Its certainly complex and sticky Ian, there is no doubt about that.
For me part of the problem is the lack of coherent facts and any kind of meaningful consensus, which in itself is most likely linked to a lack of facts. For example, we regularly hear the argument that removing the close season on stillwaters and canals has had no negative impact on fish stocks etc. Its been said so many times that it appears to have become an absolute truth. Howvever, I am not aware of any independent study that has been conducted that clearly supports this contention-but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Part of the issue is that the nature of stillwaters means that stock levels can be manged far more easily-by restocking as necessary. It is also the case that there is a far greater commercial imperative now with the commercials-livelihoods are at stake here so there is no real incentive for large sections of the angling fraternity to push for an independent scientific study.
Also, lets say that the decision was taken to keep the close season but build in some flexibility as to how/when it is applied. Do you have a regional based approach or keep it national with a change each year based on weather and other relevant environmental conditions? If so, what are the data points for this and when exactly would they be taken? Who would pay for the work required to enable that approach to be taken?
For rivers, what impact does wading have on spawning grounds, grounds that might shift year on year as a result of weather and flood conditions? Is the dynamic nature of rivers one of the very things that makes it difficult (even before you get into issues of ownership and the relatively free movement of fish) to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion about the benefit or otherwise of the close season? I can certainly see that this dynamism makes a compelling link to any supposed evidence from stillwaters or canals a little tenuous.
Turning back to this issue of valid data, it has occurred to me from time to time that members of this forum, if they so desired and with some organisation and support, could contribute important data sets that might help in a wider context. For example (and I am conscious of the fact that I am over simplifying what would be, and would need to be, a well thought out and constructed study) what value would there be in us recording some key data about our catches-by quantity, river location and size. Data that might be captured over a number of seasons, anonymously and dropped easily into a database enabling some albeit basic data analysis that could help inform us and other groups. That may not work but I wonder sometimes whether we could, as a group, think and focus more on the things that unite us rather than our differences. This, in turn, might give us a stronger and more compelling voice in the political world we would need to engage with if we want to effect change to protect our sport now and for future generations.
