River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[Ray Wood 1]

I'd start by saying carp and zander are both invasive alien species, so should be removed from the list.
Also, barbel like carp can/do spawn several times in a year.
Dace often spawn in Feb; so coarse fish spawnings regularly covers a period from Feb to July.

So if the Close Season is in place to protect and promote successful breeding, it surely needs expanding?
And to be a truly worthwhile conservation exercise, if brown trout are present in a river, it must offer them equal protection?
So on mixed rivers a Close Season (covering ALL species) from November to July should be implemented, or not?

Zander and Carp, invasive or not they are present in our rivers, and if a species based CS is the wish of some they should be afforded the same protection should they not?

As for a CS that spans November to July based on species, again if that is what some want and are basing their argument on then yes.

I have an open mind on the CS, but if it needs to be changed let it be for the right reasons. Let it not be for a few anglers hiding behind the loss of revenue argument they are putting forward.

To date I have seen no sound argument that convinces me that change is needed, however my mind is open so the protagonists involved need to convince me their argument has any credibility.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[cg74]

Zander and Carp, invasive or not they are present in our rivers, and if a species based CS is the wish of some they should be afforded the same protection should they not?

As for a CS that spans November to July based on species, again if that is what some want and are basing their argument on then yes.

I have an open mind on the CS, but if it needs to be changed let it be for the right reasons. Let it not be for a few anglers hiding behind the loss of revenue argument they are putting forward.

To date I have seen no sound argument that convinces me that change is needed, however my mind is open so the protagonists involved need to convince me their argument has any credibility.

Kind regards
Ray

Should zander and carp be offered the same level of protection as indigenous species?
NO! What next; help the signal crayfish, top mouthed gudgeon and orfe?

So if a 3 fishing month season was suggested by someone of what you deem good standing, you'd just go with it?

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Should zander and carp be offered the same level of protection as indigenous species?
NO! What next; help the signal crayfish, top mouthed gudgeon and orfe?

So if a 3 fishing month season was suggested by someone of what you deem good standing, you'd just go with it?

I am not here to put right all the wrongs within angling removing the species you mention is hardly the argument at hand is it?

Of course I would not agree to a three month fishing season, I am happy that what we have covers most things as best we could hope, as I said previously my mind is open to be convinced that change is needed.

As it stands we have a CS that spans the periods it does, for change to take place there needs to be good reasons don't you agree? Or do you think we should just scrap it for scraping it's sake with no thought to fish or anything else?

As in most things, when change is needed is it not up to those who want change to make a reasonable case for changes they want?

Liken it to the law of the land if you like, the onus is on those who want change to prove that change is needed in my book.

As the protagonists feel unable at this stage to enlarge upon their argument on FM they are hardly winning me or anyone else over are they.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[thecrow]

If the closed season needs to be changed and I am not sure if it should be or not then even if the experts (I don't mean anglers) came up with a change of dates that suited the fish in different areas it still would not suit all anglers,

 

[Peter Jacobs]

If the closed season needs to be changed and I am not sure if it should be or not then even if the experts (I don't mean anglers) came up with a change of dates that suited the fish in different areas it still would not suit all anglers,

. . . . . and therein lies the crux of the current dilemma: if any change to be brought about then let's all make sure it is for the right (environmental) reasons and not for Commercial Benefit!

We lost the Close Season on Stillwaters and some Canals due mainly to commercial interests. So, let's make sure that we don't repeat that mistake on our rivers.

 

[cg74]

I am not here to put right all the wrongs within angling removing the species you mention is hardly the argument at hand is it?

Of course I would not agree to a three month fishing season, I am happy that what we have covers most things as best we could hope, as I said previously my mind is open to be convinced that change is needed.

As it stands we have a CS that spans the periods it does, for change to take place there needs to be good reasons don't you agree? Or do you think we should just scrap it for scraping it's sake with no thought to fish or anything else?

As in most things, when change is needed is it not up to those who want change to make a reasonable case for changes they want?

Liken it to the law of the land if you like, the onus is on those who want change to prove that change is needed in my book.

As the protagonists feel unable at this stage to enlarge upon their argument on FM they are hardly winning me or anyone else over are they.

Kind regards
Ray

So in essence you're saying coarse fish deserve a greater level of protection than game species and there is no reason to change things?

---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------

We lost the Close Season on Stillwaters and some Canals due mainly to commercial interests. So, let's make sure that we don't repeat that mistake on our rivers.

What was the mistake in scrapping of the Close Season on stillwaters?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

What was the mistake in scrapping of the Close Season on stillwaters?

It was sacrificed on the altar of commercialism and greed which to me was a huge mistake and spoke volumes against us anglers as conservationalists . . . . . . . .

 

[cg74]

It was sacrificed on the altar of commercialism and greed which to me was a huge mistake and spoke volumes against us anglers as conservationalists . . . . . . . .

I can understand your feelings towards commercialism but regards conservation on the lakes I fish that have been left to develop a 'natural' equilibrium, they have done so very successfully despite no longer adhering to the old Close Season.

