cg74
Well-known member
I can see your point but good quality evidence no matter who funds it should stand true; how it's interpreted and presented is where it can get contentious.
River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
I can see your point but good quality evidence no matter who funds it should stand true; how it's interpreted and presented is where it can get contentious.
Everything these days is led by finance, conservation included. It was only a matter of time before the squeeze every penny hit angling. Most of us would prefer any decision on changing/removing the closed season to be based on research and the impact on our rivers.
The AT I suspect is under pressure to do something for its corporate sponsors who presumably contribute significantly to the coffers.
I am happy to see the closed season stay even though it has flaws but suspect that the finance factor will win in the end sadly.
The AT I suspect is under pressure to do something for its corporate sponsors who presumably contribute significantly to the coffers.
I am happy to see the closed season stay even though it has flaws but suspect that the finance factor will win in the end sadly.
Unless we heed the words of Edmund Burke (Irish Statesman, philosopher and political theorist) it could come to that:
"All that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing . . . . "
---------- Post added at 12:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------
As many on here will know I am not all that often in agreement with Rod Sturdy, but on today's piece I can honestly say that I am in 100% agreement with him.
Although I very rarely use Facebook I will go on there tonight and have a look at how the discussion is progressing over there, however as I am no longer a member of the Angling Trust I cannot access their forum.
I will, time permitting, put together a piece for offering to them to see if they would publish along with the others on their webpages.
For now it is sufficient I think to say that I totally agree with Rod on this issue, and have to ask; Why is it that we rarely ever hear anything from the game anglers about their enforced Close Season?
Are they simply far more sporting than us Coarse chaps, or maybe they are simply not concerned with the commercial side or the trophy hunting?
Alternatively, are we just, as Rod questions, simply more unethical?
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
CJ74,
Nowhere in any of my posts I have said or suggested that the current CS is perfect and that it offers efficacy for all species. Come to that I don’t recall any other poster stating that. I believe the current CS contrary to your view, that it does offer a reasonable degree of protection for most coarse fish that I can live with.
As opposed to you not being willing to speculate whether the “NAMES” are misleading anyone I am willing to speculate. It is my considered opinion that the only interests they are concerned with are their own and I am not scared to say so. They have to prove that the changes they want are justified and so far the only reasons they have put forward are loss of revenue and financial survival and not being able to wet a line due to the floods. Those statements clearly show that commercial interests and self interests are at the heart of the call for change. Not one of them has mentioned fish welfare or shown that that even comes in to things.
It has been suggested that we keep quite on this subject, that would be a fatal mistake in my opinion. Staying quite will only help their cause, if the majority of anglers want to keep the CS as it now stands they have to speak out against a few “NAMES” who would change it.
I am very suspicious of those who start debates and then sit back and don’t participate in the debates they start. Its what I call testing the water to see what way the wind is blowing. One of the “NAMES” is well known for such tactics.
Kind regards
Ray
soft plastic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 1
Spot on. How anybody, who has any affinity with rivers, can call for the abolition of the close season is beyond my comprehension. Unless of course it is for selfish reasons, as already has been mentioned.
There has been a gradual decline in rivers and I am saddened. Sport I experienced in the late 60's and early 70's has disappeared. Surely the answer is more protection, not less. As far as I'm concerned the close season dates are about correct and are the only protection the rivers get. Could never understand why the close season was abolished on canals either. Surely they rely on natural restocking just like the rivers. The close season should be applauded and maintained.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
black kettle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 0
I’m Lee Fletcher aka Black Kettle good evening to all.
I have read through this thread and have been interested to read the posts. Some history first;
Years ago I represented the Barbel Catchers Club at SACG meetings as their political representative. The Barbel Catchers Club at the time was not unanimously politically motivated, indeed the membership were split on whether the BCC should be involved in angling politics at all. However at the time, there was a strong movement to have the closed season abolished which resulted in the BCC taking a strong stance in favour of retaining the closed season. I was elected as political rep at a BCC AGM and specifically tasked to attend SACG meetings with the aim of getting the SACG membership to back the BCC in their efforts to retain the rivers close season. One should remember that the SACG was mostly made up of specialist angling groups with seemingly little interest either way concerning the rivers close season. So it was assumed that obtaining their unanimous support was never going to be easy.
