River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[cg74]

1, CG, Game fish are already fully protected under National EA By Laws:

Environment Agency - National game fishing byelaws

2, Just how do we preserve our conservation credentials by shortening the season?
It is just not logical and has been written as a loss leader . . . .
Remember this was written by an ex MP who is a skilled wordsmith

3, Now, call me a cynic, but just who is going to do the collation?
Will said collation be a fully representative cross section of all views?
Have you tried as a non member to access the Angling trust's Forum?
Given the commercial interests at work (see ATr's own web page on this) I have strong doubts as to just how representative this will be, hence why I have contacted each and every one of Lee's list of organisations to solicit support in maintaining the status quo.

1, The link proves what?

Hmmm, so during the trout Close Season whilst fishing with maggots for roach or grayling on rivers like the Wey and Windrush, what are those pretty golden brown spotted fish that are seemingly the biggest mugs known to man..... errrm, brown trout!
Is that protection?

2, It has the potential to aid conservation by recognising that fish in different areas have differing criteria.

3, Like you, I may well join the ATr just to have my say on the matter?
Though that said in todays overtness with information, we'd get time to bombard the EA with objections/concerns during the consultation period.

 

[black kettle]

A section taken from the Environment Agency booklet “Coarse Fish Close Season background and rationale”
Quote;

“In contrast to stillwaters, most river fisheries are in multiple ownership, with fish free to move between stretches owned by different people. Fisheries management actions taken by one owner will have an impact on the neighbouring waters; this is of particular importance with regard to spawning sites on rivers, which are often very localised.

In February 2000 the independent Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries Review considered close seasons and recommended that:

Byelaws should be introduced to abolish the close season for coarse fish on canals and rivers except where its retention is necessary to avert serious risk of damage to fish stocks. The Government supported our view that such a proposal should be based on sound science. While sound scientific evidence was available to support the case for removing the close season on canals, it was not available in respect of rivers. Because all river coarse fisheries have a close season, it is virtually impossible to gather the required evidence - a scientific comparison similar to that done for canals would be needed. Our view is that in the absence of scientific evidence, we must take a precautionary approach towards rivers, retaining the current close season.
It should also be noted that the above recommendation resulted in a great deal of representation to Government from angling and fisheries interests opposing the removal of the close season on rivers.”

Now the devil as always, is in the detail. Pay particular attention to; “Because all river coarse fisheries have a close season, it is virtually impossible to gather the required evidence - a scientific comparison similar to that done for canals would be needed.”

What the EA did regarding canals was to commission a research and development project to ascertain the viability of scrapping the close season on canals. Again quoting the Environment Agency who said;

“Environment Agency commissioned a fisheries Research & Development (R&D) project to address this issue.
The R&D project "Evaluation of the close season in canals" was carried out by Aquatic Pollution and Environmental Management (APEM) Ltd, on behalf of the Environment Agency. The objective of this study was to identify whether or not angling during the close season on canals was detrimental to fisheries. Given that the close season had been dispensed with on many canals, the project was able to make a direct comparison between canals with and without close seasons, in terms of both fish populations and angler catches.”

You can view a full copy of this report (78 pages long) by going to http://aquaticcommons.org/8513/1/81_EA2.pdf

So previously when the rivers close season was under threat there was a substantial amount of angling political will to retain it. The SACG in particular had a very good relationship with EA Fisheries and used to have Chris Burt and Tim Marks represent us at meetings with Adrian Taylor EA Fisheries Manager at the time. This meant we obviously had a certain amount of influence in regard to having the EA ear over our concerns. And as I said in my earlier post there were others campaigning hard to retain the close season as well. I believe that a great deal of previously held angling political will has evaporated in terms of wanting to protect the rivers close season. However, in regards to the 1998 APEM project in relation to canals, there is a world of difference between the canals infrastructure and fish habitat to that afforded the same in rivers. So scientific evidence will be extremely hard to compile if not impossible altogether to prove there would be no detrimental affect placed upon rivers by the scrapping of the close season for fishing.

