River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[thecrow]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]




What I think is foolish is the sniping at different disciplines of angling that goes on and its not only on Barbel forums, it goes on here as well, not what you thought I meant about the highlighted piece being foolish.

 

[chav professor]

Easy to see why the 'stats' remain pretty constant in this debate.....

It can't be the purpose of this debate to change each others opinions - only that our standpoint is clearly put forward.....

My aim is to withdraw from this debate.... said my pieces ('he'll be back' mg

There you go Mr Salter.... same as before, steer well clear

 

[rollingpinboy]

If Steve Pope, Martin Slater etc get their way and the Closed Season was abolished or changed on rivers, I am pretty sure that if a clause was put in that 'no weighing', 'photographing/publishing' was allowed, as well as that any fish caught would 'not' be considered or accepted as a new 'British Record', that might put a lot of commercial orientated/ego seeking anglers off going at this time. Even with that in place, it still has the potential to damage fish stocks and destroy eggs when the fish are holding spawn/milt at this time.
In my opinion...i would charge all involved with conspiracy and attempt to commit 'environmental murder' to the 'Closed Season and all protective measures in place for fish and wildlife etc that are paramount to their well being and survival....

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

If Steve Pope, Martin Slater etc get their way and the Closed Season was abolished or changed on rivers, I am pretty sure that if a clause was put in that 'no weighing', 'photographing/publishing' was allowed, as well as that any fish caught would 'not' be considered or accepted as a new 'British Record', that might put a lot of commercial orientated/ego seeking anglers off going at this time. Even with that in place, it still has the potential to damage fish stocks and destroy eggs when the fish are holding spawn/milt at this time.
In my opinion...i would charge all involved with conspiracy and attempt to commit 'environmental murder' to the 'Closed Season and all protective measures in place for fish and wildlife etc that are paramount to their well being and survival....

Does that apply to still waters that are doing very well without a closed season ????. I agree with you about the circus, all for themselves, no matter what.

 

[rollingpinboy]

Rivers as mentioned Ray...although you are probably correct in saying that "still waters that are doing very well without a closed season", in that the owners/clubs have upped their income. Not sure about the fish etc though, when a lot of commercials/club venues may need to re-stock on occasions or each year because of fish deaths or for some other reasons. The impact and price paid for the disturbance/damage to breeding wildfowl, wildlife etc and surrounding habitat is never mentioned or considered.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Rivers as mentioned Ray...although you are probably correct in saying that "still waters that are doing very well without a closed season", in that the owners/clubs have upped their income. Not sure about the fish etc though, when a lot of commercials/club venues may need to re-stock on occasions or each year because of fish deaths or for some other reasons. The impact and price paid for the disturbance/damage to breeding wildfowl, wildlife etc and surrounding habitat is never mentioned or considered.

Well i don't know of a still water around here, or where i fish, that has lost any habitat, or had any impact what so ever on the wildlife, just the opposite. But how come none of the anti all year fishing, say anything about all the boat users, birdwatchers, walkers that are on the river banks during the close season. No loss of wildlife or habitat with them around ?? But its us anglers that are left to clear up their litter.

 

[thecrow]

Well i don't know of a still water around here, or where i fish, that has lost any habitat, or had any impact what so ever on the wildlife, just the opposite. But how come none of the anti all year fishing, say anything about all the boat users, birdwatchers, walkers that are on the river banks during the close season. No loss of wildlife or habitat with them around ?? But its us anglers that are left to clear up their litter.[/QUOTE]




And that's why I am against other none angling organisations getting involved in this.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Well i don't know of a still water around here, or where i fish, that has lost any habitat, or had any impact what so ever on the wildlife, just the opposite. But how come none of the anti all year fishing, say anything about all the boat users, birdwatchers, walkers that are on the river banks during the close season. No loss of wildlife or habitat with them around ?? But its us anglers that are left to clear up their litter.[/QUOTE]


And that's why I am against other none angling organisations getting involved in this.

I think it is far too late now for that . . . . . . .

