|
Viewing 26 to (45 Total) |
|
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 01, 2021 at 9:48 AM
|
|
I’ve actually gone back to look at some research I did on this on this topic about 5 years ago.
Our current arrangements date back to the 1990s when the latest rules were brought in. Pressure
then to grant exemptions to what had been a mainly universal 3 month closed season was mainly
from the commercial stillwater owners following years of byelaw bending in the Thames area. But
this single narrow exemption for commercial stillwaters 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 club membership and haemorrhage club membership putting their continued viability in question.
In the end the BAA’s arguments were accepted (a further compromise) which is why today canals and stillwaters can be exempt from the closed season requirements. Proof here if anyone doubted it of the power of commercial and vested interests over science, logic and consistency
Posted on March 25, 2021 at 6:35 PM
|
|
The current closed season may best be described as a bugger’s muddle with more inconsistencies than we could imagine. In part this is because as the earlier attached article shows it was born out of uneasy compromise and this has continued ever since as its timing and scope have been amended.
Some may feel it has something to do with fish spawning, but its development is also subject to
other influences. As others have noted spawning times vary dependent on weather (in warm springs generally earlier) and on species (perhaps by up to 5 months if we take the extremes of pike and dace and carp and barbel). 3 months set at fixed dates is at best an uneasy compromise.
When I was very young I seem to recall that different localities had different dates (SW and Yorkshire started and finished earlier I think) and following lobbying from the pleasure boat and holiday industry in Norfolk the closed season was suspended as its existence was considered damaging to hire-boat owners’ profits. Today we are not immune from the perceived power of the landed gamefish lobby with the blanket application of a closed season on rivers, whereas ‘coarse’ canals and stillwaters can be exempt; the exemption being in the hands of the landowner. Stillwaters cover commercials whose owners naturally want to maximise angling opportunities and 25% of the year off will do nothing for profits or even viability. As Peachy has observed there is no logic here.
Neither is there logic apparent in exemption from the closed season on canals where certain pounds are in fact impounded rivers (there are many of these throughout the England and Wales). Within the route of the canal such sections are outside the closed season whereas the adjoining river sections are closed. Some drains (man-made stillwaters) are closed and some remain open and the only way to be certain is the check the local byelaws for that location.
As I noted elsewhere good laws are clear, fair and provide certainty. Our closed season’s legislation fails on all 3 counts.
Posted on March 25, 2021 at 12:12 PM
|
|
This is positively my last contribution to this subject which by now is merely academic as river fishing ceased for a 3 month interregnum on Sunday. As a national newspaper espouses, ‘Comment is free but facts are sacred’.
In this spirit I have been lured from my lair like some chub by a tempting lobworm as the river fines down from flood. The lobworm in question was an hour long telecon this afternoon with a contact (whose identity I feel I must protect here) on a range of fishing matters but of especial interest here is the fact that he was a key member of the AT negotiators with DCMS and Defra ahead of the current lockdown and negotiating what was the ability of us all to continue fishing since early January - something we all should all applaud AT for.
I understand that initial negotiations made it clear that the official government line would be to legally limit (by regulation) all travel during lockdown. The responsibility for drawing up the regulations fell to neither Defra nor the DCMS but the Cabinet Office which in the event failed (for reasons we may only guess at) to include travel in the regulations. This has remained the case throughout the lockdown and is advisory only (but included in the guidelines for which there is no legal force). This was subsequently confirmed (to him and AT lawyers) by the Cabinet Office as unenforceable in law.
Being cognisant of the understandable and sensible wish to limit travel (as a reinforcement to
lockdown compliance and therefore increase the chances of reducing infection levels), AT guidance discouraged excessive travel and encouraged the ‘stay local’ message; a sentiment which all of us should expect from our representative body if it is to continue to have credibility.
As others have said we have each to consider our own circumstances and views to come to our conclusions about what to do and where to go during lockdown. There is no right or wrong answer provided we keep within the regulations (the law which is enforceable via the courts) and act as responsible individuals. As this thread has shown this covers a variety of views, but whatever we do we should make informed decisions; informed by what is legal and what is factually true.
The individual in question has fished 6 miles from home (his personally set limit he tells me) even
though he has accessible water 1 & 2 miles distant. He knew this was within the law and in the
spirit of the guidelines. This was a personal choice not driven by any ‘inside knowledge’ nor quasi
legal precedent. As he says any fine levied for ‘not staying local’ would be thrown out by the courts because there is no statutory basis to levy this.
I shall now address my thoughts (if I can find anything informative to add) to barbel and weed over a glass of something appropriate.
Posted on March 19, 2021 at 7:07 PM
|
|
I thought long and hard about adding to this battle but in the event I have weakened.
The thread started because someone was pulled by the police whilst travelling 40 minutes from
home to (his) chosen fishing spot. They received a £200 fine: none of us have been told for what
offence] but the assumptions have been that it was because he was not staying local which as
Fishychris has patiently explained, repeatedly and at length and with corroborating evidence from
police forces including from the Derbyshire constabulary that travel for exercise (which in the
regulations includes fishing) is allowed ‘but not ideal’.
If indeed the assumptions are correct and the fine was levied only for a failure to stay local, (a term that has no meaning in law) the fine was issued in error and is not valid and Mr Plod acted in error (it happens, like us they make mistakes!) If challenged in court it should be dismissed.
Of course we do not know all the facts and in the course of the exchanges between the victim and
Mr Plod other actions that did fall foul of the law and regulations might have emerged, the fine could stand but not for for a failure to stay local whilst travelling for a valid reason.
The Covid lockdown regulations (law) and guidance (recommendations with no legal enforcement) were constructed in a rush; they are cumbersome, inconsistent and ill defined. Any perusal of the press will soon yield observations from official sources about the assumptions underlying these and the difficulties the police are having in meeting expectations (from numerous interests with differing perspectives).
I have every confidence that Fishychris’s offer is completely safe.
Posted on March 16, 2021 at 7:11 PM
|