What we could see being done are a series of commissioned scientifically based “advisory” papers compiled aimed at directing government to move towards removing the rivers close season which would probably be the forerunner to any suggested “pilot” schemes taking place like Martin Salter has already suggested on the Severn. None of this should be allowed because the EA mandate to government is crystal clear regarding the scientific evidence required to lift the close season on rivers. And unless we get exactly that, we must invoke the “Precautionary Principle” against anything less than conclusive scientific evidence that states it is safe to remove the close season.

The burden of proof is not upon those in favour of retaining the close season, we already have the full backing from government and the EA not to mention a host of other conservation organisations. Let those who seek the removal of the close season get their scientific evidence because it is they who have to prove their case not us.

The devil is in the detail just as much as there is safety in numbers. Peter was right in listing the contacts of conservation orgs in his post but nothing short of names on a petition will avert this threat once and for all.

Kind Regards,
Lee.

 

[maverick 7]

I simply can't understand the logic of the Close Season.....Forget the obvious crazy rules like ...you can fish rivers during the Close Season so long as you use a worm on leger tactics...what is that all about....anybody?

Instead, let's look at it generally.....starting with how the whole thing seems totally disjointed, incredibly messy, spectacularly hypocritical and unbelievably unfair.....I mean why ban anglers from the bankside for the reasons given when other influences create far more problems for the said reasons.

Take spawning fish for example.....surely bank walkers, dog swimmers, canoeists, brick throwers, dog walkers, youngsters swimming etc etc...do far more damage to spawning fish and the environment than any bunch of anglers would ever do.....WHY aren't THEY banned from the bankside during this "crucial" time of year.

Give fauna and flora a rest from being trampled and destroyed....don't make me laugh.....on many rivers the stuff is overgrown due to lack of foot action from the anglers....many rivers are barren of anglers these days...and not just because of the lousy weather we have either.

I also don't understand why the canals and lakes are open during this time either....isn't there spawning fish....flora and fauna....and everything else the EA seems to want to protect on these locations too?

According to the EA and to use their own words.....the Close Season is in place purely because the EA want to..... "Err on the side of caution".....

Does that statement mean they don't have a clue why the Close Season is in place then?....because it sure sounds like that to me.....and if they don't know the reasons then they should be made to find some genuine ones before they have the power to apply a CS....

At the minute...it is not really a Close Season ...is it?....It is only a Close Season if you use a bait other than worm and/or float on a river.......

.....crazy situation......what a crazy situation.

Maverick

 

[sam vimes]

I simply can't understand the logic of the Close Season.....Forget the obvious crazy rules like ...you can fish rivers during the Close Season so long as you use a worm on leger tactics...what is that all about....anybody?At the minute...it is not really a Close Season ...is it?....It is only a Close Season if you use a bait other than worm and/or float on a river.......

.....crazy situation......what a crazy situation.

It's worth being clear that the worm for trout byelaw is not in effect nationally. It does apply in the old Yorkshire and Northumbria regions (and I understand a couple of other regions, sometimes with minor variations) but not nationally. You or I may not be able to look at someone fishing between the 25th of March (trout season opening) and June the 15th and know that they are fishing illegally. However, plenty of folks in the country can do exactly that. Only if we see someone fishing in a whole ten day period can we categorically say that they are fishing illegally.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I am very grateful to "Black Kettle" for linking to the APEM report. I have scanned through it and i must say that in my opinion there is little by way of hard evidence presented either for or against retaining the closed season on canals. If anything the conclusions seem based more on the views of the consultee experts (in the fishing industry, as opposed to any ecologists or animal welfare specialists) or gut feelings so to my mind this 'scientific study" is not special or something worth basing an opinion on. Something like this done for rivers would be equally flawed as a factor in such a judgment. Just because a report has been commissioned by "experts" does not mean that its findings are up to the task - in this case i see little science to justify any decision either way. If anything i see a lot of rather invalid assumptions and generalisations dressed up as "expert opinion".

The main question of whether fishing during the closed season is detrimental to fish stocks is simply not considered properly. For example, compared to natural factors and random variability how detrimental could it be expected to be? By what mechanisms could it ever be significant? The report only considers fish population size as shown by anglers catch returns from matches. This does not even consider species composition or aspects such as the quality of fish - just the total weights landed by the top three competitors in matches.

