Fined

[David Hall]

My own experiences are that spawning fish do not feed. They usually don't feed well just prior to and after either. That's not to say that there aren't fish on the periphery that will feed because they aren't spawning. There are usually fish of other species in close attendance to feed on the spawn. However, fishing amongst spawning fish, regardless of the legality of doing so, is totally unethical as far as I'm concerned. I don't need some entirely arbitrary dates to tell me this. Spawning fish don't suddenly become fair game on the 16th of June.

Spawning fish don't suddenly become fair game on the 16th of June.
[/QUOTE] legally, they do.

 

[Chris Jones]

legally, they do.

Morally and ethically they don't. But that's precisely why the current closed season is arbitrary nonsense.

 

[David Hall]

Morally and ethically they don't. But that's precisely why the current closed season is arbitrary nonsense.

it's impossible to set dates to stop people going after them, every year is different, every river is to and even different parts are even so, morally,
no one can argue against what you say but whats the answer.
we could ban summer fishing on all rivers....

 

[Chris Jones]

it's impossible to set dates to stop people going after them, every year is different, every river is to and even different parts are even so, morally,
no one can argue against what you say but whats the answer.
we could ban summer fishing on all rivers....

Don't joke about it, they might see! If the logic for the current closed season stood up to any serious scrutiny and was extended accordingly, the closed season on rivers should probably run from October through to August (inclusive). That way it would cover the full gamut of fish species found in our rivers

The logical step is to can the closed season and rely on people to apply some common sense. I appreciate that plenty won't, but plenty don't as it stands. Whether that's because they are law abiders with no morals fishing "legitimately" for spawning fish in season or people that don't give a monkey's for the current laws anyway, is pretty well irrelevant.

 

[Richard Hamlyn]

I do not 'inflict' this or anything else on you Richard...it just happens to be the law of the land and has been for a very long time, and I happen to agree with it. Although I had nothing to do with the formulation of that law, it suits me, so on that basis, as I said, long may it continue. I don't make a fuss and throw the toys out of my pram on this particular subject, I am just quietly happy with things as they are. The reasons or logic behind this law, be they right or wrong....do not concern me. I am just happy with the way things are....end of.

If you, or the 'the rest of us' you mention, actively campaign and manage to get that law changed because it didn't suit YOU, then by doing that you WOULD be 'inflicting' your preferences on me, and the other 'rest of us' that agree with me.

I like what is, you don't. I am happy to maintain the status quo, you are not. As a result, YOU wish to change what is.....to suit yourself....against the wishes of many others. THAT is what is correctly referred to as 'inflicting' your will on others.

Cheers, Dave.

Dave,

I do not wish to inflict my will on anyone, even though such a thing would probably turn out to be beneficial to the hard of understanding.

If the close season were abolished then those that want to fish could fish and those that do not could stay away for as long as they want. In this situation no group is inflicting themselves on any other and everybody gets what they want, simples

 

[Graham Elliott]

Not quite so simple Richard.

I dont want people to fish on rivers during the close season when the fish are spawning. So I don't get what I want. Simpler.

 

[Howard Cooke]

Quick question: does angling "pressure" ie anglers on the banks, lines in the water blah, blah, blah cause fish some degree of stress that, if sustained, could give rise to behavioural changes which in turn, could have negative implications for breeding patterns etc?

Fishing techniques have evolved haven't they, responding to our need to adapt in order to help catch "rig wary" fish of fish that have become "spooked" by this or that, or because baits have "blown" ? Bait and bait shape is changed or adjusted in some way because fish have started to associate a bait or its shape with danger. Some may argue that many evolutionary changes in fishing and fishing techniques are unnecessary because location remains key ie find where the fish feel comfortable, confident and safe etc. The point is we do represent a threat don't we to fish (although we should probably ask Richard Hamlyn, the fish whisperer) ? I get that the timing of the close season may not be wholly or even partly aligned with breeding patterns, but don't people feel that fish benefit in some way from a lengthy break from the threat or danger we represent?

Or is the argument that without a close season, fish just learn to evade the danger more effectively because its a day in, day out necessity and ultimately, it won't have a detrimental effect to their breeding patterns and behaviour?

