BFW poll on close season lift or extension.

[Graham Elliott]

Im always wary of those paid by tackle company views.

Graham

 

[Simon Harper]

Thanks for the link Alan.Some really interesting stuff in there. Most of the articles had something to offer. Particularly like the article written by Mike Storey. This guy is one of the few people promoting a plan to actively manage rivers at a local level. Such a positive article.
Thanks again Alan .

 

[Garry Hall]

I have read all the posts in this long debate and it seems that most of us accept that the rivers do need some sort of protection from anglers and predation.

It is therefore a shame that many of the points that are raised appear to be supported by the need to increase access to the river for personal gain or genuine selfishness and they have little to do with science.

I believe that we need a close season and attempting to amend the dates will only cause even more confusion and debate.

The close seasons were proposed a very long while ago but they were based upon the best scientific knowlwedge that was available and no doubt many of those who proposed the protected times also had access to river keepers who understood the river, worked it daily and advised them.

Since that time the close seasons have been upheld. The opening of stillwaters which was not based upon genuine scientific research but due to the pressure from commercial interests.

The weather has a major impact upon fish and the ideal conditions for spawning are rare. Climate and specific river conditions are very difficult to predict, and the current close season was implemented to protect the fish throughout their expected spawning cycle.

We are all barbel fisherman and the recent research by Dr Karen Twine was extensive and it did raise many issues that should be considered if barbel are to supported.

As adults barbel are predated upon by pike but more recently mink, otters and occasionally seals are taking fish of breeding size. The legal removal of otters is not permitted and I am unsure what research has been done to identify the amount of fish an adult kills daily. Killed is not the same as eaten and I am sure others like me have found large fish with their throat ripped out. They were not eaten and how often does this occur?

Then we have the birdlife such as the cormorant and the goosander that have moved inland because thousands of tons of sandeels are taken annually for fertilizer or made into food for captive reared fish. Putting in large offshore marine conservation zones and banning netting for fertilizer could rapidly change the predation on our rivers.

The eggs and immature fish are also predated upon by many species including crayfish that are destroying whole ecosystems but we anglers continually moan about the poor fishing and do not actually do anything about it.

All of these predators excluding the otter (which died out) were not considered when the close season was planned and if changes are needed then they must be considered as part of any consultation.

Another issue raised by Dr Twine was the need to plant trees, wooded areas and 'sanctuaries' below the spawning beds to protect the spawning areas from the sun, excessive current and predators.

These are all scientifically based matters that would have a major bearing upon the rivers and their ability to maintain barbel and other species for the future.

A few months ago the MPs and most government officials were complaining that dredging was not being undertaken and this was the cause of many of the floods. We know this was rubbish but he who shouts loudest etc.

Can you imagine trying to get funding to plant trees on river banks and putting diverters in the rivers to protect the fish. No one would be interested and genuine scientific research that would help wildlife would probably remain unused until landowners and interested parties were forced to accept the findings.

Until we have some genuine research that supports consideration of amending the close season why not use the three months to clean the rivers up. We could prepare our fisheries, intensively trap the crayfish and cull the cormorants.

This would have an impact but as usual only a minority would take part. The closed season use to about preparing the fishery for the glorious 16th and work parties were a great way to meet other club members but many clubs now accept higher subs from those who do not want to get in the river and get their hands dirty.

Another option could be for the fisheries to close when the fish were spawning but it would be impossible to manage. There could be a different owner on either side of the river and the various species would spawn at different times. Pike spawn early and the barbel and bream much later. The dace usually spawn on the same gravels before the barbel so what fish would get preference? It is doomed to failure without further consideration.

Why not listen to the scientists and allow them to determine if the fish population is acceptable. We could close a river for two, three or five seasons and see if the fish numbers improve. I would not want that but the numerous apparently learned individuals on this,and other sites appear to know exactly what is needed to maintain our fish stocks. Losing the close season and having an annual ticket will affect rivers very quickly and closing a river could be forced upon us?

There are endless choices and we will debate the matter for ever or until Brussels tells us what to do. The Angling Trust are meant to protect our fishing but they are still making mistakes and 'egos and cliques' are not condusive to positive and effective decision making.

It has never happened before but what if we paid funds into a central fund. There would be a large amount of money available to research the importance of the close season and fish habitat.

We could actually make an informed decision and can you imagine the panic if we made a legal challenge to some of the poor decision making by those who we have elected. WE could force a genuine debate.

