River Tay 15 January Opening Day

[williegunn]

tayspringer said:

My own personal feeling is that the board and the experts on the board should take a lead from Mr Gray from Tyneside. Proof is in the pudding. sorry to be so blunt you do not need a degree in science to work out what needs done on the river to improve it for us all?? It is very apparent that there is definitely some unrest when it comes to the stocking or lack of stocking of burns and tributaries. Why only certain ones are stocked must be answered.

I take it you are in favour of stocking, no matter what the consequences are?
Why stock a burn that already has the maximum number of juvenilles it can support? You will do more damage than good.

Did Mr Gray improve the Tyne? Or did the Tyne improve despite Mr Gray?

I understand that there is to be a publication released in the next few months that could totally change opinions on stocking, already one river systemm has moth balled its hatchery.

[tayspringer]

Wilie Gunn

Excuse my ignorance but could you explain the consequences of over stocking? What damage could be done? I presume that the more juvenile fish the less food there is to sustain their existence?

Good question about Mr Gray. Do you know the answer?

This will be a most interesting publication to read when it is comes out.

[victorclem]

Just to agree with Willie Gunn, a watercourse will support whatever number of young salmonids that the habitat in and around that burn is capable of supporting. The best way of increasing the number of fish it holds is to improve the habitat, but ONLY if you have identified that it is elements of the general habitat that are limiting production.

Where a hatchery is useful is if you have got extensive areas of good parr habitat that spawning fish cannot reach, because of waterfalls, or other blockages. Given the nature of the Tay system, with it's steep sided glens and abundance of hydro-schemes, there will almost certainly be extensive areas that salmon cannot access, and therefore, you cannot do any harm in stocking these, and can only do good if appropriate stock are used, and the habitat there is genuinely capable of supporting them. The only question then is the cost:benefit analysis, is the restocking justified given the time input required.

[williegunn]

tayspringer said:

Wilie Gunn

Excuse my ignorance but could you explain the consequences of over stocking? What damage could be done? I presume that the more juvenile fish the less food there is to sustain their existence?

You have partially answered your own question.
Overstocking with hatchery fish which tend to be more advanced than natural parr pushes the native parr away from the best areas leading to a higher percentace of possibly less "streetwise" parr. Natural parr show a much better survival rate that hatchery fish.

tayspringer said:

Good question about Mr Gray. Do you know the answer?

This will be a most interesting publication to read when it is comes out.

I would suggest that after the initial kickstart that the hatchery did little to improve the Tyne, look at its near neighbour the Tweed which manages to produce a rod catch of 15000 fish without a hatchery

[williegunn]

victorclem said:

Where a hatchery is useful is if you have got extensive areas of good parr habitat that spawning fish cannot reach, because of waterfalls, or other blockages. Given the nature of the Tay system, with it's steep sided glens and abundance of hydro-schemes, there will almost certainly be extensive areas that salmon cannot access, and therefore, you cannot do any harm in stocking these, and can only do good if appropriate stock are used, and the habitat there is genuinely capable of supporting them. The only question then is the cost:benefit analysis, is the restocking justified given the time input required.

Do you agree with stocking above natural barriers or just man made ones?

The problem with Hydro Schemes is ensuring the smolts are able to pass downstream without damageing themselves on the turbines, as the Conon found out.

The cost /benifit analysis perhaps needs a third part for the equation, public(angler) relations

[tayspringer]

williegunn said:

tayspringer said:

Wilie Gunn

Excuse my ignorance but could you explain the consequences of over stocking? What damage could be done? I presume that the more juvenile fish the less food there is to sustain their existence?

You have partially answered your own question.
Overstocking with hatchery fish which tend to be more advanced than natural parr pushes the native parr away from the best areas leading to a higher percentage of possibly less "streetwise" parr. Natural parr show a much better survival rate that hatchery fish.

tayspringer said:

Good question about Mr Gray. Do you know the answer?

This will be a most interesting publication to read when it is comes out.

