River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[thecrow]

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.[/COLOR]

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.

Yes anglers do a lot of that,

 

[chav professor]

despite all this debating....

The dates are wrong - they work well other than then odd anomaly, they have spawned or are preparing to spawn early this season! a lot of this 'my fish spawn well into the season' is not so much a myth, only that a number of species spawn more than once. the main event a distant memory.

The fish on my river doesn't need a close season - There are plenty of rivers where lifting the close season would have little effect - but what about rivers which are vulnerable? A weakening of the close season would leave these rivers hopelessly exposed.

Fishing doesn't effect fish - I am totally convinced that angling has an effect on fish..... catch a few from a stretch on a small river and they begin to behave very differently. when they shoal up prior to spawning, much is to be gained from letting them get on with it and build condition to give them best chance of recovery from the tears and scuffs of spawning.

Fish rely on bait as an important part of their diet - Fish don't rely on anglers baits.... a well known angler made a case that fish were deprived of an essential food source at a critical time of the year - citing this as a reason to abolish the close season.

Fish survive fine in stil waters with no close season - Still waters are managed completely different to rivers.... Rivers are in decline and face a hoard of unique pressures.

The close season leaves the river open to abuse by poachers and pollution - this is not the case. I watch over the river as in-deed, many others do one way or another (probably not as dedicated..lol.. I but love them). I report out of season fishing so the EA Bailiff can use intelligence to use his time best - it works..... last season 3 anglers caught, 2 without licences! Best still.... the problem of out of season fishing is seen to be unforced.

Lets use science to prove once and for all the close season is a waste of time (just look at still waters) - this is the biggest white horse, load of cobblers of the lot! Costly, ineffective, too many parameters out of the control of the study. Data interpretation imposible.... did someone suggest the seven as a trial river? WTF........

Anglers are the only ones stopped from using the rivers - I agree, this is a non-sense. Personally think the rod licence needs a shake up. Perhaps replaced with a river users licence to cover activities such as fishing, canoing and boating..... and a close season imposed.

see that would work well on my river..... why not make it a one size fits all!!!


my areas of conflict are:

EA river management practices of removing backside cover - or tidying up. this provides safe havens for fry and juvenile fish. Adult fish use cover to avoid otter depredation........

A pumping station built down stream brought a river with a modest flow to a complete standstill in summer..... we are harder hit in drought.

Electro-fishing is carried out in the close season - this is far more invasive than angling with rod and line and is a completely inaccurate way to measure fish populations.

Local Councilors upstream are lobbying government for funds to dredge. there was very little damage to property........ the river did as nature planned and entered ancient flood plain meadows. Possibly property developers are behind such policy's - they stand to make a mint if more building land is freed up.

I have read through all the arguments..... nothing has changed..... My stance is firm.

THIS DEBATE CHANGES NOTHING. Of course you can pull an opinion apart as I have, or pull mine apart.....

its just that... a divisive annual argument

 

[mick b]

And Jap Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam, and who put floating pennywort into the rivers? Or crayfish? And who the hell introduced Canada geese? Thank you all you interfering organisations.

In answer to your question.

Japanese Knotweed.
Brought to the UK in the 1850s as a garden plant, cuttings sold by nurseries and spread into the countryside through the dumping waste by gardeners.
Most County Councils employ eradication measures when the plant is noted.

Himalayan Balsam.
Brought to the UK in the mid 1800s, escaped into the countryside within fifty years even though its invasiveness was already well known.
Spread into the countryside by water flows and plants seed distribution method.
Control initiatives implemented by one County Wildlife Trust has all but eradicated the plant from certain river systems.

Floating Pennywort
Brought to the the UK in the early 1980s as a pond/tank plant, first discovered in the wild in 1990 possibly through the release of pond/tank water, spread by attachment of plants segments, currents and possibly attachment to birds and boats (anglers equipment??).

Crayfish (Signal)
First introduced in the late 1970s for/by the food industry, spread by intentional human transfer and by up/downstream migration, also thought to cross land.
One County Wildlife Trust employs a scientist to monitor and research the species.

