River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[binka]

Just been looking up what goes on in some EU countries. Here’s a bit from Germany.

In Germany you can fish 12 months of the year, but you are not allowed to target a species of fish if it is in it’s reproductive time of year.

Catch and release is not allowed in Germany, you must kill and take all fish you catch unless:
i) It is too small.
ii) It is in it’s reproductive season.
iii) It is on the ‘Red List’ of protected species

We are already governed to much by the EU, what next if they get involved in our recreational fishing?hno:

Regards
Ray

Blimey Ray...

Imagine if the government here twigged on to how many millions of cubic metres of volume could be created if they introduced a no return rule via the relevant agency to in turn remove fish to create more area for (flood) water?

I say it in jest of course but I doubt many would say they're not too daft to consider it

I didn't realise no return was still the policy in Germany, I was aware that it used to be... I wonder what the thinking behind that is then?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Blimey Ray...

Imagine if the government here twigged on to how many millions of cubic metres of volume could be created if they introduced a no return rule via the relevant agency to in turn remove fish to create more area for (flood) water?

I say it in jest of course but I doubt many would say they're not too daft to consider it

I didn't realise no return was still the policy in Germany, I was aware that it used to be... I wonder what the thinking behind that is then?

Binka,

Perhaps they may have changed that rule they did consider it inhumane to release, perhaps they now have a new rule where it is inhumane to catch and release an angler

Regards
Ray

 

[barbelboi]

For a point of intrest I've pasted below a post I made in 2011 which was relevant then - I don't know if any changes have been made since........

The following information came from an official of an angling organisation in Germany:

"There is no nationwide fishing law in germany but 16 different fishing laws for each county of Germany (so you have a fishing law in lower saxony, you have one in Northrhine-Westfalia, you have one in bavaria and so on, 16 of it!).

As for the question concerning catch and release, everyone has to pay attention on our animal protection law.

Everyone will be punished by this law if an animal is injured or killed or even stressed (fish in a keepnet for instance) unless there is a good reason for doing that.

This law is a "Bundesgesetz", a nationwide law (mind the difference to fishing laws!).

And if you are sentenced by our animal protection law you have a previous conviction.

For instance when a 16 or 17 year old boy is punished by this law he is previously convicted and may hardly get a job for example.

So that´s why catch and release in Germany is prohibited.

It is not written down in our laws, not in our fishing laws nor in the animal protection law, it is said in general, concerning all animals.

Anglers have been sentenced by our judges several times. On the other hand some anglers have been acquitted, after keeping fish in a keepnet.

Some fishing laws (Rhineland-Palatinate) include fishing with a keepnet, some don´t.

It´s all up to the angler himself how he is handling the keepnet and if it is in accordance with the animal protection law.

We as persons in charge for our members in an angling association cannot spring into action but advise caution or say "Don´t release a fish you have caught!"

An angler in Germany nowadays could never say: "I didn´t know, that a fish mustn´t be released." Or: "I didn´t know, that I placed my keepnet not in the right way." Or something like that.

An angler in Germany is instructed by course during several weeks. He then got a license called "Fischerprüfungsausweis" and the so called "Fischereischein".

A german Angler is not allowed to fish without this license (Fischereischein)! This license is awarded by the federal states of Germany.

It is considered as expert knowledge for how to treat fish.

So if you are accused you cannot tell the judge, that you did not know that it is forbidden to return the fish you just caught."

 

[geoffmaynard]

So Ray there's your answer about "We are already governed to much by the EU, what next if they get involved in our recreational fishing?" Anglers might have to pass an exam to prove they are competent at handling fish and "you are not allowed to target a species of fish if it is in it’s reproductive time of year."

Looks like really sensible rules to me.

Not the 'no return' rule though!

 

[Ray Wood 1]

So Ray there's your answer about "We are already governed to much by the EU, what next if they get involved in our recreational fishing?" Anglers might have to pass an exam to prove they are competent at handling fish and "you are not allowed to target a species of fish if it is in it’s reproductive time of year."

Looks like really sensible rules to me.

Not the 'no return' rule though!

Well Geoof the 2014/15 river season is with us, what will the Angling Trust do about the debate it started regarding a re-think? Does anyone believe that this debate has achieved anything apart from alienating angler against angler?

