tay salmon fishing

[sagecaster]

splash said:

SPK - on the assumption that you can actually read this and are no longer barred... The guide in the US that I fish with for stripers and tuna tells me that the companies that net both the tuna and juvenile menhaden that the bass feed on (they reduce them to fish oil) have spotter planes which follow areas of warmer water that break of from the gulf stream. When they spot fish they then just radio the coordinates via GPS to the trawlers. Its not beyond reason to think that the boats that go after salmon would utilise similar technology

I know for a fact that the UK pelagic trawlers do not do this and they don't fish for salmon as it is not easy to legitimately land a catch of salmon in western Europe and besides, they make far more money from their legitimate quarry. They do have extraordinary technical wizardry to hand which allows them to find the shoals of mackerel and herring, they even have ability to gauge fish species and size. What this means is that there are virtually no undersized fish returned back dead to the depths. Do not confuse the pelagic with the white fish fisheries, the pelagic fishery has been reasonably well managed and until the last few years was in good health.

What these guys are now finding though is that mackerel are now struggling to maintain their growth rates which suggests that there is a problem lower down the food chain, clearly its not only salmon that are suffering at sea.

[castlikeaghille]

The smolt release programme that comes to mind is at Delphi in Eire. Does anyone have any experience of this?

As a student, I gillied like a ghille one summer on the Borgie. Part of the furniture was the hatchery built in Victorian times to keep the river stocked with fry and parr.

In A G-S's interesting tour of Highland rivers T&S last two years it is apparent that some famous Northern Rivers, that were not much cop in the time of Grimble, made their names after a healthy stocking programme - usually with fry from other rivers or even other countries.

Stocking, if necessary, is only part of a wider solution of measures. Now that legal netting on the high seas is on the wain, I agree with the Travel Man that NASF should be looking at the sand eel fisheries and also inadvertent smolt bashing by trawlers after other prey.

Regardeth

CLaG

[tynetraveller]

Looking at Delphi catches, the smolt release programme results in about 70-80% of total catches ( the smolts are tagged and adults easily recognisable as hatchery or wild). For 50,000 smolts a year they seem to catch between 0.5 to 1% as adults. If those results were mirrored on the big rivers, half a million smolts in should increase the rod catch by 2,500-5,000 fish a year. Does anyone have any idea how much it would cost to rear half a million smolts? It can't be that frightening..

Whether there would still be a catch of approx. 100 wild fish per year at Delphi without the long standing smolt release programme is another question- After all, each year 70-80% of spawners returning are hatchery fish, so they are the major contribution to the next generation of 'wild' fish.

[toucan]

My recollection is that the Delphi ranched fish are all caught in traps in order to prevent them spawning.

The rescue of the Wye in the early 20th century is interesting. The exploitation of the salmon occurred principally within the river. The driver for salmon conservation was the need to conserve the salmon as a national food resource (not for sport or to benefit the owners but as part of central government's actions to feed its citizens). Because the sea was still a healthy place for salmon, a remarkably quick bounce back was achieved in stocks once the in river netting of smolts (yes!) and returning salmon was stopped. The result was, by accident, the creation of a fantastic sport fishery. Unfortunately the state of the sea makes such a rapid bounce back impossible these days. The exception may be on rivers which lie particularly close to the better remaining feeding areas (I suspect the Kola and Icelandic rivers fit this criterion).

Mark

P.S. I also saw good numbers of smolts on the Dee last week and had heard of a good smolt run on the Wye the week before.

[pertempledog]

I'm typing this on a small hand held pc from an even smaller bedroom in the whisky canyon so apologies if it's scrappy.
I will start by expressing the view that this thread is producing some very interesting stuff. I am still keen to explore whether the rivers themselves can do more to help this resource or whether the rivers are doing all they can and the problems lie entirely at sea. I probably wasn't very clear (Sunday evening = several scoops of decent red wine over roast dinner) but WG and TT both refer to the same smolts to argue diferring cases. It's not that I am hung up on that stat rather than it suggests to me that opinions and interpretation vary, hence my question which I am asking in a wider context than one Spey beat..
P.A.T.

[williegunn]

The District Spey Fishery Board have installed smolt traps on the Brae Water, the first years results were not particulaing revealing due to various technical problems in positioning the trap and at the correct time. This year and last year the traps have been better placed and appear to be giving better results, whilst I'm not 100% sure of the process to give the total smolt run I believe that regular monitering will give a better trend than asking Mr Boarthwick.

