River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[thecrow]

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..

You form your views from experiences on your river I from mine, fish huggers? no, have a look back through this thread and count how many times "the damage anglers do" has been mentioned, if its that bad then river banks would be a bare wasteland, where I fish they are not.

I find your remark that my post was/is rhubarb quite amusing, strange how someone that is a scientist can believe in something without the evidence required to prove either way, I find your post to be celery, see its means nothing as do arguments without evidence and without evidence they are only opinions and they will stay as that until proven, they then become fact.


Nice photographs but they mean nothing other than in the river where they were taken.

I will just add that at the start of this thread I was an undecided on what should happen regarding the c/s although leaned towards a more local one, a lot of the posts on here have convinced me to be firmly in that camp. To many posts re the B/S and the damage done by anglers for me.

 

[chav professor]

I use the term rhubarb... apology... my views are... quite celery!

I am in total agreement.. the one issue I have with forums is that we all come from diverse environments.

Science? its kind of biology we need in this instance.... but the soft underbelly which is ecology/environmental impact assessment. Won't find anything concrete lifting those stones... for or against.

Fishing has the capacity to do damage... as does river management strategies. Stocking carp into a still water renowned for its excellent tench fishing? that caused damage - from the perspective that its been destroyed as a tench fishery.

Given that its difficult to assess for fact one way or another a change in legislation that affords protection to ALL rivers.... Why should an organisation like the Angling Trust go against the Environmental Agency on this particular issue where other practices exist that are KNOWN to cause damage... i.e. Hydroelectricity. Issues incidentally that there is uniform opposition within its rank and file membership.

Is it time for rethink at this time? well, I suppose if the EA wants to throw us a bone off the table..... it could just come through

No thankyou... lets tackle the meatier issues

 

[Ray Wood 1]

It was a lesson in English.

Is that your best shot, a lesson in English? Do try to do better.

Is it only fishing? Not for some who want more and more and more to feed their greed.

I have a very full life thanks, what’s up Jeff don’t you like the truth is it to much for you to bear are you to highly strung.

Or is true what Jack Nicolson said (A few good men) You can't handle the truth! “I run my unit how I run my unit. You want to investigate me, roll the dice and take your chances”

 

[thecrow]

I use the term rhubarb... apology... my views are... quite celery!

I am in total agreement.. the one issue I have with forums is that we all come from diverse environments.

Science? its kind of biology we need in this instance.... but the soft underbelly which is ecology/environmental impact assessment. Won't find anything concrete lifting those stones... for or against.

Fishing has the capacity to do damage... as does river management strategies. Stocking carp into a still water renowned for its excellent tench fishing? that caused damage - from the perspective that its been destroyed as a tench fishery.

Given that its difficult to assess for fact one way or another a change in legislation that affords protection to ALL rivers.... Why should an organisation like the Angling Trust go against the Environmental Agency on this particular issue where other practices exist that are KNOWN to cause damage... i.e. Hydroelectricity. Issues incidentally that there is uniform opposition within its rank and file membership.

Is it time for rethink at this time? well, I suppose if the EA wants to throw us a bone off the table..... it could just come through

No thankyou... lets tackle the meatier issues

Agree with the first part that angling has the capacity to do damage, then again so do canoes, walkers, stick throwers and even the sheep that are on the banks of the river I mainly fish for many months of the year including the c/s. I would like to think that the average angler has more intelligence than a sheep ( although some act like them at times) and would do all that was possible to avoid any damage being caused.

Unfortunately there will always be the ones that fish out of season or light fires, leave rubbish, damage bankside vegetation, none of those change other than the obvious one by having a c/s.

I don't as yet see any campaign by the angling trust to drop the c/s, I doubt that there will be, what I have seen are different views put forward by some anglers that happen to be better known than the average angler and the trust asking for comments, this may be a toe in the water.