 

[Chris Jones]

but don't people feel that fish benefit in some way from a lengthy break from the threat or danger we represent?

I'm not so sure that fish benefit from a lay off as such, they certainly don't come to any harm though, provided everyone actually observes a closed season.

Or is the argument that without a close season, fish just learn to evade the danger more effectively because its a day in, day out necessity and ultimately, it won't have a detrimental effect to their breeding patterns and behaviour?

From observations of stillwater fish and fishing, once the climatic/environmental conditions are met, there's nothing that will stop fish spawning. They become utterly oblivious to any source of danger and any source of food. The only way to catch them at this point would be to spear them, net them or foul hook them (deliberately or not).

 

[Andrew Boyne]

From observations of stillwater fish and fishing, once the climatic/environmental conditions are met, there's nothing that will stop fish spawning. They become utterly oblivious to any source of danger and any source of food. The only way to catch them at this point would be to spear them, net them or foul hook them (deliberately or not).

Exactly! It would be the same on rivers. In my opinion one of the reasons we have such different views on the close season is that it depends on where you live as to how you view it. For example - if your rivers don't have a significant head of game fish then the only anglers you will see during the close season are the naughty ones. If however your rivers do hold a decent head of game fish then there may well be as many anglers on the banks in April and May as there are in July and August. Except most of the game anglers prefer to be in the river rather than on the bank. What is likely to disrupt spawning fish more - a chap sat on the bank lobbing a pellet feeder at them or a chap standing on their heads?? It gets worse when you take regional bye laws into account. In some areas you can fish worm on float or lead - pretty much guaranteed to catch most species in the river so in essence there are only bait restrictions in those areas. That's why i think the close season as it stands is a load of tosh - you can't tell me the man trotting worm is causing less disturbance to the wildlife than a man trotting bread or maggot.

 

[Howard Cooke]

How do we square this with Ray Walton's previous comments (post 80) about eggs on the unhooking mat? I get that in the actual spawning process, fish can be oblivious to danger and wont feed, but in the pre spawning phase? I hear arguments based on the inequality etc with game fishing and how game anglers can cause damage through the way they fish but with respect, I don't see that as a positive argument for abandoning the close season.

 

[Chris Jones]

How do we square this with Ray Walton's previous comments (post 80) about eggs on the unhooking mat? I get that in the actual spawning process, fish can be oblivious to danger and wont feed, but in the pre spawning phase? I hear arguments based on the inequality etc with game fishing and how game anglers can cause damage through the way they fish but with respect, I don't see that as a positive argument for abandoning the close season.

Because fish become gravid a reasonably long time before they actually spawn.
If the closed season actually covered the potential times that all (game and coarse) species of fish could be gravid and actual spawning times, we probably wouldn't be fishing at all. The bottom line is that we stick hooks in fish and drag them out of their natural environment for our enjoyment. Whilst I don't knock people trying to minimize the impact we have, if your only consideration is fish welfare, stop fishing. The current coarse closed season has nothing whatsoever to do with coarse fish welfare. That's a modern construct applied to justify something that was brought in to benefit game anglers.

 

[Howard Cooke]

Because fish become gravid a reasonably long time before they actually spawn.
If the closed season actually covered the potential times that all (game and coarse) species of fish could be gravid and actual spawning times, we probably wouldn't be fishing at all. The bottom line is that we stick hooks in fish and drag them out of their natural environment for our enjoyment. Whilst I don't knock people trying to minimize the impact we have, if your only consideration is fish welfare, stop fishing. The current coarse closed season has nothing whatsoever to do with coarse fish welfare. That's a modern construct applied to justify something that was brought in to benefit game anglers.

OK Chris, thanks.

 

[Andrew Boyne]

I don't see that as a positive argument for abandoning the close season.

Neither do i Howard - but it puts a bloody big hole in the argument for keeping it. The law as it stands is indefensible. If we have a closed season for coarse fish on rivers, then the same should apply to lakes and canals if the reasons given for keeping it on rivers are correct. I wouldn't be bothered either way as i'm old enough to remember when that was so, and there's plenty of good fishing to be had around the north west coast as there was on the north east when i was a kid.