[williegunn]

tynetraveller said:

Maybe each Scottish big four beat sould have its own smolt pond and release fish as smolts rather than as parr or fed fry.. It would certainly be interesting to see a limited trial of this somewhere.

I think you might find that this practice is/ will be illeagal under the new Fisheries Act.

What happens if say the Tweed has its own smolt pond and floods the river (canal) with weaken returning fish, then over the next ten years these breed with the Tweed stock producing genetic weakened stock, then the Tweed run collapses.

What then? Declare the experiment a failure and move on?

[williegunn]

tynetraveller said:

Looking at Delphi catches, the smolt release programme results in about 70-80% of total catches ( the smolts are tagged and adults easily recognisable as hatchery or wild). For 50,000 smolts a year they seem to catch between 0.5 to 1% as adults. If those results were mirrored on the big rivers, half a million smolts in should increase the rod catch by 2,500-5,000 fish a year. Does anyone have any idea how much it would cost to rear half a million smolts? It can't be that frightening..

Whether there would still be a catch of approx. 100 wild fish per year at Delphi without the long standing smolt release programme is another question- After all, each year 70-80% of spawners returning are hatchery fish, so they are the major contribution to the next generation of 'wild' fish.

Delphi did not have a signifcant salmon run, before the stocking programme so messing up the genetics was not a problem.
Secondly the system allows the natural fish to progress up the river system where as the returning stocked fish are not allowed upstream

Special case really.

A couple of hundred thousand a year should cover it.

[tynetraveller]

WG- I hear your point about the genetics- But although the smolts would have a fairly small gene pool I am merely suggesting flooding the river with a smaller number of smolts rather than the millions of fed fry the Spey already put in- All would be from native fish caught up in the usual way.

PS Does anyone know how common dolphins are off the east coast of scotland? They are mentioned in the Dee stocks report and I saw one munching a nice springer in the Moray on Spring Watch on TV earlier this year. I hope they don't become a major factor as we are going to have a real PR disaster trying to get a licence to shoot Flipper.. On this point, are there any figures for what percentage of the run are taken by seals?

[zephead]

Brilliant

Been wondering for ages and ages what the final leg (after a seal and a herring gull) of a "High Seas" MacNab could be.Ideal to fill in low water days up North before the sun goes off the pools and one can get a cast in the evening.

I hear (honestly!) that a 100 grain .243 is the round of choice of the Thurso cullers for our cuddly,beach lolling,salmon chewing freinds and that when shot there is a bit of a gurgling noise and a few bubbles but the carcases are,surprisingly,very rarely washed up and just disappear.

Shame the fatal Norwegian conjunctivitis that flared a few years ago in the seal population there didn't affect our population and thin a few of the buggers out on the Farne's as well.

DTYS!

ZH

[castlikeaghille]

williegunn said:

tynetraveller said:

Maybe each Scottish big four beat sould have its own smolt pond and release fish as smolts rather than as parr or fed fry.. It would certainly be interesting to see a limited trial of this somewhere.

I think you might find that this practice is/ will be illeagal under the new Fisheries Act.

What happens if say the Tweed has its own smolt pond and floods the river (canal) with weaken returning fish, then over the next ten years these breed with the Tweed stock producing genetic weakened stock, then the Tweed run collapses.

What then? Declare the experiment a failure and move on?

A couple of points in response:

1) Returning smolts spend 2 - 3 SW so these are hardly the mutant ninja couch potatoes you'd have in a fish farm escape. Considering that the Victorians created superb wild salmanoid fisheries throughout the world based on artificial stockings - god bless the times when we didn't have to defer to people in white coats who keep themselves in jobs with 20 years of tests that override reason and actual experience in every circumstance - e.g West Coast Sea Trout

2) The 'perceived' problem of the above is genetic integrity of the natural spawning stock - which is a debatable argument to start with going against all Darwin's laws of evolution (sorry Bible pushers). The Victorian experience shows this is doubtful and it is well established that the wider the gene pool the tougher the progeny.

However, if you really subscribe to the genetic purity argument there is a possible way to avoid that problem; triploid smolts. My natural instinct was that if you remove the spawning urge then you would kill the natural homing instinct and ability of the salmon.