With no ill effects to the fish, birds and mammals present.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

So in essence you're saying coarse fish deserve a greater level of protection than game species and there is no reason to change things?[COLOR="Silv

Interpret my posts as you will, in essence I am saying that I am happy with the CS as it is and that it protects coarse fish as best we can hope to do without banning angling completely. If you want a CS that protects fish coarse and game even further than at present then campaign for a longer CS.

There has to be a balance and that balance is met quite nicely at present in my humble opinion. I am no scientist and nor are those calling for the change that is based on financial loss, or their failure to wet a line during the unprecedented floods we have had.

Don’t be fooled by the reasons being put forward by the “NAMES” it is about their own self interests and nothing more, that is my honest opinion it will be up to them to prove otherwise.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I can understand your feelings towards commercialism but regards conservation on the lakes I fish that have been left to develop a 'natural' equilibrium, they have done so very successfully despite no longer adhering to the old Close Season.

With no ill effects to the fish, birds and mammals present.

That can only be anecdotal evidence surely?

One of my clubs maintained the Close Season and we see a huge difference between that lake and one other close by where another club has allowed all year around fishing.

I would also point to some of rather horrible looking "commercial" venues that have trampled paths and virtually no bankside vegetation or much bird or insect life around either.

I know that there are some clubs who have allowed all year round fishing and still have very lovely looking lakes, but those are pretty much "gardened" by members these days.

 

[cg74]

That can only be anecdotal evidence surely?

One of my clubs maintained the Close Season and we see a huge difference between that lake and one other close by where another club has allowed all year around fishing.

I would also point to some of rather horrible looking "commercial" venues that have trampled paths and virtually no bankside vegetation or much bird or insect life around either.

I know that there are some clubs who have allowed all year round fishing and still have very lovely looking lakes, but those are pretty much "gardened" by members these days.

No not just anecdotal evidence; impartial studies have also been conducted, showing excellent biodiversity.
Regards the commercial look, that can be easily rectified if the club(s) concerned desired. Simple steps like fishing from designated swims only.
Once bankside vegetation has recovered, insects will return, followed by bird life.

The scenario you describe, seems more like a case of mismanagement than a fault of having a Close Season.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

No not just anecdotal evidence; impartial studies have also been conducted, showing excellent biodiversity.
Regards the commercial look, that can be easily rectified if the club(s) concerned desired. Simple steps like fishing from designated swims only.
Once bankside vegetation has recovered, insects will return, followed by bird life.

The scenario you describe, seems more like a case of mismanagement than a fault of having a Close Season.

Were the studies comparative with other lakes where the close season still applies?

Also, the size, usage and number of members has to be taken into account, so there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Unlike stillwaters that can/are artificially restocked our rivers are not, and we also don't fish from designated platforms either, thank goodness.

 

[cg74]

Were the studies comparative with other lakes where the close season still applies?

Also, the size, usage and number of members has to be taken into account, so there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Unlike stillwaters that can/are artificially restocked our rivers are not, and we also don't fish from designated platforms either, thank goodness.

The studies were conducted only on lakes where the Close Season was scrapped but the studies were undertaken pre and post abolition.
Of course all waters have their own unique environmental stresses but they also many share similarities too.

To be frank, if you believe that rivers aren't stocked and restock, you're deluding yourself. Stockings are getting to the point where the number of English rivers having not being stocked is seemingly less than those that have been.

---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 ----------

Interpret my posts as you will, in essence I am saying that I am happy with the CS as it is and that it protects coarse fish as best we can hope to do without banning angling completely. If you want a CS that protects fish coarse and game even further than at present then campaign for a longer CS.

There has to be a balance and that balance is met quite nicely at present in my humble opinion. I am no scientist and nor are those calling for the change that is based on financial loss, or their failure to wet a line during the unprecedented floods we have had.

Don’t be fooled by the reasons being put forward by the “NAMES” it is about their own self interests and nothing more, that is my honest opinion it will be up to them to prove otherwise.

Kind regards
Ray

I'm not looking to ban fishing, however I am left wondering how anyone can say the current set up offers maximum efficacy (or even a reasonable level of protection) to all indigenous/native species in rivers and that's why I think it needs reviewing.

Maybe the 'names' are being misleading with their reasons given, I'm not speculating on that. What I am saying is a review needs conducting to IMPROVE things (and if they can influence a thorough review, then good on them), this may open up some rivers to a much longer fishing season, it might indicate that some rivers need to adopt a longer Close Season.
It might even suggest that a Close Season period offers only limited or no benefits; so it should be scrapped!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The studies were conducted only on lakes where the Close Season was scrapped but the studies were undertaken pre and post abolition.
Of course all waters have their own unique environmental stresses but they also many share similarities too.

To be frank, if you believe that rivers aren't stocked and restock, you're deluding yourself. Stockings are getting to the point where the number of English rivers having not being stocked is seemingly less than those that have been.

No delusion at all cg, comparing stillwaters that are regularly stocked (particularly commercial venues) to the ocassional stocking of any river in my area (Wiltshire/Hampshire and Dorset) the comparison bears no scrutiny at all.