Canada Geese
First introduced in 1665 by Charles II as an ornamental bird for his private collection, only started to spread in the wild in the 1950s.
The RSPB considers the bird a 'pest species' and controls their numbers on its reserves, as do most County Councils and Wildlife organisations.


Also added for interest...

Giant Hogweed
First introduced in the 1890s as a garden plant, spread through seed distribution via river currents, no recorded intentional spread possibly owing to its danger to humans and animals.
Controlled by all County Councils and all Wildlife organisations.

.
Furthermore it is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act to carry out an action that damages an active birds nest.
Something that all 'work parties' should bear in mind before undertaking any closed season operations.




......."Let not selfish men and greedy interests rape our rivers of their natural riches and beauty".......


.

 

[jeff_de_jeff]

I've come to to this hobby rather late in life compared to most, like I have this debate thread (reoccurring theme?)
Anyhoo, it seems to me that the arguement to give the fish time off is a moot point, with species spawning at different times & when they do, no amount of tempting will get you a bite.
Also to give the riverside a break can never happen due to all the activities, mountain biking, boating, dog walking ( most dogs untrained off the lead foraging & disturbing all sorts of habitats) that go on that aren't answerable to a bailiff or pay money for a licence for the privilege.
Our hobby makes us accountable, that & the threat of a £1000 fine for being unlicenced.
Like I stated at the beginning I'm new to this issue so please no personal attacks, just a veiw, in favor of the abolishment of a closed season

 

[The bad one]

In answer to your question.

Japanese Knotweed.
Brought to the UK in the 1850s as a garden plant, cuttings sold by nurseries and spread into the countryside through the dumping waste by gardeners.
Most County Councils employ eradication measures when the plant is noted.

Himalayan Balsam.
Brought to the UK in the mid 1800s, escaped into the countryside within fifty years even though its invasiveness was already well known.
Spread into the countryside by water flows and plants seed distribution method.
Control initiatives implemented by one County Wildlife Trust has all but eradicated the plant from certain river systems.

Floating Pennywort
Brought to the the UK in the early 1980s as a pond/tank plant, first discovered in the wild in 1990 possibly through the release of pond/tank water, spread by attachment of plants segments, currents and possibly attachment to birds and boats (anglers equipment??).

Crayfish (Signal)
First introduced in the late 1970s for/by the food industry, spread by intentional human transfer and by up/downstream migration, also thought to cross land.
One County Wildlife Trust employs a scientist to monitor and research the species.

Canada Geese
First introduced in 1665 by Charles II as an ornamental bird for his private collection, only started to spread in the wild in the 1950s.
The RSPB considers the bird a 'pest species' and controls their numbers on its reserves, as do most County Councils and Wildlife organisations.


Also added for interest...

Giant Hogweed
First introduced in the 1890s as a garden plant, spread through seed distribution via river currents, no recorded intentional spread possibly owing to its danger to humans and animals.
Controlled by all County Councils and all Wildlife organisations.

.
Furthermore it is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act to carry out an action that damages an active birds nest.
Something that all 'work parties' should bear in mind before undertaking any closed season operations.




......."Let not selfish men and greedy interests rape our rivers of their natural riches and beauty".......


.

Mick couple of points re the above which in general are correct. J. Knotweed not only a garden plant that escaped. It was used by the railways until the 1950s to Stabilise the embankments of cuttings. It’s thought this fact was mainly responsible for it’s spread nationally into the wider environment. It can be treated successfully with a systemic herbicide and qualified staff, but needs to be done annually over 3-5 year period.

Balsam is much easier to remove, as it's seed is only viable for 12 months. The plant is easily pulled up and by crushing it under foot destroys it. Best done just as the flowers come on it and a programme of working down the river from the headwaters. Many River Trusts are currently engaged in its removal nationally and a concerted effort over a 3 year programme will clear the whole system. Whilst the process is labour intensive, it makes for ideal work parties for angling clubs to get involved.