Views on here from the off have IMO been rather to political for my liking with some posts not having much to do with the c/s more a chance to have a go at individuals ( who I do not know) or organisations.
( that I have no time for)

It is my view that the c/s does need looking at if only to see if it can be improved, all the political drum banging in the world wont prove the case either way, neither will the sarcasm that has crept into the thread.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

neither will the sarcasm that has crept into the thread.

Yes, sorry about that Crow. It's just that some have what the Dutch say - made and elephant out of a flea (Mountain out of a molehill - here?) I tend to agree with your other comment -

I don't as yet see any campaign by the angling trust to drop the c/s, I doubt that there will be,

About sums it up. But then it doesn't bother me one bit. For as soon as the river settles a bit more I shall be on it fishing - for trout!

I'll tell you what has done a lot of damage this year, the floods have carried down tonnes of sand. Our fishery now resembles a beach and most of the wildflowers, toadflax, hawkweed, loosestrife, even bittersweet is buried under 2-3 inches of sand. But the good news is, camphor is coming through and that horrible burdock too, you can't kill that once it's established. It will all come back in time, nature is a survivor no matter what the others say on here, you cannot suppress it, it will always win.

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:55 ----------

Just browsing another thread and looked at the link World Record Perch

Now are you telling me that isn't gravid? Come on! BUT no name calling because I bet it went back fine and will spawn in the right conditions and give that angler lots of little perches to catch in future years.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Now are you telling me that isn't gravid? Come on! BUT no name calling because I bet it went back fine and will spawn in the right conditions and give that angler lots of little perches to catch in future years.

It certainly looks gravid, on that we can agree.

As to whether or not it went back "alright" only 2 people know, whether or not it will spawn successfully is an unkonwn . . . . . .

 

[chav professor]

I don't think that foreign lake will pin its future on a singular fish.... its not the effect on a singular fish - its the pattern of behavior. Angling is an invasive presence - justifiable as the harm is accepted as negligible. Does this extend to uncomfortably gravid fish?

Pike and perch seem less tolerant to mishandling - quickest way for pike and perch fishing to deteriorate..... is to fish for them. which is why if you hit on a good lake/stretch of river its advisable to keep it to yourself.

Seen gravid pike turn up belly up in the margin days after capture... sadly it happens. Not deliberately, its ignorance on the part of less enlightened anglers who can fish the close season on still waters year through.

Is it time for a rethink? The close season should extend to predators on UK still waters too?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Morning, sarcasm aside and personalities.
No one should be fishing for gravid fish, while the present CS does not cover every eventuality regarding “All” species spawning times it covers most as best we could hope. Of course some will disagree with that, so if you really want to cover all specifies a longer CS season is needed is it not? That is my believe at least, as I really cannot believe that a selected species CS would work.

To many things to implement and monitor and enforce, hell it is hard enough for the EA. to enforce the CS we have now.

Some of the reasons put forward for this called for re-think, declining membership of river orientated fishing clubs, low numbers in river anglers, commercial fisheries drawing anglers away from our rivers.

All good points, but will changing or abolishing the CS bring anglers back to our rivers? Will it see anglers that fish commercials come flooding back to our rivers?

Will it see more youngsters embrace our sport/pastime? In my opinion the answer is no on all counts.Why did anglers desert our rivers in the first place? Was it due to poor fish numbers or that our rivers were in decline.

Did the commercials offer greater sport with better facilities i.e. toilets, refreshments, better access and parking, better swim layout? More matches with better prize money.

One could probably answer yes in all cases, how did we allow this to happen? Look back when there was a blanket CS, wasn’t the number of river anglers enormous, did river orientated clubs have greater numbers, were there not a great many matches being held on our rivers?

Had we fought harder to keep the blanket CS, do you think it possible that we would not have witnessed this decline?

So in essence aren't all of us river anglers responsible for this decline.Were we to wrapped up in our own little worlds to realise that allowing the blanket CS to be abolished we brought this decline on ourselves?

