• 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.

"We need proof" says one person. "We don't need proof, its obvious" says another. "We need evidence before we can act" says one. "We have all the evidence we need why wait" says another.

So, its pretty obvious that we are never going to agree.

But why do we have to agree before we act? Why not just TRY a lifting of the ban for say 5 years and see what happens. Its not going to bring down society or cause an outbreak of Ebola Virus is it? If at the end of 5 years it is found that our rivers look like desolate wastelands with no fish in them then we will have an answer for once and for all.

Of course it may be that things are better........................so why not give it a try; afraid of being proven wrong?

Steve
 
The magical June 16,last season it was on a Sunday I was fishing the lovely somerley estate speaking to a couple of friends during the day who were on different parts of the estate we could not believe that between us we had counted no more than 10 anglers on the 3 plus mile of double bank fishery including ourselves.River fishing is in decline and fishing puddles is a easy option anything that can be done to promote people to start fishing rivers is a must and if this includes removing the close season so be it. All the best jamie
 
Steve Stringer said:
"We need proof" says one person. "We don't need proof, its obvious" says another. "We need evidence before we can act" says one. "We have all the evidence we need why wait" says another.

So, its pretty obvious that we are never going to agree.

But why do we have to agree before we act? Why not just TRY a lifting of the ban for say 5 years and see what happens. Its not going to bring down society or cause an outbreak of Ebola Virus is it? If at the end of 5 years it is found that our rivers look like desolate wastelands with no fish in them then we will have an answer for once and for all.

Of course it may be that things are better........................so why not give it a try; afraid of being proven wrong?

Steve
Click to expand...

Effectively, what you are saying in this post is that you are willing to risk having our rivers turned into 'barren wastelands' just to prove a point, one way or the other. Apparently bringing down society or causing an outbreak of Ebola would not be good (Well....thank the lord for small mercies there then :rolleyes:)....but destroying our rivers would be fine, well worth taking the risk. In other words, lets experiment, and if it does end up with your worst case scenario? Well....sorry chaps...but at least now we know :eek:

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that doing away with the closed season would destroy our rivers....quite possibly it would have no noticeable effect at all. What I am saying is that the logic you use to support your argument is bizarre in the extreme. Then to end up with 'Afraid of being proven wrong?' Hmmmm...I will have to think about that. Basically, because I have forgotten the stock reply to that one....not having heard it since primary school :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
Steve Stringer said:
"We need proof" says one person. "We don't need proof, its obvious" says another. "We need evidence before we can act" says one. "We have all the evidence we need why wait" says another.

So, its pretty obvious that we are never going to agree.

But why do we have to agree before we act? Why not just TRY a lifting of the ban for say 5 years and see what happens. Its not going to bring down society or cause an outbreak of Ebola Virus is it? If at the end of 5 years it is found that our rivers look like desolate wastelands with no fish in them then we will have an answer for once and for all.

Of course it may be that things are better........................so why not give it a try; afraid of being proven wrong?

Steve
Click to expand...

Hi Steve,
if I thought there was any chance you could remove the river close season I would do everything in my power to see it happen - you may have noticed, its something I feel very strongly about :rolleyes:

But your missing the point here - the "agreement" you refer to was put in place 20 years ago. The way the negotiations were conducted 20 odd years ago left us with nowhere to go, you'll notice that Lee who was previously posting on this subject has now stopped - because he knows there is nothing more to talk about - its a done deal!

As he explained, he was part of the original team representing (specifically the Barbel Catchers Club?) specialist anglers, which agreed the terms with the Government, with which the close seasons could be either scrapped or left in place.

When it came to canals they could conduct the research which proved there would be no detrimental effect of lifting the close season - they could do this because in certain areas of the country, there never has been a blanket close season on stillwaters/canals (as some on here constantly forget :() and hence they could get comparitive evidence.

However, when it came to rivers there were (and are :mad:) NONE in this country which do not have a coarse fishing close season, therefore it is impossible to scientifically prove either way whether its a good or bad thing to do!

It really is as simple as that and if you think that the Government along with all those conservation bodies, including the EA and even the current angling hierarchy would change these terms to the "give it a whirl, whats the worst that could happen" approach of yours then your seriously deluded :eek:

Now get on with your DIY...... :D
 
David Gauntlett said:
What I am saying is that the logic you use to support your argument is bizarre in the extreme.

Cheers, Dave.
Click to expand...

Dave,

My logic is "lets try it and see what happens".........I use this logic all the time in my angling; and I catch a lot of fish. What is bizarre about that; its just simple experimentation.

Steve
 
Debate away there guys but if the close season was taken away , that decision would not be made by Anglers ? or angling clubs or groups?

Would anyone agree with that statement ?
 
hello guy, yes i firmly beleive the bankside vegetation and rushes, reeds ect benefit from a big rest from anglers digging(which a lot of em do bank stix, brolly poles, flat chair areas, even steps and swims), i for one really enjoy the peace and quiet during the close season, it may well be a good secondry effect from the close season but fish apart i reckon the benefits to above mentioned far out weighs probably 20& of the total anglers,
apart from that i would like to thank nick for his kind message about me still getting out, guy leave yer rods at home and get the boat out and enjoy the female walkers mate;):)
 
Paul Boyle said:
Debate away there guys but if the close season was taken away , that decision would not be made by Anglers ? or angling clubs or groups?

Would anyone agree with that statement ?
Click to expand...

Why yes because the groups you mention do not have the power to actually change the law. They could lobby for change on the basis of a case constructed on the back of evidence based facts and demonstrating the merits of doing so (which I don't thing can just be because we get to fish more or because it protects the rivers from poachers or boosts the profits of tackle and bait companies). Of course key to that process commencing is, arguably, consensus amongst the angling community. Oh dear.
 
