River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[sam vimes]

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.

It's no surprise, but it's a crying shame that you are prepared to dance with some of these organizations in order to bolster support for something that you support based on your own ideals (the concession has already been made that there's no more scientific basis for continuance than abolishing the closed season). Should the closed season ever prove to be detrimental to fish, and therefore angling, you'll have ended up doing fish, angling and anglers a great disservice.

I'd rather wait and see what the truth may be rather than rush headlong into garnering support from the most dubious of allies. Much as I'm no advocate of the closed season, I'd sooner see it kept than prematurely sell myself for the support of those that are definitely not on the side of angling in practically every other issue you care to mention.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I'd rather wait and see what the truth may be rather than rush headlong into garnering support from the most dubious of allies.

Given the cast of characters involved, if you wait then believe me, you'll miss the bus.

Out of interest though Sam, which of those organisations do you consider to be "dubious"?

There are 3 or 4 that I have yet to write to, and in all probability will not under any circumstances . . . . . . . . (the obvious ones)

 

[maverick 7]

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 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Well....thanks for commenting on my "shambles" statement.....now do you think you could come up with answers for the rest of the post too?

I and many others would be very interested in your response.....if you have one that is....

Maverick

 

[sam vimes]

Given the cast of characters involved, if you wait then believe me, you'll miss the bus.

So be it, I'll leave that kind of politicking to others. I'll not sell the soul of angling to garner support from those that don't really wish angling well.

Out of interest though Sam, which of those organisations do you consider to be "dubious"?

There are 3 or 4 that I have yet to write to, and in all probability will not under any circumstances . . . . . . . . (the obvious ones)

Most of these (Natural England, Wildlife Trusts, World Wildlife Fund, RSPB, British Trust for Ornithology, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Bat Conservation Trust, The Mammal Society, BANC (British Association of Nature Conservationists) British Dragonfly Society), who, without having to consider the financial implications, would also gleefully support the banning of all fishing (and shooting). None of them will ever try to impose river restrictions on non-anglers.

The shooting orgs like BASC and BSSC, who will undoubtedly support the continuance of the closed season, but only because they think it might mean a few more birds (ducks and wild bred pheasants) for them to shoot at a later date. Neither will countenance applying closed season river restrictions on their own members

The National Farmers Union and the CLA (Country Landowners Association). Both will act in their own (members) vested interests. If they can maintain a certain income whilst minimizing footfall on their members land, they'll do it. However, neither should have any fear, if they wished to maintain a closed season on their land, they could. The downside for them would be that it might hit rental values. If they actually feel strongly enough in their principles, landowners can simply not allow angling on their land at all. The reality is that cash overrides all, they simply don't care quite as much as they might try to suggest. Both are only really interested in minimizing footfall from anglers whilst maximizing the income they generate.

All of those listed (taken from an earlier posted) are highly likely to support the continuance of the closed season. However, they do so for their own reasons, which may not be entirely altruistic. Having had contact with some of them, and been a member of one or two, I consider it unwise to presume that they are looking at it from anything other than a narrow viewpoint of their own specific vested interest. None of them really give a stuff about fish, much less fishing.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Yes, sorry it took a while . . . . . .

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.
All that goes to show is the necessity of tightening the rules regarding what should be allowable during the Close Season. The administration of regionally different “seasons” would truly be a shambles, and would invite even more bending of the rules than that which goes on today.

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.
I would agree it would be far more understandable to reinstate the Close Season on all venues flowing and still. Sadly that would never happen due to the commercial interests that saw its demise in the first place.
A blanket Close Season, as has been previously stated protects; most species in most geographical regions during most average weather conditions.

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.
I am sure that some rivers do spawn at different times, but, again, a regional solution is not practical and would lead to cross zonal arguments undoubtedy. Leading, in turn, to even more administration and not less.

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.
It is really not that difficult to understand. Many of the commercial stillwaters (tha the rules were changed for in the first place) are virtually “gardened” whereas the river banks are left mainly to their own devices. Many different species prefer the relative peace and quiet of the river banks for those 90 days as opposed to the constant comings and goings on commercial lakes.

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.
The “evidence” is there inasmuch as we still have some very good rivers with decent year classes of fish, although the recent couple of years have seen the majority of a year class decimated by floods.
If anything at all Maverick what some of our rivers need now is actually more not less protection, so I fail to see how Mr. Salter’s shorter commercialised close season could ever provide that.
Can you?
Also, as is becoming very evident, we anglers are not the only ones either involved or concerned. There are many discrete organisations that seemingly have a deep interest in maintaining the status quo.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------

Now, here's a question or two for anyone to reply to:

1. How would a year long fishing season be practical on rivers that flow through areas with a SSSI designation? Do you think it would be allowed or not?