At the same time, the Barbel Society were at logger heads with the SACG over other issues and these are well documented in various threads on the Anglers Net website archive. This meant that the BS remained outside of the SACG and to a large extent out of my campaign inside SACG to get political backing for the rivers close season retention. This fact alone did not mean that the BS were unaware of my campaign far from it. I spoke to Steve Pope on various occasions concerning the issue and can confirm that he and all the other officers of the BS committee were staunchly unanimous in their support for retaining the closed season. Further to talks with Steve, I also talked at length with Fred Crouch over the issue at a BCC AGM as Fred was still in BCC membership at the time as well as being heavily involved with the BS. Fred had little faith in the SACG and pretty much saw my forthcoming quest to gain SACG support as a futile campaign.
So with storm clouds gathering in the form of growing voices to abolish the rivers close season I walked into my first SACG meeting and made my pitch. With only one dissenting voice I got the unanimous backing from the SAGG membership to support the BCC and their quest to retain the rivers close season. Outside of SACG the BS were also campaigning hard for the close season retention along with other groups. Eventually we won the day and the close season on rivers was retained. Even though the victory came I told the BCC in an article I wrote for their magazine that whilst we had won, we would have to win every battle to come over the same issue whilst our opponents only ever have to win ONCE. I always knew that the issue would return sooner or later.
This time however it’s noticeably different in that it might appear our angling political support could well be crumbling in favour of scraping the close season. So if this turns out to be a fact, supporters of retaining the close season will have to get themselves organised.
Now I’m not going to pick over all the posts made here save to state I am 100% in favour of retaining the close season in its present form for the broad range of reasons that I have already gone on record as making. Peter dealt with Martin Salters ten point list fairly adequately.
It has been said;
“And surely even the most ardent supporters of the close season must accept that it should be based on some kind evidence?”
Well, I’m pretty certain that The Rivers Trusts (47 separate trusts with more in Scotland and Wales) , Natural England, (who incidentally do have teeth I’ve worked with them) EA, (NRA before them) Wildlife Trusts, World Wildlife Fund, RSPB, British Trust for Ornithology, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IUCN (Red Data Book) not forgetting the Bat Conservation Trust, The Mammal Society, BANC (British Association of Nature Conservationists) British Dragonfly Society together with a further list that would take up another couple of pages. Then there are the shooting orgs like BASC and BSSC (British Shooting Sports Council) who all revere their own close seasons. The National Farmers Union (most farming fishing leases get drafted by them) and the CLA (Country Landowners Association) who’s members number greatly amongst riparian fishery owners. All these orgs would almost certainly come up with their own sets of evidence for supporting the close season on rivers. Most would certainly support arguments for retaining the close season on rivers.
Look back at this entire thread, plus Martin Salters article and Dave Harrell’s rather unfortunate bit and the general theme as reported on the AT website and it’s no surprise to read that the whole issue revolves around “angling” and what “it” want’s. Well let me tell you, the issue of scrapping the rivers close season goes way beyond what angling wants because we are tiny in comparison to what other river users want and how they see the river close season. Interestingly Martin Salter and the AT seem to have completely forgot about everyone else and the bigger picture. Trust me it’s “BIG”.
Anglers are the stewards of our rivers and watery environments because they genuinely care.
The upshot is, and it really is as simple as this. Those in favour of retaining the close season on rivers email the Angling Trust and tell them. Because that is what they are asking for? Then also email me on trent.barbeler@btinternet.com or at my website at %%The Rivers Trusts ? riverbanktales.com%% River Bank Tales where I will post the supporting names and messages together with a drafted letter in support of retaining the close season on rivers where upon I will also send a copy out to all the orgs listed above and many more besides asking for support in helping to retain the rivers close season. I will also send the same draft on to central government and government agencies.
“The Wildlife of today is not ours to dispose of as we please. We have it in trust. We must account for it to those who come after.” King George VI
Kind Regards,
Lee.
I have read through this thread and have been interested to read the posts. Some history first;
Years ago I represented the Barbel Catchers Club at SACG meetings as their political representative. The Barbel Catchers Club at the time was not unanimously politically motivated, indeed the membership were split on whether the BCC should be involved in angling politics at all. However at the time, there was a strong movement to have the closed season abolished which resulted in the BCC taking a strong stance in favour of retaining the closed season. I was elected as political rep at a BCC AGM and specifically tasked to attend SACG meetings with the aim of getting the SACG membership to back the BCC in their efforts to retain the rivers close season. One should remember that the SACG was mostly made up of specialist angling groups with seemingly little interest either way concerning the rivers close season. So it was assumed that obtaining their unanimous support was never going to be easy.
