• 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

If I were to tell you that I believed that the absence of lines in the water, the fact that the fish were not being chased for a few months each year was a way of according them a bit of respite and respect, whether you believed me or not, I hope you'd at least agree it isn't an entirely selfish motive on my part.

I happen to believe it can do the fish no harm to be given a break. I also accept that on some lightly fished waters it may make little or no difference. But the exceptions don't disprove the rule in my view.

Whatever people's motivations for wanting to NOT have a close season, I cannot believe it is based in the main on a high handed pursuit of principle, whereby so-called anachronistic rules are overturned only for people to then exercise self-restrained having won the argument.

Let's be honest, most people want the close season banned because they want to fish year round, whenever they please. I'd say that is a more selfish motive than mine.

But I guess we'll agree to differ.
 
We don't differ that much at all once you back track a bit and lose ridiculous suggestions that those that think the closed season is a nonsense are somehow contributing to the downfall of society.

I believe that it's a nonesense that may as well be abolished. Some of those that want it to stay are honest enough to admit it's a nonesense, but they still want it to stay, fair enough. I can cope with that. What I can't abide is the contrived nonsense being used to justify its continued existence.

The reality is that the banks, birdlife and fish don't really get a rest. Depending on the part of the country you are in, people are still fishing legally. In other parts of the country, people are still fishing illegally. Ramblers are still rambling, dogwalkers are still walking, canoeists are still canoeing and birdwatchers are still twitching. Only if you can persuade all of the above to observe a the closed season does it make any sense at all.
 
enforcing the law to give the fish a proper break is a different point entirely - you seem to be agreeing in principle that a rest for the fish would be a good thing: if only they could get it! perhaps we should put energy and resource into making that happen instead of giving up on the idea because some choose the flout the law? And we all have to accept no law is enforced perfectly all of the time. There will always be some that break it and there always have been.

The fork in the road, for me, is precisely on the point of giving the fish a rest.

I'd be in favour of a break in stillwaters too.

And I know it can never be guaranteed to cover spawning times. but that is a moot point. A rest is a rest. And the fish deserve it in my view.

Saying that because some don't respect the law we should all just lump in with them and fish on through the year - with respect - is just a way of saying I want to fish all year and feel I am 'losing out' because others poach.

It is precisely this sense of 'losing out' - the looking over ones shoulder and thinking "if he's having some of THAT then I'll have some too" - that is endemic in society in my view. Consumerism and entitlement gone mad. So what you suggest I should 'strip back' I think (only my view of course) is the root cause of the problem.
 
David Parker said:
enforcing the law to give the fish a proper break is a different point entirely - you seem to be agreeing in principle that a rest for the fish would be a good thing: if only they could get it! perhaps we should put energy and resource into making that happen instead of giving up on the idea because some choose the flout the law? And we all have to accept no law is enforced perfectly all of the time. There will always be some that break it and there always have been.
Click to expand...

Point missed. Poaching in my neck of the woods is minimal. They'd have to wade through the hordes of fluff chuckers and people trotting worms for "trout". The reality is that there is no real closed season for those wish to circumvent it. However, what they do I find indefensible, but they aren't breaking the law.

David Parker said:
And I know it can never be guaranteed to cover spawning times. but that is a moot point. A rest is a rest. And the fish deserve it in my view.
Click to expand...

So you are now admitting that the whole spawning times justification is cobblers? (I trust those sticking to their guns on the spawning argument will be refraining from fishing for river pike in a month or so?)

David Parker said:
Saying that because some don't respect the law we should all just lump in with them and fish on through the year - with respect - is just a way of saying I want to fish all year and feel I am 'losing out' because others poach.
Click to expand...

See above, poaching, at least in my part of the world, is just a very minor piece in the jigsaw that means that the fish don't get the rest you think they do.

David Parker said:
It is precisely this sense of 'losing out' - the looking over ones shoulder and thinking "if he's having some of THAT then I'll have some too" - that is endemic in society in my view. Consumerism and entitlement gone mad. So what you suggest I should 'strip back' I think (only my view of course) is the root cause of the problem.
Click to expand...

Back to the emotive nonsense. If there were any demonstrable benefit to the closed season, any cogent argument for its retention, so be it. However there really isn't and trying to wrap that up as a sign of rampant consumerism and a sense of entitlement is nonesense. I find it difficult to understand why you wonder why anyone might react indignantly to that kind of rhetoric.:confused:

I don't think that the closed season should go because I want to go fishing more. I very much doubt that I would. I think it should go because it's nonsensical rubbish that does no-one (beyond the misty eyed romantics and terminally hen-pecked) and nothing any real good.
 
I never bigged up the spawning argument. I am merely pointing out that however flawed it may be in principle, in practice, on the majority if waters it would mean the fish got something of a break. No bad thing if you ask me. Your neck of the woods is precisely that, and may be a very long way from the average conditions on most waters. Exceptions never prove the rule.

I think you'd make the nonsensical sensible again by reintroducing a closed season on still waters and putting done effort into enforcing it. But the market driven ethic resists that. The contemporary sense is more profit for business and more products and services for consumers. That's not just rhetoric I'm sorry to say.

But we'll not see eye to eye on this and I respect your view. Happy New Year.
 
David Parker said:
I never bigged up the spawning argument. I am merely pointing out that however flawed it may be in principle, in practice, on the majority if waters it would mean the fish got something of a break. No bad thing if you ask me. Your neck of the woods is precisely that, and may be a very long way from the average conditions on most waters. Exceptions never prove the rule.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with the principle of giving the fish a rest. I just don't believe that they really get one anywhere in the country. In my neck of the woods (I'm talking all of the old Yorkshire and Northumbria regions here) that's because of legal angling and non-anglers. In others, people are constantly harping on about masses of closed season poaching which replaces the legal angling. I can only take that anecdotal evidence at face value, even if I do suspect that it's way over exaggerated, and couple it with my own experiences from other parts of the country.