2. How do you think Nature England would react to a call from either Anglers or the Angling Trust to abolish the close Season?

3. What do you think would be the likelihood of coarse anglers continuing with shared agreements on predominantly fly fishing rivers, particularly those chalk streams in the South?

Depending on the official replies from the organisations concerned we could find ourselves (coarse anglers that is) with a darn sight less access, or fishing time, if this proposal ever came to fruition.

 

[sam vimes]

1. How would a year long fishing season be practical on rivers that flow through areas with a SSSI designation? Do you think it would be allowed or not?

I'm pretty sure I've answered this earlier. However, if the SSI is genuine and would really suffer for angling activity, then there's a good case for maintaining a closed season on that particular water. However, if it's quite so sensitive, then there's equally good reason to ban angling, or any other access, completely. I understand that there are SSI stillwaters that both total angling bans and closed season continuance has occurred without incident.

2. How do you think Nature England would react to a call from either Anglers or the Angling Trust to abolish the close Season?

They'll resist it, no doubt. Resisting any such move is the default position of most similar organizations. That doesn't mean that they are right to do so.

3. What do you think would be the likelihood of coarse anglers continuing with shared agreements on predominantly fly fishing rivers, particularly those chalk streams in the South?.

Again, there's nothing to stop them continuing as they always have. Just because a national closed season was abolished does not mean that anything has to change on specific waters. Up here there are mixed fly and coarse clubs that rub along just fine, in spite of the dodgy bye-law. It doesn't hurt much in that the bye-law has existed for as long as the most senior anglers have been fishing. Naturally, there are purists that don't like it much but, generally, those with the biggest problems are those that come from other parts of the country. Other clubs are coarse or fly only. Some of the coarse clubs over ride the trout/worm bye-law with their own closed season rules. Barring the possible intransigence of some individuals, from both sides of the fly/coarse divide, it should really be a non-issue.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I'm pretty sure I've answered this earlier. However, if the SSI is genuine and would really suffer for angling activity, then there's a good case for maintaining a closed season on that particular water. However, if it's quite so sensitive, then there's equally good reason to ban angling, or any other access, completely. I understand that there are SSI stillwaters that both total angling bans and closed season continuance has occurred without incident.

But Sam, the whole of the Hampshire Avon Valley is designated as an SSSI but we have access to fish currently. If we were to have 12 months access then there would be some very real arguments from many organisations regarding: some special wild flowers that bloom in our Close season, and some insects that breed in our Close Season.
Personally I'd see Nature England and other gorups totally against allowing anglers access in these times, and maybe they would even rethink the access we have currently.


They'll resist it, no doubt. Resisting any such move is the default position of most similar organizations. That doesn't mean that they are right to do so.

They may not be right i doing so, but my point is that they will in any event. The result, again, could be less access rather than more.



Again, there's nothing to stop them continuing as they always have. Just because a national closed season was abolished does not mean that anything has to change on specific waters. Up here there are mixed fly and coarse clubs that rub along just fine, in spite of the dodgy bye-law. It doesn't hurt much in that the bye-law has existed for as long as the most senior anglers have been fishing. Naturally, there are purists that don't like it much but, generally, those with the biggest problems are those that come from other parts of the country. Other clubs are coarse or fly only. Some of the coarse clubs over ride the trout/worm bye-law with their own closed season rules. Barring the possible intransigence of some individuals, from both sides of the fly/coarse divide, it should really be a non-issue.

We have similar arrangements on the Test, the Itchen and the Hampshire Avon as well as the Nadder.
Locally a longer Coarse season has been discussed at club and syndicate levels and without exception we (coarse anglers) have been told that not only would we not get more access but it could actually result in less.

As someone else noted: Money talks, and generally those paying excessive amounts to fish, and thereby control, many parts of the southern rivers (a weekly beat on the Test will set you back over £5k per season) will always have their way, regardless of any changes to the current Close Season dates.

 

[thecrow]

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.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the CS brought in to stop the killing of gravid fish during matches? it was to do with conservation of fish stocks at a time when lots were killed.

I don't think that it is a conclusion to far to say that these other organisations have their own agendas, its fairly clear (to me) that they care not one jot about anglers.

If we have co-habited with the RSPB so well in the past why do they still oppose the control of Cormorants despite the work done by the Angling Trust (I am not a member.) NE the same NE that wouldn't allow the capture of a seal that was in a lock but allowed it to carry on eating coarse fish stocks.

