• 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...

Fined

Andrew Boyne said:
So why don't coarse fish in lakes and canals need a close season?
Click to expand...

I don't remember anyone saying they don't Andrew. They don't get it, but that's hardly the same thing as not needing it, is it? Unless they are F1 hybrids of course, which are sterile....and which almost every carp match lake is/was stocked with initially. Trust the people who run the match fisheries to come up with something that feeds all year round and doesn't take time out for nooky :D Actually, not as coincidental as it first seems, if you care to think about why the closed season was done away with on still waters in the first place. Keeps the tills turning over nicely, don't it :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
It is good we can discuss this without falling out Graham and tbh I used to think the same as you. My opinion only changed after the law was repealed for stillwaters and I found that not only did the fish not suffer most of them thrived, as did the other wildlife.
The anglers tend to turn up as the nights start to draw out and the water starts to warm up, this coincides with the fish getting more active and starting to feed in preparation for the exertions ahead so it's a win win for both parties.
When the big day arrives, as has already been mentioned, the spawning fish are uncatchable and the only fish you are likely to hook are the spawn stealers; so just by being there you are saving thousands of potential fry from being eaten.
The other big concern is the bird life, if the swims are not being used from early spring you could get a situation where a swim which has been unused since March and has been chosen as a nest site is suddenly descended on in the middle of May, while the birds are still on the nest, by a work party of anglers resulting in a destroyed or abandoned nest. This will not happen if the swim is in continuous use as the swim will not get overgrown and any birds which do take residence in the area will be used to the anglers and probably even benefit from the spilt bait, once again a win win.
On balance I think retention of the close season has little if anything going for it other than some sort of emotional response harking back to a simpler time.
 
Adrian. I agree with some of what you say. The day emotion is removed from the fishing experience however will be the time to pack in for me.

I have to admit, I like the excitement of the seasons start on the rivers, the planning, the river choosing, the swim selection, the first days success that has been imagined in advance and replayed even before arrival. Sometimes those first day dreams might even come true if some bxggers not already in the swim!


Remember though, once the commercials get low on fish, or they get damaged through overstocking and lack of oxygen, blue algae or overheating, they just pile in a few more fish.

Generally the river stocks need supporting through public monies, more than the little bit thats invested from the licence fees collected.

Thats why they need some form of protection during some time of the year. As I said before April to June inclusive would be my choice.

David has answered the other queries.
 
Stuart Prescott said:
Dave

The EA say they don't. Otherwise...........
Click to expand...

Stuart, don't confuse the people on the ground working for the EA with the top bods, the executives that make all the decisions.

We have all heard about the foot soldiers in the EA, some of them tireless workers who bust a gut to to make fisheries work. I have heard stories about guys who have almost single handedly turned around the fortunes on certain small rivers. These are the heroes, the ones who care. You meet guys like that in all walks of life, and in a job like the EA, where you get to work on/with the element you love, well, for some it doesn't get any better than that, so they give it their all.

At the other end of the scale are some of the bosses, businessmen bought in from outside to do a job. The cold hearted accountant types who see everything as pound signs and make decisions based on that....and guiding voices from above :rolleyes:

What these guys say....is what they are put there to say, or even instructed to say. It may not necessarily have any bearing on truth, or be beneficial to the welfare of fish. Some of these guys may not even be 100% certain what a fish is, other than that it comes with a very odd crispy brown skin and goes down well with salt, vinegar and chips :D

Cheers, Dave.
 