So, in an entirely un white coat way, I researched the subject on-line Well here's the rub, the white coats basically agree it can be done. Assuming then to be right, huge assumption, the beauty of this, well, a clip of the adipose fin and you instantly know a triploid fish. Importance, integrity preserved and you can chap these with zero impact on the natural spawning stock if you don't want to practice 100% catch and release.

Let the debate roll

Rock [Cod] On

CLaG

PS - Typo line one of your post - now you know how much angst this sloppy attitude casues some moderators - please be more considerate

[davewallbridge]

williegunn said:

What happens if say the Tweed has its own smolt pond and floods the river (canal) with weaken returning fish, then over the next ten years these breed with the Tweed stock producing genetic weakened stock, then the Tweed run collapses.

Willie,

I don't understand what you saying here. Why should smolts reared from eggs stripped from Tweed stock be weaker than those incubated and raised naturally in the river ? Genetically they will be identical.
Am I missing something?

Dave.

[pertempledog]

Like CLaG I believe that our victorian forebears had no qualms about importing (or indeed exporting) strains of fish when they thought it might suit them. I believe that strains from Norway and Germany were put into some Scottish rivers. What exactly are we protecting? I ask this as an honest question as I have failed to grasp the objections when I hear about them in the press.
Also, what else apart from possible stocking might be needed in the rivers? Can we open up more breeded streams, accessing them and cleaning them up? Are there acidification issues that might be addressed to help insect & invertibrate life? Are river passes over wiers and hydro schemes good enough?

As CLaG says..... on with the debate.

P.A.T.

[williegunn]

davewallbridge said:

williegunn said:

What happens if say the Tweed has its own smolt pond and floods the river (canal) with weaken returning fish, then over the next ten years these breed with the Tweed stock producing genetic weakened stock, then the Tweed run collapses.

Willie,

I don't understand what you saying here. Why should smolts reared from eggs stripped from Tweed stock be weaker than those incubated and raised naturally in the river ? Genetically they will be identical.
Am I missing something?

Dave.

Dave,
The scientific thought is now that fish are just from one river but from one part / pool of one river. If you took 2 fish from the river how would you know that these fish were genetically compatible? If in the wild this was to happen the "dafties" would get eaten by the predators and not make it to the spawning beds. Natural selection...................... man decides to play god and messes it up.

[williegunn]

castlikeaghille said:

A couple of points in response:

1) Returning smolts spend 2 - 3 SW so these are hardly the mutant ninja couch potatoes you'd have in a fish farm escape. Considering that the Victorians created superb wild salmanoid fisheries throughout the world based on artificial stockings - god bless the times when we didn't have to defer to people in white coats who keep themselves in jobs with 20 years of tests that override reason and actual experience in every circumstance - e.g West Coast Sea Trout

2) The 'perceived' problem of the above is genetic integrity of the natural spawning stock - which is a debatable argument to start with going against all Darwin's laws of evolution (sorry Bible pushers). The Victorian experience shows this is doubtful and it is well established that the wider the gene pool the tougher the progeny.

However, if you really subscribe to the genetic purity argument there is a possible way to avoid that problem; triploid smolts. My natural instinct was that if you remove the spawning urge then you would kill the natural homing instinct and ability of the salmon.

So, in an entirely un white coat way, I researched the subject on-line Well here's the rub, the white coats basically agree it can be done. Assuming then to be right, huge assumption, the beauty of this, well, a clip of the adipose fin and you instantly know a triploid fish. Importance, integrity preserved and you can chap these with zero impact on the natural spawning stock if you don't want to practice 100% catch and release.

Let the debate roll

Rock [Cod] On

CLaG

PS - Typo line one of your post - now you know how much angst this sloppy attitude casues some moderators - please be more considerate

Regarding the typo a silly mistake, but at least I had capital letters and the odd full stop.
The suggestion of transporting fish across nation or geographical boundaries in this day and age is appalling; I feel the Victorians were lucky they did not cause a total disaster, Gyrodactus salaris for one springs to mind. What happened to the natural stock of rivers when they decided to bung in Scottish trout to every river they came across is anyone's guess.

Triploid smolt production is possible and in many respects the best short term solution to run a commercial put and take river fishery, but the costs are huge, apart from Edinburgh lawyers could anyone else afford salmon fishing?

