Steve Roffey
Senior Member
There's one very good reason to have a river close season, I'd never find time for tench fishing otherwise!
-
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...
The river closed season debate
- Thread starter Lee Poultney
- Start date
Paul Boote
No Longer a Member
Single-faced, me. Never ever coarse fished in the Close Season: other, equally important Angling interests (fly / sea), you see, plus just looking at coarse fish going about their Posidrive stuff and thinking "My, you're a big girl ... I'm going to catch you in a few months time...".
David Gauntlett
Senior Member
Hi Jeff,
I think you are beating your head against a brick wall here in hoping to come up with a definitive answer. This subject is much like politics, religion and otters....everyone has their own views, and everyone thinks their particulay viewpoint is the right one.
The fact is that there is no 'one' answer...for every valid argument, there is an equally valid opposing view. Personally I would like to see the closed season retained...but I admit my many reasons for thinking this way are based mainly on romantic nonsense and non-scientific preferences. However, those reasons are evey bit as valid as the next mans...so where do we go from there?
The only answer I can think of is to leave things as they are. That way, those who need to fish every weekend of their life can drop back on lakes for the river closed season, while those who prefer (for whatever reason) to have a closed season....can do so.
I can't see a problem with that....but no doubt others can....round and round and round and.....oh lordy, I feel dizzy
Cheers, Dave.
I think you are beating your head against a brick wall here in hoping to come up with a definitive answer. This subject is much like politics, religion and otters
....everyone has their own views, and everyone thinks their particulay viewpoint is the right one.The fact is that there is no 'one' answer...for every valid argument, there is an equally valid opposing view. Personally I would like to see the closed season retained...but I admit my many reasons for thinking this way are based mainly on romantic nonsense and non-scientific preferences. However, those reasons are evey bit as valid as the next mans...so where do we go from there?
The only answer I can think of is to leave things as they are. That way, those who need to fish every weekend of their life can drop back on lakes for the river closed season, while those who prefer (for whatever reason) to have a closed season....can do so.
I can't see a problem with that....but no doubt others can....round and round and round and.....oh lordy, I feel dizzy
Cheers, Dave.
Last edited:
Jon Berry
Senior Member
Yes, no coarse fishing for me until June 16th. I go trout fishing instead. Always tempted, but never that much.
Jon
Jeff Edisbury
Senior Member
David,
Don't even get me started on otters!
So many varying opinions.
Regards,
Jeff
Don't even get me started on otters!
So many varying opinions.
Regards,
Jeff
Nigel Gray
Senior Member
Not all tackle shops Barry, this one certainly doesn't agree with getting rid of the close season on rivers.
Alex Gowney
Senior Member & Supporter
This illegal match may put the EA, police etc in a difficult position. If the full weight of the law is implemented then what excuse will they have for the all too common incidents of people reporting closed season river fishing that is ignored? Whatever anyones views, this will be an interesting event to say the least. Hardly PC to prosecute Willow Creek AC and turned a blind eye to EEs fishing for their lunch
David Hall
Senior Member
Keith is a knob, we all know he hates rivers and thinks puddle bashing carp is something of a great achievement with his fishomania crud.
Ray Walton
Senior Member
I just hope they don't do what they did last year on the Royalty Fishery by weedcutting by boat and hand and trampling on the spawning grounds in the Parlour and Trammels/Edwards when the barbel and chub are ready to spawn in May. Again in early June when the barbel and chub had spawned, weedcutting took place again by hand and boat over the same prime spawning areas and the eggs laid were trampled on and destroyed, thus losing a whole year class of stock for the future.
There is also a big problem at this time of year spring and early summer with salmon/trout anglers that continuously wade and trample on the same critical barbel/chub and coarse fish spawning grounds before and after eggs have been laid.
Please get on the case Nige and try and stop it happening again.
Jeff...There is also a big problem when the barbel are full of spawn and are still eating in the close season.
When a caught fully 'in spawn' fish drops 10,000 eggs on your lap or on the bank then a whole year class will be lost and affect future stocks. I have seen it happen on lakes open in the close season and must go on all the time.
Last edited:
David Gauntlett
Senior Member
Good lord David, you do come out with some astounding comments mate
Firstly, Keith is not a 'knob', he is a thoughtful, intelligent angler. Granted he is opinionated....but that makes him all the more effective in angling politics.