David Parker said:
I think you'd make the nonsensical sensible again by reintroducing a closed season on still waters and putting done effort into enforcing it.
Click to expand...

With that I'll entirely agree, I'll be watching this space until it happens though. However, it's highly unlikely and while there is no national closed season on stillwaters, it completely undermines the river closed season. It renders almost every argument for keeping it null and void.

You have also brought up another good argument for abolishment. If enforcement were no longer necessary, an expense could be removed. I suspect that the cost involved would benefit the rivers far more if it were translated into stock fish anyway.
 
Last edited:
With respect, that's a bit illogical isn't it?

If Doctors started charging patients should we clamour for dentists to follow suit? If you have one biscuit is it imperative to polish off the whole pack? Is the best way to put out a fire to pour petrol on it?

The fact that an imperfect situation exists doesn't mean we should give up. Does it? You seem to be arguing against something you believe in principle because it isn't perfect in practice.
 
David Parker said:
You seem to be arguing against something you believe in principle because it isn't perfect in practice.
Click to expand...

No, as I've said before, I'm not arguing against the closed season. I've no particular desire to see the situation change. What I'm arguing against ridiculous justifications for it that are trotted out with monotonous and quite unthinking regularity. I can acknowledge that communism sounds lovely, in theory. However, the reality is quite different and I would argue against it.

No different to the closed season. Nice in theory, rubbish in reality. Waste of time, money and legislation. Do away with it and no one and nothing is any the worse off for it. If you don't want to go fishing in a given period, don't.
 
And the fact you believe the close season would be a good thing is worth what? The fact that you seem to believe the fish deserve a rest is worth what?

Very little it seems.

Anything worthwhile takes effort and resources. Things not worth a toss come cheap, and end up as a free for all.

I know which one I'll keep arguing for and believing in.

As for ridiculous justifications - however imperfect they may be, they are still indirectly, in half-assed ways and with all the clunkiness you rightly observe - trying to hold onto an idea you seem to still believe in.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is a fine old cliche. And always worth remembering as we give up on things we still hold dear.
 
David Parker said:
And the fact you believe the close season would be a good thing is worth what? The fact that you seem to believe the fish deserve a rest is worth what?

Very little it seems.

Anything worthwhile takes effort and resources. Things not worth a toss come cheap, and end up as a free for all.

I know which one I'll keep arguing for and believing in.

As for ridiculous justifications - however imperfect they may be, they are still indirectly, in half-assed ways and with all the clunkiness you rightly observe - trying to hold onto an idea you seem to still believe in.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is a fine old cliche. And always worth remembering as we give up on things we still hold dear.
Click to expand...

Well, you'd obviously rather stick to a high ideal that simply doesn't work. I'd rather not bang my head off a brick wall wasting time, money and effort on something that just does not work on any level. I'll go for pragmatism over idealism every time.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater might be apt. Unfortunately, in this instance, the baby drowned in the bathwater and is slowly decomposing. Throwing it and the bathwater out might just be a good idea.
 
I left the 24/7 rat race behind 14 years ago so your 'selfish' argument does not work with me. I can fish when I want and that includes the close because as an all rounder the early part of the year is devoted to carp and tench.
My argument for the removal of the close is simply based on logic and a belief that it would actually benefit the environment.
 
A generalisation will never work with everyone Adrian. I'm well aware of that.

But the fact you left the rat race behind (congratulations) doesn't mean the 'must have it now' ethos isn't creeping into every facet of life.

It isn't meant as a personal criticism of anyone. More an observation of the general drift in terms of values and mindset, and I include myself in that. We are all driven by very powerful forces outside of our control. Very few of us 'drop out' to build our log cabin on 'free land'!

I totally respect other people's points of view on this. But I do think, and always will, that a rest for fish (no lines in the water) is likely to be a very good thing for some part of the year. I appreciate that is difficult to enforce 100% but the fact that it is difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth striving for in my view.
 
I'm tempted to trot out the same argument for removal of the close that was used to end the restrictive licensing hours we used to endure, ie it would stop the mad race to get drunk before the pub closed, or in our case it would stop the mad rush to the river in June and March.
However I am aware that the licensing laws in their present form are not quite what was envisioned, even if the reasons for the amount of drunkenness and associated criminal behaviour are due to the availability of cheap booze in supermarkets and 'pre loading'.
Obviously this would not be the case if the close was abolished, you wouldn't get groups roaming from venue to venue and fishing 24/7. I believe you would find people more relaxed about there fishing and rather than more pressure being placed on popular venues I think the opposite would happen and the fish would be less pressurised.
 
Adrian Williams said:
I'm tempted to trot out the same argument for removal of the close that was used to end the restrictive licensing hours we used to endure, IE it would stop the mad race to get drunk before the pub closed, or in our case it would stop the mad rush to the river in June and March.
However I am aware that the licensing laws in their present form are not quite what was envisioned, even if the reasons for the amount of drunkenness and associated criminal behavior are due to the availability of cheap booze in supermarkets and 'pre loading'.
Obviously this would not be the case if the close was abolished, you wouldn't get groups roaming from venue to venue and fishing 24/7. I believe you would find people more relaxed about there fishing and rather than more pressure being placed on popular venues I think the opposite would happen and the fish would be less pressurized.
Click to expand...
sounds logical to me and not emotional.
 
Glad you can find somewhere fishable Graham, the Severn peaked in Ironbridge yesterday 1/4 inch below the all time high recorded in 2000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top