At the same time, the Barbel Society were at logger heads with the SACG over other issues and these are well documented in various threads on the Anglers Net website archive. This meant that the BS remained outside of the SACG and to a large extent out of my campaign inside SACG to get political backing for the rivers close season retention. This fact alone did not mean that the BS were unaware of my campaign far from it. I spoke to Steve Pope on various occasions concerning the issue and can confirm that he and all the other officers of the BS committee were staunchly unanimous in their support for retaining the closed season. Further to talks with Steve, I also talked at length with Fred Crouch over the issue at a BCC AGM as Fred was still in BCC membership at the time as well as being heavily involved with the BS. Fred had little faith in the SACG and pretty much saw my forthcoming quest to gain SACG support as a futile campaign.
So with storm clouds gathering in the form of growing voices to abolish the rivers close season I walked into my first SACG meeting and made my pitch. With only one dissenting voice I got the unanimous backing from the SAGG membership to support the BCC and their quest to retain the rivers close season. Outside of SACG the BS were also campaigning hard for the close season retention along with other groups. Eventually we won the day and the close season on rivers was retained. Even though the victory came I told the BCC in an article I wrote for their magazine that whilst we had won, we would have to win every battle to come over the same issue whilst our opponents only ever have to win ONCE. I always knew that the issue would return sooner or later.
This time however it’s noticeably different in that it might appear our angling political support could well be crumbling in favour of scraping the close season. So if this turns out to be a fact, supporters of retaining the close season will have to get themselves organised.
Now I’m not going to pick over all the posts made here save to state I am 100% in favour of retaining the close season in its present form for the broad range of reasons that I have already gone on record as making. Peter dealt with Martin Salters ten point list fairly adequately.
It has been said;
“And surely even the most ardent supporters of the close season must accept that it should be based on some kind evidence?”
Well, I’m pretty certain that The Rivers Trusts (47 separate trusts with more in Scotland and Wales) , Natural England, (who incidentally do have teeth I’ve worked with them) EA, (NRA before them) Wildlife Trusts, World Wildlife Fund, RSPB, British Trust for Ornithology, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IUCN (Red Data Book) not forgetting the Bat Conservation Trust, The Mammal Society, BANC (British Association of Nature Conservationists) British Dragonfly Society together with a further list that would take up another couple of pages. Then there are the shooting orgs like BASC and BSSC (British Shooting Sports Council) who all revere their own close seasons. The National Farmers Union (most farming fishing leases get drafted by them) and the CLA (Country Landowners Association) who’s members number greatly amongst riparian fishery owners. All these orgs would almost certainly come up with their own sets of evidence for supporting the close season on rivers. Most would certainly support arguments for retaining the close season on rivers.
Look back at this entire thread, plus Martin Salters article and Dave Harrell’s rather unfortunate bit and the general theme as reported on the AT website and it’s no surprise to read that the whole issue revolves around “angling” and what “it” want’s. Well let me tell you, the issue of scrapping the rivers close season goes way beyond what angling wants because we are tiny in comparison to what other river users want and how they see the river close season. Interestingly Martin Salter and the AT seem to have completely forgot about everyone else and the bigger picture. Trust me it’s “BIG”.
Anglers are the stewards of our rivers and watery environments because they genuinely care.
The upshot is, and it really is as simple as this. Those in favour of retaining the close season on rivers email the Angling Trust and tell them. Because that is what they are asking for? Then also email me on trent.barbeler@btinternet.com or at my website at %%The Rivers Trusts ? riverbanktales.com%% River Bank Tales where I will post the supporting names and messages together with a drafted letter in support of retaining the close season on rivers where upon I will also send a copy out to all the orgs listed above and many more besides asking for support in helping to retain the rivers close season. I will also send the same draft on to central government and government agencies.
“The Wildlife of today is not ours to dispose of as we please. We have it in trust. We must account for it to those who come after.” King George VI
Kind Regards,
Lee.
B
binka
Guest
Interesting post Lee.
I too am in favour for retaining the closed season on rivers in its current form but can't be r'sed to debate the reasons why.
Did you previously post under the name of "lee fletcher 4"?
