River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[Ray Wood 1]

I'm afraid that's the sort of cop-out answer I might have expected. People who do some representative work don't usually mind talking about it and using the knowledge they gain. I wouldn't have belittled you or anyone, like I'd said to Peter "fair enough", at least then you're being honest.

Jeff,
I will answer your latest post politely, I did not cop-out of answering your question I treated it with the contempt it deserved. You asked a question just of the pro CS posters with an hidden agenda. You've admitted it was a loaded question, need I say more.

Say what you will regarding what your motives were or what you would or would not have said or posted if I had answered nothing.

You now appear to be doubting my honesty by stating “at least then you’re being honest”. You need to engage your brain before you start hitting the keyboard with that sort of stuff Jeff.

My honesty is important to me and my choosing to treat your question with the contempt it deserved had little to do with my honesty or anyone's honesty if they chose not to answer your question.

Regards
Ray

---------- Post added at 20:44 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

Well, Well, what have you said above Ray. mg: All your words, i don't need to change or add anything. With respect Ray, i would never be on the back foot with yourself. Here you have twisted what i have said, and all can see.

Seems playing twister isn't your game Ray

As i said, game, set and match.

Regards
Ray./QUOTE]

Ray,
Keep on as long as you like we have to whole CS to go over what you meant and what you stated,or what I posted no problem for me.hno:

Again I still maintain that I doubt I would lose any debate entered into with your good self respectfully.

Yours with the greatest respect
Ray

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Ray,
Keep on as long as you like we have to whole CS to go over what you meant and what you stated,or what I posted no problem for me.hno:

Again I still maintain that I doubt I would lose any debate entered into with your good self respectfully.

Yours with the greatest respect
Ray

Ray,
When will you come up with something different regarding the CS ???

With all respect Ray, All you have done is read into my posts, and come up with your own version of what you want it to be, twisted or tried to twist what is there for all to see.

As i also stated, you lost before you begun regarding the CS and any debate we have had regarding it.

Regards
Ray.

Now, as there is nothing new regarding this debate from the Anti all year party, its time to move on. I will have a check in over the next few days, and weeks, to see if anything worth while regarding retaining the close season comes up. But i know the answer to that any way, Nothing will.

Enjoy yourselves fellow anglers, what ever side you fish for, and take care all.

The Future is Bright, it's fishing rivers all year .

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Ray,
When will you come up with something different regarding the CS ???

With all respect Ray, All you have done is read into my posts, and come up with your own version of what you want it to be, twisted or tried to twist what is there for all to see.

As i also stated, you lost before you begun regarding the CS and any debate we have had regarding it.

Regards
Ray.

Now, as there is nothing new regarding this debate from the Anti all year party, its time to move on. I will have a check in over the next few days, and weeks, to see if anything worth while regarding retaining the close season comes up. But i know the answer to that any way, Nothing will.

Enjoy yourselves fellow anglers, what ever side you fish for, and take care all.

The Future is Bright, it's fishing rivers all year .

Ray,
Like I said, keep on as long as you like put what ever spin you need to interpret my responses to you. In the end what you say or I say will have no bearing on the end result regarding the CS.
You say the anti all year side have come up with nothing, and likewise nor has the pro all year fishing side. I am not anti all year fishing we already have that, I pro CS

We have all huffed and puffed but no house has been blown down. This little piggy is off to Kempton races “God Willing” time to “Be Bold” and forget the “Life and Times” we live in, but I’ll wager that you will be back.

Over to you Ray, you can have the last say.

Regards
Ray

 

[rollingpinboy]

Again, from what i see in all this is that the 'open all year' pro's, are only in it for business, commercial, personal gain and profiteering (including some normal anglers) trying to push for deregulation of environmental, habitat, fish, wildfowl and wildlife protection laws already in place, which are there to safeguard riverine and land based life forms. I don't really think that a lot of them know exactly what they are doing or voting for, when it comes down to the implications and wider picture regarding the environmental damaging/disturbance aspect to habitat and resident life forms which they seem to know very little or absolutely nothing about...or they do, and are deliberately (for reasons of self-interest, profit and gain), blatantly ignoring and disregarding the obvious. Seems they are jumping on the Conservative Government bandwagon in deregulation of the countryside putting human, business profiteering and the economy above all else. It's called greed by implementing legalised destruction of the natural environment, including downgrading/killing rivers, fish, birds, insects and wildlife etc....to satisfy and increase their bank balances.