In terms of fish recruitment I doubt there could ever be a correlation with fishing intensity unless anglers were killing or removing gravid females in large numbers at an isolated spawning site (and even if that happened then the survival of the reduced numbers of fry might even be higher and ultmately beneficial on population terms, depending upon whether food resources or other factors were limiting to the strangth of a year class!). Again, by what mechanism can fishing be seriously expected to affect fish population or community characteristics? In other respects, such as the impact of fishing in ethical terms, eg. the targeting of gravid or spawned-out fish, the report is of no help whatsoever. These aspects require anglers to exercise a conscience and fall into the same category of emotional justifications for a closed season as "giving the banks, waters and fish a rest". These would be my arguments for it, but if the closed season decision needed to be based solely on scientific evidence of an impact on fish populations then no such impact could be proven, in my opinion. In that sense i am afraid the closed season is a sham.

The whole philosophy of using anglers catch data is also questionable to me - how reproducible is this data? Was it (or could it ever be) obtained in a statistically robust scientific manner? (unlikely - this would require same anglers or skill levels in every match, the same numbers of contestants on which to base the top three weights (as only these were examined), same water conditions, random allocation of anglers to swims, same swims used each match etc etc etc).

What other factors could be affecting catch returns? For example, I am sure that if we compared anglers catch data from March 2013 they would be massively inferior to March 2014 in virtually any venue you choose to pick - because last March the mean water temperature was probably about 2 degrees C whereas this year it has been a balmy >10 degrees C, and, as scientists will know, the metabolism of cyprinid fish increases with temperature - so they will be more inclined to have fed and get caught during March 2014 rather than March 2013. Having read the relevant part of the report again, they are even comparing the catch data from different waterbodies that were fished during different times of the year! - they have not even standardised the catch returns for the same time of the year!. A canal fished in May and early June wouldf be expected to average better weights than one subjected to a closed season. As for the absence of long term changes or trends in catch data at sites where there was no closed season, then they were lucky that the reaches had not been "ottered" or subject to cormorant predation during the study period. Just because the catch data was similar year on year proves nothing and certainly does not prove that year-round fishing has no effect. Whilst i would agree that year-round fishing probably does have no effect anyway, i would still be arguing that was the case even if the catch data had changed between years - basically the catch data is inadequate as a robust, reproducible scientific observation to base analysis on.

 

[The bad one]

i must say that in my opinion there is little by way of hard evidence presented either for or against retaining the closed season on canals. If anything the conclusions seem based more on the views of the consultee experts (in the fishing industry, as opposed to any ecologists or animal welfare specialists)

Sorry Chub but I must disagree with this statement the Appendix of Experts reads like a who's who in Fish Biology, fishery management and ecology, certainly in the UK and it could be argued globally
For clarity here’s the full list

EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS
Dr. John Banks,
Dr. Peter - Bottomley,
Dr. Bruno -Broughton,
Dr. Alan -Butterworth,
Keith Fisher, Fisheries Officer, British Waterways
Dr. Paul Garner,
Mark Hatcher, Chairman of National Association of Fisheries & Angling Consultatives
Dr. Clive Kennedy, Professor
Dr. Peter Maitland,
John Williams, Vice President of Birmingham Anglers Association
Dr. Ian Winfield,

 

[maverick 7]

It's worth being clear that the worm for trout byelaw is not in effect nationally. It does apply in the old Yorkshire and Northumbria regions (and I understand a couple of other regions, sometimes with minor variations) but not nationally. You or I may not be able to look at someone fishing between the 25th of March (trout season opening) and June the 15th and know that they are fishing illegally. However, plenty of folks in the country can do exactly that. Only if we see someone fishing in a whole ten day period can we categorically say that they are fishing illegally.

Thanks for that Sam....I wasn't aware of the regional thing but even that shows up the even more ridiculous way the Close Season has been administered. Why can only certain regions do that?.....what can possibly justify the fact that you can fish with a worm and leger tactics for trout in one region....but not in another.