We anglers ought not to be so self-obsessed to think that we are the only people who use our rivers and surrounding environs.

Many of the rivers in the South are non navigable so boat traffic is not an argument.

Likewise many of our rivers abutt privately owned land which precludes the walkers and/or birdwatchers as well.

Notwithstanding, there are a myriad of other organisations from the Rivers Trust to the Dragonfly Conservation Society, and countless dozens inbetween, who have a vested interest as well.

 

[Paul Boote]

Yes, Peter. We Anglers, as I have long said (to universal Angler "acclaim"), are just one part of the watery scene. The more a few self-interested and -obsessed rentamouths sound off about OUR rivers etc, the more we become the Awkward Squad and perceived by our fellow water-users to be just a bunch of whingers, whiners and Moaning Minnies, people who will be the last to be called to sit at the tables around which things are discussed and future policy is hammered out.

Twelve weeks of no coarse fishing in rivers, not much is it?

After these past few days of sun there will be barbel grouping now on two old fords and three gravel shallows that I have long known, fish that will be doing the dirty over the next few days. I'll be lurking in the bushes watching them, looking at some big old girl I haven't spotted before and thinking "Hmm. Give you one next season....".

For the utterly "I must do it - NOW! I must, I must, I MUST!" foot-stamping fish-struck among us, in the meantime, there are always stillwaters and canals (and game fish if they're prepared to learn the necessary skill-set). Quite enough to be going on with.

 

[barbelboi]

Just because the rivers are non navigable Peter doesn’t make them boat free – I’ve encountered paddlers on the Kennet and Loddon where they have no right of access more than a few times over the years. This was in season when they knew they may come into contact with anglers, I doubt if their activity ceases during the CS when they know they are unlikely to ‘bump into’ an angler.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Just because the rivers are non navigable Peter doesn’t make them boat free – I’ve encountered paddlers on the Kennet and Loddon where they have no right of access more than a few times over the years. This was in season when they knew they may come into contact with anglers, I doubt if their activity ceases during the CS when they know they are unlikely to ‘bump into’ an angler.

. . . . then the controlling club should be policing their stretches of the rivers.

That they abdigate their responsibility to their members should not be seen as an argument in favour of losing the Close Season.

You do not have to be fishing a river to be bailiffing it, do you?

 

[barbelboi]

PM on the way Peter.

 

[thecrow]

I think it is far too late now for that . . . . . . .

We anglers ought not to be so self-obsessed to think that we are the only people who use our rivers and surrounding environs.

Many of the rivers in the South are non navigable so boat traffic is not an argument.

Likewise many of our rivers abutt privately owned land which precludes the walkers and/or birdwatchers as well.

Notwithstanding, there are a myriad of other organisations from the Rivers Trust to the Dragonfly Conservation Society, and countless dozens inbetween, who have a vested interest as well.[/QUOTE]









Yes a vested interest in keeping anglers off the banks for three months,

What are they going to do about others that use rivers for those three months, nothing that's what, because they cannot, they will support the closed season because we are they only ones kept away from rivers during this time by law.

Are any of these other groups campaigning to keep everyone off the rivers during the three months?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Yes a vested interest in keeping anglers off the banks for three months

No, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

As of right now they have the law on their side and wish to keep it that way.

As I have noted before, many river banks are in private ownership so no open dog-walking there, many rivers are non navigable, so no paddler problems, and those that do engage in trespass activities can still be policed by not having a fishing rod in our hands while we do it. In fact, I would argue that only by not fishing while bailiffing can be the only effecitve way.

We (anglers) surely cannot be so arrogant as to belive that only "we" have some God given right to be there?

Can we?

 

[Paul Boote]

Yes a vested interest in keeping anglers off the banks for three months,

What are they going to do about others that use rivers for those three months, nothing that's what, because they cannot, they will support the closed season because we are they only ones kept away from rivers during this time by law.

Are any of these other groups campaigning to keep everyone off the rivers during the three months?

