• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Close season.

Steve Stringer said:
Mark,

Thank you for highlighting the fact that we stick hooks in fish. To listen to the views expressed on here, some anglers are presenting themselves as caring above all for the welfare of the fish in our rivers and lakes, and acting in an environmentally responsible manner by observing the close season.

But sticking hooks in them and dragging them out of their natural environment and generally scaring the living bejesus out of them during the season is just fine.

Lets either fish all year round and be proud of it or not fish at all; much better than all this hypocrisy.

Steve,
Click to expand...


Agreed.
 
Nick Anderson said:
Julian I can catch barbel in still waters!!!

And on the Severn with the right hook and bait fishing for eels I may catch barbel! So what's the point?
Click to expand...

Indeed you can Nick but that is a contentious issue on its own. And you have only reinforced my comment about tench and perch which are found naturally, in abundance, in still waters.
 
Steve Cole said:
It wouldn't be compulsory for you to attend Julian :rolleyes:

I want to fish on the rivers all year around - Please :)
Click to expand...

It never has been but it obviously feels compulsory for you!:p :rolleyes:

You know what, I actually enjoying walking along my local rivers (none of which are navigable), in the springtime and watching everything acting naturally, including the fish which once again become readily visible and are not hiding from continual pressure. That alone is a great reason to keep the closed season. I would guess that I am not alone.
 
I have always been in favour of a closed season on rivers, but am not so sure these days, due to increased predation and poaching.

Nick C
 
At a time when most would agree that lots of our rivers are in a worse state than any of us can remember, we the very people that generally care the most, walk away for 3 months and allow open season for every sort of 2/4 legged or feathered predator known - you couldn't make it up.......... :rolleyes:

Can you imagine the damage that a pack of Cormorants must do, when they come across a shoal of spawning fish of any species - then again we're not there to witness it are we - but if we were on the banks the Cormorants wouldn't have such free rein:rolleyes:


As for the "we have to allow the banks to regenerate etc - It'll still grow back wether we're there or not 'cos amazingly that's what happens every Spring - what's the first thing you do when you arrive on the 16th - chop down some vegetation by any chance?:rolleyes:


Having said all that (and this is the really sad bit) there is only one reason we have a close season and why we will ALWAYS have one - game fishing end of...........so get over it.

But please stop coming up with reasons why WE need it because in this day and age there are none and IMHO the fish/aquatic environment we are interested in only suffer as a consequence of it......

Steve
 
Nick Coulthurst said:
I have always been in favour of a closed season on rivers, but am not so sure these days, due to increased predation and poaching.

Nick C
Click to expand...

My thoughts also, I do like like anticipation for june 16th, but if no anglers are on the banks for 3 months who knows goes on, I am not sure how many dog walkers or ramblers would challenge poachers, or for that matter even realize that it's the close season on rivers!!

Dave
 
David Maddison said:
My thoughts also, I do like like anticipation for june 16th, but if no anglers are on the banks for 3 months who knows goes on, I am not sure how many dog walkers or ramblers would challenge poachers, or for that matter even realize that it's the close season on rivers!!

Dave
Click to expand...
Not just walkers..etc, Even the EA don't.:confused:
 
Dear All,

The present rivers close season has nothing to do with game fishing. This issue has been revisited many times since the original Mundella Act of 1878 when admittedly the drafting of the bill was undertaken by Spencer Walpole and Frank Buckland who were both salmon anglers. The act itself came about because of intense lobbying from Sheffield match anglers to Mr Mundella who was MP for Sheffield at the time.

I was part of a large team instrumental in retaining the rivers close season the last time it came under serious threat . I was the Barbel Catchers Club political rep at the time and also committee member of SACG. I asked the SACG for support in retaining the close season and was granted almost unanimous backing. What followed were high level meetings with EA Fisheries Manager Adrian Taylor and others to gain government support for retaining the close season. The Barbel Society lead by Steve Pope with Mike Burdon also worked hard to retain the close season as did many other angling organisations too many to list here.

The upshot was, and is, I quote from an EA publication;

" 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. "

Now what that means IN LAW, is that the present rivers close season cannot be altered, changed or removed by opinion or consensus alone but by the presentation of "sound scientific" evidence which proves that any alteration to the rivers close season will not be detrimental to the river environment by altering it.

The devil is in the detail. It is almost impossible to prove that the removal of the close season would not be detrimental to the river environment much the same as it's almost impossible to carry out the scientific research required on all rivers.

And those in the retention camp, I am one among their number, also have the legal status of being able to invoke the "Precautionary Principle" should commercial interests seek to change things for their own ends.

Regards,

Lee.
 
The closed season is utter hypocrisy. You can fish a canal 5 yards from a river but not the actual river. It's so behind the times its prehistoric. Get with the now and shake off this im on a moral high ground. Times have changed people. If you can't accept change your in for a shock.
 