For myself I say yes, but what do you think

Regards
Ray

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Ray, at last a very reasonable post (above), asking some very sensible questions. Earlier this year, might have only been 5/6 weeks back, when the river had dropped back into its trough, I took a walk to a lock cut and found one angler fishing there. Now in the early 90s, that bank would have been lined shoulder to shoulder with anglers on a nice day, I was one of them at times.

So may I turn around some of your questions to find an answer. When the CS ended on stillwaters why did most anglers switch to them, was it because it they could fish them all year round without any break and therefore get to know the pattern of fishing better? It stands to reason, to me at least, that after three months lay off you lose contact with the river, where the fish have gone (spawning, yes) and what will attract them back again? How many who do and do not support the CS have said that fishing is dire even through the rest of June an could this be some fish, bream, chub, barbel, are still breeding/resting still or is it that we have abandoned them and they go off finding natural food again?

So two points - anglers have found a more reliable and CONSTANT source to fish and fish being so fickle have disappeared from usual spots to make restarting difficult for anglers.

Then again it might just be, as you hint at better toilet facilities etc., that it is the convenience of parking close by and proper made up swim to fish from. I don't think any answers to that would give you any definite evidence to bring back the CS and I must concede, it doesn't add any weight to arguments to get rid of the CS completely. Maybe it's just a change of lifestyle amongst younger anglers now.

So my answer is NO. I think commercials would have always won the day by offering that convenience, but the ending of the CS on stillwaters simply reinforced that view.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Ray, at last a very reasonable post (above), asking some very sensible questions. Earlier this year, might have only been 5/6 weeks back, when the river had dropped back into its trough, I took a walk to a lock cut and found one angler fishing there. Now in the early 90s, that bank would have been lined shoulder to shoulder with anglers on a nice day, I was one of them at times.

So may I turn around some of your questions to find an answer. When the CS ended on stillwaters why did most anglers switch to them, was it because it they could fish them all year round without any break and therefore get to know the pattern of fishing better? It stands to reason, to me at least, that after three months lay off you lose contact with the river, where the fish have gone (spawning, yes) and what will attract them back again? How many who do and do not support the CS have said that fishing is dire even through the rest of June an could this be some fish, bream, chub, barbel, are still breeding/resting still or is it that we have abandoned them and they go off finding natural food again?

So two points - anglers have found a more reliable and CONSTANT source to fish and fish being so fickle have disappeared from usual spots to make restarting difficult for anglers.

Then again it might just be, as you hint at better toilet facilities etc., that it is the convenience of parking close by and proper made up swim to fish from. I don't think any answers to that would give you any definite evidence to bring back the CS and I must concede, it doesn't add any weight to arguments to get rid of the CS completely. Maybe it's just a change of lifestyle amongst younger anglers now.

So my answer is NO. I think commercials would have always won the day by offering that convenience, but the ending of the CS on stillwaters simply reinforced that view.

Afternoon Jeff,
I am always able to put together a reasonable post that will ask sensible questions. I am not going to go over other posts I have made, and I make no apology for posting them.
But enough of that.

You say that you don’t think any answers would give me any answers or evidence to bring back the CS or that my points add no weight or arguments to get rid of the CS completely.

Well they just might, what about asking the Angling Trust to have a re-think on bringing back a full CS? Lets say we have a trial period of two years, in the Midlands.

The exodus to commercials was already underway before the CS was abolished and that fact is well documented. The boom in Carp did not help either, I think you will find that most youngster taking up the sport of angling are in that area of our sport.

You maybe right that it is easier to know the pattern of fishing better on a Stillwater. There is the difference the fish are captive, unlike a river where they are free to roam.

A river is a living thing that changes not only year to year but during the fishing season. If one wishes to know the pattern of fishing on a river that’s where watercraft comes in.

Sadly a lot of river anglers do not posses this or the ability to read a river in different conditions. How many celeb anglers, writers and the like repeatedly tell their readers “its all about location”?