The bad one
Well-known member
I can confirm what Lee states regarding the history of the CS is accurate and true. And yes I was present on the said day at the meeting. I also think Lee was shocked at the ease of his task on the day And I've never saw him shocked again 
My view as I said early on in this thread has not change from the way I voted at the SACG meeting and that is to retain it.
My view as I said early on in this thread has not change from the way I voted at the SACG meeting and that is to retain it.
Terrific post Lee.
Propmted by Lee's post I have written to the following to highlight the problem and to solicit their support.
I would urge all other anglers who wish to see the Close Season remain to do the same
arlin arlin@theriverstrust.org,
supportercare@wwf.org.uk,
enquiries enquiries@banc.org.uk,
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Terrific post Lee.
Propmted by Lee's post I have written to the following to highlight the problem and to solicit their support.
I would urge all other anglers who wish to see the Close Season remain to do the same
arlin arlin@theriverstrust.org,
enquiry enquiry@wildlifetrusts.org,
supportercare@wwf.org.uk,
info info@themammalsociety.org,
enquiries enquiries@banc.org.uk,supportercare claire.install@naturalengland.org.uk
Good morning Peter,
Thanks for the e-mail addresses, I have just written to them all as you suggested, I hope that all caring anglers who care about our rivers and want to retain the CS as it is do the same.
Let's hope that they can support in some way
Kind regards
Ray
sam vimes
Well-known member
Can we stop labelling people in this way? There's no evidence whatsoever that the closed season does any good whatsoever. It's an assumption that it does and it's actually possible that the "caring anglers" that want its retention at all costs might actually be supporting something that does more harm than good.
Emotive language trying to label anyone that has doubts about the closed season is not the way forward. Those that support the closed season don't automatically have the moral high ground, no matter how much they think they have and how much they shout that they have.
You can be someone that wishes for change, wants things to be re-examined, without necessarily wanting to see the closed season abolished or retained in its current form.
I care about my local rivers. I've no financial interest in seeing the closed season abolished. For reasons that I accept probably don't apply nationally, I do have grave doubts that the closed season has any benefit whatsoever in my locale. (1. Trout season opens ten days after coarse season closes. 2. "Trout" can be fished for with worms. 3. In cold northern spate rivers, plenty of the coarse fish (chub and barbel in particular) routinely spawn well after 16th of June.
Last edited:
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Sam,
It would also been an assumption that either changing or abolishing the CS would not do harm then would it not?
I have not said that those who want the CS retained in its current form have any moral high ground, your words not mine. I care about our rivers, and so far this call for change is based on nothing more than self interests, in my opinion.You may disagree with that then again you may not.
How I label things is my choice, and please note I have not stated that those who want change don’t care. What I have said is that their call for change is based on their own self interest and that is not good enough reasons to change the CS in my opinion.
Kind regards
Ray
It would also been an assumption that either changing or abolishing the CS would not do harm then would it not?
I have not said that those who want the CS retained in its current form have any moral high ground, your words not mine. I care about our rivers, and so far this call for change is based on nothing more than self interests, in my opinion.You may disagree with that then again you may not.
How I label things is my choice, and please note I have not stated that those who want change don’t care. What I have said is that their call for change is based on their own self interest and that is not good enough reasons to change the CS in my opinion.
Kind regards
Ray
sam vimes
Well-known member
That's fine, but as it stands, there's no evidence to suggest that the closed season gives any real benefits. Blindly advocating the closed season stays, is supported by no greater evidence than abolishing is. Suggesting that anyone that might support some form of change, hopefully based on some kind of study, is doing so for entirely selfish reason is no more true than it is for those that support its continuance. Labelling people in such a manner is simply emotive rhetoric designed to garner support and unjustly vilify those that don't share a certain view.
Neither is there any empirical evidence to support abolishing the Close Season either, so to experiment without full and proper scientific study would be a foolhardy course of action.
That some professional anglers are calling for abolishment is undoubtedly testament to their commercial interest and certainly does not speak to their conservationalist priciples, IMHO.
Personally I place far more creedence on the opinions of the likes of Keith Arthur who, despite being a professional angler, sees the sense in maintaining the Close Season.
Like many others, he simply swaps his coarse rods for either fly or sea rods and continues to fish.
I try wherever possible not to use potentially derogatory terms to describe my opponents on this topic and would emplore others to do likewise.