Secondly, he doesn't hate rivers...in fact they were his first love, and he loves them with a passion. He has won so many matches on rivers here and abroad over the years you would need a calculator to add them up. The 'puddle bashing carp' style fishing he sometimes takes part in now is merely in recognition of where the vast majority of matches now take place...which odly enough dictates where a match fisherman must be, like it or not, if taking part in a match
Thirdly, why do you dismiss 'Fishomania' as 'crud'? If you don't happen to like something, does that automatically mean it is 'crud'? Thousands of anglers every year get immense pleasure from either taking part in, or watching 'Fishomania'....it is to be hoped that they do not all dismiss barbel or river fishing as 'crud', just because it is not something they are currently interested in.
There are far too many people on this forum, and everywhere else you care to look in angling, who infuriatingly spend far too much time denigrating other branches of angling, and running down fellow anglers just because their particular passion is slightly different , rather than directing their energies towards the important issues facing ALL anglers ALL of the time.
Cheers, Dave.
Last edited:
Dave Wingfield
Senior Member
Absolutely spot on David G
Best Regards
Dave
Best Regards
Dave
Jeff Edisbury
Senior Member
Hi Ray,
What effect do you think continuing to fish for barbel up to them starting to spawn would have? Would it be better or worse for them? Do you think it would affect growth rates/successful spawning?
Sadly, as i've already mentoned, spawning fish does not necessarily equate to people stopping fishing, wether or not you can or cannot catch them fairly (in the mouth) and not foul hooked.
Regards,
Jeff
What effect do you think continuing to fish for barbel up to them starting to spawn would have? Would it be better or worse for them? Do you think it would affect growth rates/successful spawning?
Sadly, as i've already mentoned, spawning fish does not necessarily equate to people stopping fishing, wether or not you can or cannot catch them fairly (in the mouth) and not foul hooked.
Regards,
Jeff
Paul Boote
No Longer a Member
The Chairman on Wednesday
Whether foulhooked or speared fairly in the mouth they're still Expecting / Near-Term Ladies, and even I draw a line at them.
As ever,
B.B.
Whether foulhooked or speared fairly in the mouth they're still Expecting / Near-Term Ladies, and even I draw a line at them.
As ever,
B.B.
Stuart Prescott
Senior Member
easy , its either scrapped completley or enforced across the board
my argument is simple , why does a stillwater fish not require the same level of protection as a river fish , somebody please explain that to me !?
Paul Boote
No Longer a Member
So, a Close Season enforced, otherwise we might as well scrap it (some think)...
Well, I see the following scenario on many stretches of river if the C.S. went: entire (barbel) spawning areas hammered day and night, with the owners / clubs (if a stretch has one) powerless to stop it. Never underestimate the greed and rule-bending nature of anglers (even very good ones); it's in our genes - when the fishy red mist descends after seeing a great shoal of spawning fish or a pod with a great lady surrounded by little barbelly pants and squirts, fishers will fish for them regardless of the rules, a few animals (unbailiffed and with those anglers present legally too scared for their own safety to stop them) will get the big hook / trebles out and rake for and foul them, just to get their string pulled by a biggie. So, no Close Season - I can see many a club (many an angler, too) ruing the day it was abolished, begging for it to be restored, but, of course, the genie will be out of the bottle and there'll be no putting it back.
Well, I see the following scenario on many stretches of river if the C.S. went: entire (barbel) spawning areas hammered day and night, with the owners / clubs (if a stretch has one) powerless to stop it. Never underestimate the greed and rule-bending nature of anglers (even very good ones); it's in our genes - when the fishy red mist descends after seeing a great shoal of spawning fish or a pod with a great lady surrounded by little barbelly pants and squirts, fishers will fish for them regardless of the rules, a few animals (unbailiffed and with those anglers present legally too scared for their own safety to stop them) will get the big hook / trebles out and rake for and foul them, just to get their string pulled by a biggie. So, no Close Season - I can see many a club (many an angler, too) ruing the day it was abolished, begging for it to be restored, but, of course, the genie will be out of the bottle and there'll be no putting it back.
Last edited:
David Gauntlett
Senior Member
Absolutely agree Paul.
Stuart asks why a fish that resides in stillwater does not deserve the same level of protection as a fish in running water. The answer of course is that it does....it is just that those with vested interests in doing away with the closed season won the day when that particular debate came up Pressure was applied, and a compromise was reached...and hence the end of the closed season on stillwaters.