G. Hogweed, again is best dealt with systemic herbicide, qualified staff and a ‘work-down’ programme from the headwaters. There are other methods of dealing with it, but for personal safety reasons I’ll not go into on here.

Canada geese all clubs should for their own self-interest have an active management plan to rid their waters of this species. They are detrimental to the well-being of both running and stillwaters. The faeces will cause over enrichment of the water leading to significant algae blooms and removal of aquatic vegetation, particularly lily pads beds and other marginal important herbage. Culling by gun or boiling the eggs to kill the embryo seems to be the best methods.

Crayfish sadly and until a biological control is found, is a problem we are going to have to live with for some time.

Work Parties, it is Environmental/Ecological good practice for Work Parties to run through the winter months only, Jan to March. Tree work should not be done after the 15 of March until the end of August, so you don’t find yourself as a Club falling foul of the WCA.
Any club carrying out whole mature tree removal should as a matter of course have the trees checked by a qualified person for bat roosts. Again it falls under the WCA.

Oh and just before I forget where's the briefing notes from the ATr regarding this? Emmm there aren't any that I can find anywhere on their site!

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

In answer to your question.

Thank you Mick B, but the question was more rhetorical than an interrogative statement seeking an answer. I am quite aware of all the introductions, but it appears my point flew over the cuckoo's nest. I was merely stating that none of these invasive plants and species were introduced by anglers and that we're the best ones to look after the interests of fish and the rivers.

In fact, on the matter of crayfish I wonder how many protested against the EA's proposal 2 years ago to charge for crayfish trapping licences? A few of us did because there are many occasional anglers who trap them and take the little devils home to cook. We were also pressing for advisory information being given out NOT to return immature crayfish nor kill adults and kick their lifeless bodies back in since many would be carrying eggs that would live on. Still awaiting that advice notice and now it's Turkish crays, red swamp crays and virile crays that are spreading throughout the land and river systems. Take note, these destroy your potential fishing more than a close season.

I'm not going to reproduce all of the quote by Chav, but much of what he says I can either genuinely agree with or sympathise with. However, keeping the close season to protect his river, and many like them, is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I would have thought the better way to deal with it is to form a river trust/consultative and IF the close season were to be abolished, they could impose one of their very own with dates more suitable for that area and species involved.

I am reminded of one river venue belonging to a club (that I will not be rejoining this year) for the simple reason it is managed (? oh yeh ?) by a 'nature and wildlife' trust. The state of it is depressing to say the least with not much woodland management taking place by them and all the time, trees that have outlived themselves fall across the river and paths. As for disturbing wildlife there, apart from the odd robin and grey squirrel I've seen nothing in the years I've fished there except for a fox or two on the opposite bank where a new large gravel pit has just been dug. As for vegetation, nothing that would be worth crying over if they ran bulldozers over the site, so why it's considered a nature reserve is beyond me. I've seen more life in a tramp's vest.

 

[stu_the_blank]

despite all this debating

What debating?

Well put points Chav but I don't agree with you about the mandatory close season. As near as dammit, I agree with the point Jeff put:

I would have thought the better way to deal with it is to form a river trust/consultative and IF the close season were to be abolished, they could impose one of their very own with dates more suitable for that area and species involved.

Tight lines

Stu

 

[chav professor]

What debating?

Well put points Chav but I don't agree with you about the mandatory close season. As near as dammit, I agree with the point Jeff put:

Tight lines

Stu

The debating I refer to is.....well.... the entire thread.

Both sides put forward a staunch set of arguments and debate each others views.

The debate then becomes tiresome and transcends opinion and deteriorates.... contributors going over the same points over and over again.

Its does not actually change peoples minds... in fact it reinforces my set of opinions as yet, not one person has caused me to question the close season.

It actually makes me question why anglers would campaign to remove a close season given it causes no damage to THEIR rivers.... When clearly, smaller rivers that I understand well would be harmed, and face disproportionate harm..........

regarding changing my opinion...

There is ONE exception..... the EA and its casual disregard of rivers as it pursues river management strategies that cause MORE damage than angling.