Good on you Mr Fletcher!

Mr Anderson, the hypocrisy is that the close season was allowed to be lifted on stillwaters in the first place.
 
Nick Anderson said:
The closed season is utter hypocrisy. You can fish a canal 5 yards from a river but not the actual river. It's so behind the times its prehistoric. Get with the now and shake off this im on a moral high ground. Times have changed people. If you can't accept change your in for a shock.
Click to expand...

Nick what, I mean what specifically, has changed that would support your contention that the close season is "prehistoric"? Where is the scientific evidence that would validate the case for change? And unfortunately, because a close season represents existing law, it does have to be that way round. Stillwaters and canals are quite different to rivers aren't they (apart from sharing some obvious characteristics) and in fact it was my understanding, and someone will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong, that through some loophole nonsense or other with canals there was a situation where on some, the close season was abandoned and on others it was retained, making it possible to make some assessment of the impact- the conclusion being I presume that it wasn't detrimental to stock levels. For rivers that has not been possible and whilst it might be reasonable to assume that the same conclusion would be reached, there is no actual, specific, scientific support.

Rivers are more dynamic aren't they, more prone to violent change? And so I can see why the precautionary principle is applied and quite frankly apart from allowing anglers to fish all year round, I am not sure who or what else benefits from a change.
 
The the rivers ans and still waters aren't that different. Get with the now people !!!! Times have changed. Good god im 59 and I can accept that times are changing. Move on.
 
Im with you too Lee. You can't beat something from past personal experiences.
 
Lee Fletcher said:
Dear All,

The present rivers close season has nothing to do with game fishing. This issue has been revisited many times since the original Mundella Act of 1878 when admittedly the drafting of the bill was undertaken by Spencer Walpole and Frank Buckland who were both salmon anglers. The act itself came about because of intense lobbying from Sheffield match anglers to Mr Mundella who was MP for Sheffield at the time.

I was part of a large team instrumental in retaining the rivers close season the last time it came under serious threat . I was the Barbel Catchers Club political rep at the time and also committee member of SACG. I asked the SACG for support in retaining the close season and was granted almost unanimous backing. What followed were high level meetings with EA Fisheries Manager Adrian Taylor and others to gain government support for retaining the close season. The Barbel Society lead by Steve Pope with Mike Burdon also worked hard to retain the close season as did many other angling organisations too many to list here.

The upshot was, and is, I quote from an EA publication;

" 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. "

Now what that means IN LAW, is that the present rivers close season cannot be altered, changed or removed by opinion or consensus alone but by the presentation of "sound scientific" evidence which proves that any alteration to the rivers close season will not be detrimental to the river environment by altering it.

The devil is in the detail. It is almost impossible to prove that the removal of the close season would not be detrimental to the river environment much the same as it's almost impossible to carry out the scientific research required on all rivers.

And those in the retention camp, I am one among their number, also have the legal status of being able to invoke the "Precautionary Principle" should commercial interests seek to change things for their own ends.

Regards,

Lee.
Click to expand...

Very interesting Lee - so because there is/was no proof that the the close season is either a negative or positive thing (mainly because it's scientifically impossible to understand either way!) the representatives of ALL of us ie yourself and the rest of the river angling hierarchy, who by your own admission had already very clearly made up their own minds - we still have the legacy of 1878.

Did you seriously think that the Government would NOT support your view, just remind me how many Roach, Dace, Chub or Barbel anglers there were in the Government of the day :rolleyes: - remember a lifting of the close season would have been on all rivers not just those with "coarse" fish.
They wouldn't be interested in your average "coarse fishing" river, but what about all those ongoing disputes between game and coarse anglers particularly as you head further north in this country - if you want to see how we are seen by game anglers go on to any of the game fishing forums, the discussions regarding the Wye usually make for interesting reading......

As the numbers of returning salmon increase in the Wye (and they are!) you'll start to see the serious money coming back in to the river and the opportunities for coarse fishing will decrease - just remember what it was like 30/40 years ago! How ironic that through all those WUF day tickets we are effectively fast tracking this situation.....

I'm sorry Lee, I stand by my original post, you (and many others!) played straight in to their hands and now as you say without scientific proof which can never be logically gained, we are stuck with it. The "commercial interests" you refer to, who might "seek to change things for their own ends" have been at work for a long time on many rivers but none of them are about coarse fishing;)

Meanwhile we can sit back (or go and catch some Tench:)) whilst some out there get all dewy eyed over the 16th and rivers are at their most vulnerable time with the people who care most nowhere to be seen:(..........I just hope none of you BS (or any of the other back slapping specialist organisations) members out there actually wet a line during the close season, but then of course it's scientifically proven to be ok on still waters so what's the problem:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top