River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[thecrow]

One of the arguments put forward for keeping a c/s on rivers is that there is a difference between still waters and rivers in that still waters can be and are stocked.

Strange then that the BS have recently stocked a Kings Weir back stream with 500 Barbel and 1000 Chub, different? I don't think so. didn't someone post during this thread that Chub were not indigenous to the river they fish, how did they get in there then? not stocked were they?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

The BS membership to their great credit have financed many such stocking's, some examples.

River Dane; following pollution
River Aire to help improve barbel populations on the river.
River Stour 9000 small barbel into the middle reaches of the river in the last three years as part of the project.
A further 1000 barbel were stocked into the Stour in October 2012,

River Lea stocking support; The Society is funding the stocking of 400 small barbel into a sidestream of the River Lea, in order to monitor their spread and survival and to help boost the local barbel population. The fish will be stocked in Autumn 2013.

The River Lea suffered a serious fish kill a few years back along with Fishers Green. Kings Weir now suffers with crayfish that have spread, so future spawning's are likely to be poor as a result.

There appears to be one common denominator in all these stocking's, poor barbel populations. Pete Reading is the Research and Conservation Officer for the BS he would know better than anyone why these stoking's were necessary.

Common sense might indicate that it is down to poor regeneration, if barbel are suffering are other species suffering in the same way?

We may have cleaner rivers but not health rivers, put right all the problems our rivers have suffered over many decades and stocking's to boost populations maybe come unnecessary.

These problems are far more important the any debate regarding the CS. Will changing the CS dates or abolishing it change the need for society's like the BS to fund such stockings?

In 2009 1.5 million rod licenses were purchased a record. with almost 500,000 more licences sold in 2009 than in 2000. If that increase continued at the same rate up until today we may have around 1.8 million anglers. I doubt there has ever been 4 million anglers, if there has we have seen 2.2 million licenses dodgers laughing at both anglers who do buy a license and the EA..

The debate will continue no doubt with one side rubbishing the other sides argument or countering one another with scrutiny of motives and agendas where needed.

Its quite simple, for the CS to be changed or dates altered either scientific evidence has to be produced to show it will not be detrimental to do so.

As it would be impossible to gather such evidence because rivers are not fished by “ALL” anglers between 15/03-16/06. The anti CS lobby need to convince the EA. that no such evidence is required to get them to approach the government to change the law that exists. Or find another way to have the law changed, it really is that simple.

All the Angling Trust through Martin Salter and a few celeb anglers have archived by facilitating this debate is to pitch angler against angler and bring about more division in our ranks. Well done!mg:

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

What i find very strange is this clean river thing, heres why. Back in the 60's and 70's our rivers were far worse than now, yet the fishing was none stop all day. Look back at match records on the Trent, Thames, etc etc, you had to have 50lb plus to get 3rd in a section. I think it is more like our rivers are far to clean as far as fish welfare goes. Our stocks are down, and water levels, thats not nature, and lets not also forget that Otters were all over the country back in the day, so lets not start saying it's because of them.

I also find it strange that Barbel can be stocked in just about any river, the end result to this is other species are, and have been pushed out. I am not against stocking but lets keep the right species to the right rivers, because that is playing against nature, and can not be good for the welfare of the rivers.

---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

Its quite simple, for the CS to be changed or dates altered either scientific evidence has to be produced to show it will not be detrimental to do so.

As it would be impossible to gather such evidence because rivers are not fished by “ALL” anglers between 15/03-16/06. The anti CS lobby need to convince the EA. that no such evidence is required to get them to approach the government to change the law that exists. Or find another way to have the law changed, it really is that simple.

All the Angling Trust through Martin Salter and a few celeb anglers have archived by facilitating this debate is to pitch angler against angler and bring about more division in our ranks. Well done!mg:

Just what i have been saying all along.

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:26 ----------

The Kings Weir stretch is a far cry from what it used to be in the 70's, but some very small Barbel are being caught, these are fish form 8ozs to the 1lb mark, had a few myself and seen a few caught. Plenty of small 4 to 6oz chub also.