Therein lays the answer to gaining contact with the river again after a three month lay off.

Abolishing the CS on them will make no difference to that type of angler or indeed all of us.

If some think it is dire through June how will abolishing the close season change that and make it any better or different? The conditions will still be the same won’t they?

Yes the commercials may have always been going to win the day. If the problems our rivers have faced over many decades had been addressed then it might have been a different story.

Rivers have been in decline for decades, get them back to healthy conditions and it just might reverse the decline in numbers of river anglers and low fish numbers and bring anglers back to them.

That task is in my opinion far more important than abolishing the CS which might just make the decline of our rivers worse.

Of course as a pro CS person I have no evidence that abolishing the CS would be detrimental. On the other hand anti CS campaigners have no evidence that abolishing the CS won’t in fact bring an even bigger decline in our rivers and fish stocks.

So it really all comes down to what camp one has a foot in. If we are spilt 50-50 what should the AT do?

50-50 is not a majority so in most walks of life the status quo rules.

Take a world title boxing match, it ends level on points, so the champ retains his title. Well at this moment in time the CS is the champ by virtue of being in place.The next challenger has to either win on points or deliver a knockout blow. In previous bouts the challengers have been unable to do either, long live the champ.

Why should angling be any different? Why don’t the trust ask the EA. to survey all license holders with a compulsory do you want the CS kept or abolished? It could be done next year when licenses are due for renewal or purchase. If it produced a majority either way then democracy would rule as we are supposed to be living in one. I could live with that, could you?

At least we would not be seeing angler against angler and the body that claims to represent us all causing more harm to both its self and more importantly angling in general. The CS issue could then be put to bed forever (or could it)?

I hope I have not misunderstood any of your post Jeff, I have answered in the best way I know how and honestly. I remain unconvinced that abolishing or changing the dates of the CS will in anyway improve or change anything.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Peter Jacobs]

So it really all comes down to what camp one has a foot in. If we are spilt 50-50 what should the AT do? 50-50 is not a majority so in most walks of live the status quo rules.

I am uncertain as to where these figures come from, let alone those quoted by Martin Salter in his article?

Take a good look at the (last?) National Angling Survey undertaken in 2012 by some 29,000 anglers up and down the Country. This survey was supported by the EA, the Angling Trust and by Substance.

The question regarding the Close Season was replied to as follows:

Retain the current season, as is: 38.5%
Only change it if supported by Scientific evidence: 26.5%
It should be scrapped altogether: 14.9%
Don't knows: 11.7%
Need to vary from river to river: 4.9%
The dates should be changed: 3.5%

It is therefore readily seen that 65% of the 29,000 anglers who took part are happy with the current dates or would only like to see a change if supported by scientific evidence.

Only a total of 20.1% seemed to be in favor of any change either from scrapped altogether to change the dates.

Remember, this Survey was supported by the Angling Trust who canvassed their members who said that they were happy to communicate online.

So, my question to Martin Salter and the Angling Trust is simply this: what has changed so drastically in the past couple of years (other than commercial pressure) to even reconsider what we already have known for the past couple of years?


Data source: http://www.resources.anglingresearc...files/National_Angling_Survey_Report_2012.pdf

 

[rollingpinboy]

I suppose we could also ask (via that license process) if anglers wanted the Environment Agency and Natural England to stop their annual maintenance programme of killing of rivers by dredging, mass mechanical weed cutting, gravel cleaning, tree and bankside vegetation removal/destruction, electrofishing etc, which all legally 'murder' a river and its lifeforms...and which take place during the Closed Season and beyond. It is common sense that these practices are what kills rivers and are the causal agents to declines in fish, insects, mammals, amphibians, wildfowl and bird populations, thus destroying the riverine food chain and everything that relies on it for survival. If the resulting answer is 'Yes'. Stop doing it, i am sure the EA will comply with anglers wishes!...Not! I am pretty sure that if it was an EA choice to abolish the Close Season at this time, i think they would say 'Yes', simply because it is one less job for the EA to do regarding enforcement and protecting fish and the river habitat as a whole... which they often kill and destroy themselves anyway, and without thought or regard to environmental protection protocol and morals involved.