Well said Chris, as always.

 

[Howard Cooke]

Neither do i Howard - but it puts a bloody big hole in the argument for keeping it. The law as it stands is indefensible. If we have a closed season for coarse fish on rivers, then the same should apply to lakes and canals if the reasons given for keeping it on rivers are correct. I wouldn't be bothered either way as i'm old enough to remember when that was so, and there's plenty of good fishing to be had around the north west coast as there was on the north east when i was a kid.

Well said Chris, as always.

Agree with you Andrew- if there is a fish welfare case for a close season then it should apply equally to lakes and canals.

 

[David Gauntlett]

Dave,

I do not wish to inflict my will on anyone, even though such a thing would probably turn out to be beneficial to the hard of understanding.

If the close season were abolished then those that want to fish could fish and those that do not could stay away for as long as they want. In this situation no group is inflicting themselves on any other and everybody gets what they want, simples

Congratulations Richard, that first sentence must surely win a prize for being one of the most arrogant statement I have ever seen in print. Is it a direct crib from Mein Kampf

However, your condescending term 'the hard of understanding' is actually quite apt when applied to your grasp of the situation, as demonstrated by your second statement....so I will explain it again I am happy with the law as it stands, because that ensures that nobody is legally fishing on the fisheries I am interested in, at the time we are discussing. (And we have bailiffs doing their best to insure that illegals are not fishing them at that time either). That makes a lot of people, including myself....very happy. Now, let's try and word this next bit as you probably would, so that you understand it (that wasn't a bad effort, was it ) WHY it makes so many people so happy is irrelevant, the reasons need neither concern nor confuse you, just accept the fact that it does

So....if you and your rascally 'others' manage to change that law, then that situation will change dramatically. There WILL then inevitably be people fishing those fisheries during the period when it is currently illegal to do so. Those that do fish then (and there will always be some) will be doing so against the wishes of the large majority of the people who presently pay decent money to help with the upkeep of those fisheries. That means that the majority (including me ) would then have a situation...a change....thrust upon them that they did not want...and they would no longer be happy

Now, beat me with a split cane bean stick if I am wrong Richard....but I believe to do that would pretty well constitute what most folk would identify as 'inflicting' YOUR will on others. Simples

Happy new year Richard

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Adrian Williams]

The current coarse closed season has nothing whatsoever to do with coarse fish welfare. That's a modern construct applied to justify something that was brought in to benefit game anglers.

The idea that the current close season was brought in to benefit game anglers is not the case.
It was actually brought in at a time when people routinely killed and ate everything they landed and the close season was a logical protective measure to to stop people taking fish at a time when they were full of eggs.
Clearly we don't take coarse fish for the table any more. Modern refrigeration and transportation means that far more palatable fish are available for all 24/7 and the reason for the close season no longer exists.

In fact the irony is the only people who do take fish for the table tend to be recent immigrants from country's where the culture of eating freshwater species does still remain and they can help themselves with impunity during the three spring months when law abiding anglers are not on the bank to speak out or report them. The law as it stands is not only outdated it is actually counter productive to the very reason it was brought in.

 

[Graham Elliott]

Ade

We agree on many things but

"The law as it stands is not only outdated it is actually counter productive to the very reason it was brought in. "

Can't agree there. Although the close season not specifically a cover all. It does protect many species from being caught when they are at their weakest and most susceptible to poor handling practices.

David. Good Post. You said to Richard . "but I believe to do that would pretty well constitute what most folk would identify as 'inflicting' YOUR will on others." which I funk I said as well.




Graham

 

[Stuart Prescott]

It still stuns me how people can still try to justify the close

The world and environment has changed, it's an antiquated law that serves no purpose

What makes a river fish so special, so delicate?

 

[Graham Elliott]

Stuart, Funny that. I think river fish are a bit special. But I am obviously antiquated etc etc.

Graham

 

[Andrew Boyne]

Can't agree there. Although the close season not specifically a cover all. It does protect many species from being caught when they are at their weakest and most susceptible to poor handling practices.

So why don't coarse fish in lakes and canals need a close season?