On a different tack, I went over to the Angling Trust website to read what they have to say on the matter.

Quote:

"In many parts of the country river anglers are coming to terms with an effective 6 month shutdown giving the annual close season debate an added intensity. In addition, the recent devastating floods have hit fisheries, tackle shops and the tackle trade particularly hard this year causing the Angling Trust to write to the Prime Minister arguing that these businesses should be included in the floods compensation measures.

In response the Trust has decided to actively engage in the river close season issue and to seek a wide variety of views from anglers and fishery managers prior to making any formal approaches to the Environment Agency or to government."

Now, to my eye that tells us that the main driver for this "engagement" was indeed commercial Interests! I wonder how many "Trade Member" the Angling trust actually have?

 

[cg74]

No delusion at all cg, comparing stillwaters that are regularly stocked (particularly commercial venues) to the ocassional stocking of any river in my area (Wiltshire/Hampshire and Dorset) the comparison bears no scrutiny at all.

On a different tack, I went over to the Angling Trust website to read what they have to say on the matter.

Quote:

"In many parts of the country river anglers are coming to terms with an effective 6 month shutdown giving the annual close season debate an added intensity. In addition, the recent devastating floods have hit fisheries, tackle shops and the tackle trade particularly hard this year causing the Angling Trust to write to the Prime Minister arguing that these businesses should be included in the floods compensation measures.

In response the Trust has decided to actively engage in the river close season issue and to seek a wide variety of views from anglers and fishery managers prior to making any formal approaches to the Environment Agency or to government."

Now, to my eye that tells us that the main driver for this "engagement" was indeed commercial Interests! I wonder how many "Trade Member" the Angling trust actually have?

The Dorset Stour and Hampshire Avon have been stocked with thousands maybe even tens of thousands of coarse fish..... As have numerous other rivers in your locality.

I appears the ATr motives are largely financially based but that doesn't necessarily make what they are asking for is wrong per se.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I used to be very much in favour of the closed season and thought the change destroyed one of the most exciting aspects of fishing - fishing during the opening week of a new season when swims had been rested for 3 months and the anticipation had reached boiling point. Its not the same fishing for tench in June if you know they have been coming out since mid April.

But, having lost the closed season on stillwaters where i think it was more strongly justified, i am now thinking what really is to be lost from removing it altogether? I dont see that it serves any particular purpose. The issue of environmental damage has more to do with over-fished waters rather than rivers, where, in many cases, fishing is so light that it hardly affects anything. If there are animal welfare arguments then the closed season should be brought back for all waters.

If anything, something should be done about the over-fished venues where fish or fowl are stressed by the attentions of humans 24/7 - but these waters appear popular and highly profitable in the upside-down world we now find ourselves in. Many dont even seem to notice that their trophy fish have mis-shapen mouths, personally i would rather not catch fish like that.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I appears the ATr motives are largely financially based but that doesn't necessarily make what they are asking for is wrong per se.

It certainly does make a huge difference to me!

We should not be seen to sacrifice our conservation principles on the altar of commerciality!

As I said previously, any business plan for a tackle shop would obviously include for a lull period douring the Coarse River Close Season, if it didn't then the shop probably deserves to fail.

The vast majority of manufacturers know that there will be a dwell in sales in those months but then that sales pick up towards the end of the Close Season to compensate.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I dont think the ATr stance is necessarily down to commercial interests. I am a conservationist but feel the same. In general they do take the conservationist stance - as in the case of Fracking. Right or wrong, they have raised concerns on national TV about it and demonstrated that there are important concerns for our chalk streams etc. Maybe because you disagree on that stance Peter you are finding fault in other things they are doing?

As i get older i am realising that time is precious and if there is no sound reason for prohibiting coarse fishing in rivers from March 15th-June 15th (inclusive) then the closed season is a sham that should be done away with. The problem - in my mind - is over-fished or over-stocked waters, not fishing per se, if we want to show our ethics and environmental awareness..

 

[mick b]

Okay guys lets get our heads screwed back on the right way round.

The proposers of this 'scrap it' idea haven't written a single word in support of their 'idea'...(as far as I can see)

Is this because they do not actually have a sound argument, and are instead reading all our comments and plan to use them as a basis from which to construct their 'opinions'.

This 'proposal' has the smell of a managed political leak.

MAY I PROPOSE we cease our internal discussions and await the response from the commercials who started the ball rolling in the first place?

After-all, you don't think they are ignoring us do you?


In my opinion the originators of this proposal have lost enormous credibility by the manner this has been handled, and, as for reading someones views on their 'blog' well they can 'blog off' for good and bloggy good riddance!!!!

.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I think the original decision to remove a statutory closed season on stillwaters and canals was wrong. This change has contributed to the situation we have now where there are countless over-stocked commercial fisheries or carp waters, many in poor ecological condition, and a generation of one trick pony anglers who rarely if ever fish in rivers or fish for anything besides carp.

This has been detrimental to angling and has left rivers more vulnerable to abstraction, pollution, flood defence works etc etc as their value to angling and as a natural resource is diminished.