There are all sorts of agendas involved, some obvious, some not...but you can bet on it that money is the bottom line in most cases We who are in favour of retaining the closed season (most of whom did NOT want to see it ended on stillwaters either) can only hope that it does not have the final say if/when the subject is officially raised again.
Cheers, Dave.
Stuart asks why a fish that resides in stillwater does not deserve the same level of protection as a fish in running water. The answer of course is that it does....it is just that those with vested interests in doing away with the closed season won the day when that particular debate came up
Pressure was applied, and a compromise was reached...and hence the end of the closed season on stillwaters. There are all sorts of agendas involved, some obvious, some not...but you can bet on it that money is the bottom line in most cases
We who are in favour of retaining the closed season (most of whom did NOT want to see it ended on stillwaters either) can only hope that it does not have the final say if/when the subject is officially raised again.Cheers, Dave.
Stuart Prescott
Senior Member
dave
we are living in a different age now , some dont like it , but its where we are at right now
the only people who really suffer are the anglers like you and me who obey the rules .
the rivers are being raped right now as we speak , unchecked up and down the land ,haredly a club bailiff , ea bailiff or angler in sight .
ignore the dream land ivory tower comments from some , all misty eyed about the 16th , its open season out there right now
you , so far are the only one to address my questions , so i will pose another
why was the closed season originally impossed ??? what was the motive , was it to protect billy and brenda barbel during the nuptuals ?
i for one very much doubt that
we are living in a different age now , some dont like it , but its where we are at right now
the only people who really suffer are the anglers like you and me who obey the rules .
the rivers are being raped right now as we speak , unchecked up and down the land ,haredly a club bailiff , ea bailiff or angler in sight .
ignore the dream land ivory tower comments from some , all misty eyed about the 16th , its open season out there right now
you , so far are the only one to address my questions , so i will pose another
why was the closed season originally impossed ??? what was the motive , was it to protect billy and brenda barbel during the nuptuals ?
i for one very much doubt that
Last edited:
Paul Boote
No Longer a Member
I am beginning to suspect that some in these ever-recurring Close Season "debates" have something other than a purely Angling agenda, a political one possibly, just like a good number I've heard and read in recent years (Anglers and non-Anglers) who have had one message in common, reading something rather like this: "THEY can do it and get away with it, but not the likes of people like me...". Lot of such stuff about now, and little to do with fishing, let alone Angling (something rather better than fishing).
Joe Fletcher
No Longer a Member
For any one interested on how the Coarse fishing season came in to being .
This is from an abstract of Bernard Venables book .
Fishing [British Sports, Past & Present series]
Batsford Press 1953
The Coarse fishing season first saw the light of day under the Mundella Act of 1878. Mr Mundella was a Member of Parliament for Sheffield, although not an angler himself, he was lobbied by the local angling fraternity of the city (Sheffield at the time was a centre of intense coarse fishing activity), to help place some form of legislation to help protect coarse fish. The drafting of the bill was left to Messrs Spencer Walpole and Frank Buckland. Spencer Walpole was an inspector of Salmon Fisheries and Frank Buckland a prominent member of the Piscatorial Society. Interestingly, both men were salmon anglers.
The Piscatorial society pledged its support for Mr Mundella in his endeavours to obtain an Act of Parliament for the protection of Freshwater Fish and the Society contacted the seventy four angling societies of London and the Provinces to see if they were favourable of a general close period for freshwater fish. The Piscatorial Society called a meeting in to be held in April 1878 to discuss the bill, but this meeting was too late for the first reading which took place in March, a month earlier, by which time no one had been consulted.
The Bill was made known at the April meeting under the auspices of the Piscatorial Society, the result of which threw the angling world into great tumult. The Bill gave considerable attention to Salmon and made amendments to the Salmon Fisheries Act, but yet only gave limited attention to coarse fish, the coarse angling fraternity being the instigators of the Act. The Bill in its broad aspects was approved along with the suggestion of a close season for coarse fish from 15th March to the 15th June, (the original draft had stated from the 1st March to the 31st of May.
In April the Bill had its second reading and was referred to the Select Committee. Mr Buckland wrote a letter to Land and Water.
