Menu

Birmingham Anglers Association

Viewing 1 to 14 (14 Total) CLOSE SEASON
Branchie Total Posts: 37 Joined: September 23, 2016	After doing lots of walking lately.I've noticed that spring over the last few years is starting earlier each year.With this in mind maybe are close season needs to follow this pattern.So it would start at the beginning of march and end the start of June.Just a thought. Tags: Posted on March 21, 2021 at 10:45 AM

Fishychris Total Posts: 246 Joined: December 1, 2020	Re: CLOSE SEASON The issue with a closed season is proving what does and doesn't work. This is why I think it won't ever be changed. You can't prove the current one doesn't work, and a different approach would. There are so many variables that you could never say that one particular action was critical to results. I don't know if the closed season genuinely makes a difference. I suspect not much to be honest. Fish which are spawning tend to not be interested in much else in my experience. They may be more susceptible to predation as they spawn and for a couple of days after, but Its a couple of weeks before and after they've spawned that they're vulnerable to angling pressure, as they gorge to prepare for and replenish energy after their exertion. I agree a dynamic closed season should be more effective, but it would be impossible to manage properly. Posted on March 21, 2021 at 6:56 PM
Johnny_Care Total Posts: 407 Joined: June 10, 2015	Re: CLOSE SEASON The close season needs redefining in my book, maybe from the end of April until the start of July. In many recent seasons, the fish have been spawning at the beginning. As already stated though, every year is different. On the Lower Severn this season, there was evidence that many barbel had moved up to the Diglis and Teme mouth areas at the beginning of March, despite the previous months being generally colder than average. The 'consultation' that happened a few years ago was useless and did nothing sadly. Posted on March 21, 2021 at 7:10 PM
Brummymoorey Total Posts: 110 Joined: December 31, 2018	Re: CLOSE SEASON it needs scraping. Its old and dated and has zero relevance to spawning fish Posted on March 22, 2021 at 12:44 PM
KenL Total Posts: 280 Joined: December 27, 2015	Re: CLOSE SEASON Agreed. Scrap it. Spawning fish aren't interested in feeding and anglers on the bank means less poaching. Posted on April 8, 2021 at 7:33 PM
gb123 Total Posts: 196 Joined: June 14, 2015	Re: CLOSE SEASON I'm all for no close season, I doubt if it makes any difference to fish stocks, welfare or anything else. I fish the Avon, always week days, rarely do I see more than two or three other anglers, sometimes It's just me, usually it is just me in the colder months. There are thousands of fish in the river, a tiny proportion are caught. Just guessing of course but I would think 75% of the river rarely if ever sees a rod, purely because of access. I think those that are so concerned for the fish should question whether they should fish at all, a size 6 hook yanked into your lip feels the same all year round ? For most fish anglers are a lunch ticket. My point is the small number of fish caught does not justify a close season. Just saying. Posted on April 17, 2021 at 9:38 PM
stew83mul Total Posts: 663 Joined: May 30, 2015	Re: CLOSE SEASON I still can’t understand why a coarse fishing season just applies to rivers?Many species of coarse fish spawn in pools and canals so why is that any different to a river?Also the spawning times of different species of coarse fish are sometimes months apart and as said previously if they are in breeding mode they generally aren’t interested in feeding.It is such an outdated law that at least needs moving.What is frustrating is if you’re a river angler and we have a bad year flooding wise you get a few months a year to fish if that. Posted on April 17, 2021 at 11:45 PM
Re5erv0irReg Total Posts: 681 Joined: September 18, 2020	Re: CLOSE SEASON Spot on again Stew83mul There is no need for a close season it is an outdated anachronism and IF it was to protect the Salmon, well pollution, global warming and “Commercial Sea Fishing” has more or less decimated the Natural River Salmon so I agree that the Close Season should be consigned to history so that we anglers can. Keep on Fishing Posted on April 18, 2021 at 1:00 PM
onelastcast Total Posts: 821 Joined: July 4, 2015	Re: CLOSE SEASON It could be tweaked to protect the spawning areas of rivers, notably the upper reaches. But as long as the canoes etc are entitled it pretty would much an empty gesture....but opening up lower rivers such as the Severn Trent Thames etc would be a reasonable consession. But reason I am afraid has nothing to do with the close season, as previously posted. Posted on April 18, 2021 at 4:18 PM
philmep Total Posts: 13 Joined: November 10, 2020	Re: CLOSE SEASON I wouldn't be surprised if the close season is now seen by the angling powers as a convenient concession which 'proves' angling and anglers are conservation friendly? Removing it, would give the anti-angling brigade perfect ammunition? That said, I agree with Stew83mul that the accepted reasoning as a protection for spawning and the reproduction cycle of other water-based wildlife - means you'd expect it to naturally extend to canals and still waters too. The fact it doesn't is the perfect, perhaps unspoken compromise? No one wants to raise the issue of the close season's genuine benefits to our rivers just in case it highlights an inconsistency with canals and still waters that our detractors would want to challenge? Just a thought, but perhaps I'm just a cynic! Posted on April 29, 2021 at 6:36 AM