The topic in itself is devisive enough and to be honest I am very surprised that the Angling Trust, of all people, would want to throw their hat into an arena that could have irresponsible consequences . . . . . . .
sam vimes
Well-known member
Nowhere have I said there was. But that doesn't mean shouldn't be looked at.
The cynic in me suggests that may be the case, but it doesn't automatically negate all of the points they may make. It also doesn't mean that everyone that doesn't automatically support the closed season, as it stands, should be lumped in with those with something to gain.
Kieth Arthur has no greater knowledge or scientific understanding than plenty of those with a differing view. I'm afraid you give him greater credence because he has a similar view to your own and might have greater influence due to his standing. The truth is that Martin Salter has probably been party to more scientific evidence than KA ever has. To denounce his views whilst supporting KA's doesn't make an awful lot of sense, if you look at it dispassionately.
I'm amazed, but not quite as disappointed as you. I don't see them as calling for automatic abolishment. I can't quite grasp why some are so resistant to the prospect of simply examining any evidence, or going further and actually studying it properly. Doing so does not automatically equate to abolishment. Whilst I have grave doubts about the effectiveness of the closed season, particularly in my region, I don't have any desire for a headlong rush into the demise of the closed season. If there's good evidence to support its continuance, so be it.
cg74
Well-known member
I may have overstated your opinion but for balance you'll see I added (in brackets); "or even a reasonable level of protection"
You say the current Coarse Close Season offers coarse fish a reasonable degree of protection, what about the game fish?
I think they should be equally protected and for that to happen a thorough review is needed.
"Not one of them has mentioned fish welfare or shown that that even comes in to things."
Point 10: "This way we would be delivering a longer river season at the optimum time for both anglers and fish and without compromising our conservation credentials."
"It has been suggested that we keep quite on this subject"
Where has that been suggested and by whom?
"I am very suspicious of those who start debates and then sit back and don’t participate in the debates they start."
Taken from the end of the article; "The Angling Trust is keen to hear anglers' views on this subject. So...is it time to rethink the close season on rivers? Let us know your thoughts via the FishingMagic forum and these will be collated with those on a special page set up on the Angling Trust website HERE dedicated to the topic."
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
I have followed the thread with some interest since it stemmed from Martin's call for a 'rethink' of the close season and a lot of the usual mumbo-jumbo has been talked of. Therein lies the clue - “RETHINK”, hard for some. I have said I wouldn't get involved with these pointless threads on any forum any longer, but in the interests of keeping those with open minds fully in the picture let me throw some light on this topic.
Firstly, I have ALWAYS been against having a fixed national period of close season. As Mr Jacobs put it himself in response to another post “..one size doesn't fit all...” and that is true here.
The reason for bringing in a close season was to stop the killing of fish so that they could be weighed in during matches as there were no keepnets at that time. This is FACT! It is supported by Mr Philip Geen's (then [1878/9] President of the LAA) comment in support of the Mundella Act where he said it was “... to put a stop to the wanton and mischievous waste of the piscine resources ...” ie: to stop killing gravid females at or before the time of spawning as this results in killing the thousands of eggs also (and is a reason for the CS on trout – think about it!)
Since the invention of proper keepnets (and more so since kinder nets have been introduced) there has been no substantial reason to retain this piece of outdated Victorian legislation. In 2000, MAFF (as it was then) produced the Salmon and Freshwater Review which concluded in Part IV, Chapter 10, section 3.17 -
“Nevertheless, we were still struck with the lack of evidence in support of a close season for the conservation of coarse fish. As with canals, we think that there will be relatively few situations in which a close season will be beneficial.”
That was with Environment Agency fisheries officer's blessing then and it was only through the protests of a couple of small groups (compared to the nation's anglers) that the decision to abolish the close season completely was reversed. In my view that was due to their beliefs that it was “traditional” or helped spawning females enjoy some “peace”. Well, one might ask what was “traditional” prior to 1878 and why apply anthropomorphic sentiments to wild creatures?
I would never argue that ALL close seasons should be abolished, just the law that enforces one. If with the benefit of EA Fisheries advice your local club, landowner, or association insists that a close season should exist then fair enough. It should be decide when based on local conditions and where based on the river's morphology; blanket bans do not cover all circumstances and “near enough” is simply not good enough!
As an example of this, we had some pollutions in the Thames caused by a local STW and it was reported there was quite an amount of sewage sludge on the river bed. Concerned that this could affect subsequent recruitment, I was informed, quite categorically, that the entire area down to the next weir is and never was a suitable breeding area. My own association and the LAA (partly responsible for the Mundella Act) have the sections on this part of the river and yet we are still not allowed to fish it in the close season. Not all fish will be breeding, some may be feeding.