Great discussion lads. Mr Boyne, get a poll set up for the " for keeping " and the for " getting rid of " and the " not sure ". Lets see who wins, just for a bit of fun. :)
 
Adrian Williams said:
It is good we can discuss this without falling out Graham and tbh I used to think the same as you. My opinion only changed after the law was repealed for stillwaters and I found that not only did the fish not suffer most of them thrived, as did the other wildlife.
The anglers tend to turn up as the nights start to draw out and the water starts to warm up, this coincides with the fish getting more active and starting to feed in preparation for the exertions ahead so it's a win win for both parties.
When the big day arrives, as has already been mentioned, the spawning fish are uncatchable and the only fish you are likely to hook are the spawn stealers; so just by being there you are saving thousands of potential fry from being eaten.
The other big concern is the bird life, if the swims are not being used from early spring you could get a situation where a swim which has been unused since March and has been chosen as a nest site is suddenly descended on in the middle of May, while the birds are still on the nest, by a work party of anglers resulting in a destroyed or abandoned nest. This will not happen if the swim is in continuous use as the swim will not get overgrown and any birds which do take residence in the area will be used to the anglers and probably even benefit from the spilt bait, once again a win win.
On balance I think retention of the close season has little if anything going for it other than some sort of emotional response harking back to a simpler time.
Click to expand...

Adrian,

An excellent post even though it is rather lacking on arrogance.

The truth is that the people who want to keep this untenable rule have long been aware that they have not a shred of evidence to back up their claim that the close season offers an overall benefit to the fish. When challenged to come up with anything that, when scrutinised, supports their case they cannot do so. What you do get is an endless stream of comments stating that" its always been like it, and I like it, so it needs to stay". It is not possible to reason with such people as they have no reason other than personal whim.

You get the same thing with religion. All the evidence suggests that the Earth is billions of years old and there is compelling evidence of how life started on the planet. And yet there are millions of people who actually believe that the earth is 6000 years old and was built in 6 days by a scary beardy man sitting on a cloud who liked to take Sunday’s off. It would be funny if it were not for the catastrophic effect that belief in such twaddle has on the many millions who suffer under its vile influence.

However the number of views that this thread has had definitely points to the fact that it is a subject of great importance to anglers. However as long as we remain a dispirit group who cannot agree on a single issue that affects our pastime, then the only thing that is certain is that we will never be masters of our own destiny. It matters not if those “in charge†are the EA, the ACA or the Angling Trust; as long as we carry on in this fashion then we will be easy pickings for more organised bodies like the RSPB whose members pull in the same direction for what they perceive will benefit their cause.
 
;)
And yet there are millions of people who actually believe that the earth is 6000 years old and was built in 6 days by a scary beardy man sitting on a cloud who liked to take Sunday’s off
Click to expand...

Come on Richard, give the man a break! Everyone deserves a day off for their leisure of choice (after all, He was a fisher of men);)
 
I'm opposed to ending the close season, but more on grounds that fishing, for me, represents something of an antidote to the working world - perhaps even an escape from it.

It saddens me to think that the 24/7 mentality that is effectively screwing up our society and maybe our entire planet should also be a driving force in the pastime I love.

If only humans could endure taking their foot off the pedal now and then, maybe more than just fishing would be better for it. Less sometimes really IS more.

The reasons FOR getting rid of the close season are almost entirely selfish, based on the desire for us to have more, more, more of the thing we like doing. I agree this is a very human impulse. But it the worst side of humans that this impulse represents.

Giving the bankside, the fish themselves and us anglers a break in which to refresh and recharge feels more a good than a bad thing to me. And every argument I have ever heard suggesting the reverse has, at its heart, the same selfish 'I want, I want' reasoning behind it. Even when it is cloaked in 'fish welfare' or 'outdated/outmoded law' arguments.

I've often wondered if one of the reasons many anglers want to be able to fish 365 days a year is that their working or social lives are shot to pieces, probably through no fault of their own but rather from the increased pressures of a consumer-led society. Work harder, interact with others less well, get a bigger mortgage, buy the latest gadget ... If fishing becomes too dominated by the same ethic, I think we run the risk of destroying the thing we love. It wouldn't be the first time homo sapiens had done that!

This sounds a terribly downbeat post. But I'm actually very upbeat about fishing believe it or not.

So Happy New Year! And tight lines to all. For nine months of the river year at any rate!
 