[acw]

pertempledog said:

Like CLaG I believe that our victorian forebears had no qualms about importing (or indeed exporting) strains of fish when they thought it might suit them. I believe that strains from Norway and Germany were put into some Scottish rivers. What exactly are we protecting? I ask this as an honest question as I have failed to grasp the objections when I hear about them in the press.
Also, what else apart from possible stocking might be needed in the rivers? Can we open up more breeded streams, accessing them and cleaning them up? Are there acidification issues that might be addressed to help insect & invertibrate life? Are river passes over wiers and hydro schemes good enough?

As CLaG says..... on with the debate.
re the clearing of rivers this from the river wye ghillies sitemay be of interest,there is a second part of this report but pages 1-9 will either bore you to death or get you interested enough to follow up
The report had me fascinated ,and will affect my Wandle river clean ups

P.A.T.

www.rwga.co.uk/index.php?doc=chosennews&id=59
oops forgot the link

[castlikeaghille]

williegunn said:

Triploid smolt production is possible and in many respects the best short term solution to run a commercial put and take river fishery, but the costs are huge....?

I'm not sure I follow your point on cost. On their web site a week at Delphi (the nearest working example) full board and six days fishing is €1800 or approximately £1200. Not cheap but roughly the same cost of a week on many modest beats of the big four at a decent time of year if you include accommodation, all meals etc and likely to be more productive in terms of salmon caught. I am not aware that Delphi is run at a loss.

Can you elaborate on why the costs of producing triploid smolts to say 8 oz is materially more than rearing triploid rainbows to 2lbs? The cost of rainbow trout fishing has remained relatively modest, and almost all stock fish these days are triploids.

However, the real issue is, as you say, the long term impact of such a scheme. You are ahead of me. I am only wondering what the possible options are. Whether the possible is the right solution is a rather different question. Having watched the destruction of Loch Leven over the last thirty years, I am fully aware of what happens when man dabbles with nature and gets it badly wrong.

Regards

CLaG

[tynetraveller]

I do not like the idea on principal of triploids. Salmon have the wonderful advantage that you can raise a fish to smolt size, let it go and if it comes back it is as a fully formed, perfect and to all intents and purposes a wild fish. Will the triploids be physically different to their wild cousins- If so, they will also be of less value to the angler-'Its only a triploid'

Secondly, restocking with viable fish allows the long term health of the run to increase as well. Triploids add only short term angling benefits.

With regard to WG's point about different stocks within a river system,- this is easily dealt with- catch up your breeding stock from the spawning burns and only put cocks from one location to hens from the same location. Genetic purity preserved. I am pretty certain that these different stocks have a very high rate of interbreeding anyway- If all fish only mated with fish from their same feeder burn, the narrow gene pool and high level of interbreeding that would result would disadvantage that population over time. It is also suggested in the Dee stocks report that male spawners may well start breeding in the lower river and push up over time all the way to the head waters, cruising for action. This would ensure some interbreeding of the different stocks.

A final thought- If one was to put in triploid smolts, as the genetic issue goes out the window, we might as well make the donors some nice 50lbers from the Alta. If you are going to have hatchery fish, lets make them big'uns.. Hi Ho Silver Lightning- Jeff Beck

[williegunn]

tynetraveller said:

With regard to WG's point about different stocks within a river system,- this is easily dealt with- catch up your breeding stock from the spawning burns and only put cocks from one location to hens from the same location. Genetic purity preserved.

And your burn is deprived of two of its natural spawners. This is all quick fix stuff, why not go for the proper long term solution?
Get the habitat right and the salmon will use it to its advantage and the runs, if marine survival rate is reasonable, should improve. Of course you are always going to get poorer years but that is salmon fishing, if you want to catch every cast go to your rainbow pond.

[sagecaster]

I'm mostly with WG on this one. Its the fundamental reason I'm attracted to the Salmon above all other forms of fishing, it is the king of fish, and the Atlantic salmon is the king of Salmon. Lets not reduce its status to that of a rainbow trout.

Where I disagree with WG is that I do believe that judicious stocking in barren regions of a river's spawning areas is a much better option than doing nothing. The evidence that this technique works is unequivocal, I know of three west coast rivers that have re-established their runs by doing this using both planted fry and smolt ranching. I would add that I see this as a temporary measure to kick start re-population when spawning numbers fall below their critical mass.