I would suggest that after the initial kick start that the hatchery did little to improve the Tyne, look at its near neighbour the Tweed which manages to produce a rod catch of 15000 fish without a hatchery

Thanks for the response to my question. So am I right in saying that The Tay system should try to kick start things and then let nature take over? OK the tweed does not restock but what does the fisheries board do different there to the one on the tay System? There must be a reason why the Tweed produces more fish? don't say they have better anglers

[kenziemac]

Dear all,
Wow, I've been in Germany for a few days and things have gathered apace.
I went back to the begining of this topic and re read the whole thing again.
And I have to say that I am mightily impressed by the knowledge, feeling and sheer desire to look after what we already have, and also to find ways of improving it.
Let's keep talking, for the amount of interest this has generated, I only think it right that all the talk goes towards even a little action.
It would be a real shame if all of this latent drive now gets wasted or just peeters out.
If any of the interested bodies need some assistance for projects, whether it's admin, labouring, fund raising, jusk ask, I'll help out when / where I can.
Best wishes to all for 2007
Kenzie Mac

[williegunn]

tayspringer said:

Thanks for the response to my question. So am I right in saying that The Tay system should try to kick start things and then let nature take over? OK the tweed does not restock but what does the fisheries board do different there to the one on the tay System? There must be a reason why the Tweed produces more fish? don't say they have better anglers

The Tay hardly needs to kick start its stock.
I'm not sure of the exact figure but I imagine that the rod catch was around the 10 000 mark again this year.

[tayspringer]

williegunn said:

tayspringer said:

The Tay hardly needs to kick start its stock.
I'm not sure of the exact figure but I imagine that the rod catch was around the 10 000 mark again this year.

Excellent number of fish. I was shown a copy of an article relating to the original Fishponds back in the 1800's by one of the Upper Scone Ghillies. Very informative and full evidence to support stocking with juvenile fish. One question where have all the January fish gone? The ones from the 60's & 70's?

This might sound harsh but it was suggested to me by a Tay ghilie that a lot of the stocking of burns is really in order to benefit certain beats? for example why has the annaty burn/sawmill stream not been stocked? Burns that are on some of the middle to upper levels have been. Could this be because the anglers fishing on the Lower River could benefit such as the members of Stormont Angling Club. May be wrong of me to suggest this but from the current information the areas that are being stocked are for financial gain to the middle and upper Tay where the fishing costs money. We all know that the Salmon returns to its place of birth so it is definitely in the riparian owners best interest to stock their own burn. I do not want to cause any waves with the board but could it be argued that the current board is colluding with these owners? Unfortunate in life but money is the route to all evil!!!

Before anyone states that it is down to burn suitability, I would argue that no matter what research evidence that is given. Science is definitely a grey area. How do we know what a Salmon fry, parr likes? only they know themselves.

I hope that no one takes this too personally.

[williegunn]

tayspringer said:

One question where have all the January fish gone? The ones from the 60's & 70's?

Someone's freezer?

[charlieh]

williegunn said:

Someone's freezer?

Or just the natural cycle of salmon runs?

I think that just about all rivers have seen swings from a predominantly spring run to a predominantly autumn one and back again over the centuries.

We can certainly do things to make the higher reaches and burns (where springers tend to breed) more accessible to spawning fish and more hospitable to their offspring, particularly in terms of undoing any harm we have caused, but there isn't much we can do to change the natural cycle.

[williegunn]

Charlie, it is not often I disagree with you, you usually talk sense, but do you not agree that the spring stock is more vulnerable?
Secondly do you not agree that the swing is tending towards an increase in spring stock away from the grilse predomination of the last few years?

Not that I’m a great smiley man but an occasional “tongue in cheek” smiley might be usuful.

[charlieh]

williegunn said:

do you not agree that the spring stock is more venerable?
Secondly do you not agree that the swing is tending towards an increase in spring stock away from the grilse predomination of the last few years?

Yes, spring fish are more venerable - I think they have always been held in higher regard than summer or autumn fish. They are also more vulnerable, partly because they remain in the river for such a long time before spawning, and partly because they seem to be much more willing takers.

My point is only that I don't believe that the changes in salmon runs can be laid solely at the door of those who have exploited (and over-exploited) them over the years. There is also a natural cycle which causes the pattern of runs to switch from spring to grilse or autumn runners, which operates independently of whatever influence we have.