 

[sam vimes]

Will you crackpots stop trying to suggest that anyone that might think that the closed season is either utterly pointless, or simply mistimed, all have something to gain? There are plenty of ordinary anglers, with absolutely nowt to gain, (other than perhaps the odd extra day on the bank) that think that way, I'm one of them. Think what you like, but any suggestion to the contrary is absolute claptrap. I don't care for the commercial aspects one jot.

Oh, and by the way, the introduction of the closed season had nothing whatsoever to do with anything other than the protection of fish stocks. If that were not the case then all river activity during the coarse closed season would be banned. No fly fishing, no canoeing, no boating, no bank walking etc etc. It's simply a happy accident that it may benefit more than just coarse fish. However, until I see some evidence that fish benefit from the closed season, or that all other river activity is stopped, I'll continue with the belief that the coarse season should be modified or, in the extreme, abolished altogether. If the non-piscine fauna and flora is so delicate to be unduly affected by coarse angling, then it's also too delicate for fluff chucking, walking, canoeing, boating etc. If a particular environment is so important, or so delicate, then there's a good case for human activity to be banned all year round.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Will you crackpots stop trying to suggest that anyone that might think that the closed season is either utterly pointless, or simply mistimed, all have something to gain? There are plenty of ordinary anglers, with absolutely nowt to gain, (other than perhaps the odd extra day on the bank) that think that way, I'm one of them. Think what you like, but any suggestion to the contrary is absolute claptrap. I don't care for the commercial aspects one jot.

Firstly Sam, I object strongly to being described as a crackpot.
Secondly I think you will find that nowhere in these pages have I descended to personal insults, so I would appreciate it if you would offer me the same consideration.

While I can, to a degree, understand the degree of frustration that is present on both sides of this argument it should not cloud the main issue which is that Martin Salter raised this question on the back of the Angling Trust's approach to the government to obtain commercial funding for those businesses that claim to have lost money during the recent floods.
That is clear and plain for all to see in his opening remarks.

Therefore it is apparently not the average or ordinary angler who have opened this can of worms, but commercial interests, so it is central to the discussion to highlight where the influence has stemmed from.

 

[geoffmaynard]

You say the anti all year side have come up with nothing, and likewise nor has the pro all year fishing side. I am not anti all year fishing we already have that, I pro CS

Interesting. We never hear from anglers wanting a CS on stillwaters any more. I remember when the CS was dropped on lakes and some of the loudest voices against at the time now regularly go tenching in spring etc.

 

[sam vimes]

Firstly Sam, I object strongly to being described as a crackpot.
Secondly I think you will find that nowhere in these pages have I descended to personal insults, so I would appreciate it if you would offer me the same consideration.

While I can, to a degree, understand the degree of frustration that is present on both sides of this argument it should not cloud the main issue which is that Martin Salter raised this question on the back of the Angling Trust's approach to the government to obtain commercial funding for those businesses that claim to have lost money during the recent floods.
That is clear and plain for all to see in his opening remarks.

Therefore it is apparently not the average or ordinary angler who have opened this can of worms, but commercial interests, so it is central to the discussion to highlight where the influence has stemmed from.

Peter, why on earth would you think that my comment was directed at you? You can take offense if you wish, but as you were far from the intended targets, you are taking offense for no good reason. I'm sorry that you've taken offense, but I'm at a total loss as to why you should have done so.

Besides, whilst you are taking offense at that, I take offense at being lumped in with those that may have something to gain. You, and others, want it to be otherwise, you try to paint a picture of folk grasping for cash, being greedy. It simply isn't true for an awful lot of folks that have little faith in the closed season achieving anything much at all. I'd actually rather be called a crackpot than have it incorrectly stated that I've got something to gain just because I'm not entirely for the closed season. I know which I consider to be more offensive.