More evidence of how disjointed and fractured the whole issue is. I wouldn't be so annoyed if the CS was spread right across the board and EVERYWHERE...including lakes, ponds and canals was closed during this time as well....and all the other "hard to understand" decisions like the one above regarding worms...was in force all over the land. If the Close Season cannot be regionalised which seems to be what many anglers are advocating due to the different spawning times from North to South...then surely neither can these other issues.

As you rightly said earlier Sam.......the fish in the Yorkshire rivers spawn in July most of the time....and like you ...I have seen them many times. Yet another very questionable situation.

Then you hear people using the flora and fauna thing to support their argument to retain the CS ...but what about the flora and fauna around all the "open" venues......doesn't that count or is that a special kind of flora and fauna that doesn't need the "rest" that river flora and fauna apparently need so much? Again, another decision that is impossible to understand.

There is so many holes in the argument to keep the Close Season....it is laughable....how can anyone seriously argue the point for keeping it when there are so many anomolies in this whole sorry, outdated and ridiculous practice.......hardly a shred of evidence to keep it.........but so much to get rid of it.

In my opinion.... the EA haven't got a clue how to administrate the Close Season properly and fairly.....a blind man with pot optics can clearly see the holes in their handling of it.....and I believe the only reason they retain it year on year is because they don't want all the hassle a decision like scrapping it would bring....

.....what a shambles it all is.

Maverick

 

[Peter Jacobs]

.....what a shambles it all is.

It is only a "shambles" in the eyes of those who wish to see it abolished.

On a different note, I am very pleased to have received 3 replies already indicating support for the maintenance of the Close Season from the list of organisations given yesterday by Lee (blackkettle) . . . . and in less than one day, so not a bad start I'd say.

The current Law is there not only to protect fish; as it seems that different and disparate organistions have a great interest as well . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[chub_on_the_block]

Sorry Chub but I must disagree with this statement the Appendix of Experts reads like a who's who in Fish Biology, fishery management and ecology, certainly in the UK and it could be argued globally
For clarity here’s the full list

EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS
Dr. John Banks,
Dr. Peter - Bottomley,
Dr. Bruno -Broughton,
Dr. Alan -Butterworth,
Keith Fisher, Fisheries Officer, British Waterways
Dr. Paul Garner,
Mark Hatcher, Chairman of National Association of Fisheries & Angling Consultatives
Dr. Clive Kennedy, Professor
Dr. Peter Maitland,
John Williams, Vice President of Birmingham Anglers Association
Dr. Ian Winfield,

That is a fair point TBO - i had not seen this list of names and i had not read through the comments they supplied anonymously. But i would still contend that there is no mechanism suggested for how fishing during the closed season could impact fish populations and certainly no proof that it ever could. The expert opinions confim this view for canals where they came to the conclusion that a closed season was not needed. I think it would be hard to prove that is was needed anywhere else either. I still think that an assessment of this kind is a sham though - it is missing the point. The assessment should be about fish welfare issues, ethics etc. Also about those rare instances where a spawning site might be vulnerable to getting plundered (eg by those who might remove fish) and how alternative protection might be provided for those cases. Those would be the areas to examine in my opinion, not some very limited catch data from Angling Times match reports over a couple of years which really just gives a smokescreen of science. The only credible part of the report to me is the views of the experts near the end.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The assessment should be about fish welfare issues, ethics etc.

. . . but that is based on the misapprehension that us anglers are the only interested party, and the responses I have received they clearly indicate that, We Are Not!

It has been interesting to open this up to other (outside angling) organisations; Nature England, the Rivers Trust, WWF, RSPB and even the likes of the Dragonfly Protection group and many others.

Clearly, this is not just an issue that affects angling and anglers . . . . . .

 

[thecrow]

Could someone explain please why if the CS was originaly brought in to protect fish why these other organisations are so interested in keeping the CS as it is, if its to protect other species as well as fish then shouldn't everyone be stopped from going near rivers?

I cant see that organisations such as the RSPB are interested in keeping it for fish but have another motive which must be birds (obvious I know)

If we accept that other organisations have their own motives for wanting to see the CS retained then isn't angling in danger of being swallowed up in these other motives and becoming an also ran when the CS was about fish conservation.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Could someone explain please why if the CS was originaly brought in to protect fish why these other organisations are so interested in keeping the CS as it is, if its to protect other species as well as fish then shouldn't everyone be stopped from going near rivers?

