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.