Nick Anderson
No Longer a Member
Steve nobody could put it better. Fair play.
-
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.
- Thread starter Nick Anderson
- Start date
Steve M Brown
Senior Member
Mr Peacock how can it have been hypocrisy when it was scientifically proved to be of no detriment - this was done by conducting scientific research on stillwaters that had never had a UK close season and there were lots of them in certain counties eg Cornwall or Lincolnshire..........
Because UK rivers have always had a close season it's deemed impossible to gain this same level of scientific proof, unless of course we looked at the situation in Ireland where the river systems have never had a close season and as can be seen from the appalling fishing over there, it clearly doesn't work.....
David Hall
Senior Member
Mr Peacock how can it have been hypocrisy when it was scientifically proved to be of no detriment - this was done by conducting scientific research on stillwaters that had never had a UK close season and there were lots of them in certain counties eg Cornwall or Lincolnshire..........
Because UK rivers have always had a close season it's deemed impossible to gain this same level of scientific proof, unless of course we looked at the situation in Ireland where the river systems have never had a close season and as can be seen from the appalling fishing over there, it clearly doesn't work.....
The bad fishing in Ireland is due to the relentless poaching,nothing to do with anything else.
Last edited:
Steve M Brown
Senior Member
Hmmm, David have you ever heard of sarcasm?
Lee Fletcher
Senior Member
Dear Steve,
Good morning.
Salmon runs are indeed on the up in most of the traditional salmon rivers. They are however significantly down akin to the numbers pre the first industrial revolution of 1760 to 1840 then subsequently the second industrial revolution of 1840 to 1870. Of course man was to blame for the demise of our rivers during this period and in substantial periods after that when UK rivers by and large became the cesspit of our nation. The numbers of salmon anglers have also fallen dramatically since those times which again was mostly due to mans interference and gross lack of concern for our rivers which led to the demise of salmon runs on many rivers for well over a hundred years.
There is no evidence that increased salmon runs are being matched by increased sales of game rod licenses. Here is an extract from SALMON STOCKS AND FISHERIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES, 2012
Preliminary assessment prepared for ICES, April 2013;
"The number of salmon rod licences taken up each year since 1994 has varied markedly. The number of short term (one day and eight day) licences has shown a modest decline over the period, but has fluctuated relatively little with numbers close to 10,000 per year. However, the number of annual licences decreased from over 26,000 in 1994 to about 15,000 in 2001. This was thought to reflect the decline in salmon stocks and the introduction of restrictions on angling, especially those to protect early-run MSW fish, although licence sales were particularly low in 2001 due to the restrictions on access to many rivers as a result of an outbreak of the foot and mouth ivestock disease. Sales of annual licences have increased progressively since this time, reflecting Environment Agency efforts to promote angling and to reduce levels of licence evasion through targeted enforcement efforts. In the last four years, annual licence sales have been very similar to those at the start of the time period (26,000-27,000).
The number of days fished by anglers decreased in line with the reduction in rod licence numbers over the period 1994 to 2001. However, while annual licence sales have since recovered to the levels at the start of the time series, the numbers of days fished by anglers have not, although patterns of angler effort over time vary somewhat between Regions. Conditions for angling in 2012 appear to have been relatively poor, with rainfall and river flows well above the long term average for most of the year (April – December) resulting in regular periods on most rivers when conditions were unfavourable for angling. Provisionally, the overall number of days fished by anglers in 2012 fell by 15% on 2011, and was 8% below the mean of the previous five years."
For those interested in reading the "facts" surrounding this report go to look here; http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/publications/salmon/salmonreport2012.pdf
It is clear then, that increased salmon runs is not having a detrimental effect of river coarse fisheries, its actually the opposite. I am certain there will be an upsurge in the amount of existing anglers that will want to try and catch salmon, but these will come from the ranks of coarse fishing clubs and not existing salmon beats. Why pay huge sums of money to catch salmon when you can do it for the price of a relatively cheap coarse fishing club book? I know a lot of salmon and sea trout anglers who do exactly that along the river Severn already and their number in on the increase which contribute to the coffers of coarse fishing angling clubs.