No, I think that the current system works pefectly well to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. The very first Act was back in 1878/9 in a time when "conservations" was never even thought of.
Over the years however we have, thankfully, come to realise that the current Close Season does in fact fulfill other tasks than tha twhich it was first inaugurated for.
It has to be remembered that this Act has been reveiwed and re-visited many, many times, the last of which were in 2000 and 2003

I cant see that organisations such as the RSPB are interested in keeping it for fish but have another motive which must be birds (obvious I know)

The RSPB are showing interest for the protection of birds that nest and breed close to the rivers where the current Close Seaon does provide protection from the angler's footprints.

If we accept that other organisations have their own motives for wanting to see the CS retained then isn't angling in danger of being swallowed up in these other motives and becoming an also ran when the CS was about fish conservation.

I think that is a conclusion too far in all honesty.
For decades we have co-habited very well with all of the organisation noted on previous pages, with the exception of losing the odd mere or lake to fishing when the RSPB took over.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I agree anglers are not the only interested party in whether there is a closed season or not - even if we may be the only party actually interested in fish welfare or with a particular concern for fish populations.

However, the views of those environmental/conservation organisations would be as equally influenced by concerns over the impact of human disturbance on the river environment, or littering etc - negative aspects which might equally apply to other river users but the rights of other users are not curtailed for 3 months each year.

When it comes to aspects such as the maintenance of bank side paths it could be argued that angling is beneficial so should not be restricted during a closed season.

Im sorry but the more i think about it there is less scientific justification for a closed season as time goes on - especially if the decision is made solely on the science of whether or not fishing in the closed season affects fish populations - which it appears was the limit of considerations for removing the closed season on canals.

There might be a stronger argument for banning the use of keepnets when water temperatures are above 15 degrees C than banning fishing altogther for 3 months.

For me, the points that swing against a closed season being justified any longer are: 1) angling pressure on rivers is a fraction of what it once was 2) fish handling is much improved on what it once was 3) keepnet use has declined massively and 4) matches, with use of fish-damaging baskets at the weigh in etc etc are a thing of the past on rivers - theres very few matches on rivers at all.

Positive arguments for fishing year round on rivers include having eyes on the water to report pollution, fish theft etc but also the true value of rivers as fisheries may be better realised and this would aid their protection. This is important. Presently rivers are under-used and under valued as an asset or resource compared to year-round commercial fisheries. I have no economic interests from suggesting this.

 

[sam vimes]

If anglers feel the need to involve organizations that will object to any changes in the closed season, regardless of any evidence, it only shows how worried they may be that the closed season is exceedingly vulnerable and almost indefensible from a purely angling point of view. I'm afraid that seeking their approval demonstrates that some people don't really believe that their own arguments have any strength. Frankly, I'd sooner lose something I believed in than get into bed with some of the organizations mentioned just to preserve it. Your enemy's enemy is not always your friend. You might as well ask the British Canoe Union while you're on, I'm sure they'll happily agree that the closed season should be retained. Good luck with your Faustian pacts, I hope we all don't live to regret them.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

If anglers feel the need to involve organizations that will object to any changes in the closed season, regardless of any evidence, it only shows how worried they may be that the closed season is exceedingly vulnerable and almost indefensible from a purely angling point of view. I'm afraid that seeking their approval demonstrates that some people don't really believe that their own arguments have any strength. Frankly, I'd sooner lose something I believed in than get into bed with some of the organizations mentioned just to preserve it. Your enemy's enemy is not always your friend. You might as well ask the British Canoe Union while you're on, I'm sure they'll happily agree that the closed season should be retained. Good luck with your Faustian pacts, I hope we all don't live to regret them.

On the contrary Sam, when dealing with a conglomerate like the Angling Trust with its' ex-politicians who are well versed in all of the tricks of the trade, then it is far better to spread the argument over a wider playing field.