Line from Buffalo Springfield's "For What It's Worth" - "Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep."


[ame=http://youtu.be/h6BJJe9JV_A]Infamy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[thecrow]

No, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

As of right now they have the law on their side and wish to keep it that way.

As I have noted before, many river banks are in private ownership so no open dog-walking there, many rivers are non navigable, so no paddler problems, and those that do engage in trespass activities can still be policed by not having a fishing rod in our hands while we do it. In fact, I would argue that only by not fishing while bailiffing can be the only effecitve way.

We (anglers) surely cannot be so arrogant as to belive that only "we" have some God given right to be there?

Can we?

And those not in private ownership? or those with private ownership that have public rights of way on them? or illegal paddlers? or those that don't care if there is a closed season or not? what is to be done by these none angling organisations to keep these people off the rivers? the answer is nothing because there is nothing that they can do.

There is no arrogance in holding a view that being on the riverbank does no harm while there is access for others that cannot be stopped.

Regarding maintaining the status quo, of course they would do that because they are not able to have any effect on none angling river users,

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Thecrow,

You forgot about the Trout boys walking all over the place, doing as they like, catching most species of fish when in spawn or not, mg: but then i forgot its Trout so thats OK.

Open all waters all year, then every angler has the choice, if you don't want to fish the old closed season, then you don't have to.

The way some go on about keeping the closed season, you would think the rivers will be flooded by anglers, yet the rivers are not fished as they used to be, and every bloody angler knows it.

---------- Post added at 23:02 ---------- Previous post was at 22:56 ----------

Well i don't know of a still water around here, or where i fish, that has lost any habitat, or had any impact what so ever on the wildlife, just the opposite. But how come none of the anti all year fishing, say anything about all the boat users, birdwatchers, walkers that are on the river banks during the close season. No loss of wildlife or habitat with them around ?? But its us anglers that are left to clear up their litter.

…………………………………..

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------

I think it is far too late now for that . . . . . . .

Why Peter ????, because the anti all year angling want it to be. Private rivers or not, they are used all year round by others. Lets not forget the Trout boys walking all over the place also.

 

[binka]

The way some go on about keeping the closed season, you would think the rivers will be flooded by anglers, yet the rivers are not fished as they used to be, and every bloody angler knows it

That's an interesting point and one which I personally agree with even though I'm in favour of retaining the current closed season.

Again, without going to the pains of trawling back to quote the individual posts, haven't we heard of how river fish will be denied a valuable food source (or words to that effect) during their hour of need when the closed season takes effect, namely that of all these anglers feed (???) whilst on the other hand so few anglers are fishing the rivers these days that any effect would surely be negligible unless they're piling a hundred kilos per session plus in?

It all smacks of contradiction to me and fabricating the argument to suit the opinion.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Why Peter ????, because the anti all year angling want it to be. Private rivers or not, they are used all year round by others. Lets not forget the Trout boys walking all over the place also.

Quite simply Ray because many anglers who are very worried about losing the Close Season have come together and are contacting a myriad of organisation to solicit their support.

We have this debate almost every year, but this year thanks to the Angling Trust's Martin Salter and some named anglers who seem to have a vested interest, is seemed to make this year's debate far more serious.

We do not intend to sit quietly and watch it disappear due to commercial interests or greed, but that is all I am prepared to say on the matter at the moment.

 

[thecrow]

[QUOTE=Peter Jacobs;1291391]Quite simply Ray because many anglers who are very worried about losing the Close Season have come together and are contacting a myriad of organisation to solicit their support.

We have this debate almost every year, but this year thanks to the Angling Trust's Martin Salter and some named anglers who seem to have a vested interest, is seemed to make this year's debate far more serious.

We do not intend to sit quietly and watch it disappear due to commercial interests or greed, but that is all I am prepared to say on the matter at the moment.[/QUOTE]







I will ask again although I don't know why, are these "myriad of other organisations" going to stop other river users doing whatever they normally do on rivers? or is it just anglers they will want to keep away as now?