 

[thecrow]

I am uncertain as to where these figures come from, let alone those quoted by Martin Salter in his article?

Take a good look at the (last?) National Angling Survey undertaken in 2012 by some 29,000 anglers up and down the Country. This survey was supported by the EA, the Angling Trust and by Substance.

The question regarding the Close Season was replied to as follows:

Retain the current season, as is: 38.5%
Only change it if supported by Scientific evidence: 26.5%
It should be scrapped altogether: 14.9%
Don't knows: 11.7%
Need to vary from river to river: 4.9%
The dates should be changed: 3.5%

It is therefore readily seen that 64% of the 29,000 anglers who took part are happy with the current dates or would only like to see a change if supported by scientific evidence.

Only a total of 20.1% seemed to be in favor of any change either from scrapped altogether to change the dates.

Remember, this Survey was supported by the Angling Trust who canvassed their members who said that they were happy to communicate online.

So, my question to Martin Salter and the Angling Trust is simply this: what has changed so drastically in the past couple of years (other than commercial pressure) to even reconsider what we already have known for the past couple of years?


Data source: http://www.resources.anglingresearc...files/National_Angling_Survey_Report_2012.pdf

Does the survey say how many that responded to the question about the c/s fished rivers? I would suggest that any survey that asked this question would also need to cross reference with the amount that did or did not fish rivers.

If the majority of those that responded fished still water then that figure will be high, they would want no change as what they have suits them.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

I am uncertain as to where these figures come from, let alone those quoted by Martin Salter in his article?

Take a good look at the (last?) National Angling Survey undertaken in 2012 by some 29,000 anglers up and down the Country. This survey was supported by the EA, the Angling Trust and by Substance.

The question regarding the Close Season was replied to as follows:

Retain the current season, as is: 38.5%
Only change it if supported by Scientific evidence: 26.5%
It should be scrapped altogether: 14.9%
Don't knows: 11.7%
Need to vary from river to river: 4.9%
The dates should be changed: 3.5%

It is therefore readily seen that 64% of the 29,000 anglers who took part are happy with the current dates or would only like to see a change if supported by scientific evidence.

Only a total of 20.1% seemed to be in favor of any change either from scrapped altogether to change the dates.

Remember, this Survey was supported by the Angling Trust who canvassed their members who said that they were happy to communicate online.

So, my question to Martin Salter and the Angling Trust is simply this: what has changed so drastically in the past couple of years (other than commercial pressure) to even reconsider what we already have known for the past couple of years?


Data source: http://www.resources.anglingresearc...files/National_Angling_Survey_Report_2012.pdf

Peter,
My reference to 50-50 was just as an illustration not based on any actual figures, I would not want anyone to misinterpret what I posted.

That makes interesting reading Peter, I suspect that those figures will not suit some and goal posts will be moving very shortly.
Regards
Ray

 

[chav professor]

hows that going to work (re: thecrow)

Separate rod licence covering still waters and rivers?... possibly the only clear way for a succinct distinction?

What lengths will the abolitionists go to?

Annual polls canvassing opinion - possibly manipulating the questions till at last a positive outcome has been achieved (can't count anglers who only fish still waters).

Lobby Angling Trust with vocal celebrities - views openly expressed in angling media. Sure fills some pages with celery/rhubarb.

Undermining the opinions and views held by those happy that the close season is and think is reasonable.

All this for an additional mediocre 12 weeks of additional angling in an environment routinely abused by powers vested in maintaining them.

Mr Rollingpinboy's post is about right. Hows about the Angling Trust holding the Environmental agency to account for questionable practices that they know are harmful.