I am personally not worried about the ecological argument in favour of maintaining the Close Season one iota.
Many of those organisations I would hardly describe as an "enemy of angling" but in the final analysis, all concerend have to accept that this is not just an Angling Issue . . . . . . .

As to the BCU I dont know of a single river angler who would want to get anywhere near those people, least of all me.

 

[cg74]

It is only a "shambles" in the eyes of those who wish to see it abolished.

On a different note, I am very pleased to have received 3 replies already indicating support for the maintenance of the Close Season from the list of organisations given yesterday by Lee (blackkettle) . . . . and in less than one day, so not a bad start I'd say.

The current Law is there not only to protect fish; as it seems that different and disparate organistions have a great interest as well . . . . . . . . . . . .

Peter, your first line isn't quite true, I don't necessarily want it abolished, I want it revising and improving.

You only have to look at the "shambles" in parts of Yorkshire - Fish for coarse species with a worm during the Game Close Season and then during the Coarse Fishing Close Season use a humble worm to target trout..... and you say that's not shambolic?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Peter, your first line isn't quite true, I don't necessarily want it abolished, I want it revising and improving.

You only have to look at the "shambles" in parts of Yorkshire - Fish for coarse species with a worm during the Game Close Season and then during the Coarse Fishing Close Season use a humble worm to target trout..... and you say that's not shambolic?

It was reviewed and revised in 2000 and gain in 2003; how many more reviews do we need until and unless there is empirical evidence to support one position of the other?

As to the "shambles" in that part of the Country, would you not agree that if people "played the game" instead of constantly trying to find ways around it, then there would be no "shambles"?

If so, then those creating the "shambles" are those attempting to cheat the system . . . . . . . it is tantamount to those greedy commercial owners who back in the 80's advertised "any method trout fishing" having first stocked a couple of dozen Trout into a Carp Lake. And that led to the loss of the Close Seaon on Stillwaters and some Canals.

Those that break the rules should not be counted on to create an argument to change the rules. In any other walk of life it would be described as the lunatics taking over the asylum.

 

[sam vimes]

On the contrary Sam, when dealing with a conglomerate like the Angling Trust with its' ex-politicians who are well versed in all of the tricks of the trade, then it is far better to spread the argument over a wider playing field.

I am personally not worried about the ecological argument in favour of maintaining the Close Season one iota.
Many of those organisations I would hardly describe as an "enemy of angling" but in the final analysis, all concerend have to accept that this is not just an Angling Issue . . . . . . .

As to the BCU I dont know of a single river angler who would want to get anywhere near those people, least of all me.

I do agree that it's become more than just a pure angling issue. It doesn't have to be that way though. However, until there's a total ban on all other river/riverside users during the closed season, the validity of the involvement of any other non-angling organizations is dubious in the extreme. The shooters won't stop shooting near rivers, the birdwatchers won't stop twitching near rivers, landowners won't stop farming. Organizations representing all of them will readily back the continuance of the closed season though. I don't much care what any of them have to say on the subject until they enforce corresponding closed season restrictions on their members.

I'm not sure why anyone would be squeamish about involving the BCU, they'd be no less supportive of the retention of the closed season. They'd also be no more a "friend" of angling than the RSPB is. The closed season was introduced with no more than fish in mind. Whether it is abolished, retained or modified should be exactly the same. Whilst involving other organizations might be politically expedient, it's not something I want to see on either side. It's exactly the kind of politicking that absolutely repels me. It's the reason that I shun various angling bodies and organizations.

If doing what's being done is what's necessary to retain the closed season, I have even less faith that it needs retaining. If people are prepared to garner support from some of the organizations mentioned, I can only admire just how much they must believe in it. Personally, I couldn't climb into bed with just anyone, regardless of how politically expedient it may be to my cause, I'd rather lose. Good luck to them, as I said before, I hope that it doesn't go on to bite angling on the backside further down the line.

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 ----------

As to the "shambles" in that part of the Country, would you not agree that if people "played the game" instead of constantly trying to find ways around it, then there would be no "shambles"?

It's a bye-law, no one has to get round anything. The only ones not playing fair are those that fish the lower river with worm for "trout" (or those that flout the law with alternate baits). However, much as I believe that they are extracting the urine on the lower river, where trout may be thin on the ground, the worm fishers are not breaking the law.