 

[chav professor]

One of the arguments put forward for keeping a c/s on rivers is that there is a difference between still waters and rivers in that still waters can be and are stocked.

Strange then that the BS have recently stocked a Kings Weir back stream with 500 Barbel and 1000 Chub, different? I don't think so. didn't someone post during this thread that Chub were not indigenous to the river they fish, how did they get in there then? not stocked were they?

It was me... Dead, lifeless rivers were stocked .... with anything going...... way back in the 50's... a later stocking of tench 70's/80's....

Local club tried to get barbel stocked.... it was declined....

its pretty much self sustaining. Dace all but disappeared.... then made a comeback.... roach have taken a back seat whilst Chub have a resurgence... its cyclic. Species populations wax and wain

Can't even stock what you like in still waters... sturgeon, catfish... even F1 carp can't be stocked in still waters it the risk of them entering rivers is considered high.

Nothing stocked about my river..... for decades.... what they spawn and survive is what you are going to get.

Still waters? piling them full of carp....

YOU CAN'T STOCK RIVERS LIKE YOU CAN STILL WATERS....

you can't stock anything without consultation through EA.

River Lea? Chub/barbel on the brink of not even existing.... fry recruitment is shocking. Cormorants, otters and possibly most significantly... crayfish wipe out eggs, fry whatever.....

Strange it is not.... a practical short term measure to rejuvenate an ailing river... Do you think Kings weirs going to open in the close season if you get your way? Hell no..... the fishery will be locked down tighter than... something tight... really tight... oh $0d it... a Scotsmans wallet.

this debate isn't even getting clever nowmg:

For clarity.... fish were stocked in my river based on the fact... there weren't any to speak of.... it was a restocking due to years of pollution and major fish kills. it was an open sewer..... it was not a fad or fancy to give anglers what they wanted in terms of the latest rock and roll species of the moment.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Just been reading the BS have some sort of deal with Kings Weir that the members of the BS get to fish it for free.That will please those who will be paying £75 for their ticket.hno:

Through the 90’s the fishing was good, good head of barbel and chub, it is hard these days, crayfish are a pest,so if the BS boys think it will be easy best think again.

Getting back on track, if it is agreed that no scientific evidence will be gathered how will the anti lobby via the AT convince the EA to approach the government? They can hardly use the debate on here,
personally I don’t think that was ever going to be the case. Why, because Martin Salter and the celeb anglers have taken no part. Why don’t they want to debate their reasons for change?

The debate taking place on Martin Salter's Angling Trust Campaigns Blog would be even less useful to the trust as a means to persuade the EA. to take any action towards changing the CS.

But were these debates ever meant or designed to be a means of a way forward for the trust? Personally I doubt it with 54 replies on MS angling trust campaign blog and 464 on here with multiple comments by the same posters it will hardly convince the EA. of anything.

So can the trust realistically do anything on the basis of these two debates, logic would dictate no. But I doubt the trust hadn’t already thought out it’s next move long before any debate was asked for they just don’t work in that way. hno:

 

[thecrow]

It was me... Dead, lifeless rivers were stocked .... with anything going...... way back in the 50's... a later stocking of tench 70's/80's....

Local club tried to get barbel stocked.... it was declined....

its pretty much self sustaining. Dace all but disappeared.... then made a comeback.... roach have taken a back seat whilst Chub have a resurgence... its cyclic. Species populations wax and wain

Can't even stock what you like in still waters... sturgeon, catfish... even F1 carp can't be stocked in still waters it the risk of them entering rivers is considered high.

Nothing stocked about my river..... for decades.... what they spawn and survive is what you are going to get.

Still waters? piling them full of carp....

YOU CAN'T STOCK RIVERS LIKE YOU CAN STILL WATERS....

you can't stock anything without consultation through EA.