"I am much pleased to learn that Mr Mundella's Bill passed the second reading on Tuesday, 11th, and that there is to be a Select Committee to consider the question. This is a great compliment on the part of Mr Cross and the House of Commons to freshwater anglers. Mr Lander, Secretary of the Piscatorial Society, who has already done so much for this good cause will, I trust, assist in getting up the evidence for the committee. We shall see whether the objectors to the Bill, who did not appear at the late conference at the Society of Arts, will have pluck enough to appear before the Select Committee and state their views."
The more furious objectors didn't attend this meeting, but others worked through the amendments with the Piscatorial Society. Many, however, felt that the Piscatorial Society was not representative of the coarse angling world, especially the various London Angling Societies. A storm was raised with the West Central Association which represented a number of coarse anglers in the London area. Mr Leo Bonvoisin, the clubs Vice-Chairman, wrote to the Fishing Gazette.
"Mr Mundella's Bill, The various London Angling Societies have quite recently received on the above from the Piscatorial Society (sic), but as it was reproduced last week among your excellent correspondent, Gaff Hook's notes, I will not trouble your readers with it. I wish, however, to state I think it is greatly to be regretted. Nothing will teach these gentlemen that they are adopting a mode of procedure towards their brother anglers which is uncourteous as it is impolite. There are, as your readers may be aware, two bodies in London to whose monthly meetings any society is entitled to send delegates. When I mentioned that the W.C. Association and the E.C. Committee represent between them some four thousand practical anglers, you will at once see their importance as mediums for ascertaining the views of the London disciples of Walton. Until a week ago, when they sent in their resignation on the grounds that they did not find it advantageous to belong to us, the Piscatorials were represented at the W.C. Association's meeting, and theirs being an old established club would have given just weight to any opinions they might have been pleased to express, but the Association have from the first protested against their taking separate action in this or any other matter and the majority of the clubs have refused to attend to any but circulars or notices sent through the recognised channels.
"Exclusive, or select (you can choose which you like) in the extreme, never striving to carry out the law of good fellowship or Angling Freemasonry, so eloquently and practically preached by honest old Izaak Walton, never caring to visit, or be visited by, members of other societies, but firmly shutting their doors against all not provided a formal introduction, the Piscatorials could never pretend to rank as a representative society, and the line of conduct they have adopted is therefore all the more unaccountable. Anglers are, as a body, a quiet, easy-going lot, but if the Piscatorial Club thinks the course they have adopted is not appreciated at its true worth, they are indeed mistaken. One instance is sufficient. At a meeting the other evening some twenty-five societies represented during the call of the roll, the long-continued groans and hisses which greeted the words "Piscatorial Society" would have satisfied the most sceptical of gratitude the London Anglers bear those who have striven to humble and annoy their legitimate representatives by acting counter to their intentions, thus ignoring them altogether.
"My main object, however, in writing is to advise clubs enrolled east or west to adopt the same course as the Hammersmith, North Western, Silver Trout and many other societies have been or intend doing, namely, inform Mr Lander that when it becomes necessary to adopt any measures in the above matter, they will do so through their recognised representatives, the Association and the Committee.
Yours obediently
Leo Bonvoisin
Vice Chairman West Central Association."
During the committee stage the Bill had many objections and attempted amendments, with considerable debate as to the close time, some towards a shorter time and others suggested a longer period. The Bill finally received its third reading and went to the House of Lords to become law. Further amendments to the Mundella Act continued until the advent of the 1923 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, which encompassed all the previous legislation. The 1923 Act also established the Fishery Boards. The next major change didn't take place until 1948 with a legislative change over to the River Boards Act.
This is from an abstract of Bernard Venables book .
Fishing [British Sports, Past & Present series]
Batsford Press 1953
The Coarse fishing season first saw the light of day under the Mundella Act of 1878. Mr Mundella was a Member of Parliament for Sheffield, although not an angler himself, he was lobbied by the local angling fraternity of the city (Sheffield at the time was a centre of intense coarse fishing activity), to help place some form of legislation to help protect coarse fish. The drafting of the bill was left to Messrs Spencer Walpole and Frank Buckland. Spencer Walpole was an inspector of Salmon Fisheries and Frank Buckland a prominent member of the Piscatorial Society. Interestingly, both men were salmon anglers.
The Piscatorial society pledged its support for Mr Mundella in his endeavours to obtain an Act of Parliament for the protection of Freshwater Fish and the Society contacted the seventy four angling societies of London and the Provinces to see if they were favourable of a general close period for freshwater fish. The Piscatorial Society called a meeting in to be held in April 1878 to discuss the bill, but this meeting was too late for the first reading which took place in March, a month earlier, by which time no one had been consulted.