In a few days time I could quite legally fish the stretches of upper river that I've been fishing every few days since November. In all that time, I've had one small chub and one small dace in amongst the hordes of trout and grayling. I don't think it particularly unreasonable for anyone to fish for trout with worms in the area, though I will choose not to. If I take advantage of the bye-law, it'll be somewhere totally private, inaccessible to all but a tiny number of anglers, and has nothing but trout.

I appreciate that most aren't really interested, it's a bit awkwards for those that think the closed season is a unified best fit scenario, but many really don't seem to understand what goes on up here. You're writing it off as people trying to get round something when the reality is nothing of the sort. It's nothing like stocking trout in an any method stillwater. Trout and course fish do coexist entirely naturally and in good numbers in good lengths of the river. The bye-law has been in existence longer than the closed season, in it's current duration and timing, has in this area. It existed while we still had the (even more preposterous) stolen fortnight.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

The current Law is there not only to protect fish; as it seems that different and disparate organistions have a great interest as well . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes, just as I wrote in one of my previous pieces on this subject -
The recommendations for abolition were later reversed in the Government’s response that quoted this (amongst others) reason – “A large number of comments on these recommendations were received from boating and canoeing interests, who were concerned that ending the coarse fish close season on rivers would reduce their opportunities to practice their sport.”

And you thought it was all about giving fish some peace and quiet. It’s a joke!

And as for your reference to my previous post Mr Jacobs, I do wish you'd clarify what it was you were driving at as it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Were you indicating that something has changed since 2000? Have fish in the last 14 years evolved to a point where they really do require a close season and that MAFF's comments on the lack of evidence to support a close season are no longer valid?

A few pages back you indicated that you wouldn't mind a change in the close season were it to be supported by hard and fast evidence, but I've know you too long and witnessed too many statements of yours in the past. It would be a cold day in hell before you would see the close season abandoned in favour of anything else, even if that 'else' improved the benefits for fish. You are one of those I could have referred to in one piece who are 'stuck in a rut', will never change, will never even think or RETHINK for a change of any kind. In that respect you are consistent, but angling nor the benefits to the fish will simply never advance with a closed mind like that.



It was interesting that in August almost two years ago, HIFI did their usual seine netting of the Thames for juvenile fish (0-1 year old) and reported that catches were approximately 50% down on previous years. This was due, they claimed, to the excessive rainfall and subsequent flooding in the spring of 2012; it will probably be the same again for last year when reports are published. This is the biggest killer of our juvenile fish and because it's nature there's nothing we can do about it.

However, on a more positive front, Thames Water are trialling a new rotating grill on one of their abstraction plants. It's a very fine grill at 2mm and self-cleaning because of the rotation. The amount of young fish we lose each year due to abstraction plants, on the Thames alone, sucking them in and mincing them up runs into millions and these new systems should be encouraged. Far better a solution than a whimsical close season that can't be proven to do any good whatsoever.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

A few pages back you indicated that you wouldn't mind a change in the close season were it to be supported by hard and fast evidence, but I've know you too long and witnessed too many statements of yours in the past. It would be a cold day in hell before you would see the close season abandoned in favour of anything else, even if that 'else' improved the benefits for fish. You are one of those I could have referred to in one piece who are 'stuck in a rut', will never change, will never even think or RETHINK for a change of any kind. In that respect you are consistent, but angling nor the benefits to the fish will simply never advance with a closed mind like that.

You never change do you Jeff, shifting other people's emphasis to suit your own argument. Alternatively arguing the man instead of debating the point, or do you forget that I have known you as long as you have me?

I meant what I said about a change based on firm scientific empirical evidence, but it will be an even colder day in hades before I lend my support to a commercially driven basis for the end of the Close Season.
So, you see Jeff, my position has altered, albeit slightly, and yet I still get sideswiped by the likes of you.

It is not only me either, you might be surprised, or maybe not, in the amount of interest (supporting the current status qou) that is coming from the many and yet diverse organisations that I have been in contact with over just the past 36 hours.