I don't much care to change your, or anyone else's, mind, I know I'm not going to. Too many of you are hanging onto a 16th of June tradition (which I can't share as the only tradition I had was 1st of June) and a lifestyle choice (such as being fluff chuckers) which I don't want to share. For that reason, and the fact that plenty of awkward points are simply being ignored and we are starting to see points from much earlier in the thread repeated, I'm out. Too much nonesense, from either side, too many people that obviously haven't read the whole thread, for there to be any further point (not that there was much point in the first place) in this. I'll leave it to the angling politicos to fight it out by whatever dubious means it takes. As usual, it's patently not going to involve ordinary anglers in any way.

I'm sure that the pro-CS are correct in their assertion that nothing is going to change. I'll still maintain that there's a big difference between nothing changing and it actually being right that nothing changes.

 

[loggerhead]

It's called greed by implementing legalised destruction of the natural environment, including downgrading/killing rivers, fish, birds, insects and wildlife etc....to satisfy and increase their bank balances.

Funny how the word 'greed' is used by those in favour of the CS to describe those not in favour. Whether it stays or goes will not benefit me or my fishing one bit, but I can see the points made by others that it is an out-of-date system and I have held that view for the past 25 years. Even if it were to save or preserve the lives of a thousand fish, abstraction, pollution and predation kills tens of millions. Which is the greater task to fight for?

I'm still on the river banks and I don't disturb a single bird, animal, nor any vegetation, let alone any fish - other than a trout, hopefully.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Try looking at posts 207 and 212.

Sam who were your intended targets then?

Regards
Ray

 

[sam vimes]

Sam who were your intended targets then?

Anyone that's making the ridiculous assertion that anyone against the closed season has something, beyond a few extra days fishing, to gain.

 

[Judas Priest]

Will you crackpots stop trying to suggest that anyone that might think that the closed season is either utterly pointless, or simply mistimed, all have something to gain? There are plenty of ordinary anglers, with absolutely nowt to gain, (other than perhaps the odd extra day on the bank) that think that way, I'm one of them. Think what you like, but any suggestion to the contrary is absolute claptrap. I don't care for the commercial aspects one jot.

Oh, and by the way, the introduction of the closed season had nothing whatsoever to do with anything other than the protection of fish stocks. If that were not the case then all river activity during the coarse closed season would be banned. No fly fishing, no canoeing, no boating, no bank walking etc etc. It's simply a happy accident that it may benefit more than just coarse fish. However, until I see some evidence that fish benefit from the closed season, or that all other river activity is stopped, I'll continue with the belief that the coarse season should be modified or, in the extreme, abolished altogether. If the non-piscine fauna and flora is so delicate to be unduly affected by coarse angling, then it's also too delicate for fluff chucking, walking, canoeing, boating etc. If a particular environment is so important, or so delicate, then there's a good case for human activity to be banned all year round.

That Sam is the best post on this thread by a country mile.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------

Anyone that's making the ridiculous assertion that anyone against the closed season has something, beyond a few extra days fishing, to gain.

Thing is Sam those who originally have asked for debate DO have something more than just a few days extra fishing to gain.

Strange though how those same persons are quite eager and happy to have their pages posted on the FM Features pages but are most unwilling to actually join in a debate on any thread.


Perhaps they are of the idea that they are above us mere " ordinary " anglers.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Anyone that's making the ridiculous assertion that anyone against the closed season has something, beyond a few extra days fishing, to gain.[/QUOTE

Thanks for the reply.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

That Sam is the best post on this thread by a country mile.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------



Thing is Sam those who originally have asked for debate DO have something more than just a few days extra fishing to gain.

Strange though how those same persons are quite eager and happy to have their pages posted on the FM Features pages but are most unwilling to actually join in a debate on any thread.


Perhaps they are of the idea that they are above us mere " ordinary " anglers.

