Head Ghillies job River Dee

[Sloggi]

Cheers Betanut.

Unfortunately, the fish numbers in the Dee will not improve to any great extent until we take better care of our river. The amount of white/brown "foam" that floats past me all season long is astonishing! I guess the forestry doesn't help either - the river is up and down like a yo-yo.

Don't you get an update from the ADAA?

[betanut]

sloggi said:

Don't you get an update from the ADAA?

Only had one tip to the wise/update by an ADAA member who is also on this forum
Maybe I smell of cheese whatever the reason I don't hear from many folk at all.
I don't do the report for money, more for other fishers interest. You'd think that folk would be eager to divulge the latest news - not the case

[robmason]

sloggi said:

I fish the lower Dee and can give my view of things. I'm against an extension as the main autumn run has passed before the last week of the season. This year the big run was in the first week of September with a steady run until the last few days. The previous season saw the main run of fish in the third week of September. If it was agreed, then I hope we can move the opening to 1st March.

Spinning has always been permitted on the beats I fish. As far as I'm aware, the ghillie allows cock fish to be taken throughout the season and I don't recall the last time a hen was taken. I can also add that in my experience fly is always the first option although some older fishers arrive with rapala and flying-c at the ready. Good for them to find somewhere to fish!

I have fished some of the middle and upper beats who claim to practice 100% C&R - 80% is probably closer to the truth.

I think the code as practised on the North Esk is pretty good, fair, and a compromise between owners and fishers - well done them!

As for dear old Polmonier, what can I say. It's only a pity she doesn't take time in her column to discuss effluence her much-loved riparian farming owners keep feeding our beautiful Dee. The sooner she gives up the column the better. She's a mouthpiece for the traditionalists who are fortunate enough to fish the top beats.

Sorry for that, but I do feel better!

I wonder Sloggi if you can substantiate your C&R claims for the middle and upper beats. There are alot of beats included in this "sweeping statement" and all the ones I've fished over the past 10 years would not let me back if I've killed a fish.

[Sloggi]

For a start I would draw your attention to the report by Polmonier in T&S earlier this season where she reports on fish being killed. Similarly to Polmonier in this months report, I only have reliable information from a trustworthy person on C&R figures, and one oil business guy I spoke with while we were playing football who was surprised to be allowed to keep a fish as it was his first of the season!

The generalization of my statement was only to protect myself. Suffice to say that I'm including beats above the Maryculter bridge. I would wish to refrain from offering any refulgence on the matter as I'm sure you understand.

The key issue on the Dee is not the C&R issue but the effect of farming and forestry on the river's life-cycle. Whether the C&R is 80% or 99.9% is only a divergence by characters like Polmonier afraid to tackle real issues. Ally Gowans was spot on in a recent T&S issue when he pointed to scientific evidence of how we are destroying our rivers.

[tyneandrew]

We had one heavy bleeder killed on our mid river beat all season - C&R rate 99.18%.

I agree though, there are broader issues within the catchment that need to be addressed. I sometimes wish i lived nearer the river so could take an active role with improvements.

[toucan]

Some interesting points coming out here, including some valuable insight from the lower river. I have fished lower, middle and upper Dee although these days I fish on the middle and upper river and usually get to see the river in March, April and late in June.

My view is that the upper and middle beats take the "voluntary" code very seriously and that a willful breaking of the code would result in getting chucked off the river. On the upper/middle river, the problems of low stock remain very plain to see. Pools that should be stacking up with fish in late May/June have only a handful of fish in them. Yes a few fish continue to be caught but the stock is minimal, and seeing that promotes support for C&R.

There is, however, the nagging concern that "down below" the same view is not taken, and while that might cause a lack of confidence in the code, the optimistic view is generally taken, i.e. that only one or two "black sheep" beats transgress, and then only in a minor way.

I believe a less optimistic view is taken by some others. Of course, if you don't like a rule, it is easier to justify breaking the rule if you create the impression that no-one adheres to it. I suspect that is being done by those proprietors/ghillies/fishermen who continue to kill the Dee's valuable spawning fish. It is simple selfishness, but perhaps understandable given the fact that the lower proprietors do see reasonable numbers of fish passing through their water, and reasonable catches.