The burden of proof does not fall on those in favour of retaining the rivers close season, its falls fairly and squarely at the door of those who wish to see it scrapped. The pro close season lobby already have the full support of her majesties government and its agencies who work on behalf of river conservation. What support does the anti close season lobby have? We also have the growing support from many conservationist organisations who support the retention of the rivers close season. Will the anti close season lobby list conservation organisations that back their stance for having the close season scrapped?
Regards,
Lee.
Good morning.
Salmon runs are indeed on the up in most of the traditional salmon rivers. They are however significantly down akin to the numbers pre the first industrial revolution of 1760 to 1840 then subsequently the second industrial revolution of 1840 to 1870. Of course man was to blame for the demise of our rivers during this period and in substantial periods after that when UK rivers by and large became the cesspit of our nation. The numbers of salmon anglers have also fallen dramatically since those times which again was mostly due to mans interference and gross lack of concern for our rivers which led to the demise of salmon runs on many rivers for well over a hundred years.
There is no evidence that increased salmon runs are being matched by increased sales of game rod licenses. Here is an extract from SALMON STOCKS AND FISHERIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES, 2012
Preliminary assessment prepared for ICES, April 2013;
"The number of salmon rod licences taken up each year since 1994 has varied markedly. The number of short term (one day and eight day) licences has shown a modest decline over the period, but has fluctuated relatively little with numbers close to 10,000 per year. However, the number of annual licences decreased from over 26,000 in 1994 to about 15,000 in 2001. This was thought to reflect the decline in salmon stocks and the introduction of restrictions on angling, especially those to protect early-run MSW fish, although licence sales were particularly low in 2001 due to the restrictions on access to many rivers as a result of an outbreak of the foot and mouth ivestock disease. Sales of annual licences have increased progressively since this time, reflecting Environment Agency efforts to promote angling and to reduce levels of licence evasion through targeted enforcement efforts. In the last four years, annual licence sales have been very similar to those at the start of the time period (26,000-27,000).
The number of days fished by anglers decreased in line with the reduction in rod licence numbers over the period 1994 to 2001. However, while annual licence sales have since recovered to the levels at the start of the time series, the numbers of days fished by anglers have not, although patterns of angler effort over time vary somewhat between Regions. Conditions for angling in 2012 appear to have been relatively poor, with rainfall and river flows well above the long term average for most of the year (April – December) resulting in regular periods on most rivers when conditions were unfavourable for angling. Provisionally, the overall number of days fished by anglers in 2012 fell by 15% on 2011, and was 8% below the mean of the previous five years."
For those interested in reading the "facts" surrounding this report go to look here; http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/publications/salmon/salmonreport2012.pdf
It is clear then, that increased salmon runs is not having a detrimental effect of river coarse fisheries, its actually the opposite. I am certain there will be an upsurge in the amount of existing anglers that will want to try and catch salmon, but these will come from the ranks of coarse fishing clubs and not existing salmon beats. Why pay huge sums of money to catch salmon when you can do it for the price of a relatively cheap coarse fishing club book? I know a lot of salmon and sea trout anglers who do exactly that along the river Severn already and their number in on the increase which contribute to the coffers of coarse fishing angling clubs.
The burden of proof does not fall on those in favour of retaining the rivers close season, its falls fairly and squarely at the door of those who wish to see it scrapped. The pro close season lobby already have the full support of her majesties government and its agencies who work on behalf of river conservation. What support does the anti close season lobby have? We also have the growing support from many conservationist organisations who support the retention of the rivers close season. Will the anti close season lobby list conservation organisations that back their stance for having the close season scrapped?
Regards,
Lee.