---------- Post added at 07:11 ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 ----------

I'm not ready to accept that the Angling Trust is going to waver in favor of commercial interests.......

 

[rollingpinboy]

Looking at Pete's post and poll figures, Martin Salter, Steve Pope etc. seems to be going for the only angle available by targeting the 'Only change it if supported by Scientific evidence': 26.5%'. If they then proves this format and then add/manipulate the 'Scrap it' figure of 14.9% then he would have achieved his goal of gaining a combined figure of over 40% to 'change or scrap', which would then supersede the 38.5% in favour to 'keep' the Closed Season....i think!

 

[chav professor]

Science? If policy was dictated on logically sound scientific concepts of harm vs benefit..... Hydroelectricity and dredging wouldn't even make the drawing board.

Its politics, funding and public opinion which are the driving force.....

 

[thecrow]

hows that going to work (re: thecrow)

Separate rod licence covering still waters and rivers?... possibly the only clear way for a succinct distinction?

What lengths will the abolitionists go to?

Annual polls canvassing opinion - possibly manipulating the questions till at last a positive outcome has been achieved (can't count anglers who only fish still waters).

Lobby Angling Trust with vocal celebrities - views openly expressed in angling media. Sure fills some pages with celery/rhubarb.

Undermining the opinions and views held by those happy that the close season is and think is reasonable.

All this for an additional mediocre 12 weeks of additional angling in an environment routinely abused by powers vested in maintaining them.

Mr Rollingpinboy's post is about right. Hows about the Angling Trust holding the Environmental agency to account for questionable practices that they know are harmful.

---------- Post added at 07:11 ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 ----------

I'm not ready to accept that the Angling Trust is going to waver in favor of commercial interests.......

My last post was merely to point out that surveys cannot give a true picture unless they are correctly structured as far as the questions go.



I seem to remember that only something like 16% that wanted to keep the c/s were river anglers. is this not bound to affect their view?

I think that you are fully aware of how a survey can give results that are not a true reflection.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Someone on here said nature will always find a balance, try telling that to Tigers, Elephants, White Rhino, and every other species man is responsible for driving to extinction.

Man as an animal (that’s what we are) is a scourge on this planet and the only species prepared to destroy its own environment to satisfy its greed.

Nature may very well find a balance were it to be left alone without mans constant interference thinking we know better.
Modern man is in need of a wake up call, how much more do some want to take?

It is clear that what ever figures are presented to the anti CS lobby, they will find a way to dispute them, or find an interpretation on them that suits their needs.mg:

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

But enough of that.

Agreed! Ray, much better like this because without tempers being flared, you get closer to the nub of the problems, I feel. Billy Makin will love you, BTW!

Not all stillwaters have been successful either. Our club has one that is rarely visited except by the hardiest carp angler fishing at night and because, IMO, it's a bit of a walk. Another two we have just lost because of problems with travelers (an oxymoron) causing damage to fencing and cars, not to mention leaving litter around the site and threatening anglers for money. It's really only the easier to get to stillwaters that are the most popular and on those most matchmen can name the pegs that will do well in a match.

OK - point 1 - Rivers are in decline. I take it you mean the rivers themselves and not just the anglers. I noted a point in Pete Reading's piece that "fish populations are under threat from habitat degradation, climate change, predation, poor water quality," If you asked the EA they would disagree, water quality and habitat has never been better, but I don't know if I'd actually go along with Pete on his point. Fishing seemed to be better when the water was coloured and some of that might have been a little pollution, sh*t in other words. As one EA fisheries man told me, nothing like a bit of sh*t to improve the fishing (encourages more phytoplankton etc.). Chicken is best, with matured horse coming a close second.

I don't know if you would bring ALL the anglers back to rivers, they've been in decline for the past 50 or more years. When was the last time you saw a 100-peg match on the Thames? There were 200 peggers at the start of the 20th Century, but the last open matches I fished (had Ray Mumford [very pro-CS] in also) struggled to get 60 anglers and most of them were from the organising club. I don't know of any/many stretches that aren't overgrown enough to support a 100 peg match these days.