You may say that it doesn't make a lot of difference to the population of the Dee whether 80% or 100% are returned. I disagree. First of all the Dee needs those additional 800 fish on the redds. Secondly, if the code is discredited the percentage of fish killed will rise because no-one will have faith that the other beats are putting their fish back. And that is when the SE will step in and impose compulsory and permanent C&R.

I am interested in the implied wisdom that agriculture is responsible for the Dee's decline. Perhaps Sloggi could provide some references for this scientific assessment. I am afraid I didn't read Ally Gowans in the T&S. For more information about what is being done (well, in theory anyway ) to address water quality issues, you might like to look at www.theriverdee.org

Mark

[turrifftackle]

Dee Catches.

The Dee has suffered a serious decline in numbers over the years and any " extra fishing" can not be justified on the grounds of more fish or improved runs.

In 1995 nearly 16,000 salmon and grilse came off the Dee.This saw a sharp decline to just under 4000 by the year 2000.

The best year since 1997 was 2004 when 6000 came off. This is a far cry from the 16,000.

In contrast the Spey took around 12,000 in 1995 and again 2004 was the best year since and showed a catch of nearly 10000.
The Deveron had just over 4000 in 1995 and 2004 again saw its best year with nearly 5000 caught. The Don has very near identical numbers and patterns to the Deveron.

This suggests that the Dee has an environmental problem in producing smolts as most other North East rivers have not shown the same catastrophic decline over the same period.

[Sloggi]

I can check but Ally responded to concerns raised about his views in the October or November issue - I seem to recall it was in the Salmon Surgery section and there was reference to the data.

Your inference that lower beats see a reasonable amount of fish etc. is flawed. What we see are declining numbers of fish in a big way. I think I saw one salmon before August last year and caught two sea-trout during the summer - very depressing.

Regardless of whether or not a single fish is killed on the Dee, I don't think the river maintains enough aquatic life to sustain greater numbers which is obvious by the lack of fish, I suppose. This points to environmental issues including, but probably not restricted to, farming and forestry.

I would suggest adopting the N Esk's code - a common sense approach.

[williegunn]

Frank, Could it be that the Dee is and was always a Spring river with very few Summer fish, where as the Spey fishes right through and the other two are definitely Autumn rivers?
Scientists have always said the Spring stock is more vulnerable.

I am not in favour of the extension, and hope they are turned down, compared with the Spey, the Dee has done very little research into the late run.

[turrifftackle]

Malcolm

You are probably spot on as many beats had far more numbers by May than they do now for a whole season. They then stopped fishing for the year.

Everyone would like to fish more and for longer but we are not out of the woods yet for salmon numbers on any river.Imagine the cry of pain from the beats and the howls from anglers if the River closed at the end of May



Frank

[Fruin]

On most systems, introducing catch and release does not resolve falling returns. It merely masks the real causes of falling stocks and delays the riparian owners from having to tackle the root causes.
While I agree that C&R can help, it is too small a tool for the job in hand. Very often, as turrifftackle states, it is the survival of the smolts that is the main issue. I am not opposed to C&R, and return most of what I catch, but I feel that it is often imposed on the paying fisherman, before the root causes are tackled.
I am, however, against extending the fishing season, unless extensive research has been carried out to provide evidence and justification for the case.

[toucan]

Your inference that lower beats see a reasonable amount of fish etc. is flawed. What we see are declining numbers of fish in a big way. I think I saw one salmon before August last year and caught two sea-trout during the summer - very depressing.

Then I think we agree that the stock of fish is hugely depleted. My inference follows from the news of these plans - clearly some folk on the Board believe there are reasonable numbers of fish late in the season.

Frank, Could it be that the Dee is and was always a Spring river with very few Summer fish, where as the Spey fishes right through and the other two are definitely Autumn rivers?
Scientists have always said the Spring stock is more vulnerable.

Especially on the Dee, which is fished throughout its length and has little in the way of deep pots or lochs in which the fish can hide. The percentage of the stock caught must be very high, in particular since the river is now more heavily fished in the last three months of the season than ever before.

On most systems, introducing catch and release does not resolve falling returns. It merely masks the real causes of falling stocks and delays the riparian owners from having to tackle the root causes.
While I agree that C&R can help, it is too small a tool for the job in hand. Very often, as turrifftackle states, it is the survival of the smolts that is the main issue. I am not opposed to C&R, and return most of what I catch, but I feel that it is often imposed on the paying fisherman, before the root causes are tackled.