Maybe an e-petition could be started that would force MPs to discuss the merits of a close season. Without suitable evidence it would play into hands of the commercial interests who would pay lobbyists to push for abolition of the close season so I personally would be against that.

I feel that scientific research would be a better way to identify if any changes were needed instead of listening to those who see the close season as an obstruction to making money from their fisheries or guiding.

I also love cutting my way through six feet high nettles, clearing a swim, getting stung and catching my first fish of the season. It would be lost if we lose the close season.

 

[Jeff Collins]

I voted to keep it as it is. It's tradition for me. The build up is awesome. And when you get that first three foot twitch. .....it's the crescendo! !

 

[Paul Bassinder]

The build up is awesome. And when you get that first three foot twitch. .....it's the crescendo! !

Jeff,

It is fishing you are talking about.........isn't it?

Paul

 

[Nathan Walter]

Get rid of the close season. Its outdated and merely sentimental. I always chuckle when I hear people say we must protect the fauna and flora and they then go on to say how they like to walk the banks, make swims, pre bait, depth and feature find and generally do everything except cast a baited hook in.

In the meantime our rivers get poached, predated upon and walked by all and sundry and boats going up and down (in the navigable sections at least).

 

[Bob Gill]

Spot on Nathan.
Cheers
Bob

 

[Paul Carter]

2nd that nathan , perfectly put mate .

 

[Graham Young]

I have read all the posts in this long debate and it seems that most of us accept that the rivers do need some sort of protection from anglers and predation.

It is therefore a shame that many of the points that are raised appear to be supported by the need to increase access to the river for personal gain or genuine selfishness and they have little to do with science.

I believe that we need a close season and attempting to amend the dates will only cause even more confusion and debate.

The close seasons were proposed a very long while ago but they were based upon the best scientific knowlwedge that was available and no doubt many of those who proposed the protected times also had access to river keepers who understood the river, worked it daily and advised them.

Since that time the close seasons have been upheld. The opening of stillwaters which was not based upon genuine scientific research but due to the pressure from commercial interests.

The weather has a major impact upon fish and the ideal conditions for spawning are rare. Climate and specific river conditions are very difficult to predict, and the current close season was implemented to protect the fish throughout their expected spawning cycle.

We are all barbel fisherman and the recent research by Dr Karen Twine was extensive and it did raise many issues that should be considered if barbel are to supported.

As adults barbel are predated upon by pike but more recently mink, otters and occasionally seals are taking fish of breeding size. The legal removal of otters is not permitted and I am unsure what research has been done to identify the amount of fish an adult kills daily. Killed is not the same as eaten and I am sure others like me have found large fish with their throat ripped out. They were not eaten and how often does this occur?

Then we have the birdlife such as the cormorant and the goosander that have moved inland because thousands of tons of sandeels are taken annually for fertilizer or made into food for captive reared fish. Putting in large offshore marine conservation zones and banning netting for fertilizer could rapidly change the predation on our rivers.

The eggs and immature fish are also predated upon by many species including crayfish that are destroying whole ecosystems but we anglers continually moan about the poor fishing and do not actually do anything about it.

All of these predators excluding the otter (which died out) were not considered when the close season was planned and if changes are needed then they must be considered as part of any consultation.

Another issue raised by Dr Twine was the need to plant trees, wooded areas and 'sanctuaries' below the spawning beds to protect the spawning areas from the sun, excessive current and predators.

These are all scientifically based matters that would have a major bearing upon the rivers and their ability to maintain barbel and other species for the future.

A few months ago the MPs and most government officials were complaining that dredging was not being undertaken and this was the cause of many of the floods. We know this was rubbish but he who shouts loudest etc.

Can you imagine trying to get funding to plant trees on river banks and putting diverters in the rivers to protect the fish. No one would be interested and genuine scientific research that would help wildlife would probably remain unused until landowners and interested parties were forced to accept the findings.

Until we have some genuine research that supports consideration of amending the close season why not use the three months to clean the rivers up. We could prepare our fisheries, intensively trap the crayfish and cull the cormorants.

This would have an impact but as usual only a minority would take part. The closed season use to about preparing the fishery for the glorious 16th and work parties were a great way to meet other club members but many clubs now accept higher subs from those who do not want to get in the river and get their hands dirty.

Another option could be for the fisheries to close when the fish were spawning but it would be impossible to manage. There could be a different owner on either side of the river and the various species would spawn at different times. Pike spawn early and the barbel and bream much later. The dace usually spawn on the same gravels before the barbel so what fish would get preference? It is doomed to failure without further consideration.