Phil,
Look at the debate on Martin Salter’s Angling Trust blog, the “Re-think” debate has had 55 responses with multiple posts by some, add how ever many are debating on here and I doubt there are 100 taking part. So tell me Phil, you’re a man of the world do you seriously believe that the trust can or will use this as a guideline to take this forward to the EA and Government?

This debate will have nothing to do with what the trust decide to do how on earth could it?

You are correct that those who called for this have more to gain than just a few days extra fishing anyone who believes otherwise are deluding themselves.

You may also be right that they believe they are above us ordinary anglers, as for joining in the debate it won’t happen on here.hno: One of them however is debating on a facebook page but I suspect he has some kind of control of what gets posted there.

So having been called belligerent,twister,greedy I can now add crackpot as I am one of those making the assertion that “some” have more to gain than ordinary anglers.

Regards
Ray

 

[sam vimes]

Phil,
Look at the debate on Martin Salter’s Angling Trust blog, the “Re-think” debate has had 55 responses with multiple posts by some, add how ever many are debating on here and I doubt there are 100 taking part. So tell me Phil, you’re a man of the world do you seriously believe that the trust can or will use this as a guideline to take this forward to the EA and Government?

This debate will have nothing to do with what the trust decide to do how on earth could it?

You are correct that those who called for this have more to gain than just a few days extra fishing anyone who believes otherwise are deluding themselves.

You may also be right that they believe they are above us ordinary anglers, as for joining in the debate it won’t happen on here.hno: One of them however is debating on a facebook page but I suspect he has some kind of control of what gets posted there.

So having been called belligerent,twister,greedy I can now add crackpot as I am one of those making the assertion that “some” have more to gain than ordinary anglers.

Regards
Ray

If it were made clear that only some, a tiny minority if truth be told, actually have something to gain, there'd be no problem at all. I can well appreciate that some do have a vested interest, just as some have a vested interest in things staying as they are. Trying to suggest that all of those that aren't in favour of the closed season have something to gain is a crackpot notion.

 

[Judas Priest]

Ray I've always had you down as a crackpot, a good kind of crackpot though. One who doesn't take the BS and can see behind the smoke and mirrors that the celebrity pervade.

As for the Trust taking notice of this or any other debate. We've both been around long enough to know the history and track record of those involved and know how these things are " discussed" .
I said earlier that the retention or not of the CS will come down to economics and the angling trade and I've not changed my mind on that score. Commercial interests saw the CS on stillwaters scrapped and it's interesting to note the biggest sponsors/ contributors to the ATr are that same commercial interest.

 

[chav professor]

Anglers warned they face prosecution if caught fishing illegally (From The Northern Echo)

 

[Titus]

First let me apologise, I'm coming to this thread late and wont wade through 50+ pages of what at first sight seems to be allot of old scores and entrenched views being aired.

I would however like to put my personal thoughts on the close season on the table.

When it was first introduced it was a time when all fish caught were taken, some for the table, some for animal feed and some for the compost heap but nothing was returned. As more people had leisure time and transport to go fishing it became apparent that the practice of killing gravid fish was soon going to deprive the rivers and lakes of stock so a system of close seasons were introduced similar to those used to protect game during breeding.

This worked fine and as we have become more affluent and in parts more urban, particularly in the post war years, we have become more and more detached from the food we eat and the habit of taking a fish for the table or a rabbit for the pot has declined to the point where the average person if handed an un-plucked chicken or a fresh fish would have no idea how to prepare it for the table and as a consequence catch and release has become the norm among anglers.
So, if it works so well why abolish it? The question should be, "why keep it?" I never really understood why it was retained on the rivers when it was abolished everywhere else anyway but until the last few years I was happy to go along with it, however, in recent years things have changed in this country and you would have to be blind and deaf not to have noticed a huge influx of newcomers to these shores from places where the population is much more rurally biased and where people still retain a culture of foraging and hunting for the pot. These people have little understanding of property law, trespass or poaching and will merrily fish wherever and for whatever they please, the close season is as alien to them as the thought of taking home a live chicken from the market for dinner is to us. So, there we are with a large rural population of young males who like to fish for the pot and are in many cases only prevented from taking there catch by the presence of other anglers and we decide that for the first three months of spring into summer we will abandon the rivers and fish instead for the same fish in lakes canals and pods leaving the rivers to the mercy of the people who fish for the pot with scant regard for the consequences.

