This topic gets bounced around every angling forum on the net, and there are always arguments put forward for both sides - there never will be total agreement, in just the same way as there never will be the situation where all anglers fish for the same species of fish. A few points I have picked up on whilst following the thread are:-
Graham - you said that `If anglers stop fishing, the fish will have less to eat` - maybe so, but I think the effect of this (if there was an effect - the fish would just revert to eating naturals) would only really be seen on over-stocked still-waters. You and I both fish the Dove, albeit different areas, but we both know how rich in fish-food that river is.
Sally said `the closed season should be kept so that we don't disturb the fish the whole year round` - again referring to the Dove, on the stretch I fish it is common practice for the locals to walk dogs, picnic, etc. on the banks. Try telling them that they cannot take their leisure-pleasure as and when they like, just so that a few fish can gat some rest.
Those are just two instances, one against the close (maybe not quite correct, Graham, but I fell that you will know what I am getting at), and one for the close. Both quite correct in one way, maybe, but also equally incorrect.
You see the dilemma ???
And then take into account the mixed fisheries, like the Dee, Severn, Vyrnwy etc. - try stopping the salmon/sea-trout anglers fishing, just because of a few coarse fish, which a lot of those guys possibly look on as vermin anyway!
There is no end to the argument, is there??
And by the way, I too am firmly in favour of a rest-period for the fish, in order to allow them to get over the rigours of spawning. The greatest difference between rivers and stillwaters, I feel, is that the rivers are not normally stocked - river fish are truly wild. And as such, stocks are not as easily replenished as they can be in a stillwater.
So - keep a `rest-period`, but let it match the needs of the fish, not some antidiluvean by-law.
Jonty