Why not listen to the scientists and allow them to determine if the fish population is acceptable. We could close a river for two, three or five seasons and see if the fish numbers improve. I would not want that but the numerous apparently learned individuals on this,and other sites appear to know exactly what is needed to maintain our fish stocks. Losing the close season and having an annual ticket will affect rivers very quickly and closing a river could be forced upon us?

There are endless choices and we will debate the matter for ever or until Brussels tells us what to do. The Angling Trust are meant to protect our fishing but they are still making mistakes and 'egos and cliques' are not condusive to positive and effective decision making.

It has never happened before but what if we paid funds into a central fund. There would be a large amount of money available to research the importance of the close season and fish habitat.

We could actually make an informed decision and can you imagine the panic if we made a legal challenge to some of the poor decision making by those who we have elected. WE could force a genuine debate.

Maybe an e-petition could be started that would force MPs to discuss the merits of a close season. Without suitable evidence it would play into hands of the commercial interests who would pay lobbyists to push for abolition of the close season so I personally would be against that.

I feel that scientific research would be a better way to identify if any changes were needed instead of listening to those who see the close season as an obstruction to making money from their fisheries or guiding.

I also love cutting my way through six feet high nettles, clearing a swim, getting stung and catching my first fish of the season. It would be lost if we lose the close season.

1) Why do rivers need protection from anglers? I would suggest that they do less damage to rivers by just sitting and fishing than others that continue to have access to rivers.

2) Isnt it also selfish of the pro c/s supporters to want to keep it, if it was abolished they still have the choice of a self imposed one. others do not have a choice as it is forced upon them.

3) There is already confusion, in some areas fishing for Trout with worms is allowed in others Eels, do coarse fish not take a fly on game rivers during the c/s?

4) The current c/s had no basis in science and was only brought about because of the need to protect gravid females at a time when all fish caught during a match were killed. have you any proof that your statement is correct?

5) Has the opening of still waters done them any harm? it would appear not, how many supporters of the c/s fish them during the c/s? total hypocrisy.

6) Having a c/s has nothing to do with stopping predation, indeed some like cormorants are more than happy to have nobody on the rivers as are some two legged ones.

7) What can anglers do about crayfish? it is illegal to return any caught but also illegal to catch them without a licence, a ridicules situation.

8) No I doubt if predators were considered when the c/s was implemented, same as nothing else was considered when releasing them to ravage the fish in the areas they were released in were being chosen, still nothing to do with the c/s though.

9) Paragraphs 9- 12 have nothing to do with the c/s although they might be problems that need addressing.

13) You said that rivers needed protecting from anglers during the c/s, how is "cleaning rivers up, preparing them? and trapping crayfish" protecting the river?

14) Work parties doing what? cutting vegetation back? dragging weeds and rushes out? cutting trees down or branches off? I have seen all these "preparations before and want no part of them.

15) Who will pay for these studies? if they were carried out they would be flawed as there are to many variables.

16) no idea what that has to do with the c/s.

17) 17-19 just wont happen will it?

20) Show me the evidence that the c/s IS needed, there isn't any, as for making money from fisheries or guiding that may happen but the vast majority of anglers that do not support the c/s will not gain anything other than time on the bank enjoying what they do same as others that have no c/s imposed upon them.

Your last paragraph sums up the pro c/s argument in that its mostly sentimental and has nothing to do with "protecting rivers from anglers" how do you know what you are disturbing while you are cutting through nettles and clearing a swim?

The reasons for the c/s are no longer there, it has done nothing to prevent the decline of our rivers, it is outdated and no longer needed, get rid of it!!

 

[John Walker]

only 5 weeks to the 2014/2015 season then everyone can go fishing
i am just glad my fishing is getting limited to a small number of years now, i have seen a lot of changes and most were for the worse

 

[Paul Bassinder]

Graham,

Nicely put, but with some of the flawed logic on here you are wasting your time. None are so blind as those who will not see.

Its not the fact that they are wrong that is the problem. It is the fact that they have no intention of allowing themselves to learn that is so sad

Paul

 

[Graham Elliott]

What an arrogant post Paul.

Anyone that doesn't agree with your view (and some others) is apparently wrong and can't see the sense of others opinions.

Yet the poll clearly shows that by far the majority don't agree with the lifting of the close season.

So arrogantly....in the same vein....

Maybe the simple view is that those that want it to be ended have motives including being a sponsored angler, making tackle to sell or simple selfishness.

