• 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

Twice offered proposing, seconding and certain membership of the Piscatorial Society (some very nice chalkstream waters - at a price, both personal and financial) by Cosa Nostra Trout Types I encountered along The Piscatorial Way (Better have him in than out..." seemed to be their thinking), Twice declined.
 
Last edited:
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

the problem then may not be the closed season but the lack of enforcement.
go to any puddle this weekend, i bet there is a 90 per cent chance of a licence check.after all, the rivers are shut, no point checking then is there mrEA...:confused:
 
Interesting sets of arguments and counter-arguments, I don't think this is something there will ever be agreement on.

I'm not sure if some are missing the bigger picture, the damage that could be done to the image of angling if the closed season was abolished, because some want to fish all year round. Some will say that it won't make any diference as it's already been abolished on lakes & canals, but that was done some time ago and attitudes change.

As has already been pointed out, the majority of those calling for the abolition are those who think it will increase income and turn things round, wasn't that one of the arguments for allowing fishing all year round on lakes?

Would we really see a significant number fishing the rivers if the closed season were abolished, or would the reality be that the current problems we have with abstraction, water quality and predation mean that the majority of the banks rarely see an angler anyway?

If by any chance a significant number were to fish the rivers rather than lakes, would we then have the owners of overstocked commercial fisheries complainingg that their income is down and they are losing fish because there's not enough food for them, extreme view I know.


Also, what happens in another 20 years when the expected financial gains haven't materialised?

There will also be the rights of the landowner not to allow access, so nothing will have changed.

My view would be to keep it as it is, I enjoy the break, and for three months of the year fishing doesn't get blamed for me not doing the jobs that the better half believes I should be doing!
 
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.

so joe , if i read between the lines correctley , it was for the better of the game / fly angler ??
 
Re: Garry Lee's post

Bootean Prediction: Just as pay-for-play, trout-fishing holes in the ground (c. 1968 to 2000 or so) died a death (eventually rumbled for what they were - so much unreal and easy nothing at a silly price - and so abandoned by punters), so too coarse-fishing holes in the ground. This will come about, then "What will Cock Robin [Coarse Angling] do then? Poor thing.".
 
Last edited:
Such 'Holes In The Ground' provide a useful distraction for a few still, that have yet to discover water that moves.

I say dig more:)
 
Interesting sets of arguments and counter-arguments, I don't think this is something there will ever be agreement on.

I'm not sure if some are missing the bigger picture, the damage that could be done to the image of angling if the closed season was abolished, because some want to fish all year round. Some will say that it won't make any diference as it's already been abolished on lakes & canals, but that was done some time ago and attitudes change.

As has already been pointed out, the majority of those calling for the abolition are those who think it will increase income and turn things round, wasn't that one of the arguments for allowing fishing all year round on lakes?

Would we really see a significant number fishing the rivers if the closed season were abolished, or would the reality be that the current problems we have with abstraction, water quality and predation mean that the majority of the banks rarely see an angler anyway?

If by any chance a significant number were to fish the rivers rather than lakes, would we then have the owners of overstocked commercial fisheries complainingg that their income is down and they are losing fish because there's not enough food for them, extreme view I know.


Also, what happens in another 20 years when the expected financial gains haven't materialised?

There will also be the rights of the landowner not to allow access, so nothing will have changed.

My view would be to keep it as it is, I enjoy the break, and for three months of the year fishing doesn't get blamed for me not doing the jobs that the better half believes I should be doing!

Yes!! I am so busy at the moment with work and the promises I have made to paint everything inside and outside the house before 16/6 I feel quite cleansed and free of guilt, but every time I go into the garage to grab some tools or a pot of paint I can't resist picking up a rod and giving it a waggle:) and thinking wouldn't it be nice:eek:
Go on I bet you do it too:)
 
Neil, i can go one better than that mate. I carry a rod in the boot of my taxi. Whilst sitting idly on certain taxi ranks, there is sufficient room to attach a recently purchased centrepin. ( my first ). tie on a quite small swivelled pebble, and teach myself how to cast. :) I,m gradually reducing the weight that i cast. Come the 16th, i,ll be able to cast a gnats testicle 300 yards :D
 
If the close season is ever abolished, perhaps those who currently want to keep the coarse fishing season because of the three months break, or because of the 'magical 16th' should just volunteer to do so? That way there'll be fewer anglers on the bank......

