still waters. Is this hypocrisy of the highest order? Why would anyone so opposed to the stocking of barbel in stillwaters accept sponsorship from a company that is not, and actually sponsors fisheries that do?

Everyone who wants to retained the current CS in its present form deserves to be made aware of these facts and know the type of people they/we will be up against.

I will no doubt get some stick for highlighting the above. I have broad shoulders and can take any amount aimed at me. My credentials and principles can stand any amount of examination but I’m not on the panel.

Regards
Ray

 

[chav professor]

Where can the "keep the rivers close season campaign" be found?

Sorry just noticed there isn't one yet, what with all this doom and gloom about the damage that anglers do when on the bank I am surprised that rivers don't run through wastelands where nothing exists.

If some anglers really believe that much damage is done by anglers sitting on a bank perhaps they should not be there at all.

Thats utter Rhubarb..... I see my participation in fishing proportionate to its impact on the environment. Riverside plants die back first frost... fresh plant growth is quickly re-established spring. Still early doors, but give it a few weeks and where once were swims, chest high in nettles, reeds etc

I did it pictorially on the poll thread ..... I'll replicate something similar here....

Fill your boots? this only happens on my river late spring in my locality - just prior to spawning. Personally, I'd give it a miss. I'd be powerless to stop anyone else.... anyway.... what harm is in it? Experience this on your rivers at other times of the year? You truly are blessed

Scoffing hard on pellet, sweetcorn... whatever I chuck in. Purely observational.

They migrate to the same spots year after year for ONE purpose only....

the job is done, slowly they disperse over a period of days..... Of course, there will other spawning events later in the season (best not to put all natures eggs in one basket and all that).

Roach do something similar.

Its not always that organised, granted.... but normally all this takes place last few weeks of May.

When I support the close season, I am championing a small, fairly insignificant little river. There are no trout or game fish.... Its been in decline for a number of years. The tackle shops don't rely on it for their existence. But like countless rivers up and down the country they are very 'ordinary'. No river keepers or clubs to instigate close periods where and when necessary. Match weights are down, large areas appear fishless... perhaps the wastelands referred to in the post quoted?

March arrives...... fishing is best of the season! Perhaps, this is the time rivers actually do experience a concentrated amount of pressure. Then, untimely as weather and fishing improves, the close season is upon us.

Still waters are slow to wake - its frustratingly slow.

Meanwhile back on the river, first bit of sunshine brings out the occasional 'scally' angler... no licence, no respect, rubbish every where! I continue to report - one or two are caught and slowly but surely, a close season materializes... fully enforced... I will be down daily - its almost a role of guardianship - but I invest the time because I enjoy watching them, learning and identifying (give or take the odd bream) individuals

there, I'll chuck that one up for good measure

I don't know if catching fish is essentially harmful, but it is certainly not without risk.... Invasive, it most certainly is!

Don't write off the close season supporter as an irrational 'fish hugger'....... My motivation to fish won't be dissimilar to anyone elses..

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Same thing Ray. I "imply", you "infer". I rather thought I had put my hands up for the mistake I made Jeff

It was a lesson in English. mg:


Oh but there is a panel, and you lot haven't been invited onto it? Must tell Martin not to bother writing to you then. Don't want any dissenting voices on it to distract us from getting rid of the CS.


THIS GETS WORSE - Did any of you three or four ever work for the CIA? Talk about conspiracy theorists. We have gone from an article by Martin Salter asking should we have a debate and Steve Pope making his own very honest, and for me very innocent, comment on the subject to NOW - where we have a Committee with PANEL of experts deliberately excluding anyone who wants to retain the Close Season. Oh and don't forget - Sponsored by Dynamite Baits! Crikey! Next you be saying the Angling Trust are tapping your phones to hear what you're up to.

I have three very good words of advice - GET A LIFE!

Quote from Lee's MS response piece "We can bring millions and yes, they will come." Sounds like a line from Les Miserables -

For the army we fight is a dangerous foe
With the men and the arms that we never can match
It is easy to sit here and swat 'em like flies
But the national guard will be harder to catch.

Let us take to the streets with no doubt in our hearts
But a jubilant shout
They will come one and all
They will come when we call!

Oh, thanks. I would laugh my socks off if it all weren't all so sad. It's FISHING!

BTW, MH370 was the result of an alien abduction. Keep it to yourselves.....




(last bit in poor taste perhaps, but very appropriate)