River Lea? Chub/barbel on the brink of not even existing.... fry recruitment is shocking. Cormorants, otters and possibly most significantly... crayfish wipe out eggs, fry whatever.....

Strange it is not.... a practical short term measure to rejuvenate an ailing river... Do you think Kings weirs going to open in the close season if you get your way? Hell no..... the fishery will be locked down tighter than... something tight... really tight... oh $0d it... a Scotsmans wallet.

this debate isn't even getting clever nowmg:

For clarity.... fish were stocked in my river based on the fact... there weren't any to speak of.... it was a restocking due to years of pollution and major fish kills. it was an open sewer..... it was not a fad or fancy to give anglers what they wanted in terms of the latest rock and roll species of the moment.

It matters not to me why they were stocked or indeed how long ago, its the fact that it was an argument put forward as one of the differences between rivers and still waters.

Cant stock a river like you can a still water? I think the Barbel in the Severn disprove that theory.

---------- Post added at 06:35 ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 ----------

The BS membership to their great credit have financed many such stocking's, some examples.

River Dane; following pollution
River Aire to help improve barbel populations on the river.
River Stour 9000 small barbel into the middle reaches of the river in the last three years as part of the project.
A further 1000 barbel were stocked into the Stour in October 2012,

River Lea stocking support; The Society is funding the stocking of 400 small barbel into a sidestream of the River Lea, in order to monitor their spread and survival and to help boost the local barbel population. The fish will be stocked in Autumn 2013.

The River Lea suffered a serious fish kill a few years back along with Fishers Green. Kings Weir now suffers with crayfish that have spread, so future spawning's are likely to be poor as a result.

There appears to be one common denominator in all these stocking's, poor barbel populations. Pete Reading is the Research and Conservation Officer for the BS he would know better than anyone why these stoking's were necessary.

Common sense might indicate that it is down to poor regeneration, if barbel are suffering are other species suffering in the same way?

We may have cleaner rivers but not health rivers, put right all the problems our rivers have suffered over many decades and stocking's to boost populations maybe come unnecessary.

These problems are far more important the any debate regarding the CS. Will changing the CS dates or abolishing it change the need for society's like the BS to fund such stockings?

In 2009 1.5 million rod licenses were purchased a record. with almost 500,000 more licences sold in 2009 than in 2000. If that increase continued at the same rate up until today we may have around 1.8 million anglers. I doubt there has ever been 4 million anglers, if there has we have seen 2.2 million licenses dodgers laughing at both anglers who do buy a license and the EA..

The debate will continue no doubt with one side rubbishing the other sides argument or countering one another with scrutiny of motives and agendas where needed.

Its quite simple, for the CS to be changed or dates altered either scientific evidence has to be produced to show it will not be detrimental to do so.

As it would be impossible to gather such evidence because rivers are not fished by “ALL” anglers between 15/03-16/06. The anti CS lobby need to convince the EA. that no such evidence is required to get them to approach the government to change the law that exists. Or find another way to have the law changed, it really is that simple.

All the Angling Trust through Martin Salter and a few celeb anglers have archived by facilitating this debate is to pitch angler against angler and bring about more division in our ranks. Well done!mg:

Didn't need them or anyone else to do that Ray, anglers are pretty good at doing it for themselves.

Look on any Barbel forum and you just know sometime someone will have a pop at Carp and Carp anglers, some don't like match anglers others commercials on and on, rather foolish IMO.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Didn't need them or anyone else to do that Ray, anglers are pretty good at doing it for themselves.

Look on any Barbel forum and you just know sometime someone will have a pop at Carp and Carp anglers, some don't like match anglers others commercials on and on, rather foolish IMO.[/QUOTE]

If you consider that the part of my post you have highlighted is foolish, that’s fine by me. Your reference regarding barbel forums and the fact that some are always ready to have a pop at carp and match anglers,speaks volumes about us barbel anglers.

As an angler that has had fish welfare at the very heart of my fishing life I am very concerned that our rivers need these constant restocking programmes and the continued decline in our rivers.