Lee Fletcher
Senior Member
I was aware of scientific research conducted on canals but would be very interested to read this scientific research conducted on still waters? I always thought the NRA carried out extensive public consultation in 1994 which resulted in the close season of still waters being scrapped in March 1995.
The reasons for scrapping the close season on still waters were two fold. (Note absolutely no mention of scientific evidence?)
1. Most stillwaters are discrete water bodies in single ownership; this enables the owner to manage the fish stocks and to impose whatever restrictions are felt to be needed, including non-statutory close seasons.
2. The fact that the close season had been dispensed with on many stillwaters without any apparent detriment to those fisheries, presented strong evidence in favour of removing it.
Nearly all of the still waters around my home have virtually no restrictions placed upon them apart from maybe a one week closure whilst work parties operate...mostly litter picking.
And what were these still waters and how many were there?
For a copy of the scientific research undertaken on canals which led to the close season being scrapped there go here;
http://aquaticcommons.org/8513/1/81_EA2.pdf
Regards,
Lee.
The reasons for scrapping the close season on still waters were two fold. (Note absolutely no mention of scientific evidence?)
1. Most stillwaters are discrete water bodies in single ownership; this enables the owner to manage the fish stocks and to impose whatever restrictions are felt to be needed, including non-statutory close seasons.
2. The fact that the close season had been dispensed with on many stillwaters without any apparent detriment to those fisheries, presented strong evidence in favour of removing it.
Nearly all of the still waters around my home have virtually no restrictions placed upon them apart from maybe a one week closure whilst work parties operate...mostly litter picking.
And what were these still waters and how many were there?
For a copy of the scientific research undertaken on canals which led to the close season being scrapped there go here;
http://aquaticcommons.org/8513/1/81_EA2.pdf
Regards,
Lee.
John Walker
Senior Member
Lee, its good to see you posting with your serious head on mate, your knowledge of fishing stuff is well known amongst fishermen and has always been respected by myself, yes we have had a couple of differences of opinions on here but never have i ever questioned your knowledge of fishing rights and laws ect, i just wanted to say its good to see you on the boards again
, your knowledge of fishing stuff is well known amongst fishermen and has always been respected by myself, yes we have had a couple of differences of opinions on here but never have i ever questioned your knowledge of fishing rights and laws ect, i just wanted to say its good to see you on the boards againLee Fletcher
Senior Member
Cheers John,
And likewise my friend.
Forums like this one serve as a platform for debate, as well as being a hub of angling information. In debate there will always be a difference of opinion and rightly so.
I hope you are well John.
Regards,
Lee.
And likewise my friend.
Forums like this one serve as a platform for debate, as well as being a hub of angling information. In debate there will always be a difference of opinion and rightly so.
I hope you are well John.
Regards,
Lee.
Julian Peacock
Senior Member
I didn't make myself very clear, sorry Mr Anderson.
Because it is one rule for one (the Stillwater), and one rule for another (the Rivers), that makes the close season change that took place 20 odd years ago, hypocritical. It should never have been allowed to happen that way and I believe that stillwaters should revert back by law. And we all know the reason that the close season was partially lifted was down to commercial clout
The reason the original close season was put into place matters not. The fact it is a law does matter though. . We are so much in a 'I want it and I want it now' society that the 3 month break is even more special.
Last edited:
Lee Fletcher
Senior Member
Nice post Julian.
The close season was far from being a class issue seeing as blue collar cloth capped Sheffield match anglers originally sought its creation.
Regards,
Lee.
The close season was far from being a class issue seeing as blue collar cloth capped Sheffield match anglers originally sought its creation.
Regards,
Lee.
John Walker
Senior Member
i dont get out a lot as i have to have my oxygen 14 hours every night Lee but apart from that i am still alive and kicking thanks
Steve M Brown
Senior Member
Evening Lee,
Thanks for you're statistics most interesting as usual........
A couple of things, I didn't for one minute infer that increased Salmon runs meant an overall increase in Salmon anglers. It does mean though that all those privately owned beats of the Wye in particular, will and are being taken back in hand.
