|
|
Post by blue on Sept 27, 2007 8:16:28 GMT
Below is copy of e-mail from "Dr. Dave" of TDSFB
"Dear Sir,
The AGM is on 3rd December, 11am, Birnam Institute. But you have to be a proprietor or a representative sent by a proprietor to attend.
Regards
David Summers"
Closed shop anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by juststartedagain on Sept 27, 2007 20:22:51 GMT
trouble is - it is currently the Lower Tay Salmon District Fisheries Board and our ex Army Officer mates (sorry Coopted Representatives of Salmon Fishers) Brigadier C. Dunphie, P. Fothringham, Lt. Col. R.P.D. Gordon - oh and a couple of other random people and we better add one of the ghillies so it looks like we maybe care.... It needs to have the whole of the Tay system represented, some real fisherman who have the river at heart, Riparian owners who have the river at heart (there must be some??  ).... Willie the Ghillie/Kercock/anyone else who can influence - how can this be sorted??? Sounds like they are closing ranks as they know there is going to be chaos...  |
|
riverwalk
Member
there ya go......am in!
Posts: 29
|
Post by riverwalk on Sept 27, 2007 20:32:02 GMT
the trouble is the tay is still dealing with the fudal system!!!....and they dont believe the tay exists above islamouth!
|
|
|
|
Post by juststartedagain on Sept 27, 2007 20:44:31 GMT
WTG/anyone - are there a set of rules or guiding principles - something like articles of association, which outlines the aims and objectives of the board, how members are elected etc etc. Worth getting a hold of (maybe the solicitors can provide a copy) as if there is, there must be a formal way if they re going to play this game, of trying to place a vote of no confidence on the chairman? Do they have any real accountabilities?
But how do we get enough people in the room?
The other proprieters need to get themselves along and onto the board - are there any who are interested in long term future of the river?? I dont know but surely there must be one? Could this "one" owner invite several other interested parties as his/her representative so that we can get some challenge and debate going (I know WTG will be worth 100 guys in the room) but lets try and find a way of getting people there as support.
Pete Wishart (and others) needs to understand what is going on. He should be there as far as I am concerned - if these guys carry on ignoring the problem they are going to put a massive dent into the Scottish economy. This sounds more like a private members club - its a disgrace.
|
|
|
|
Post by victorclem on Sept 27, 2007 21:07:32 GMT
I attended AGM last year. There were 35 people maximum, and if you take away the board members and staff, there were less than 10 riparian owners from the whole system in attendance. That is the level of engagement the current system encourages, in what is the biggest river catchment in Scotland by far. In my opinion, TDSFB are inviting some sort of bill being put through Holyrood that will challenge the way Salmon Fisheries Boards are constituted. People will accept this sort of arrangement if they are doing a good job, but it is different when things swing the other way.........
|
|
|
|
Post by dunbar on Sept 28, 2007 7:39:38 GMT
WTG/anyone - are there a set of rules or guiding principles - something like articles of association, which outlines the aims and objectives of the board, how members are elected etc etc. Worth getting a hold of (maybe the solicitors can provide a copy) as if there is, there must be a formal way if they re going to play this game, of trying to place a vote of no confidence on the chairman? Do they have any real accountabilities? But how do we get enough people in the room? It's all here in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003: www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/20030015.htmRead part 3 which wil explain how Boards are constituted, elected and how they raise funds etc. |
|
|
|
Post by victorclem on Sept 28, 2007 8:16:49 GMT
Good find Dunbar.
VC
|
|
|
|
Post by victorclem on Sept 28, 2007 15:48:53 GMT
I posted an article to Comment magazine today challenging the glossy interpretation put on national salmon catch figures for 2006 as they might apply in Perthshire. They have it up already, in fact, they withdrew previous article and replaced it with this: www.commentonline.co.uk/wildlife/SalmonCatchImprovementsNotLocally.htmAs always, I have made an atempt to be diplomatic and measured....... VC |
|
|
|
Post by juststartedagain on Sept 28, 2007 16:28:12 GMT
Dunbar - thanks for digging this out. On first read it does very much promote a closed shop - not sure how one can declare a vote of no confidence for example or do anything to remove the current lot. Also not clear other than as I said in my earlier post - you get voted in as a coopted representative fisherman other than being a mate of the chairman!
Some bonkers clauses and I think Victor is right - this Act needs rigourous updating to reflect the current status of salmon fishing (despite the successes in the Dee/Tweed) in Scotland.
Innes - I am all up for adding my support/weight to any positive course action but will defer to those in the know - Victor/WTG/Kercock/others as to the best course to do this as it needs to be done correctly to ensure that the current excellent initiatives get supported as well as raising the issues about the non action of the board..
Victor - good article.....is there anyway you can get it into the Scotsman or on the BBC Scotland site?