The last post on here was way back on the 27-04-2014,and the last post on Martin Salters Angling Trust blog was on May 29. So this debate has hardly produce anything with which the trust could move towards approaching the EA or the Government with anything concrete to ask them to alter the river CS in anyway.

Will the trust tell us what conclusions it has drawn from this debate and what it intends to do? Or will it just drop it only to revive it again next year?

Personally I felt that the river CS has and had been done to death, but it appears that a few names got the trust to do their bidding. Lets not forget the others who were never named. So did they even exists or were they a figment of someone's imagination?

Will the names want this debate again next year? Most stuck to their guns in what they wanted one way or the other. I did not see anyone from either side be convinced to change their minds by arguments from the opposite side. One however waffled on about wanting change then stating he was in favour of the rivers CS. Why state openly in the angling press or on the internet that you want change and then change ones mind when motives are called into question? I am sure his boyhood angling hero and his mentor would condemn him without hesitation if they were alive.

I am sure he would like to get me banned on FM, but this is not the BS FB group where he controls things and can suppress things.

The Angling Trust may also feel it has damaged itself for igniting this debate, then again perhaps not. It might be well advised to listen to it’s ordinary members and ordinary anglers in future and ignore a few names who have agendas of their own regarding the Rivers Close Season.

So Martin what’s the Trusts next move can you tell us?

I'm off shortly to catch my first barbel of the season (I hope) seen some monsters on a new venue for me so hope I can conect with one.

Good luck and tight lines.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[mick b]

Lets not forget the others who were never named. So did they even exists or were they a figment of someone's imagination?

Ray

Would you believe the words of a Politician, retired or otherwise?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Would you believe the words of a Politician, retired or otherwise?

Mick,
To be fair to Martin he has given me no reason to not think he and the Trust will be nothing less than honest in telling us what they will do with the results of the debate.

So I am prepared to wait and see what conclusions they reach and what they intend to do.

I started my season off with a bang, a nice brace of barbel one a nice double.:w Hope everyone else had the same result.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[mick b]

Mick,
To be fair to Martin he has given me no reason to not think he and the Trust will be nothing less than honest in telling us what they will do with the results of the debate.

So I am prepared to wait and see what conclusions they reach and what they intend to do.

I started my season off with a bang, a nice brace of barbel one a nice double.:w Hope everyone else had the same result.

Kind regards
Ray

No Ray,
Im not prepare to accept whatever words the ATr comes out with.
Their track record of openess on this subject is simply appalling.

IMO MS and the rest of his bunch have stirred up this subject purely for their own financial gain.

Nothing to do with conservation of the riverine environment has ever been spoken or written about, the Trust has consistantly hidden behind a screen of secrecy and totally failed to reveal the names of those who asked them to 'initiate the debate'.

There is hardly a single 'name' attached to the ATr that doesnt have a vested (financial) interest in angling in some way or another, these are the 'names' that make the decisions, and in this case the divisions.
They are there to represent themselves and their businesses, and no way they can they claim to truely represent the anglers who are fishing for pleasure that WE see on the rivers.

The fact that the ATr has cosistantly distorted the truth (some may even call it openly lieing) with their claims that they represent 'all anglers' when in actual fact they only represent a tiny percentage of the anglers in this country ie; those who join as individual members.

Yes I will read whatever 'conclusions' the ATr draws from the 'debate' but I doubt it will contain the truth or those behind it.
.........

Glad you had a good first day btw.
........



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

.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

No Ray,
Im not prepare to accept whatever words the ATr comes out with.
Their track record of openess on this subject is simply appalling.

IMO MS and the rest of his bunch have stirred up this subject purely for their own financial gain.

Nothing to do with conservation of the riverine environment has ever been spoken or written about, the Trust has consistantly hidden behind a screen of secrecy and totally failed to reveal the names of those who asked them to 'initiate the debate'.

There is hardly a single 'name' attached to the ATr that doesnt have a vested (financial) interest in angling in some way or another, these are the 'names' that make the decisions, and in this case the divisions.
They are there to represent themselves and their businesses, and no way they can they claim to truely represent the anglers who are fishing for pleasure that WE see on the rivers.