Forget about the debate over the CS, if the problems with our rivers are not addressed it will make no difference if we have a CS or not. I maintain my view that these problems are far more important.

 

[sam vimes]

Forget about the debate over the CS, if the problems with our rivers are not addressed it will make no difference if we have a CS or not. I maintain my view that these problems are far more important.

Now there's an admission. However, unlike the pro-CS lobby, I fail to see how the vast majority of the problems have anything to do with the closed season. abstraction, predation, floods, pollution, illegal angling etc, etc will all still occur whether we have a closed season or not. The problems will exist even if we have a season long closed season. We've had years of closed seasons, yet the rivers that most of the pro lobby are concerned about are still in decline. Other than it fitting with their own ideals and lifestyles, what (piscine) purpose is it actually serving? There still seems to be the rather large assumption being made that it actually helps in some way. Unfortunately, other than the intuitive thought that it must be beneficial, there's no proof that this is actually the case. There's still a chance that it's actually doing more harm than good.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Unfortunately, other than the intuitive thought that it must be beneficial, there's no proof that this is actually the case. There's still a chance that it's actually doing more harm than good.

Unfortunately, and likewise, other than the intuitive thought that it isn’t beneficial, there’s always the chance it will do harm. This is just swings and roundabouts, I put my view over you put yours. They are opposite, I am not willing to change the CS based on chance.

Regards
Ray

 

[bennygesserit]

Now there's an admission. However, unlike the pro-CS lobby, I fail to see how the vast majority of the problems have anything to do with the closed season. abstraction, predation, floods, pollution, illegal angling etc, etc will all still occur whether we have a closed season or not. The problems will exist even if we have a season long closed season. We've had years of closed seasons, yet the rivers that most of the pro lobby are concerned about are still in decline. Other than it fitting with their own ideals and lifestyles, what (piscine) purpose is it actually serving? There still seems to be the rather large assumption being made that it actually helps in some way. Unfortunately, other than the intuitive thought that it must be beneficial, there's no proof that this is actually the case. There's still a chance that it's actually doing more harm than good.

Sam When barbel spawn don't you get a very dense population of fish in very particular areas , wouldn't soneone , unable to resist temptation, fishing one of these areas have an impact of future fish stocks ? Not only by catching fish but sinply by fishing in that particular area.

Of course the CS doesn't cover every spawning period.

I am wondering though whether , hypothetically someone fishing an obvious spawning ground would have an effect or not.

 

[sam vimes]

This is just swings and roundabouts, I put my view over you put yours. They are opposite, I am not willing to change the CS based on chance.

Regards
Ray

Indeed, I'm not entirely convinced that they even are polar opposite views, but you aren't fishing areas that allow "trout" fishing with worms. You surely can't be surprised that many don't share your dogmatic adherence to something that might actually, in the final analysis, if anyone ever does it, be doing more harm than good. Not all of those that don't share your views have anything much to gain, certainly nothing financial.

I suspect that the majority of coarse anglers in my region, even the older heads with more traditional views, would see the end of the closed season. They know that the reality is a couple of weeks are genuinely closed, then the fly anglers and "trout" anglers appear. The only real angling opposition to abolishing the coarse closed season is likely to come from fly anglers. However, as we generally co-exist with clubs, or have totally seperate clubs, I doubt it would be a major opposition.

I'm quite content to retain a closed season, if it's proven to be in any way effective in improving the number of fish. However, I don't slavishly believe that it's definitely the case that it is doing any good whatsoever. Declining rivers may actually be a hint that it's doing nothing much at all. However, as we already have different bye-laws in different regions, I see no reason why the prime rivers for any experiment in a relaxation couldn't be the Yorkshire rivers. The only real difference many of them would see would be more, and a greater variety of, bait.

---------- Post added at 11:03 ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 ----------

Sam When barbel spawn don't you get a very dense population of fish in very particular areas , wouldn't soneone , unable to resist temptation, fishing one of these areas have an impact of future fish stocks ? Not only by catching fish but sinply by fishing in that particular area.