At the moment IMO the current CS is not fit for purpose, there are the regional differences with by laws, regional differences in spawning times, during the CS other river users are able to carry out whatever they normally do including paddlers who could do a lot more damage to spawning areas than an angler, as has already been pointed out there is no hard evidence for keeping or abolishing the CS.

When the CS came in evidence was not needed to support it as not killing gravid fish was obviously going to be beneficial to fish stocks, this is not the reason we have it now and until there is sound scientific evidence either way no one will know if it is in its current form beneficial or not.

 

[sam vimes]

I think that we are beginning to get to the bottom of your unwavering closed season support. Dress it up however you like, but your support for it is no less selfish than the similar accusations that have been dished out to those that stand on the other side of the fence. I can understand your concerns, some may even be genuinely problematical, but I really don't see any of them as insurmountable if the national closed season were abolished. Landowners and those that control fishing rights are entirely within their rights to impose whatever rules they see fit. In that regard, there's no reason whatsoever to have a national closed season. The closed season should be about the benefits to fish and little more, just as it was when it was originally imposed.

You are understandably concerned with your own narrow view and sphere of fishing, that's, to a large part, simply human nature. I make no bones about the fact that my views are coloured by the farce that exists in my part of the world, something you've consistently tried to play down. However, I'm not remotely convinced that your concerns are purely down to the existence of a national closed season, or not. You aren't particularly bothered about those that have to contend with different situations or have differing views, you aren't really interested in any evidence unless it supports your position and maintains the status quo to your benefit.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the CS brought in to stop the killing of gravid fish during matches? it was to do with conservation of fish stocks at a time when lots were killed.

The reason for its inception was more along the lines of keeping us "oiks" off of the rivers during the Salmon runs, and had little or nothing to do with conservation other than the obvious handling or killing off of gravid fish
We are talking the late 1870's remember . . . . . . . .

I don't think that it is a conclusion to far to say that these other organisations have their own agendas, its fairly clear (to me) that they care not one jot about anglers.

As do we anglers, testament Cormorants and goosanders . . . . . that said there does exist some common ground in this more enlightened age with respect to conservation.

If we have co-habited with the RSPB so well in the past why do they still oppose the control of Cormorants despite the work done by the Angling Trust (I am not a member.) NE the same NE that wouldn't allow the capture of a seal that was in a lock but allowed it to carry on eating coarse fish stocks.

Was the problem of not being able to capture the Seal more one of an administration screw-up?aalthough NE were gainst its death, an event that would have shown us anglers in an even more poor light.

At the moment IMO the current CS is not fit for purpose, there are the regional differences with by laws, regional differences in spawning times, during the CS other river users are able to carry out whatever they normally do including paddlers who could do a lot more damage to spawning areas than an angler, as has already been pointed out there is no hard evidence for keeping or abolishing the CS.

So would you argue that we simply experiement with nature then and abolish it without due process of study?
How would that look to those groups that on your admission you state have their own agendas?

When the CS came in evidence was not needed to support it as not killing gravid fish was obviously going to be beneficial to fish stocks, this is not the reason we have it now and until there is sound scientific evidence either way no one will know if it is in its current form beneficial or not.

I totally agree with that comment, and it reflects exactly what I would propose, and have done so for what seems like an eternity: a long term science based study prior to making any potentially harmful actions vis-a-vis moving, or God forbid, abolishing the Close Season.

We (anglers) simply cannot leave such an emotive topic in the hands of local clubs or societies (ie laymen) to decide whether or not a Close Season is imposed, as some would suggest (not the OP here b.t.w.)

It has to be properly studied over a period of time, results have to bevalidated and published and then, in the light of informed opinion take the final decision(s)

Any other course of action, and certainly one based on commercial grounds alone is plain stupidity!

 

[thecrow]

I totally agree with that comment, and it reflects exactly what I would propose, and have done so for what seems like an eternity: a long term science based study prior to making any potentially harmful actions vis-a-vis moving, or God forbid, abolishing the Close Season.

We (anglers) simply cannot leave such an emotive topic in the hands of local clubs or societies (ie laymen) to decide whether or not a Close Season is imposed, as some would suggest (not the OP here b.t.w.)

It has to be properly studied over a period of time, results have to bevalidated and published and then, in the light of informed opinion take the final decision(s)

Any other course of action, and certainly one based on commercial grounds alone is plain stupidity!

No Peter I would not want to experiment with nature I leave that to other organisations such as NE.