Sort out all the other far more pressing issues... and then, I'll have a constructive debate.........

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:43 ----------

BTW, it was a sponsored angler who suggested that fish suffer as bait no longer goes into the river in the close season at a critical time:wh

 

[geoffmaynard]

Balsam is much easier to remove, as it's seed is only viable for 12 months. The plant is easily pulled up and by crushing it under foot destroys it. Best done just as the flowers come on it and a programme of working down the river from the headwaters. Many River Trusts are currently engaged in its removal nationally and a concerted effort over a 3 year programme will clear the whole system. Whilst the process is labour intensive, it makes for ideal work parties for angling clubs to get involved.

My bit of the wye is thick with balsam. Labour intensive is too light a description for pulling. Last year I had a team of six guys pulling and strimming and at the end of the day it was as if no work had taken place at all. Is there a better way? How about beheading them after they flower?

 

[The bad one]

My bit of the wye is thick with balsam. Labour intensive is too light a description for pulling. Last year I had a team of six guys pulling and strimming and at the end of the day it was as if no work had taken place at all. Is there a better way? How about beheading them after they flower?

Geoff decapitating it at the flowering stage is best done by strimming the plant down at ground level using the brushcutter blade. Timing is everything for it to be most effective. Eg Just as the flowers start to wilt and the seed pod is forming. The plant has no energy left at this point to throw new shoots and flowers out.
I'm surprised you had little impact on your length with a strimmer(s) We use 4 and can quite easily do 500 X 10 metres in a day's graft. It can be sprayed off Geoff, but you'll need someone with a PA6W licence and EA authorisation before it's undertaken.

 

[stu_the_blank]

The debate then becomes tiresome and transcends opinion and deteriorates.... contributors going over the same points over and over again.

Hi Chav,

I think that we agree on this, you've just made the point much better than I did.

As to the rest, well, we'll largely have to agree to disagree, at least on a public forum. If we ever get the chance to discuss over a pint, I'll let you have my reasoning.

I'll go this far:

If the only thing we are worried about is fish welfare, there is a fair case to stop angling altogether, it’s a logical extension to a close season (which the enemy would no doubt like) and a better case for a river season from 1st Sept to 31st Dec. Would allow the later spawning fish to fully recover (this includes Chub) leaves them alone during low water, low oxygen periods. Would stop before the female Pike start to congregate before spawning (very similar to your point about chub), would allow the fish to take on water to expand their eggs in peace (that's why the females of most species are bigger at the back end, at a time when natural food is scarce and metabolism slows. Fishing for egg bound or gravid fish? As if we would!!). It would of course damage the Tackle Trade and make most running water non-viable as fisheries.

I'm not advocating this, just be careful what you wish for. And please don’t list all the positives that anglers bring to the table, some do a fantastic job (TAC for example) but most contribute nothing, and many are a menace to the environment.

With all due respect, you don't know that your river would be adversely affected if the close season was to change (and neither do I), what definitely would be affected is the way you like to fish, which would change forever. This underlies a lot of the posts.



Stu

 

[chav professor]

I would fight equally as staunch a position if the close season were to be extended.... what we do now is a known quantity.

Anything after a close season we recognize now would lack any context I understand to be river fishing......

At this time, the EA fisheries department makes reference to an enforced close season to let fish breed.... what will it take to make them change this stance?

The abolitionists shout loudest...... we have to put our trust that it will cause 'no harm'.... based on the sketchiest of observations and assumptions.

Its not the close season supporter who arguably needs to be careful for what it wishes for...... I personally wish for nothing in the way of change.

Angling is an incredible force for good and provides many positives, both socially and environmentally. Both of which should be campaign focus to an organisation that is supposed to represent ALL of its members. Not the mind numbing annual forum tennis topic of the 'close season'......

 

[stu_the_blank]

I would fight equally as staunch a position if the close season were to be extended.... what we do now is a known quantity.

Anything after a close season we recognize now would lack any context I understand to be river fishing......