Of course the CS doesn't cover every spawning period.

I am wondering though whether , hypothetically someone fishing an obvious spawning ground would have an effect or not.

As has been said before, fishing for spawning fish is usually utterly pointless. Disturbing spawning fish is nigh on impossible. They become oblivious to anything other than spawning itself. Any impact on spawning fish comes after the event. Wading on the spawning areas is likely to be the biggest issue. No problem on many rivers, on those with regular wading fly anglers it's likely to be more of a problem. You can also chuck canoeists, dogs etc into the mix. Shallow gravels are often prime spawning areas for many fish, just the type of areas that either are likely to end up splashing about, laying up or scraping over.

 

[chav professor]

Sam, angling when they are engaged in this....

isn't viable.......


But the days leading up to this event - when they are densely packed into tight areas IS..... This I would find completely objectional.

pre spawning banquet laid on.......

To catch fish days, hours, whatever....... where do you draw the line? Chub and barbel at peak weights?

There were two Chub in that shoal that were around my PB for the river... one that would have blitzed it - easily Drennan Cup category! Its behavior mystified both myself and my friend who came down to witness the spectacle.

this 'fish don't feed when they are spawning' is not an argument to abolish the close season - it is WEAK.........

Fish carry spawn notably from January onward s..... Just after spawning, they are pretty washed out and look out of condition. Practically, the 12 week layoff seems to suit as a 'catch all'.......

Possibly at the expense of a few weeks Chubbing - which is what I'm principally interested in......

I'll accept that... always have, always will.... its what stood before I started to Angle.... and long may it continue to be so. Its the rules of the game.

 

[sam vimes]

Sam, angling when they are engaged in this....

isn't viable.......


But the days leading up to this event - when they are densely packed into tight areas IS..... This I would find completely objectional.

pre spawning banquet laid on.......

To catch fish days, hours, whatever....... where do you draw the line? Chub and barbel at peak weights?

There were two Chub in that shoal that were around my PB for the river... one that would have blitzed it - easily Drennan Cup category! Its behavior mystified both myself and my friend who came down to witness the spectacle.

this 'fish don't feed when they are spawning' is not an argument to abolish the close season - it is WEAK.........

Fish carry spawn notably from January onward s..... Just after spawning, they are pretty washed out and look out of condition. Practically, the 12 week layoff seems to suit as a 'catch all'.......

Possibly at the expense of a few weeks Chubbing - which is what I'm principally interested in......

I'll accept that... always have, always will.... its what stood before I started to Angle.... and long may it continue to be so. Its the rules of the game.

Quite so, but how is it considered perfectly acceptable to catch some species of fish gravid and not others? People revel in the fact that they are catching pike and perch at "peak" weights. I'm yet to hear of anyone complaining about a dearth of pike or perch.

Transplant your chub pictures to my neck of the woods and it would be perfectly legal to be fishing for them, it's likely to be June, or later. Even if it were earlier, people could be fishing their worms for "trout". Strangley enough, early season match weights of chub are huge, river records are invariably set in the first few weeks, but if they don't draw a certain couple of pegs they might as well not bother. Then there's the worm for trout bye-law to consider. What fits for you and your rivers is more of a nonesense elsewhere than you'll ever appreciate or care to acknowledge. If the closed season is effective in its aims, great. If not, then it's pointless. If its timing works in your part of the world, great. If it doesn't, what exactly is the point?

Other than for the sake of ease, and the benefit of halfwits that can't do a little research, one size really does not fit all. Even then, it's based on the unproven assumption that a closed season actually has any benefit.