The fact that the ATr has cosistantly distorted the truth (some may even call it openly lieing) with their claims that they represent 'all anglers' when in actual fact they only represent a tiny percentage of the anglers in this country ie; those who join as individual members.

Yes I will read whatever 'conclusions' the ATr draws from the 'debate' but I doubt it will contain the truth or those behind it.
.........

Glad you had a good first day btw.
........



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

.

Mick,
I am keeping an open mind and a watching brief for now, time will tell if the Trust are going to be up front with us the ones they asked to join in this debate. So they owe it to us to give us answers and what their next move will be regarding our rivers close season. Failure to do so will only reinforce the doubts some have regarding the Trust and it’s motives for calling for this debate.

As for the “names” my views are already set in concrete where they are concerned, and they don’t make pretty reading.hno:

So it will be up to Martin to quell any doubts by giving the readers of FM some answers in due course, I will not put any store in anything the “names” put in print just don’t trust one/or two of them.

When and if Martin gives the Trusts views on the debate only then will readers both on here and on his own blog and the trusts website be able to judge form any opinion on what the Trust say.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[black kettle]

Its quite profound that an organisation "claiming" to represent "all" anglers appears to cause so much division amongst them?

I will say again; The AT missed a golden opportunity when it failed to harness the power of the internet and failed to embark on the winning of angling grass roots hearts and minds at its conception.

 

[stu_the_blank]

Its quite profound that an organisation "claiming" to represent "all" anglers appears to cause so much division amongst them?

I think that you are exagerating somewhat, most anglers don't give them, or for that matter, anything to do with angling politics, any thought at all.

There are possibly about as many 'anti's' as there are members, that leaves about 98% who could give a t**s.

The vast majoritory are totally united in complete indifference. Nothing, short of a credible threat to ban us is going to change that (and I'm not even sure that would).

Stu

 

[binka]

Its quite profound that an organisation "claiming" to represent "all" anglers appears to cause so much division amongst them?

I will say again; The AT missed a golden opportunity when it failed to harness the power of the internet and failed to embark on the winning of angling grass roots hearts and minds at its conception.

Reading between the lines from other posts it appears to me it is the conception of the ATr that you object to so much, or rather the manner of its inception?

Petty pop shots and failed attempts at belittlement such as the one you took at the issuing of the fish theft code bare little credence with me and I doubt many others and just demonstrates to me that you have an axe to grind based on historical reasons?

That's fine by me but whilst you still haven't obliged and got off your r'se to deliver us your alternative instead of complaining then without the ATr Angling is adrift and without a credible, political voice.

I've said it before that there are credible reasons why some would not wish to join the ATr and it's by no means a perfect organisation but some of the stuff you come up with is in my opinion nothing but ludicrous, spite driven drivel!

No offence meant by the way.

With regards to division you'll probably find half a dozen posters on here (at a push) that frequently speak out against the ATr... hardly a division is it?

I suspect that many more supporters have the common sense to keep their traps shut and not get involved (I have corresponded with several via pm who wish not to get involved).

And... it is a fact that YOU, along with other non-member Anglers are spoken for when the ATr are involved at a Parliamentary level (another point you never came back to me about).

We've really had it all from various people haven't we... The ATr being blamed when Natural England were exposed for not being able to process paper work because the Severn seal trapped itself in a lock over a weekend!

(I think the general line on that one was that the ATr should have known of the dysfunctionality within NE and not bothered with their application... seriously, you couldn't make it up).

Your very own tirade at the issuing of the fish theft code which I and others found very helpful!

The general reluctance to acknowledge the publication right here on FM by Martin Salter of just some of the many achievements that the ATr have accomplished to date... accompanied by a very sarcastic ostrich with it's head in the sand caption from me which went completely unchallenged at the time which was some twelve to eighteen months ago!

In short, with genuine objections accepted and all in my opinion of course... the petty knockers will come and once exposed the petty knockers will go to seek some other soap box where they think their hidden agenda might go unnoticed.

I'll leave you with a quote...

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”

~ Benjamin Franklin ~


Tight lines.

 

[mick b]

Didn't the Salmon and Trout Association decline to join with the Angling Trust because they felt it was to political?