There's also the further opinions that the worst time to hook a female is AFTER she has spawned, not before. My best ever barbel was caught on the last Sunday of last June and was completely kippered out, spent, knackered. I nursed her back as best I could and she swam off OK, but the joy of catching a new PB was diminished by the fact that she should not have been caught at all (and she was not the target of my baits that were intended for chub.) There has to be a better way!
If your club wishes to impose a close season of their own and the members have voted in favour then I would back them to the hilt in their choice to do so. If you, personally, wish to refrain from fishing for three months between two dates, that were a compromise anyway, that were set in 1878, then please continue to do so, it's your freedom of choice. The close season as it stands is simply a barrier to having better timed fences in specific places that could help fish more. RETHINK it!
Firstly, I have ALWAYS been against having a fixed national period of close season. As Mr Jacobs put it himself in response to another post “..one size doesn't fit all...” and that is true here.
The reason for bringing in a close season was to stop the killing of fish so that they could be weighed in during matches as there were no keepnets at that time. This is FACT! It is supported by Mr Philip Geen's (then [1878/9] President of the LAA) comment in support of the Mundella Act where he said it was “... to put a stop to the wanton and mischievous waste of the piscine resources ...” ie: to stop killing gravid females at or before the time of spawning as this results in killing the thousands of eggs also (and is a reason for the CS on trout – think about it!)
Since the invention of proper keepnets (and more so since kinder nets have been introduced) there has been no substantial reason to retain this piece of outdated Victorian legislation. In 2000, MAFF (as it was then) produced the Salmon and Freshwater Review which concluded in Part IV, Chapter 10, section 3.17 -
“Nevertheless, we were still struck with the lack of evidence in support of a close season for the conservation of coarse fish. As with canals, we think that there will be relatively few situations in which a close season will be beneficial.”
That was with Environment Agency fisheries officer's blessing then and it was only through the protests of a couple of small groups (compared to the nation's anglers) that the decision to abolish the close season completely was reversed. In my view that was due to their beliefs that it was “traditional” or helped spawning females enjoy some “peace”. Well, one might ask what was “traditional” prior to 1878 and why apply anthropomorphic sentiments to wild creatures?
I would never argue that ALL close seasons should be abolished, just the law that enforces one. If with the benefit of EA Fisheries advice your local club, landowner, or association insists that a close season should exist then fair enough. It should be decide when based on local conditions and where based on the river's morphology; blanket bans do not cover all circumstances and “near enough” is simply not good enough!
As an example of this, we had some pollutions in the Thames caused by a local STW and it was reported there was quite an amount of sewage sludge on the river bed. Concerned that this could affect subsequent recruitment, I was informed, quite categorically, that the entire area down to the next weir is and never was a suitable breeding area. My own association and the LAA (partly responsible for the Mundella Act) have the sections on this part of the river and yet we are still not allowed to fish it in the close season. Not all fish will be breeding, some may be feeding.
There's also the further opinions that the worst time to hook a female is AFTER she has spawned, not before. My best ever barbel was caught on the last Sunday of last June and was completely kippered out, spent, knackered. I nursed her back as best I could and she swam off OK, but the joy of catching a new PB was diminished by the fact that she should not have been caught at all (and she was not the target of my baits that were intended for chub.) There has to be a better way!
If your club wishes to impose a close season of their own and the members have voted in favour then I would back them to the hilt in their choice to do so. If you, personally, wish to refrain from fishing for three months between two dates, that were a compromise anyway, that were set in 1878, then please continue to do so, it's your freedom of choice. The close season as it stands is simply a barrier to having better timed fences in specific places that could help fish more. RETHINK it!
Last edited:
It will be interesting to see where this goes, and who knows I may even re-join the ATr just to provide my input on this matter . . . . . . . .
---------- Post added at 16:47 ---------- Previous post was at 16:35 ----------
Still banging that old drum then Jeff: the effective dates of the last reviews were 2000 and 2003!
To state otherwise (1878/1879) is disingenuous in the extreme and only show the weakness of your case.
The reason for its inception I will not argue, what I will contest is that in a much more enlightened age than the 1880's we have moved on and realise that river fish are not an inexhaustible resouce.