Anyone else see the irony in a law which was intended to protect the fish actually putting them at most risk during the most vulnerable time of the year.

I should also point out that I have got nothing to gain from the close season being abolished, I simply see it as an outdated law which has not only outlived it's usefulness it has also become counter productive to it's original intent.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I do hope that the representatives of the Angling Trust are keeping an eye on the proceedings here and are noting that the Close Season is probably the most divisive topic in modern Coarse angling.

You can see how it divides and annoys virtually everyone regardless of which side of the debate they fall into.

Personalities are brought into question, insults fly around like confetti in a gale, subterfuge is employed, and confidences are betrayed in order to provide cheap shots at opponents, and yet the main points for discussion are lost in the morass that remains.

If, and I sincerely do hope it is the biggest if in the life of the Angling Trust, they decide to push for the Close Season on our rivers to be abolished that they first look at the division that would result.

The Close Season is not only for the benefit of the fish but also for the replenishment of the river banks, for ground laying birds to nest and breed and for all types of flora to blossom in peace.
It provides a necessary gap in proceedings for a multitude of insect life to hatch and it says a lot about our credentials as caring conversationalists.

Arguments that it is an ancient law employ a high degree of obfuscation and totally ignore that fact that the Close Season was reviewed fully in both 2000 and 2003 by the EA, so at worst the reviewed and revised law is but 14 years old.

Personally I am totally in favour of maintaining the Close Season but am prepared to be convinced that the date(s) could be studied, over a period of several years, in order to provide even better or longer protection.

It is incontrovertible that this debate began based on the commercial interests of certain individuals and/or trade interests. To argue otherwise is to redefine what Martin Salter wrote in the first place and is disingenuous in the extreme.

Finally, and as I have noted previously, we anglers are being arrogant in the extreme if we really believe that it is only us anglers who are concerned with this topic. It is a matter of fact that we share our rivers and their environs with many and diverse other groups all of whom will have a voice to be heard as well, and rightly so.

 

[Titus]

Peter, 14 years ago when the law was last reviewed we did not have the influx of (and I'm dreading to use this phrase for all the negative connotations which are associated with it) eastern Europeans working the land so the key part of my argument was not an issue.

The resurrection of the riverbank is also a red herring, lets assume that the river bank is devoid of farmers, dog walkers, mountain bikers, joggers, geocachers and every other Tom **** or Harry then the worst thing that could happen is an influx of anglers turning up on one morning clearing swims, disturbing nesting birds and everything else which goes with the opening day madness. Far better I would have thought for angling activity to increase gradually as the weather warms up giving the wildlife a chance to avoid building their nests, burrows,sets or holts in the busiest swims or in the case of the robins building in the busiest swims to take advantage of the free food we all supply them with.

We have also left out the anglers annual slash and burn party, also known as the work party, which normally happens right smack in the middle of the breeding season. Surely for the close season to be effective as a revival period for the river banks then all riverside activity should be stopped?

I stick by my original thoughts and would respectfully suggest that if you were to take tradition and emotion out of the equation and look logically at the reasons for and against then you would have to agree the close season is an anachronism.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Titus,

I really just don't buy the EE/poaching argument as a legitimate factor to alter the Close Season.
It is really obvious that you do not need to be on the banks fishing in order to police or bailiff a stretch.

The majority of rivers in my area do not suffer from dog walkers, paddlers, mountain bikers etc., as the banks are on private land . . . . . . . I do however see that as a possible argument in other areas, the River Thames in particular.

As for angling club working parties then I agree that these should not be undertaken during environmentally sensitive periods. Again, not an impossibility whilst retaining the Close Season.

There is still a place even in this modern era for tradition and emotion, notwithstanding, and based on the relatively recent reviews I can not and will not accept the anachronism argument.