By the way, I wasn't making the argument for abolishing the closed season around fish not feeding when spawning, I was simply answering Benny's question about whether coarse angling would impact spawning activity. I'd contend that coarse angling activity during spawning will have zero effect on spawning, just as it does on stillwaters. Spawning beds are also generally not disturbed by coarse anglers as the vast majority don't wade.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Indeed, I'm not entirely convinced that they even are polar opposite views, but you aren't fishing areas that allow "trout" fishing with worms. You surely can't be surprised that many don't share your dogmatic adherence to something that might actually, in the final analysis, if anyone ever does it, be doing more harm than good. Not all of those that don't share your views have anything much to gain, certainly nothing financial.

I suspect that the majority of coarse anglers in my region, even the older heads with more traditional views, would see the end of the closed season. They know that the reality is a couple of weeks are genuinely closed, then the fly anglers and "trout" anglers appear. The only real angling opposition to abolishing the coarse closed season is likely to come from fly anglers. However, as we generally co-exist with clubs, or have totally seperate clubs, I doubt it would be a major opposition.

I'm quite content to retain a closed season, if it's proven to be in any way effective in improving the number of fish. However, I don't slavishly believe that it's definitely the case that it is doing any good whatsoever. Declining rivers may actually be a hint that it's doing nothing much at all. However, as we already have different bye-laws in different regions, I see no reason why the prime rivers for any experiment in a relaxation couldn't be the Yorkshire rivers. The only real difference many of them would see would be more, and a greater variety of, bait.

Sam,
Forget the mumbo jumbo and what your views or my views are or anyone's for that matter.

I think you will find that opposition to the abolishment of the CS will come from far more quarters than just the fly fishers. Unless the scientific evidence is gathered there will be no final analysis. You are welcome to believe or be convinced on whatever suits you. Like wise I do not believe that many share the dogmatic adherence of those who wish to see the CS changed or abolished.

I agree not all who don’t share my view have much or anything to gain (apart from all year fishing) financially. They were not the ones who asked for this debate were they. The AT Martin Salter and the “others” asked for it, along with some celebrity anglers who just happen to be guides on our rivers.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that if the CS goes that they would not benefit financially?

Quote.
“And if the season was ever changed it would certainly not impact on me in a commercial sense” unquote.

Forgive me for thinking that if all year fishing becomes allowed, that he would expect to get more calls for his service as a river guide when the weather is usually at its best?

So in reality if the CS were to change be abolished it would in fact impact on him in a commercial sense. He sells a commercial product to the public i.e his guiding service. That sentence is just the spin he places on things to retrace steps he probably now regrets due to the criticism he has received.

You are welcome to believe that the CS is doing no good, I don’t agree as is my right. So here we are again going over each others views that really have no meaning in the scheme of things.

The Trust, Martin Salter, the others and the celeb anglers involved have an agenda. They are all working together to achieve whatever that agenda is. This debate will have little or no bearing in relationship to that agenda.

We could all sit here at out PC’s knocking out this and that till the cows come home it will not make one iota of difference.

The anti CS lobby need to do what they can to achieve what they want. It will have to be based on either scientific evidence (which will never be gathered) that removing the CS will not be detrimental or find a way of changing that requirement set in law.

The pro CS lobby will have to do likewise likewise to keep the CS, our advantage is we will not have to produce any scientific evidence as it is not a requirement to keep the CS.

I have been called belligerent and now dogmatic, so I think I will now change my handle on here to “Cockney Rebel”

regards
Ray

 

[sam vimes]

Sam,
Forget the mumbo jumbo and what your views or my views are or anyone's for that matter.

I think you will find that opposition to the abolishment of the CS will come from far more quarters than just the fly fishers. Unless the scientific evidence is gathered there will be no final analysis. You are welcome to believe or be convinced on whatever suits you. Like wise I do not believe that many share the dogmatic adherence of those who wish to see the CS changed or abolished.

Sorry Ray,
I'm not dogmatic about it, I'll go with evidence. As it stands, in the area I fish, logical reasoning for CS retention is wafer thin. As I've said, river angling activity should only be zero for a whole two weeks of the year round here. There's little will convince me that will have any positive bearing on anything.