^^^^ and here we have the other useless argument to keep it

the bankside needs a rest , what a load of old tosh !

tell that to the ramblers, dog walkers , bird watchers , canoeists and game anglers :D
 
Crazy isn't it the argument that the bankside vegetation needs a rest, whilst the last month has seen all River angling come to an abrupt end due to flooding. So really the opportunity to actually fish is curtailed so much that when there is a chance to get out between March and June we have to appreciate the enforced break. My local rivers see precious little activity as it is. and whilst I can appreciate smaller rivers having a rest, it doesn't seem feasible that a great mass of water such as the Lower Severn be included in the ban.
 
David Parker said:
I'm opposed to ending the close season, but more on grounds that fishing, for me, represents something of an antidote to the working world - perhaps even an escape from it.

It saddens me to think that the 24/7 mentality that is effectively screwing up our society and maybe our entire planet should also be a driving force in the pastime I love.

If only humans could endure taking their foot off the pedal now and then, maybe more than just fishing would be better for it. Less sometimes really IS more.

The reasons FOR getting rid of the close season are almost entirely selfish, based on the desire for us to have more, more, more of the thing we like doing. I agree this is a very human impulse. But it the worst side of humans that this impulse represents.

Giving the bankside, the fish themselves and us anglers a break in which to refresh and recharge feels more a good than a bad thing to me. And every argument I have ever heard suggesting the reverse has, at its heart, the same selfish 'I want, I want' reasoning behind it. Even when it is cloaked in 'fish welfare' or 'outdated/outmoded law' arguments.

I've often wondered if one of the reasons many anglers want to be able to fish 365 days a year is that their working or social lives are shot to pieces, probably through no fault of their own but rather from the increased pressures of a consumer-led society. Work harder, interact with others less well, get a bigger mortgage, buy the latest gadget ... If fishing becomes too dominated by the same ethic, I think we run the risk of destroying the thing we love. It wouldn't be the first time homo sapiens had done that!
Click to expand...

Can you not self impose those values without requiring legislation, or are we to assume that you think that those that value the closed season are so feeble minded that they they lack the necessary self control?
No one has to go fishing 24/7, people can do as they wish in that regard.

The idea that removal of the closed season somehow represents or is indicative of the degradation of society, is complete poppycock. You also seem to be arguing that there's an element of selfishness, ("I want, I want"!) in those that would see the closed season abolished, maybe you're right. However, it's a hypocritical view when the only real argument those in favour can put up is because they want to retain it for no other reason than it suits them and their own ideal. Just me, or is that not as equally selfish?

Sorry, but your argument has little to do with logic and is overly emotive, selfish (just as selfish as anyone arguing against the closed season) nonsense.
 
Yes, I certainly can self-impose a close season. That would be fine with me. And I'd do it if it were abolished.

I'm not completely convinced about the bankside or spawning arguments myself, but on balance I'm more inclined to think there's more good than bad in them. Not all stretches of water, after all, are frequented by canoeists, ramblers and the like.

But each to their own.

We will never all agree with one another about close seasons, otters, cormorants or anything else. But I must say, the sense of high indignation people exhibit when it is suggested they might not get what they want all the time, whenever they want it, on tap ... well it's amusing.
 
David Parker said:
Yes, I certainly can self-impose a close season. That would be fine with me. And I'd do it if it were abolished.

I'm not completely convinced about the bankside or spawning arguments myself, but on balance I'm more inclined to think there's more good than bad in them. Not all stretches of water, after all, are frequented by canoeists, ramblers and the like.

But each to their own.

We will never all agree with one another about close seasons, otters, cormorants or anything else. But I must say, the sense of high indignation people exhibit when it is suggested they might not get what they want all the time, whenever they want it, on tap ... well it's amusing.
Click to expand...

Truth to tell, I'm not actually that bothered by the closed season. If stays so be it, if it goes, great. Any sense of indignation comes from being told that I'm selfish, that I'm somehow less caring, or even a lesser angler for having the temerity to suggest that the closed season is logically indefinsible anachronism.

I'm under no illusion that the closed season will probably stay. I'll not be doing anything to change that. What I will continue to do is snort with derision and try to counter feeble arguments that are trotted out to defend the indefensible. Attempting to take the moral high ground, based on nothing much at all, just won't wash with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top