Back in the 1970s there was a guy called Tony George who wrote a number of articles in Trout & Salmon about this, based partly on records of rod catches, but also of netting stations. I can't remember the detail; it's a long time ago now, and they were quite heavy going for someone as young as I was at the time. But he was clear that there had always been shifts in the timing of runs, going as far back as records exist.

This is touched on in Ashley Cooper's 'Great Salmon Rivers of Scotland', with reference to the Tweed. He writes that 'All through the nineteenth-century, and in the early twentieth, it seems that the rod fishing was best in autumn'.

The Tweed run changed, however, because throughout the middle of the twentieth century it was very much a spring river. It produced huge numbers of spring fish, with double figure catches to a single rod not being uncommon, and I don't think there was anytihng like as much in the way of autumn fishing. The spring run declined in the 60s, (perhaps exacerbated by the onset of UDN), and throughout the last thirty years of the 20th century the Tweed spring fishing was a shadow of its former self, and the autumn once again resumed its place as the prime time.

I agree with you that the last few years seems to have shown an increase in spring fish and a decline in the grilse numbers. This may be due in part to conservation efforts, not only in improving access and habitat to the springers' spawning grounds but also the increase in C&R. But over and above that, I am convinced that there is a natural cycle that is beyond the influence of man.

For further reading on how the runs on the Tay and other rivers have changed, have a read of the following article I found, particularly the section entitled 'Changing autumn runs over time'.

www.tdsfb.org/Whatishappeningtotheautumnrun.htm

[altmor]

charlieh said:

williegunn said:

do you not agree that the spring stock is more venerable?
Secondly do you not agree that the swing is tending towards an increase in spring stock away from the grilse predomination of the last few years?

Yes, spring fish are more venerable - I think they have always been held in higher regard than summer or autumn fish.

Venerable OR vulnerable, I think our spring Stock is both.

[sinkingtip]

Hello gentlemen. As a new member of this forum I have just been reading the past 7 pages of posts dealing with a range of 'issues' . Not wishing to reopen any worm cans (noticed the last post was almost a month ago !!) I feel that Mr. Monteith is fundamentally well intentioned in his stance to delay the opening on his particular piece of water for 2 weeks for the avoidance of "disturbance to spawning fish" - at least it has opened a debate !! . I would like to push this concept a wee bit further and say "why not delay the opening to 1st March? " Why 1st February . Lets face it, there are only 2 weeks of fishing in January and statistics show that apart from the opening day and the first Saturday of the season 90% of the remaining rod/days available remain unlet on most beats during this period carrying on throughout February (which has ALWAYS been noted as a 'dour' month fish wise). A two week delay is admirable but pretty ineffectual in terms of timescale and the bigger picture - why give the kelts just 2 weeks ( a fortnight really is nothing !!) when we can give them 6 weeks !! ?? We are aware that kelts can still be spawning in March !! Give them a decent crack at the whip !!.....give them 6 weeks at the start of the year and bring the Tay in line with Earn (always thought that was a strange one considering they are in the same 'system' ) and Esk's who fish until the end of October. As we all know the back end run has been , arguably, running later for a few years now. Give the kelts 6 weeks to do their thing and give the riparian owners a couple of extra lucrative weeks tagged onto the back end of the season - I am sure Ghillies will make more in the way of tips in one day in this extra two week period than they might make in the whole of January and February.....not that the motivation here is purely financial (its not) I am just trying to illustrate a point !! It makes sense to me !! Whilst two weeks at the start of the season is a step in the right direction (or is it ?) On a slightly different tack I shudder to think how much "disturbance" is placed on spawning fish by the ever increasing and alarmingly regular 'spring' floods that we have been suffering in recent years - surely there is another debate here concerning the effects of flood banks, flood plains, hydro and afforestation /deforestation on habitat and the eco cycle of salmo salar . I state and rest my case .

[kercock]

25 hours worthlot of silence on this one sinkingtip, what a dark deed you must have did ! I'd happily support a 15 feb start to the opening on the Tay and give the fish a month's respite, Some riparian owners would support a couple of weeks delay,few would support a months delay and bugger all on the six weeks shot ,in my humble opinion. A fair number of owners of a fair number of businesses would be giving serious thoughts to laying off,or not starting, an awful lot of people I also state and rest my case. Next please.