stew83mul Total Posts: 663 Joined: May 30, 2015	Re: CLOSE SEASON No Phil I totally agree,I would love to see the reasons for the relaxation of the close season on still waters and canals but not in rivers.If the reasons are to give coarse fish chance to spawn in disturbed then surely as a governing body that has evidence of “river fish” spawning at this time of year they would be aware of the fact that coarse fish (of the same species sometimes) also spawn in stillwaters and canals.What is the difference?It is a ridiculously outdated law,the pathetic “questionnaire “ they put out a few years back was as pointless as it was laughable. Posted on April 29, 2021 at 10:59 PM
Fishychris Total Posts: 246 Joined: December 1, 2020	Re: CLOSE SEASON I wonder if maybe stillwater fish were not killed and eaten as river fish were. There is also the old theory that the coarse closed season was in place to keep the peasants off the water so the upper classes had them to themselves during prime game season. Not sure if this is much more than synicism, but it could be an explanation as to why lakes wouldn't be part of the closure. Posted on April 30, 2021 at 11:43 PM
stew83mul Total Posts: 663 Joined: May 30, 2015	Re: CLOSE SEASON I think it’s a combination of both your points Chris as well as a couple of others.Which again goes to show how outdated it is. Posted on May 1, 2021 at 8:46 AM
MrChub Total Posts: 45 Joined: April 1, 2020	Re: CLOSE SEASON As explained earlier all issues regarding the current closed season length, extent and scope defy logic, reason and are evidence free. This was discussed elsewhere (the history being documented in an article posted by FishyChris 22.3.21) in General Chat under ‘Closed Season Length’ and further by me on that thread 25.3.21. This shows that the season length and types of waters which fall under the legislation is defined neither by evidence nor by logic. It is the result of hardened views, tradition, and messy compromise driven by vested interests in an evidence- free, politically charged environment. The late 19th century (pre commercials) established a 3 month universal (with some timing variation) closed season. By the 1980s vested interests – mainly new commercials and in the spirit of the deregulation agenda first made popular during the period of Margaret Thatcher – pushed for 12 month access on their (still) waters. What we have now dates back to the 1990s when the latest rules were brought in. There had been pressure to grant exemptions to what had been a mainly universal 3 month closed season from the new commercial stillwater owners following years of byelaw bending in the Thames area. At a lake near me you could in 1968 fish ‘any method' for trout. The owner put in a few stockies and opened the water to all comers. Closed season fishing available from April. Very few trout were caught but the precursors to the Bivvy Boys packed the banks with those fishing traditional coarse methods for coarse fish. It was within the law because ‘they were fishing for trout which had been stocked’ but in effect it was giving 2 fingers to the intention of the prevailing legislation). A proposal for a single narrow exemption for commercial stillwaters (where the closed season was seen as a restraint on trade and deemed an unfair practice) was opposed by BAA which put the NRA (precursor to EA in overall responsibility for maintaining fisheries) under pressure to include canals in any exemption only the grounds that 3 months fishing only at commercials would act as disincentive to join clubs and haemorrhage club membership putting their continued viability in question. The stock in canals like stillwaters are under the ownership of the canal owner and (mainly – like stillwaters – enclosed). The powerful game fishing lobby prevented any possibility of a further extension covering wild (with unowned) stock in rivers justified on the grounds of protecting game fishing. In the end the BAA’s arguments prevailed (a further compromise) which is why today canals and stillwaters can be exempt from the closed season requirements – the exemption being ultimately in the hands of the landowner. The powerful game fishing lobby had prevented any possibility of an extension covering wild (with unowned stock) in rivers. Evidence here if here if anyone doubted it of the power of commercial and vested interests over science, logic and consistency. The last time there was a national debate on the closed season and whether it should continue was by the Angling Trust in 2015. It merely served as an echo chamber for those with pre-set views to expound them and the view from the EA and government was it was not on the political radar, and that robust evidence as to the effects would need to be presented. As FishyChris observes this is highly problematic. An earlier public consultation was conducted by the EA in 2003 it found slightly favour of abolition (55%-45%) but only from 173 respondents and little by way of evidence. In a typical British manner I suspect we will continue with the present muddle; unsupported by evidence, with no-one thinking it is an adequate provision, but without the will or resources to effect change. Posted on May 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM

We use cookies on this website for better user experience.
BAA Privacy & Confidentiality Policy