A tad simplistic but you get the idea......

In reality, I can't see they present situation changing as there's no political will for change. This pretty much renders the whole debate pretty pointless, and only serves to further polarise the two opposing views. Someone wrote earlier that the two sides will never agree. Therein lies the crux......
 
Arr...never a year passed on BFW, (both old and new), without the great close season debate chaps.

My view? With a Devil's Advocate cap affixed over a furrowed brow, (and with a consistency of years gone by), I say remove it. I do not see reason in an overall cessation of angling on rivers. Ok, for the smaller ones, fine, but for the larger examples, ie, Thames, Trent, et al....pointless. Where clubs control stretches, let them impose a close when appropriate thus applying the needed flexibility when required.

Many a year I've gone onto the Kennet/Colne in June when our quarry have been, or about to, spawn. Sorry guys....but it's open season...and I can fish.
 
Ian, thats the most sensible reply i think i,ve read.

How long does the spawning actually last ? ( 3 months ? ) i doubt it.
And do the fish know that they,ve got between mid march and mid june to do the business. Again, i doubt it. Let the controlling clubs decide when to close their stretch. Just my opinion. :)
 
Spending most of my time fishing the royalty and throop and baring witness / being part of the constant angling pressure the fish endure even in winter i would say that, ignoring all arguments for and against the closed season debate, the fish deserve the 3 month break to just chill out and be allowed a break. After all they don't soely exist for our pleasure do they.

Ken T
 
Derek Funcks's Avatar
Derek Funcks Derek Funcks is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 287
Default
Ian, thats the most sensible reply i think i,ve read.

How long does the spawning actually last ? ( 3 months ? ) i doubt it.
And do the fish know that they,ve got between mid march and mid june to do the business. Again, i doubt it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the controlling clubs decide when to close their stretch. Just my opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
as this.
 
The Chairman on Easter Monday

Subject: The Burgerization of Angling


I want it cheap, artery-clogging fat, on demand (like now - no, like yesterday) and I'll stamp my angry, size-11, Chinese-made, leaks from new, camo fieldboot if I can't get it. Females now are sold the "right" to be: a) a Princess, then, after a bit of growing up b) a (a binge-drinking) Goddess (because I'm worth it). Anglers have been sold summat, too: the Right To Be a Tantrum-Prone... I leave you fellas to fill in the dots.


As ever,

B.B.
 
Derek Funcks's Avatar
Derek Funcks Derek Funcks is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 287
Default
Ian, thats the most sensible reply i think i,ve read.

How long does the spawning actually last ? ( 3 months ? ) i doubt it.
And do the fish know that they,ve got between mid march and mid june to do the business. Again, i doubt it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the controlling clubs decide when to close their stretch. Just my opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
as this.


OOPS! Have i said something wrong David ?????????????
 
In a little island as overpopulated and relentlessly pressurised as this, giving everyone unlimited full-time access to everything can only result in everything becoming just that little bit more mashed up than it already is and, let's face it, the ecology of England is already falling to bits. Personally I'm glad I'm getting old enough to able to look forward to popping my clogs before the whole damn thing is f--ked!
 
I do understand why there is a close season and the reason for it. But now the decline of fishing is common on most rivers these days can't really see the point for one. If the EA still want one in place on are rivers why not try having it a couple of months early instead. Just a thought!

Cheers ian
 
Last edited:
Hi men ,

We had this when the stillwater closed season was changed . Loads of people were opposed to that , with many saying they would not fish . How that has changed , with many people vocal in the river closed season simply changing to lakes ???. Not much difference to me . Many lakes with historic carp are still being fished year round .

Hatter
 
Over the years I have been very traditionalist & pro closed season. Having said that when the still waters were closed also, I did make trips over the border to Lincolnshire for a closed season fix. I guess that made me a hypocrit!

Having just passed my 68th birthday I am now in favour of the total abolition of all closures. This is not for any reason other than the fact that, as the years are flashing by, I want to enjoy the sport I enjoy for as much as possible while I still can. I supposed that makes me selfish as well as hypocritical.
Roll on the 16th June,
Bob
 
Back
Top