Mmmmmm!


.

 

[stu_the_blank]

Didn't the Salmon and Trout Association decline to join with the Angling Trust because they felt it was to political?

No, I don't think so, from the front page of their website:

Read the papers, lately? Watched documentaries about it on TV? The facts are chilling. What you most feared is happening.

Less than 30% of rivers are in a healthy ecological state
Water abstraction is up to 50 times greater than 40 years ago
More than a million tonnes of silt enters our rivers every year destroying spawning habitat
250,000 lakes and ponds have disappeared in the past 50 years
Salmon levels have collapsed by as much as 80% of historic levels
Some aquatic fly populations are down by 70%
Fish farming is destroying wild salmon and sea trout stocks
5,000 sites had been earmarked for low-head hydropower schemes threatening fish passage
Every year, 12,000 Scottish salmon are still killed in coastal nets.

Put bluntly, the Salmon & Trout Association is the only charity at the sharp end when it comes to protecting and preserving the aquatic environment of all inland and coastal waterways. From rivers to rivulets, lakes to lochans.

With our influence, Government departments listen to us. With our resources, we put policies in place and change things. With our own scientific department, we don't say something is wrong.

We can prove it. By focussing on the health of our fish stocks, we’re the only hope you have of preserving the aquatic environment in which our wild fish live - and on which your fishing depends.

Conversely, YOU are our only hope.[/I]

Not political? They are bigger, better organised and they have a large membershipwho don't quibble about paying for their fishing. Why would they need or want to join the winging, tight fisted coarse brigade?

Stu

 

[binka]

No, I don't think so, from the front page of their website:

Read the papers, lately? Watched documentaries about it on TV? The facts are chilling. What you most feared is happening.

Less than 30% of rivers are in a healthy ecological state
Water abstraction is up to 50 times greater than 40 years ago
More than a million tonnes of silt enters our rivers every year destroying spawning habitat
250,000 lakes and ponds have disappeared in the past 50 years
Salmon levels have collapsed by as much as 80% of historic levels
Some aquatic fly populations are down by 70%
Fish farming is destroying wild salmon and sea trout stocks
5,000 sites had been earmarked for low-head hydropower schemes threatening fish passage
Every year, 12,000 Scottish salmon are still killed in coastal nets.

Put bluntly, the Salmon & Trout Association is the only charity at the sharp end when it comes to protecting and preserving the aquatic environment of all inland and coastal waterways. From rivers to rivulets, lakes to lochans.

With our influence, Government departments listen to us. With our resources, we put policies in place and change things. With our own scientific department, we don't say something is wrong.

We can prove it. By focussing on the health of our fish stocks, we’re the only hope you have of preserving the aquatic environment in which our wild fish live - and on which your fishing depends.

Conversely, YOU are our only hope.[/I]

Not political? They are bigger, better organised and they have a large membershipwho don't quibble about paying for their fishing. Why would they need or want to join the winging, tight fisted coarse brigade?

Stu

Nicely put Stu... although I think the quote system has gone slightly mad and quoted me as writing Mick's post

 

[thecrow]

I think one reason why the STA do better as far as membership is concerned is that there isn't the diversity that there is in coarse fishing that leads to so many differing points of view.

 

[stu_the_blank]

I think one reason why the STA do better as far as membership is concerned is that there isn't the diversity that there is in coarse fishing that leads to so many differing points of view.

Nothing to do with that Crow, we are all anglers, they just don't mind paying for their sport.

Binka, sorry mate, I must have pressed a wrong button. Should have been Mick!

Stu

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Didn't the Salmon and Trout Association decline to join with the Angling Trust because they felt it was to political?

The quoted reason was that we didn't want to lose the "charity" status that the S&TA had worked so hard to achieve for so long.

 

[mick b]

Nicely put Stu... although I think the quote system has gone slightly mad and quoted me as writing Mick's post

In that case I hope you get the ticking off that went with it..........



.

 

[thecrow]

]Nothing to do with that Crow, we are all anglers, they just don't mind paying for their sport.[/B]

Binka, sorry mate, I must have pressed a wrong button. Should have been Mick!

Stu

Just a query, how do you know that?