Compulsory Catch & Release

[wilbert]

C&R is a good thing on many rivers but to go 100% C&R on every river in the UK is a few steps too far. I only keep 1 fish per year but it is nice to have that option. The Dee seems to be benefiting from C&R, the release rates are high but as stated in other reports its not 100% C&R.

[storlaks]

The Dee has benefited from a comprehensive restoration program which included C&R. To say C&R is the main reason the Dee has seen improved catch returns is, IMO, not true. C&R is and always will be the easy option for River boards / beat owners to implement to show they are contributing to the future well-being of a river and/or showing they support conservation. It's cheap. Fortunately for the Dee, C&R was only 1 of the key activities implemented which has helped salmon stocks increase.

[macd]

well said storlaks. C&R is a religon for some, but in practice should be part of a suite of management tools.

Ross

[Fruin]

I'll second that - well said Storlaks.

I think that the unfortunate thing about catch and release is that the rivers that would most benefit from it have not implemented it. Some of the rivers that have implemented it would be done no harm by the anglers taking some fish for the pot after paying a lot of money for the right to fish with rod and line.

A catchment will only produce a certain amount of smolts, regardless of how many extra salmon run the rivers. If there are enough spawning fish, then a portion of the extra fish can be taken without damaging future stocks. This should be managed on a yearly basis.

If a river has a particularly poor run of returning adults then this should be followed by catch and release until the situation improves.

I wholly agree with Storlaks that too many people have jumped in and attributed the better returns on the Dee to the C&R policy. There are a number of factors that determine the number of returning adult fish, of which C&R plays only a very small part.

I believe that we would have seen a similar rise in returning adults had a sensible approach to fishery management, allowing anglers to take a FAIR share of fish, been implemented.

[kercock]

On the button storlaks, I honestly believe it will come here though,sooner rather than later. Between SNH and SEPA ,they will have pretty much complete control over all rivers,certainly in Scotland. Fishery Boards,as I see it only tell the Scottish Excecutive what they think they want to hear,and lets face it,the fishery boards cannot lose,they get their levy per fish whether the fish is killed or returned. Another certainty is the rod licence,it make complete sense to the Sotish Executive,it will bring in £8m and will cost £12 m to implement it ! Call me cynical if you like !

[storlaks]

Kercock, you maybe correct in your prediction, but I sincerely hope not. I think we have a good example of how proper river management, when deployed well, can work here in Scotland. Just look at the Tweed. Yes, C&R plays it part, but it's still operated on a voluntary basis for most part. IMO, there is no need to introduce a mandatory C&R unless perhaps on Rivers in the West coast that have been desimated by the fish farms. This should still be done at a local level, not by some goverment pen-pusher. Even then the Lochy has proved that controlled C&R coupled with good river Management can work. If the Scottish Exec want to be influenced then point them in the direction of the Tweed and Lochy.

[betanut]

Agree with most of the posts above and I'm pleased to see that the general concensus is that C&R constitutes part of a management policy and not the ultimate answer to everything (that's 42......)
More than anything else the national body for district salmon fshery boards (really should be river/system fishery boards - more than just Salmo Salar to think about) need to agree a common policy for all rivers - that way change will occur more rapidly IMHO.
Personally on this topic I voted yes - I would continue to fish under a tougher regimen than currently exsists on any river in Scotland. I mean, who really needs to keep all their fish? I like to keep a brace or three every year (if I'm that lucky!!).

[Fruin]

Betanut,

If you like to keep a brace or three a year, then you should perhaps have voted 'no'.

I don't think that a common policy for all rivers is a good idea and I firmly believe that each catchment has to be managed locally, with decisions specific to that catchment.

While a lot of the science that good river management is founded on can be applied to all rivers and catchments, there are individual criterea for each catchment. Generic policy ruling could be very damaging and constrictive to the management of many systems.

[charlieh]

I have to vote no.

I am quite happy to fish under 'Dee rules' or something similar, where the broad thrust is towards 100% C&R. But, as I understand it, the Dee rules allow for a fish that is bleeding badly to be killed and put to good use (though by the owner of the beat, not the fisherman, which is designed to prevent cheating).

The plain fact is that, whatever measures are taken to reduce it, there will always be fish that are damaged in the course of being caught, and which have no realistic chance of survival. I have a real problem with the though of throwing a fine eating fish back into the river simply to provide a meal for the eels. To my mind, that shows a huge lack of respect for the quarry, amounting as it does to killing without any purpose.

A friend of mine has been obliged to return fish under the byelaws of England and Wales, when he knew there was no chance of their surviving. In spite of his best efforts, fish have simply rolled over and floated away dead. He told me that it left him with a sick feeling, and quite put him off fishing for some time.