I am fortunate to be able to fish what was once a prime middle Wye Salmon beat, of which each day of the week is privately owned. Previously these days were rarely fished however in the last couple of years they are increasingly busy again with Salmon anglers. These are not "new" salmon fishermen who have just dusted their gear down, but anglers who do not necessarily now have to travel to Scotland or even further afield as they now have half a chance of a Wye fish...... and who can blame them. This situation will continue to increase in line with the Salmon numbers and at the coarse anglers expense.....how you can square that increasing Salmon numbers are beneficial to coarse anglers is beyond me?
Anyway back to close season, I have always made it very clear in my posts that due to the way our angling representatives got the close season upheld we are now stuck with it and there is absolutely nothing the non supporters can do about it.
But what disappoints me more than anything, is that as a member of the "angling hierarchy" at no time do you acknowledge that our "coarse fishing" rivers 20 years down the line, are now in such a perilous state and our presence on the bank would or even could, afford them a better level of protection at what is a critical time of the year - I apologise for the fact that I can only back this view with common sense and not scientific data
I also believe you are naive in the extreme to trumpet the fact that you have a long list of conservation bodies on your side, as the largest preservation, sorry conservation organisation the RSPB, must be close to the top of that list? I am sure they would much rather we had a 12 month close season let alone 3. As I said before you played straight into their hands, do you think they would reciprocate your support - just look at their stance on Cormorants
It was a sad day when the door was so firmly closed on this situation ever being properly resolved based on fact, rather than the fact, that no one can prove benefit either way..........but we only have our "leaders" to thank for that situation.
I'm afraid we'll just have to beg to differ Lee but at least you can rest assured your precious close season is here to stay - and meanwhile for all sorts of reasons the rivers will continue to decline.....
Steve
Thanks for you're statistics most interesting as usual........
A couple of things, I didn't for one minute infer that increased Salmon runs meant an overall increase in Salmon anglers. It does mean though that all those privately owned beats of the Wye in particular, will and are being taken back in hand.
I am fortunate to be able to fish what was once a prime middle Wye Salmon beat, of which each day of the week is privately owned. Previously these days were rarely fished however in the last couple of years they are increasingly busy again with Salmon anglers. These are not "new" salmon fishermen who have just dusted their gear down, but anglers who do not necessarily now have to travel to Scotland or even further afield as they now have half a chance of a Wye fish...... and who can blame them. This situation will continue to increase in line with the Salmon numbers and at the coarse anglers expense.....how you can square that increasing Salmon numbers are beneficial to coarse anglers is beyond me?
Anyway back to close season, I have always made it very clear in my posts that due to the way our angling representatives got the close season upheld we are now stuck with it and there is absolutely nothing the non supporters can do about it.
But what disappoints me more than anything, is that as a member of the "angling hierarchy" at no time do you acknowledge that our "coarse fishing" rivers 20 years down the line, are now in such a perilous state and our presence on the bank would or even could, afford them a better level of protection at what is a critical time of the year - I apologise for the fact that I can only back this view with common sense and not scientific data
I also believe you are naive in the extreme to trumpet the fact that you have a long list of conservation bodies on your side, as the largest preservation, sorry conservation organisation the RSPB, must be close to the top of that list? I am sure they would much rather we had a 12 month close season let alone 3. As I said before you played straight into their hands, do you think they would reciprocate your support - just look at their stance on Cormorants
It was a sad day when the door was so firmly closed on this situation ever being properly resolved based on fact, rather than the fact, that no one can prove benefit either way..........but we only have our "leaders" to thank for that situation.
I'm afraid we'll just have to beg to differ Lee but at least you can rest assured your precious close season is here to stay - and meanwhile for all sorts of reasons the rivers will continue to decline.....