What I did say was ( along with others) there is no evidence to support the CS in its current form as there is also none to support getting rid of it.

There is evidence albeit from anglers that all fish country wide do not spawn during the CS period and without this I have an open mind.

Can I just ask why anglers should be kept from fishing rivers while other users can continue to carry on with their activities?

In the last "survey" carried out on the CS the majority that responded wanted to keep the CS, interestingly most were not river anglers, a case of im all right jack?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I think that we are beginning to get to the bottom of your unwavering closed season support. Dress it up however you like, but your support for it is no less selfish than the similar accusations that have been dished out to those that stand on the other side of the fence. I can understand your concerns, some may even be genuinely problematical, but I really don't see any of them as insurmountable if the national closed season were abolished. Landowners and those that control fishing rights are entirely within their rights to impose whatever rules they see fit. In that regard, there's no reason whatsoever to have a national closed season. The closed season should be about the benefits to fish and little more, just as it was when it was originally imposed.

Well, no, not really Sam.
My concerns are far wider and broader than my own area for fishing, and to be totally honest I proably do 75% or more of my fishing these days with a fly rod rather than a float or quiver tip rod.

The points I raised, like yours, are simply those that are well known in my area and topics that come up for discussion (usually very heated at that)regularly at club and syndicate meetings.

My main concerns are for conservation and for fish safety and for the image that we anglers display to the world in general.

You are understandably concerned with your own narrow view and sphere of fishing, that's, to a large part, simply human nature.

See above.

I make no bones about the fact that my views are coloured by the farce that exists in my part of the world, something you've consistently tried to play down. However, I'm not remotely convinced that your concerns are purely down to the existence of a national closed season, or not. You aren't particularly bothered about those that have to contend with different situations or have differing views, you aren't really interested in any evidence unless it supports your position and maintains the status quo to your benefit.

Well Sam you are just going to have to take my word on this, or go back and maybe look at the dozens if not hundreds of pages and pages of posts that we seem to reproduce every year around this time: typically we have called it "silly season" here on FM for about a decade.
(9 or 10 years ago I was 100% in favour of leaving it as it is, that view had changed over the years

I have recently (last 3 to 4 years) altered my view and stated that following prolonged detailed science-based study, data validation and debate, then, and only then will we be able to make the final decisions on:

1) Having a close season or not?
2) Keeping it and changing the dates nationally?
3) Keeping it and having geographically segregated dates in line with different regions?

And, with that, I am now off back to my hotel for a beer or two before dinner and hopefully watching a decent game of footy on the TV tonight.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

The point was made that the Hants Avon (and other rivers too) are SSSI and that abolishing a closed season could threaten all fishing on such rivers. I find this extremely questionable. If there are some rare orchids that flower in May or whatever, and these are part of the SSSI designation, then their protection could be ensured in all manner of ways without having to exclude angling. At the end of the day landowners can make a useful income from angling and i really cant see Natural England seeking to compensate countless landowners after banning this activity. In any case, if angling during March-June (or at any time of the year) is deemed detrimental to local environmental interests then a local ruling could be in force - but it doesnt need to apply nationally though does it?

We all need to have a more positive view of the benefits of angling, how this pastime is defensible on many grounds and what a valuable use of the river environment it is which gives rather more than it takes.

 

[The bad one]

No Peter I would not want to experiment with nature I leave that to other organisations such as NE.

What I did say was ( along with others) there is no evidence to support the CS in its current form as there is also none to support getting rid of it.

And because of that the EA have taken the "Precautionary Principle" and kept the Status Quo. Rightly or wrongly Depending on which side of the fence you stand on.

There is evidence albeit from anglers that all fish country wide do not spawn during the CS period and without this I have an open mind.

All the time, Sometimes, now and again? This angler who monitors fish stocks flylife, invasive flora species, predation, poaching and about everything else on the principle coarse fishing river in the NW (Cold up here you know) for over 10 years, can tell it's now and again.

Can I just ask why anglers should be kept from fishing rivers while other users can continue to carry on with their activities?

Given that about 80% of all rivers nationally are on private land with little or no access rights, is the problem being overstated? Where I would agree with you is, if sites being used by the general public are sensitive spawning sites, an exclusion order should be made on them as well.

In the last "survey" carried out on the CS the majority that responded wanted to keep the CS, interestingly most were not river anglers, a case of im all right jack?