Point 2 - "If we are spilt 50-50 what should the AT do?"
Exactly, for it means that 50% (and is that just river anglers?) are not happy with the CS as it stands. So in any other scope of operations you would think some compromise could be found. By that I don't mean like - "My wife wanted a cat. I didn't want a cat. So, we got a cat." type of compromise. A good compromise would at least receive the backing and support of 75+% of all anglers and that would be one step better. That shouldn't mean the fish or the environment should suffer.
One comment of Steve Pope's that I really did appreciate (been my feelings for many years now) was "Are we not capable of showing restraint, do we really need to have a law in place to ensure we do the right thing, to protect the very thing we are supposed to cherish?" That's the nub of it and when anglers talk of public opinion, most of the public have none and know nothing of close seasons and such. So you explain to them and say it's "the law", their thoughts are - so you have to do it anyway, like buying a TV licence? How much better if we said "It's the way we want to do it because of our respect for the fish." Steve has a point there.

Point 3 - The boxing match rule doesn't win here. If a Bill goes through Parliament (or even any committee) and the vote is a clear draw, then the casting vote is given by the Speaker/Chairman and his duty is to vote for the proposal. Hence if the proposal is to abandon the CS, then with a balanced vote, the proposal will win. A mean point that will not happen here, I can assure you - I think (?).

Point 4 - I've asked the EA repeatedly for such a vote by different means - TOO DIFFICULT. But then most things are difficult to them especially when it might mean more work. My sarcasm coming through once more.... Tsk, tsk!

Point 5 - how best to preserve fish stocks so that rivers thrive again?
Well, we can start by all getting behind the Trust and telling the EA NOT to build any further hydroelectric systems. These are poor electricity producers (usually generating only 60% of their promised output) and they remove the energy from the river, thereby robbing it of oxygen! These alone will do far more damage over the years than removal of the CS could ever do (if it does any - case to be proven). All are on weirs and will affect weirpools which are good breeding grounds for rheophilic species such as chub, dace, barbel. If a hydro plant went on every weir on every river in the country they would only generate 0.2% of the country's current demands. Waste of time!

Second measure is already under test, Thames Water are trialling new rotating grills on an abstraction plant. One EA fisheries man casually said that this could save more than 2 million fish per year in the 0-1yr class. That's actual FISH, not eggs, for as you know not all eggs hatch and even then the tiny fry sometimes do not last more than a day depending on currents and the nutrient content in the water. In terms of fish eggs that could represent umpteen millions. THESE are what we should be fighting for, abstraction kills far more fish than do predators and cormorants.

Pollutions. Sore point, but I am at the moment prepared to work with the water industry. Have tried calling it and asking that their directors should be imprisoned, but the law won't allow it (almost as bad as the CS ) so now I talk to them. Find out what's gone wrong, complain of course, get them to fix the problem permanently, and trust they will do a better job of monitoring all their equipment in future. They do listen (TW does at least)! Also, polluters should be made to put right what they destroy and for that reason I'm in the Trust/Fish Legal, no other body in the UK pursues polluters like they do (barring EA, but they just get the companies fined which does us no good whatsoever).

Then we come to river management. This is not easy on the big rivers, but smaller ones can be improved. Wires strung across them to prevent cormorants landing is a good idea as is logs and other wooden debris creating under currents (nails of top to catch weed and stop canoes is an added benefit.) Removal of solid structures, unnecessary weirs in favour of bubblers or gravel banks is another good step. Larinier fish passes on all other weirs to allow better fish migration. Eel passes to help that beleaguered specie. So much can be done and it all far, far outweighs any benefits of a STATUTORY close season - have separate ones decided locally, by all means.

That to me is the bigger picture that would bring the rivers back. Enough for now.