Exactly Chav, your fishing would change forever. It wasn't a critisism, just a statement of fact. You don't want the world to change. I am sure that if you were around when the close season was introduced you would have used exactly the same arguments against it's imposition. You don't like change, most people don't. I love your certainty.

Just to clarify, I don't want the concept of a close season to be abolished, just for it to be applied in a logical and beneficial way, which would entail it being adjusted to suit geography, local conditions and species etc, rather than in an emotional way which has next to nothing to do with fish welfare. It's just dogma.

Agree about the tennis topic though.....

Stu

 

[chav professor]

The term 'dogma' does not encompass my opinion - and reinforces the futility of this debate.........

3 months encompasses a broad spectrum of species and accomodates a variety of conditions - pretty much amazing if you think about it!

Sure, I could continue fishing for Chub well upto end of March, possibly first weeks of April.... Pike, if you value your future fishing and want to catch specimen Pike - best leave March to next November....... Dace spawn early, roach a completely different time to Chub.......

The 3 months just about cover it.... sure there are early spawners and late spawners within any species - good insurance policy!

What about Salmon? Do game anglers wish to abolish salmon season? if not, why not? Dogma????? Of course a salmon season can vary - but you are accomodating a single species........

No... dogmatic I am not..... but the 3 months as they stand, serves well and continues to do so.

 

[thecrow]

Seems to me that some don't want change because a few anglers will gain financially, others because of flora and fauna, others because what we have suits them and their river, some even feel the need to involve other none angling organisations but wont disclose who they are, others to start a petition. One even said he had scientific evidence and was challenged to produce it but didn't.

None of these arguments hold water and can be and have been countered by those for change, I think that some of the pro c/s arguments are personal and some are emotional, none are logical.

 

[chav professor]

good volley though

---------- Post added at 01:53 ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 ----------

Seems to me that some don't want change because a few anglers will gain financially, others because of flora and fauna, others because what we have suits them and their river, some even feel the need to involve other none angling organisations but wont disclose who they are, others to start a petition. One even said he had scientific evidence and was challenged to produce it but didn't.

None of these arguments hold water and can be and have been countered by those for change, I think that some of the pro c/s arguments are personal and some are emotional, none are logical.

Which abolition arguments are so logical and baseless on an emotional level?

Over to you Spock....

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 ----------

I would just add, be careful.... you will have to interpret rightly or wrongly someone else s opinion based on an opinion biased by your own stand point.

 

[thecrow]

good volley though

---------- Post added at 01:53 ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 ----------



Which abolition arguments are so logical and baseless on an emotional level?

Over to you Spock....

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 ----------

I would just add, be careful.... you will have to interpret rightly or wrongly someone else s opinion based on an opinion biased by your own stand point.

The ones that are clearly personal and are held because there is history there.

 

[chav professor]

The ones that are clearly personal and are held because there is history there.

Your view is completely illogical - you are trying to interpret a complex set of arguments based on your own bias.....

I am interested in what YOU think..... NOT what you thing I or others think

 

[thecrow]

Your view is completely illogical - you are trying to interpret a complex set of arguments based on your own bias.....

I am interested in what YOU think..... NOT what you thing I or others think

Chav, I wont get involved but trust me there is history involved in some of the posts on this thread. I know not from bias but from experience. I wont say any more on that though.

 

[stu_the_blank]

The term 'dogma' does not encompass my opinion[/quote

No... dogmatic I am not..... but the 3 months as they stand, serves well and continues to do so.

I'm afraid Chav, that your post would suggest the opposite. Dogmatic you certainly are, and a catch all Close Season certainly does not serve all well. Making strident statements doesn't make you correct. You should do some homework on freshwater ecology.

As I stated earlier, I don't fish for Chub (or any River fish) until September, I just don't think it's fair, with the low water, low oxygen conditions while they try to recover from spawning. If you're happy to, I'm not going to stand in your way, it's your choice, after all, it's in season.

I'm out of this, when we get to using capitals to make a point, it's the literary version of shouting. I do agree with you however that the Status Quo is not likely to change.

Stu