Steve
Steve M Brown
Senior Member
Rubbish post Julian
if you take the time to read Lee's very informative posts you'll realise how the Stillwater close season was completely lifted across the whole country......Nick Anderson
No Longer a Member
i dont get out a lot as i have to have my oxygen 14 hours every night Lee but apart from that i am still alive and kicking thanks
Fair play for still getting out John.
Eddie Farrell
Senior Member
nice read steve b, so if there was scientific evidence the close season would be changed ?? that means it would be out of the EA hands, and it would be goverment decision
Mike Hodgkiss
Senior Member
Best post I have read in weeks Howard , excellent , really made me chuckle
As for the close season , well I am a hypocrite . I usually take April off [ from fishing ]to do all the long avoided tasks , but as soon as May comes along with the longer evenings I am afraid the call of the Tench gets the better of me . Yes they are breeding and a bit of me feels guilty . I suppose if it just went back to the old days when the close season applied everywhere , running or still water then at least I would feel less guilty , or even not guilty at all ..
Last edited:
S
Steve Stringer
Guest
Evening Lee,
Thanks for you're statistics most interesting as usual........
A couple of things, I didn't for one minute infer that increased Salmon runs meant an overall increase in Salmon anglers. It does mean though that all those privately owned beats of the Wye in particular, will and are being taken back in hand.
I am fortunate to be able to fish what was once a prime middle Wye Salmon beat, of which each day of the week is privately owned. Previously these days were rarely fished however in the last couple of years they are increasingly busy again with Salmon anglers. These are not "new" salmon fishermen who have just dusted their gear down, but anglers who do not necessarily now have to travel to Scotland or even further afield as they now have half a chance of a Wye fish...... and who can blame them. This situation will continue to increase in line with the Salmon numbers and at the coarse anglers expense.....how you can square that increasing Salmon numbers are beneficial to coarse anglers is beyond me?
Anyway back to close season, I have always made it very clear in my posts that due to the way our angling representatives got the close season upheld we are now stuck with it and there is absolutely nothing the non supporters can do about it.
But what disappoints me more than anything, is that as a member of the "angling hierarchy" at no time do you acknowledge that our "coarse fishing" rivers 20 years down the line, are now in such a perilous state and our presence on the bank would or even could, afford them a better level of protection at what is a critical time of the year - I apologise for the fact that I can only back this view with common sense and not scientific data
I also believe you are naive in the extreme to trumpet the fact that you have a long list of conservation bodies on your side, as the largest preservation, sorry conservation organisation the RSPB, must be close to the top of that list? I am sure they would much rather we had a 12 month close season let alone 3. As I said before you played straight into their hands, do you think they would reciprocate your support - just look at their stance on Cormorants
It was a sad day when the door was so firmly closed on this situation ever being properly resolved based on fact, rather than the fact, that no one can prove benefit either way..........but we only have our "leaders" to thank for that situation.
I'm afraid we'll just have to beg to differ Lee but at least you can rest assured your precious close season is here to stay - and meanwhile for all sorts of reasons the rivers will continue to decline.....
Steve
Steve
Excellent post. It is easy to feel like a lone voice in the wilderness on this site sometimes. One day others will realise the damage the Close Season does to our sport in the MODERN world in which there are threats that were never conceived of when this outdated law was introduced.
It will also be interesting to hear the howls of protest from Barbel anglers as the Wye and Usk Foundation throw them off the Wye and reveal their true agenda for all to see.
Steve
Steve M Brown
Senior Member
Hi Eddie, its already a Government decision, but when the angling powers that be, approached the Government 20 odd years ago they, along with the EA (or whatever it was called at the time) and lots of "conservation bodies" (eg RSPB etc) agreed that the close season on rivers could only be lifted based on scientific research which demonstrated it would not be detrimental to the river environment.