Who else would like to join in on some positive action here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Willie The Gillie on Sept 28, 2007 16:28:39 GMT
As always you have presented the facts perfectly
Well done Victor.
|
|
|
|
Post by victorclem on Sept 28, 2007 17:04:23 GMT
Juststartedagain,
I think I have done enough stirring for one day, and quite happy to have these things debated locally. If others want to challenge articles in papers with letters themselves, that is fine. I think much better to sort these things by our own efforts close to home. National press are interested in headlines only, we need to be dealing more subtlely with things. I am not a creature of the limelight by inclination at all.
By the way, I was NOT advocating that Holyrood make changes to legislation, I was saying that TDSFB are risking that happening by not making provision for a wider audience at their AGM.
VC
|
|
|
|
Post by juststartedagain on Oct 2, 2007 22:41:43 GMT
Victor - understood what you were saying re the legislation. The point I was trying to make (difficult on a crap link from the train - and Laptop kept hanging) was that on reading the Act, it actually does seem to endorse the behaviour we are seeing from the TDSFB and it does seem out of date particularly for the Tay given the current state of play.....so somehow this does need changed but thats for a different day! What I couldnt figure out was how can other, new representative salmon fisherman get elected if nobody else can go other than those invited by the board which i.e. their mates - so not representative/and couldnt see an obvious way for a vote of no confidence in the chairman or other key members.... Fingers crossed WTG can get a positive result...its getting more worrying esp given the numbers of fish up the ladder (or not!!) but given the stories re Kerachers and Germans its no wonder we are seeing nothing of note in the middle and upper beats...... |
|
|
|
Post by kercock on Oct 7, 2007 8:14:09 GMT
There are a number of ghillies on the board,of that there is no doubt. All improvements to feeder streams on the main river for access by salmon which have been done by the board was done on member ghillies beats ! No change there then !
|
|
|
|
Post by greenbanks on Oct 11, 2007 18:49:03 GMT
Its hugely disappointing looking at this years numbers from fishtay website,wow the numbers have dropped through the floor.What can be done to promote more radical practices to ensure survival of salmo as a significant contributer to Tayside tourism?Anglers must be leaving in droves from the system to fish elsewhere in the hope of hooking a salmon.The mighty Tay is looking pretty small compared to the Tweed these days.Time for anglers who care about the Tay to let the board know how disappointing their stewardship of the river is.Salmon must be very scarce in the middle and upper beats.  |
|
|
|
Post by victorclem on Oct 11, 2007 20:33:29 GMT
Figures suggest middle beats down 44% on 5-year average, and down 58% on 2006. Upper beats or Loch Tay barely register.
River as a whole down 20% on 5 year average, down 36% on 2006, with 3 fishing days to go.
Lower beats will just about be on their 5-year average, so, bearing in mind the upper beats have negligible numbers recorded on here anyway, seems to be the middle beats that are taking the hit.
Good way of promoting change is just to state the obvious in simple terms like this.
VC
|
|
|
|
Post by blue on Oct 16, 2007 12:31:01 GMT
Outlined below are the plans(allegedly) the board have for next season:
Spring Fish: First fish caught on a day by day basis per angler to be returned.If you catch 2 springers in a day, the 2nd can be killed. No longer a running total over the season per angler.
All hens to be returned.
All fish over 15lb to be returned.
No change to worming rules.
Board aiming for 50% release rate for 2008 season.
If this target is missed, moves will be made for mandatory measures.
The Dee aims for 100% C & R and gets 90%.
What will happen if the Tay aims for 50%? What will we get?
45% if we are lucky.
10% increase on this year!
Forward thinking lot, ain't they??
|
|
|
|
Post by victorclem on Oct 16, 2007 13:44:26 GMT
I thought board were already aiming for 50%, they were just not acheiving it.
Also, how do you make C & R mandatory? And make what mandatory exactly? Making 50% return mandatory, make 100% mandatory? Dee C & R code is voluntary, as I suspect are Tweed and Spey. They work because they have done their proper groundwork and worked at it over many years. A half-hearted message backed up by idle threats will not work. There are too many loop-holes in this "plan".
When fish stocks are low, the absolute priority is to look after what you have, not kill half of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by donnieW on Oct 16, 2007 14:53:01 GMT
Outlined below are the plans(allegedly) the board have for next season: Spring Fish: First fish caught on a day by day basis per angler to be returned.If you catch 2 springers in a day, the 2nd can be killed. No longer a running total over the season per angler. All hens to be returned. All fish over 15lb to be returned. No change to worming rules. Board aiming for 50% release rate for 2008 season. If this target is missed, moves will be made for mandatory measures. Guidelines/recommendations/plans - no further forward then. Until some hard and fast rules are made, the decline will continue. |
|
)....