The Bill was made known at the April meeting under the auspices of the Piscatorial Society, the result of which threw the angling world into great tumult. The Bill gave considerable attention to Salmon and made amendments to the Salmon Fisheries Act, but yet only gave limited attention to coarse fish, the coarse angling fraternity being the instigators of the Act. The Bill in its broad aspects was approved along with the suggestion of a close season for coarse fish from 15th March to the 15th June, (the original draft had stated from the 1st March to the 31st of May.
In April the Bill had its second reading and was referred to the Select Committee. Mr Buckland wrote a letter to Land and Water.
"I am much pleased to learn that Mr Mundella's Bill passed the second reading on Tuesday, 11th, and that there is to be a Select Committee to consider the question. This is a great compliment on the part of Mr Cross and the House of Commons to freshwater anglers. Mr Lander, Secretary of the Piscatorial Society, who has already done so much for this good cause will, I trust, assist in getting up the evidence for the committee. We shall see whether the objectors to the Bill, who did not appear at the late conference at the Society of Arts, will have pluck enough to appear before the Select Committee and state their views."
The more furious objectors didn't attend this meeting, but others worked through the amendments with the Piscatorial Society. Many, however, felt that the Piscatorial Society was not representative of the coarse angling world, especially the various London Angling Societies. A storm was raised with the West Central Association which represented a number of coarse anglers in the London area. Mr Leo Bonvoisin, the clubs Vice-Chairman, wrote to the Fishing Gazette.
"Mr Mundella's Bill, The various London Angling Societies have quite recently received on the above from the Piscatorial Society (sic), but as it was reproduced last week among your excellent correspondent, Gaff Hook's notes, I will not trouble your readers with it. I wish, however, to state I think it is greatly to be regretted. Nothing will teach these gentlemen that they are adopting a mode of procedure towards their brother anglers which is uncourteous as it is impolite. There are, as your readers may be aware, two bodies in London to whose monthly meetings any society is entitled to send delegates. When I mentioned that the W.C. Association and the E.C. Committee represent between them some four thousand practical anglers, you will at once see their importance as mediums for ascertaining the views of the London disciples of Walton. Until a week ago, when they sent in their resignation on the grounds that they did not find it advantageous to belong to us, the Piscatorials were represented at the W.C. Association's meeting, and theirs being an old established club would have given just weight to any opinions they might have been pleased to express, but the Association have from the first protested against their taking separate action in this or any other matter and the majority of the clubs have refused to attend to any but circulars or notices sent through the recognised channels.
"Exclusive, or select (you can choose which you like) in the extreme, never striving to carry out the law of good fellowship or Angling Freemasonry, so eloquently and practically preached by honest old Izaak Walton, never caring to visit, or be visited by, members of other societies, but firmly shutting their doors against all not provided a formal introduction, the Piscatorials could never pretend to rank as a representative society, and the line of conduct they have adopted is therefore all the more unaccountable. Anglers are, as a body, a quiet, easy-going lot, but if the Piscatorial Club thinks the course they have adopted is not appreciated at its true worth, they are indeed mistaken. One instance is sufficient. At a meeting the other evening some twenty-five societies represented during the call of the roll, the long-continued groans and hisses which greeted the words "Piscatorial Society" would have satisfied the most sceptical of gratitude the London Anglers bear those who have striven to humble and annoy their legitimate representatives by acting counter to their intentions, thus ignoring them altogether.
"My main object, however, in writing is to advise clubs enrolled east or west to adopt the same course as the Hammersmith, North Western, Silver Trout and many other societies have been or intend doing, namely, inform Mr Lander that when it becomes necessary to adopt any measures in the above matter, they will do so through their recognised representatives, the Association and the Committee.
Yours obediently
Leo Bonvoisin
Vice Chairman West Central Association."
During the committee stage the Bill had many objections and attempted amendments, with considerable debate as to the close time, some towards a shorter time and others suggested a longer period. The Bill finally received its third reading and went to the House of Lords to become law. Further amendments to the Mundella Act continued until the advent of the 1923 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, which encompassed all the previous legislation. The 1923 Act also established the Fishery Boards. The next major change didn't take place until 1948 with a legislative change over to the River Boards Act.