Not a bad assumption you might think, but of course, and as they well knew, it was, is and always would be, completely impossible to gain this evidence - for the simple fact that the research would have to be completed on a river with no close season and of course there are none..........fait accomplis
So, rightly or wrongly, we are locked in to the 3 month break for ever more, no matter what happens in an increasingly bleak looking future for our rivers
Thats my understanding anyway, I'm sure Lee will be along shortly to correct me if I'm wrong or quote some more statistics if they fit his reasoning......
We only have ourselves to blame on this, as I guess we all could have taken (more) part at the time - but I would'nt mind betting that those few who did take part were not fully aware that the door they were closing was also being bolted, chained, padlocked and the keys thrown in the Trent........
So lets all get over it and either get the DIY sorted or go catch some spawning stillwater Tench, Bream, Roach, Pike, Perch, Carp even stillwater Barbel for that matter - but don't feel bad about it because its been scientifically proven that they or their environment will suffer no ill effects............
Guy Baxendale
Senior Member
The Close Season in my mind is totally antiquated and it grates more and more every year, particularly as the seasons seem to have shifted in the last few years. I have to say that I find it very hard to respect some of the views for retention as they make very little or no sense to me.
1) The flora and fauna argument. makes no sense as all other river users do not observe a close.
2) Protecting spawning fish. Pike, Perch and Dace often spawn before the close so it offers them no protection. On the rivers I fish chub and bream seem often to spawn in early June and carp and barbel round about the 16th or even after the season starts. How can it be in the name of the protection to cause an massive influx of anglers champing at the bit right when the fish are either spawning or are ravenous and out of condition just after spawning. It would make far more sense to hand the decision to clubs to enforce breaks on their stretches when the fish are actually spawning.
4) Canals and Stillwaters have had no close season for a long time now, if close season fishing was so terrible for the fish then presumably these waters would now be suffering major problems because of it. This is patently not the case. Many better run water have flexible close seasons which kick in when the fish actually start to spawn which as per my point above makes far more sense.
5) The other reasons cited are usually total rubbish.....time for other hobbies, the family etc etc. None of these are reasons to have a close season but a personal decision on how you manage your time and your life.
6) Its special/ the anticipation etc. How lovely for you !! Personally i have plenty of anticipation for any session anytime of year, I don't need a pointless 3 month wait. It would be far more special for me to fish the river in April when the river and the fish would be in prime condition and then take a step away when the fish most need the break, which is in June and July
1) The flora and fauna argument. makes no sense as all other river users do not observe a close.
2) Protecting spawning fish. Pike, Perch and Dace often spawn before the close so it offers them no protection. On the rivers I fish chub and bream seem often to spawn in early June and carp and barbel round about the 16th or even after the season starts. How can it be in the name of the protection to cause an massive influx of anglers champing at the bit right when the fish are either spawning or are ravenous and out of condition just after spawning. It would make far more sense to hand the decision to clubs to enforce breaks on their stretches when the fish are actually spawning.
4) Canals and Stillwaters have had no close season for a long time now, if close season fishing was so terrible for the fish then presumably these waters would now be suffering major problems because of it. This is patently not the case. Many better run water have flexible close seasons which kick in when the fish actually start to spawn which as per my point above makes far more sense.
5) The other reasons cited are usually total rubbish.....time for other hobbies, the family etc etc. None of these are reasons to have a close season but a personal decision on how you manage your time and your life.
6) Its special/ the anticipation etc. How lovely for you !! Personally i have plenty of anticipation for any session anytime of year, I don't need a pointless 3 month wait. It would be far more special for me to fish the river in April when the river and the fish would be in prime condition and then take a step away when the fish most need the break, which is in June and July
David Will
Senior Member
If anyone is worried about their river during the close season you can always walk it every now and again keeping an eye on things.its not the answer to the damage being done but it will help. Trouble is anglers only seem to want to visit rivers with a rod and expect someone else to look after everything till June 16 then moan when all is not well. In 13 miles on Sunday I never saw a soul, in fact in 6 months from October to March I never saw a soul but then again it is a barbel free zone and unless a river has Barbel in it no one seems to give a monkeys at all.