Once the stock is severely depleted, C&R is essential or the river will die. In those circumstances the river needs every egg it can get to recover. The other factors need addressing (if they can and often they can't, sadly) but the river can't afford to give up spawning stock until it has a harvestable excess of fish. I don't think we'll be near that state until the Dee rod catch is back to an average of 10000.

Mark

[Fruin]

toucan said:

Once the stock is severely depleted, C&R is essential or the river will die. In those circumstances the river needs every egg it can get to recover. The other factors need addressing (if they can and often they can't, sadly) but the river can't afford to give up spawning stock until it has a harvestable excess of fish.

I completely agree with the argument that C&R is the only way to go if a sytem does not have a harvestable surplus. Surely, if stocks are this low, we should be shortening the season and not extending it!?!
The point is that some systems introduce catch and release in the hope that it will alleviate the need to tackle the real issues, and that too much hope is often pinned on C&R. Most of the time, it is too little, too late. In a lot of cases, if the riparian owners had managed the fishings properly and tackled the problems sooner, we would not be in the position of compulsory catch and release.

[toucan]

Couldn't agree more!

[Sloggi]

I completely agree with Fruin's last paragraph. C&R has a political correctness and "feel good factor" which appeases a) politicians, b) the "anti" brigade, and c) riparian owners.

"Saving every egg" is good, but not of real use if the river's life is dying. A river's life is governed by nature. The river will sustain a number of salmon in line with it's condition. If we have 10 million or 5 million eggs, we'll get approximately the same number of fish as nature will maintain the balance within both river and sea. It's a bit like recycling in these times of global warming - we recycle and feel good while the world's conglomerates keep abusing the planet - joint action is required.

What's needed is a combination of looking after the land and forests rather than raping them and a common sense approach to C&R. We haven't even discussed the condition of the seas yet!

[williegunn]

fruin said:

The point is that some systems introduce catch and release in the hope that it will alleviate the need to tackle the real issues, and that too much hope is often pinned on C&R. Most of the time, it is too little, too late. In a lot of cases, if the riparian owners had managed the fishings properly and tackled the problems sooner, we would not be in the position of compulsory catch and release.

Catch and release is not purely a tool to help the river stock sometimes it has to be used as a political tool. It is very hard to argue that the estuary/ lower river/drift nets should be bought out to assist the river stocks IF anglers continue to wield their priests.

I think you are being particularly hard on the riparian owners the major problems (are) happened at sea an area where the owners have little or no control.

Stocking/ conservation/habitat improvement all costs money and the price will always be past on to the angler

[Fruin]

Malcolm,

I fully agree that a lot of the problems are at sea, but it took a long time for owners to look closer to home!

[kercock]

We have exactly the same scenario on the Tay but with a higher percentage of fish killed.I agree with fruin and the like minded.The two week extension will no doubt come to the Tay if some TSFB have their way. I for one am absolutley against it but would cut the seaon by two weeks and start 1st Feb instead of Jan 15th.

[storlaks]

I think you'll fnd that the Dee catches dropped so dramatically after 1995 as they stopped spinning on the river. That was the start of the decline both in numbers and angling pressure, hence less fish were caught. Compulsory C&R was introduced and more anglers left in their droves so I'm not surprised the catch return in 2000 was only 4000.....many beats were unlet for many weeks. I'm not suggesting their isn't a decline in salmon numbers returning to the river, but catch statistics can be interpreted in many ways and don't always tell the whole story.

It's only in the last 2-3 years angling pressure has greatly increased again and numbers are showing an increase or a positive trend. Obviously there is a bit to go to come close to 16,000 but I'm sure preceding years to 1995 didn't always produce that number.

Stocking/ conservation/habitat improvement all costs money and the price will always be past on to the angler...................... I don't remember getting a FREE day's fishing on the Dee last year. (-:

Totally agree with sloggi and Fruin.

[Fruin]

Somebody told me a good while ago that the real reason for the introduction of C&R, and the other factors in the code, was to try to get the stock levels up to such a number that the Dee may compete with Russia, Norway, Iceland etc. etc.

The news of a Dee beat trebling the rents for next season would seem to put some steel into this story. Watch the catch figures fall further as the once a year pretenders thrash the water ;D