So the Close Season provides protection that while it may have never been inaugurated for, nonetheless it still provides for most species in most areas protection in the most average of years.
The last rethinks were in 2000 and 2003, I strongly doubt that another is necessary given nothing has changed in the meantime, other than some commercial interests appearing, of course . . . . . . .
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
CJ
CJ,
I think Peter has answered admirably the points you put to me, and probably better than I could. I will however respond out of courtesy. If you care to read the thread you will see two posts that allude to waiting for the protagonists to enlarge on their argument for change.
That is what I refer to as suggesting we keep quite and wait, not for me the waiting game. If these names thought they had any real chance of getting the CS changed I would have thought that the would be shouting there reasons from the roof tops. Placing everything they have to support change the change they want into the public domain would only strengthen their case. Lurking on here and saying nothing will hardly to convince anyone will it.
Martin Slater’s Clause/Point 10 that you quote to me, suggests that a longer CS is needed and not a shorter one as Dace can spawn in February. I have to agree with Peter’s view of said clause/point 10.
As for the Angling Trust’s page dedicated to getting peoples views, it is hardly buzzing is it! I would sooner debate on a vibrant forum like this one as it appears would many others.
Again if you feel that game fish are getting a raw deal you should be campaigning for a longer close season not a shorter one.
Kind regards
Ray
CJ,
I think Peter has answered admirably the points you put to me, and probably better than I could. I will however respond out of courtesy. If you care to read the thread you will see two posts that allude to waiting for the protagonists to enlarge on their argument for change.
That is what I refer to as suggesting we keep quite and wait, not for me the waiting game. If these names thought they had any real chance of getting the CS changed I would have thought that the would be shouting there reasons from the roof tops. Placing everything they have to support change the change they want into the public domain would only strengthen their case. Lurking on here and saying nothing will hardly to convince anyone will it.
Martin Slater’s Clause/Point 10 that you quote to me, suggests that a longer CS is needed and not a shorter one as Dace can spawn in February. I have to agree with Peter’s view of said clause/point 10.
As for the Angling Trust’s page dedicated to getting peoples views, it is hardly buzzing is it! I would sooner debate on a vibrant forum like this one as it appears would many others.
Again if you feel that game fish are getting a raw deal you should be campaigning for a longer close season not a shorter one.
Kind regards
Ray
The bad one
Well-known member
I suspect that any Review or Scientific Study would on balance come to the same conclusions as it was in 2000-2003 Peter. This winter I've monitored the river temperature every week throughout the winter on the Ribble, not known as a warm southern river, being north of Watford Gap. The lowest has been 44 F and the heist 50 F. Don't do C as I'm old school
Now I'll wager that the main coarse species (roach, dace, chub and barbel) will this year spawn in the close season. As the river temperature will not have to recover from a low base, as it has had to do over the previous 2 years. Highest temp last winter was 46 F lowest 39. Much the same the year before, but the lower temp was for much longer, the river being locked in ice for nearly 4 weeks.
Now it could be said this year has been a mild winter, a comment I wouldn’t disagree with. But with an average spring/CS the higher river temp during this winter has given that boost and why I as a non-gambler would wager the fish in the Ribble will spawn during the CS.
Oh and despite the spring last year taking until the first week in May to get going and warm the main species by opening day had all spawned out and were in good condition. It was also a very good spawning year for them, the best I’ve seen in the last 10 years on the river. The results of which will start to show in anglers catches and scale profiles over the next few years. I.e. there will be a strong year class showing for the spawning of 2013.
Now I'll wager that the main coarse species (roach, dace, chub and barbel) will this year spawn in the close season. As the river temperature will not have to recover from a low base, as it has had to do over the previous 2 years. Highest temp last winter was 46 F lowest 39. Much the same the year before, but the lower temp was for much longer, the river being locked in ice for nearly 4 weeks.
Now it could be said this year has been a mild winter, a comment I wouldn’t disagree with. But with an average spring/CS the higher river temp during this winter has given that boost and why I as a non-gambler would wager the fish in the Ribble will spawn during the CS.
Oh and despite the spring last year taking until the first week in May to get going and warm the main species by opening day had all spawned out and were in good condition. It was also a very good spawning year for them, the best I’ve seen in the last 10 years on the river. The results of which will start to show in anglers catches and scale profiles over the next few years. I.e. there will be a strong year class showing for the spawning of 2013.