No doubt in the future you'll be happy to go back to that muddy, grassless patch of earth you call a swim, that never recovers, then you can make the mistake of foul hooking that shoal of spawning fish as you cast over them. And of course, pop any gravid fish into a keepnet and watch the spawn sink to the bottom of the net.

Once upon a time anglers on BFW didn't want barbel in muddy puddles, once upon a time the majority on here supported a river close season. I'm glad they still do.

The I want it now, and sod the consquences boys still have some time to wait. And thank goodness for that.

Graham

 

[David Gauntlett]

I think it takes are very special person to know for certain that......

(A) Those who don't agree with their opinions on a subject are without question utterly wrong.

(B) That not only are those 'other' people utterly wrong, they are also utterly stupid....proven by the fact that they will not allow themselves to be browbeaten into adopting said special persons views (which of course, are always 100% correct)

I would imagine that must feel rather nice

Cheers, Dave.

 

[David Gauntlett]

Damn...you beat me to it again Graham

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Graham Young]

I think it takes are very special person to know for certain that......

(A) Those who don't agree with their opinions on a subject are without question utterly wrong.

(B) That not only are those 'other' people utterly wrong, they are also utterly stupid....proven by the fact that they will not allow themselves to be browbeaten into adopting said special persons views (which of course, are always 100% correct)

I would imagine that must feel rather nice

Cheers, Dave.

Opinions cause more bother on forums than anything else, without them though the forum would be very boring.

The trouble with opinions is that all of them are biased none being based on fact otherwise the opinion would become fact.

Just my opinion though

 

[Howard Cooke]

I must confess to being slightly baffled. Arguments put forward for scraping it are often based on the fact that the idea that the bankside is given time to recover and so on is flawed because anglers are wandering up and down anyway: clearing foliage, preparing swims, prebaiting and so on, and that's assuming they can even get near the river with all the dog walkers and ramblers and bearded women searching for organic ingredients required for a cake they intend baking and then selling at a local craft fare. BUT, and this is the confusing bit, the lack of anglers on the bank means, apparently, that poachers and otters and cormorants and mermaids make hay while the sun begins to shine. And these arguments are often presented together in one forcefully made statement.

I can only speak in respect of the river I know- the Kennet. When I pitch up on the 16th, I am mostly beating down the foliage to get to my swim.

 

[Julian Peacock]

A closed season should be about respect and protection for your quarry. I cannot think of any other species chasing pastime where you can hunt your quarry all year long (except vermin).

I'm coping very well with the closed season, I have lots of other things to do. I get the feeling that many of those that do not have a vested interest in abolishing the closed actually have very little else to occupy their minds.....

 

[Alex Gowney]

Graham,

Nicely put, but with some of the flawed logic on here you are wasting your time. None are so blind as those who will not see.

Its not the fact that they are wrong that is the problem. It is the fact that they have no intention of allowing themselves to learn that is so sad

Paul

Paul, you sure have a high opinion of your own point of view mate. Remember, it's only your point of view and if anyone's blind and will not see it's you, because in your world only your opinion matters or could possibly be right. I bet you're a real popular conversationalist down your local..

 

[Jeff Collins]

A closed season should be about respect and protection for your quarry. I cannot think of any other species chasing pastime where you can hunt your quarry all year long (except vermin).

I'm coping very well with the closed season, I have lots of other things to do. I get the feeling that many of those that do not have a vested interest in abolishing the closed actually have very little else to occupy their minds.....

Though I agree in a closed season, I can't help thinking your analogy is poor here Julian. As barbel anglers we dont destroy our "quarry" like hunters. We catch, care and release back to swim wild swim free. Again as I say im all for the closed.

Tight line's
JC

 

[Graham Young]

I must confess to being slightly baffled. Arguments put forward for scraping it are often based on the fact that the idea that the bankside is given time to recover and so on is flawed because anglers are wandering up and down anyway: clearing foliage, preparing swims, prebaiting and so on, and that's assuming they can even get near the river with all the dog walkers and ramblers and bearded women searching for organic ingredients required for a cake they intend baking and then selling at a local craft fare. BUT, and this is the confusing bit, the lack of anglers on the bank means, apparently, that poachers and otters and cormorants and mermaids make hay while the sun begins to shine. And these arguments are often presented together in one forcefully made statement.

I can only speak in respect of the river I know- the Kennet. When I pitch up on the 16th, I am mostly beating down the foliage to get to my swim.

I think that you will find Howard that there are stretches of river that are open to anyone that wants to carry on doing and enjoying what they normally do on river banks during the c/s, anglers are the only ones that cannot, the river where you fish may be different but I know of some that are not.