Spring Salmon Killed being retained by beat

[tayspringer]

With the possibility of a blanket rule of all spring salmon must be returned until 31st May. Should the beats retain any spring fish killed by anglers? It has been a traditional thing to say that the fish is bleeding? I now believe it is a rather lame excuse and that all bleeding fish should be verified by a ghillie or ballif prior to being killed.

One way of stopping the butchers is to enforce a rule on each beat that any fish killed will become the property of the beat and the fish will be retained by the beat.

Obviously this needs to be explained before fishing so that anyone catching a fish is well aware they either return it or hand it to the ghille

What do you all think?

[scottyjock]

Voted no.

With the possibility of a blanket rule of all spring salmon must be returned until 31st May. Should the beats retain any spring fish killed by anglers? It has been a traditional thing to say that the fish is bleeding? I now believe it is a rather lame excuse and that all bleeding fish should be verified by a ghillie or ballif prior to being killed.

unenforceable.

[castlikeaghille]

tayspringer said:

With the possibility of a blanket rule of all spring salmon must be returned until 31st May. Should the beats retain any spring fish killed by anglers? It has been a traditional thing to say that the fish is bleeding? I now believe it is a rather lame excuse and that all bleeding fish should be verified by a ghillie or ballif prior to being killed.

One way of stopping the butchers is to enforce a rule on each beat that any fish killed will become the property of the beat and the fish will be retained by the beat.

Obviously this needs to be explained before fishing so that anyone catching a fish is well aware they either return it or hand it to the ghille

What do you all think?

On the Dee beats on which I am the tenant, any "bleeding" fish that are killed are given to the estate. As individuals in the group there are widely differening views on catch and release. However, we fish to the rules, and, as a group, we think giving to the estate is a good system where a catch and release policy is operated and where it is not illegal to kill a salmon. In such circumstances there is no incentive to do anything other than make every effort to ensure a safe release.

Regards

CLaG

[charlieh]

I seem to remember someone telling me that when the Dee brought in their 100% catch & release rule except for bleeders, but allowed rods to retain bleeding fish, they had about 20% of fish reported as bleeding. When the rules were changed so the fish remained the property of the estate, that figure dropped to about 5%, which is in line with what one would expect.

I am opposed to 100% compulsory C&R, as bleeders do inevitably occur and I regard leaving a prime spring fish to become eel food as a criminal waste - though that is what has to happen to bleeders in England and Wales currently. If a fish is to die, it's better that it is put to good use. But some people (and I know I've fished with some) still seem willing to go to lengths to subvert the rules. The best way to avoid this is to ensure that they do not benefit from killing a fish.

Perhaps, in a perfect world, any such fish would be sold to benefit the river, rather than going to the estate. With the price commanded by wild salmon, this might generate some useful money.

A quick back of f*g packet calculation. The Dee seems to take about 1500 spring fish, on average. With 5% bleeders, that's 75 fish, so say 700lb of fish. I don't know what the market rate for wild spring salmon is, but that must represent a few thousand pounds that could go to benefit the river.

[Fruin]

Well said CharlieH. Any fish killed should go to a good cause and not on the owners dinner table!

[macd]

Agree fish should remain with estate. Charlie sums it up nicely.

[tayspringer]

So far it is 50:50 on the beat retaining any killed fish.

[salmonshrimp]

A visitor who pays a few hundred pounds to fish has the right to choose. Take away the right and the visitor will not return

[duncanm]

I would agree with this - giving a fish which has had to be killed due to bleeding to the estate removes temptation from the unscrupulous.

[williegunn]

dixie said:

A visitor who pays a few hundred pounds to fish has the right to choose. Take away the right and the visitor will not return

He will not be a loss, in fact I would be glad to encourage his departure with a well aimed boot.

[salmonshrimp]

Thats a fine attitude and I would encourage you to continue booting out all visitors who like to choose for themselves.

[williegunn]

dixie said:

Thats a fine attitude and I would encourage you to continue booting out all visitors who like to choose for themselves.

The visitor has the right to choose whether he fishes a river or beat with certain rules and standards, once he has made that decision he must abide by the rules. If he chooses to kill fish against the rules he is not welcome back.

[salmonshrimp]

you guys are painting a very black picture of the paying visitor, I've have never come across these types of anglers in all my fishing years. !!

[akflyrod]

even though i return most of the salmon i catch, i do not fish beats that take the choice away from me , i know many people with the same views, there are also a lot of people with different views, and that is the point, everyones ideal of what should take place is always going to differ,you cannot force your wishes on anyone else.

gary