I don't remember that question being asked (do you fish rivers) in any of the fishing surveys (3 I recall) I've ever participated in. Can you supply a reference to the information you are using to make this claim please.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

The reason for its inception was more along the lines of keeping us "oiks" off of the rivers during the Salmon runs, and had little or nothing to do with conservation other than the obvious handling or killing off of gravid fish
We are talking the late 1870's remember . . . . . . . .

Talk about bending the truth! The biggest load of c0bblers you've come up with so far, Peter, that does take the absolute biscuit. Study the history for heaven's sake if you're going to comment in it, it was brought in by the LAA and Sheffield COARSE anglers not one of whom was interested in salmon in the slightest.

It was in a day when match fishing was the only fishing, no carp, no speci anglers, no pleasure, just pure matchmen fishing for pub teams and the like. Some of these matches on the Thames and Trent were 200+ peggers! All fish to be weighed (the LAA had some size limits) were killed and placed in canvas buckets and carried to weigh station. Even the Red Spinners had weigh-in's at the HQ, days later and members were entrusted to weigh only what they had caught. Fish were either eaten that evening or later fed to the pigs or chickens. It was a "wanton ... waste".

Even I would have supported a ban with the tackle and method anglers had then! Times have changed. 'Spot the Angler' could be a good title for a river photo competition these days.

 

[The bad one]

The point was made that the Hants Avon (and other rivers too) are SSSI and that abolishing a closed season could threaten all fishing on such rivers. I find this extremely questionable. If there are some rare orchids that flower in May or whatever, and these are part of the SSSI designation, then their protection could be ensured in all manner of ways without having to exclude angling. At the end of the day landowners can make a useful income from angling and i really cant see Natural England seeking to compensate countless landowners after banning this activity. In any case, if angling during March-June (or at any time of the year) is deemed detrimental to local environmental interests then a local ruling could be in force - but it doesnt need to apply nationally though does it?

We all need to have a more positive view of the benefits of angling, how this pastime is defensible on many grounds and what a valuable use of the river environment it is which gives rather more than it takes.

Sorry chub it's far more complex than the way you portray it when a whole river is designated a SSSI. All landowners will have signed a "Management Agreement" with NE, which is legally enforceable to manage it to the agreement made between the two parties. Without knowing what's in each agreement it's hard to say that would not or would happen.

Agree we need to be more positive about the benefits of Angling, but if a decision we make is perceived as being detrimental to the environment we fish in, it can and will be used against us.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

And because of that the EA have taken the "Precautionary Principle" and kept the Status Quo. Rightly or wrongly Depending on which side of the fence you stand on.

Ah but you'll pardon me Phil. The EA have two policies on any action requested. 1) if it comes from above (Government) carry it out without question, v.v. build hydros all over our weirs in valuable breeding weirpool areas . 2) if it is a request from below, eg: anglers (or residents asking for some dredging), take the "Precuationary Principle" and do nothing! Doing nothing costs nothing and EA directors can keep their cars. (yes, I am cynical.)


Peter knows damned well that the EA will, without any pressure from above, do nothing in the way of carrying out research and therefore the CS is on his safe ground. Which is all a big pity because so much more can be done at regional and catchment levels, even down to club and landowner levels, these days. It's not too hard, you publish a list of dates when no one can fish a venue as they do now with match lists and as a member of the club you know the rules.

Our own organisation has a fishery rented off the National Trust that is closed, even though it's a canal, during the CS. If and when we get rid of this silly law I shall (if I am blessed to be around still) negotiate with them to see what opportunities exists to accommodate anglers and fish and anything else. But at the same time I would like to see a reduction in boat traffic and canoe activity, along with dog walking et al.

 

[Judas Priest]

All I know is, look at the majority of rivers during the actual season and see how many, over 7 days, anglers are actually fishing. I'm talking the whole of a fishable river system not just the busy weekend sections.
Leave out the Loddon and Kennet and possibly a couple of other smaller river sections and you'd be hard pushed to see anyone else midweek. To keep the Close season on rivers whilst allowing fishing on stillwaters is a complete farce and it should be scrapped forthwith.

 

[chav professor]

The Environmental agency do a lot of invasive and in some ways destructive acts of river management in the the close season... removing trees, bushes and electro-fishing surveys.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

It is a farce. I could drive my £1 million speed boat up and down the Thames every day from March 15th-June 15th, creating a nice big wake and some bank erosion as i go, taking care to disturb as many fish or as much other wildlife as possible, but the moment i reached for my fishing gear i would be breaking the law and guilty of an act of environmental damage.

Fisherman are the good guys out of the many river users and we need to defend our fishing rights and where possible extend them if they are being curtailed without good reason.