Have not looked at the rules for years,ive just not fished the rivers during close season,but is there still a rule saying you can leger worms for eels or trout providing the hook is large enough? If that's still the case whats the difference between that and legering worms for barbell during the open season........same with spinning for trout but catching perch.
 
Steve Stringer said:
Dave,

My logic is "lets try it and see what happens".........I use this logic all the time in my angling; and I catch a lot of fish. What is bizarre about that; its just simple experimentation.

Steve
Click to expand...

Steve,

I already know what your logic is...and that's what worries me. You yourself say (not me) that the worst that can happen if your 'experiment' take place is that our rivers could be "reduced to desolate wastelands with no fish in them" (your words)

Now I doubt very much that this would happen, but the fact that YOU see it as a possibility, but are not the least bit worried by that...is the bit that I see as bizarre.

Its a bit like saying that cutting ALL the trees down immediately in the Amazon basin is a worthwhile experiment...because the worst that can happen is that the planet dies...but at least then we would know that the scientists that predict that were right :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
I really do fail to see how a lift on the rodless season, and those that chase it, can be anything other than selfish.
 
Julian Peacock said:
I really do fail to see how a lift on the rodless season, and those that chase it, can be anything other than selfish.
Click to expand...
So would you consider those who fish for tench and carp on lakes and canals at this time selfish as well?????????????????????????
 
David Hall said:
So would you consider those who fish for tench and carp on lakes and canals at this time selfish as well?????????????????????????
Click to expand...

Not at all. I might even have a little dabble myself. I consider rivers to be very different to our stillwaters in many ways. As I have said before, I enjoy the river closed season, for me it is as simple as that.

It's all getting a tad tedious now to be honest. I am not trying to change anything for the sake of change, nor am I trying to force my views (which amount to enjoying the bloomin close season!), down people's throats.
 
Chris Bourne said:
Have not looked at the rules for years,ive just not fished the rivers during close season,but is there still a rule saying you can leger worms for eels or trout providing the hook is large enough? If that's still the case whats the difference between that and legering worms for barbell during the open season........same with spinning for trout but catching perch.
Click to expand...

Bye-laws vary from region to region. I've no idea about others, but in the former Yorkshire and Northumbrian Water regions you can fish worms for trout. There's no hook size limitation that I know of. I understand that there are other regions with similar bye-laws and variations. With the relatively recent change in protection status of the eel, I don't know what the situation on them is, I'd be dubious as to whether an old bye-law might be overridden by a national law.
 
Chris Bourne said:
Have not looked at the rules for years,ive just not fished the rivers during close season,but is there still a rule saying you can leger worms for eels or trout providing the hook is large enough? If that's still the case whats the difference between that and legering worms for barbell during the open season........same with spinning for trout but catching perch.
Click to expand...

That is or was the case in Severn Trent region here, even Birmingham AA have held matches on my local bit of the Severn in the close season, fishing wide gape hooks and worm. It was a contentious issue with a few objections and they did bow to opinion, I haven't heard of similar matches for a few seasons.

It's called Barbeeling :)
 
My view hasn't changed on this. The close season subject needs to be revisited, primarily because it doesn't actually achieve what it is there for on a wholesale basis. I don't believe anyone, except anglers, give a toss about it to be honest. It's clear there are inconsistencies in how it's applied, indeed I've had varying responses from the EA on waters where it isn't currently in force. I think the debate needs to accommodate flexibilty, (if indeed a retention is ultimately still required), and personal emotions put to one side, (sorry, but the 'it allows me to do the decorating and builds excitement for the 'big day' brigade is not a foundation for debate).

If I'm an outsider and wanting some kind of insight on the status quo of the close season I'd probably want to understand why it's 'good enough' for rivers but not still waters..?

It's a complex sticky subject chaps but I for one sense a mind shift amongst many anglers.

Ian

PS JW- I hope you're well mate :)
 
Last edited:
Ian Law said:
My view hasn't changed on this. The close season subject needs to be revisited, primarily because it doesn't actually achieve what it is there for on a wholesale basis. I don't believe anyone, except anglers, give a toss about it to be honest. It's clear there are inconsistencies in how it's applied, indeed I've had varying responses from the EA on waters where it isn't currently in force. I think the debate needs to accommodate flexibilty, (if indeed a retention is ultimately still required), and personal emotions put to one side, (sorry, but the 'it allows me to do the decorating and builds excitement for the 'big day' brigade is not a foundation for debate).

If I'm an outsider and wanting some kind of insight on the status quo of the close season I'd probably want to understand why it's 'good enough' for rivers but not still waters..?

It's a complex sticky subject chaps but I for one sense a mind shift amongst many anglers.

Ian

PS JW- I hope you're well mate :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hello ian, not got out at all for past 2 years due to medical problems for me and the missus but hoping things turn round this season, renewed all me fishing bits, gained another pair of rods and new chair and hoping to get fishing again.

Howard, sorry mate but wading is detrimental to barbels spawning grounds, yes most barbelmen know better than to approach known gravelly beds where they spawn BUT!
think of all the all rounders who dont know! they aint gonna wade in deep water are they? and most wont recognise barbel spawning shallows, quite the opposite with the uninitiated, what most inexperienced will see is maybe lots of big fish crashing around and would be in there in a flash trying to catch em but would only scare and disburse them away from the beds and maybe treading all over any eggs already laid, apart from that bit your post as is ians is good thoughts:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top