I'm sure that, faced with the same situation, I would feel equally unhappy. So although I have, like so many people, been largely converted to the cause of C&R in recent years, I am not enthusiastic about compulsory C&R without any exception, such as exists in England and Wales in the early part of the season.

[tynespeycaster]

Well said Charlie H,

My sentiments exactly, I would also have to say no.

Happy to comply with the sensible Scottish C&R system where applicable but I too had to watch a beautiful silver May fish roll down the Tyne after 3 hours desperately trying to save, 4 years down the line and it still hurts.

[tweedcast]

I'd agree with Charlie also.

M

[betanut]

fruin said:

Betanut,

If you like to keep a brace or three a year, then you should perhaps have voted 'no'.

Why? The poll question ("If the UK was to enforce total C & R in salmon fishing, using only barbless singles as in parts of Canada, would you continue to fish with the same commitment and enthusiasm?") could equally be a yes or no if you keep 20 fish a year let alone a brace and a half, it's more baout angling commitment surely? I am saying that I would willingly continue to fish even though I would be obliged to return what I catch. In other words, I would forgo my three fish a year to be able to continue fishing. So yes it has to be - No did not even enter the equation

fruin said:

I don't think that a common policy for all rivers is a good idea and I firmly believe that each catchment has to be managed locally, with decisions specific to that catchment. .

Well, that reckons on there being an interested or pro-active fishery board something which has not always been the case across Scotland as a whole. The old NRA regional system was quite good working from a general common policy with local management and catchment specific husbandry - it worked and could be the way forward in some areas.

To be clear on one point - I am not a devotee of C&R for the masses at all. Increasingly, I do return most of my fish ( be they Salmon or Trout) but a lot needs to be done on teaching anglers how to do it correctly. I have seen some right cack handed efforts at returning fish and it would be simpler to knock them on the head to be honest Nor do I agree with returning fish that have no chance of survival, absolute lunacy in my book - but if the rules stipulate compulsory C&R then those are the rules and if sticking to them means I can continue to fish then so be it.

Or I'll move to Russia ;D

[Fruin]

Betanut,

In reading my response again, I have to admit that it sounds a bit inflammatory and I apologise for that. You are of course correct on both points.

Especially, that to implement local policy takes dedicated and well versed individuals and groups. However, I think that should be the target rather than enforcing policy that does not take into account local peculiarities. We should move away from nanny state policy and allow the experience of locals and individual scientific/statistical research dictate policy on individual catchments.

[wilbert]

As i was the first person to reply to this thread there seams to have been the conclusion from everyone posting after me that that I see C&R as the only reason that the Dee is improving. This is not the case and I was only using the Dee as an example of near 100% C&R, as this was a vote on compulsory C&R or not it didn't think it was appropriate to go into all the other issues regarding samon management. C&R is just happens to be the easiest and cheapest to carry out. each river has to find the right balance between the kill and release rate. for some this may be 100% release and others it may only be 50% release rate. Any way lets just continue to have fun fishing and hope that things will improve on all rivers in the UK.

[jan]

There are many hundreds of thousands of coarse anglers out there who have never killed a fish and never will - they fish for the catch not the kill - and they have , over the years, developed ways of very successful c&r with even large fish and very high survival rates - even when fish are being kept overnight for morning pictures - there must be some lessons to learn from them?

[zeolite]

jan... Frankly I think keeping a fish overnight for photography is just wrong. I don't believe in total C+R. If a river can't withstand any fishing pressure then we shouldn't be fishing at all. We should let the beasties be until the river can stand some fishing pressure.
having said that with my success rate it really wouldn't make much difference.

[jan]

yes i am not in favour of sacks etc, but coarse anglers fish in the certain knowledge that their catch tastes awful anyway so they just fish for sport - its really a mind set - coarse anglers never fish for the pot in the Uk; game fish, on the other hand, can taste just splendid - if they tasted awful we would happily fish 100% c&r without a second thought - surely a better option than not fishing at all.

[elwyman]

I voted no, but would be happy for anglers to be limited to 2 or 3 fish per season, ie enough for their own needs. Perhaps a limit of 1 per week is needed as well, to safeguard rivers fished by visiting anglers.

The obvious problem is enforcement - I'm not sure how well the Irish tag system works.

[redshrimp]

It works when the baliffs are about but i've seen many anglers hiding fish for collection later. Some have even used their youngsters to spirit them away to their car while they fished on. It really sucks.

[acw]

yesterdays fish returned with out a qualm ,must admit the old "wow that would be greeat to share with a crowd of friends and family ,especially as many of those folks have never tasted the wonder of real salmon not the frankenfish that masquerades as salmon today .Roll on days of plentiful springers so I can eat at least one more !