What I see being written by the pro-cs lobby is retention at all costs. If that weren't the case, there'd be no need to run off to make your Faustian pacts with the various bunny hugging groups. I've no doubt that you'll get the support required from them, but at what cost? Given half a chance, the majority would see the back of all angling, shooting and farming, of course they'll support the pro-cs lobby. Whilst I've no desire to damage the wider environment, it's of poor secondary interest when compared to fish and fishing. If a particular ecology or environment is quite so fragile as to be genuinely negatively impacted by angling, then there's a damned good case for all human activity, not just angling, to cease completely in that environment, let alone just a simple closed season, that excludes activity from fly anglers, canoeists, dog walkers et al.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

The anti angling all year lobby, know they have NO way of proving what may happen if fishing rivers opens all year. So they try and turn the table by saying, we have to find a way to prove fishing all year will not do any harm.

Well thats easy, just look at the still waters that have been open for years, all year. Doing very well.

Kings Weir mg: that part of the Lea has been going down hill for years. It would help if some of the tree line was cut back to let some light into parts of that stretch. Up stream, and down stream from Kings Weir, there are fish big and small being caught, not as it used to be, but getting a little better.

You also have to ask why is it that Barbel in Kings Weir, haven't grown on as well as Barbel in other parts of the river Lea??, over the same period of time. All i can say is that the other parts of the Lea don't have a tree line as dense as Kings Weir, i am sure this has an out come on the survival of spawn and the spawning grounds. Lets also not forget that the flow of water over the Weir is far less now, than in the the past few decades, that can't help.

Our rivers need to be bought back to live, they also need to be protected all year round. The best people for that are Anglers.

---------- Post added at 14:08 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

Sorry Ray,
I'm not dogmatic about it, I'll go with evidence. As it stands, in the area I fish, logical reasoning for CS retention is wafer thin. As I've said, river angling activity should only be zero for a whole two weeks of the year round here. There's little will convince me that will have any positive bearing on anything.

What I see being written by the pro-cs lobby is retention at all costs. If that weren't the case, there'd be no need to run off to make your Faustian pacts with the various bunny hugging groups. I've no doubt that you'll get the support required from them, but at what cost? Given half a chance, the majority would see the back of all angling, shooting and farming, of course they'll support the pro-cs lobby. Whilst I've no desire to damage the wider environment, it's of poor secondary interest when compared to fish and fishing. If a particular ecology or environment is quite so fragile as to be genuinely negatively impacted by angling, then there's a damned good case for all human activity, not just angling, to cease completely in that environment, let alone just a simple closed season, that excludes activity from fly anglers, canoeists, dog walkers et al.

Well Said Sam.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Sorry Ray,
I'm not dogmatic about it, I'll go with evidence.

Fair enough, you go with the eviedence, and if the call to retain the CS is only wafer thin we will no doubt see the end of the CS.

Regards
Ray

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------

Well thats easy, just look at the still waters that have been open for years, all year. Doing very well.

Ray, If you can get both the EA and Government to accept that, it'll be job done. I won’t hold my breath that you will succeed. It is not the pro lobby that say you will need evidence it is the government that states no change without it.

Some seem unable to grasp or accept that fact.

regards
Ray

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Ray, If you can get both the EA and Government to accept that, it'll be job done. I won’t hold my breath that you will succeed. It is not the pro lobby that say you will need evidence it is the government that states no change without it.

Some seem unable to grasp or accept that fact.

regards
Ray

Ray, as you say it's the EA and government, i can accept that with no problem. The only problem with that is the government mg:, they can't even work out their own expenses, so what chance do we have.

regards
Ray.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Ray, as you say it's the EA and government, i can accept that with no problem. The only problem with that is the government mg:, they can't even work out their own expenses, so what chance do we have.

regards
Ray.

Perhaps we need a benevolent dictatorship thenmg:

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Perhaps we need a benevolent dictatorship thenmg:

I thought we had one

After all, they are benevolent to themselves, and are just as much a dictatorship as Russia.