tay salmon fishing

[toucan]

Clag,

The "surplus" is irrelevant and, to be honest, none of our business - I don't know what you spend your surplus on (other than CDs, fishing and fuel but that again is none of my business.

The surplus is not important because it it is determined by the market. We might look jealously at it but we do the same with footballers and lottery winners, lawyers and stockbrokers, the owners of M&S and the owners of John Norris.

The amount actually spent by the river board/river trust/landowners etc is the important issue. That is what makes a difference to the salmon.

I object strongly to the mistaken view that the proprietors contribute nothing when in truth they fund significant river protection and improvement work. I thought you were in danger of reinforcing that mistaken view in your post.

Mark

[castlikeaghille]

toucan said:

Clag,

The "surplus" is irrelevant and, to be honest, none of our business - I don't know what you spend your surplus on (other than CDs, fishing and fuel but that again is none of my business.

The surplus is not important because it it is determined by the market. We might look jealously at it but we do the same with footballers and lottery winners, lawyers and stockbrokers, the owners of M&S and the owners of John Norris.

The amount actually spent by the river board/river trust/landowners etc is the important issue. That is what makes a difference to the salmon.

I object strongly to the mistaken view that the proprietors contribute nothing when in truth they fund significant river protection and improvement work. I thought you were in danger of reinforcing that mistaken view in your post.

Mark

I agree, the surplus is driven by market demand. However, as a customer I think it reasonable to understand why I am suddenly being charged 40-60% more based on no obvious improvement in the fishing or facilities.

If a proprietor is raising that money in part for additional re-investment in my sport them I am more likely to be sympathetic and pay. If as in most cases in my recent experience, and the many people I fish with, it is simply going into the proprietor's pocket then I am very likely to say bye bye opportunist profiteer.

The difference, IMO, in the criteria of people you cite in support, except lottery winners, is they have to create value (or at least some perception of value) to generate the surplus. The reality is some proprietors do nothing extra to enhance their beat and fish caught. They are cashing in on the perseverance of their paying tenants or one year's bonus extra salmon run.

The sad thing is because the salmon buyside is generally unsophisticated, opportunist proprietors/agents will find naive purchasers who are given little or no disclosure just raw stats and there are three types of lie. Of course, in an unregulated market caveat emptor applies.

Proprietors, IMO, are generally little different from people in most walks of life. There are heroes and villains and most fall somewhere in between, and, as I have noted with interest on this site, one man's hero is another's villain! However, the fishing world is awash with tales of long term tenants who, having stuck with beats through thick and thin, are suddenly presented with take it or leave it price hikes.

It is an owner's privilege to discount customer loyalty; a trend saddly on the increase. However, what goes around usually comes around.

Regards

CLaG

[williegunn]

OK Clag if you won the lottery would you take your 5 million and buy a beat where you could become an "opportunist profiteer"
I think you might find that you would be better with your money in the Post Office and use the interest to rent fishing.

[pertempledog]

Well there is the old adage that "if it flies, fishes, or F*cks, rent it...."

In all honesty it will depend on the individuals preferences as to whether he choses to rent and invest his cash elsewhere, or buy. Although earlier in this thread we heard the comment that the best way to become a millionaire was to be a billionaire and buy a salmon river, the is that although few if any give a year on year financial reward from rents, a long term hold should show capital appreciation - but as ever your investment may go down..

Investment in rivers themselves is clearly an issue that we think is important. What do Forum members know of money spent by the likes of the Tweed Foundation in improving spawning, or indeed by other rivers, and has any measure been made of success by way of returns?

P.A.T.

[williegunn]

springer said:

Malcolm,

You often quote this old chestnut.

Surely if a beat was sold for any price it would have accounts that justified its asking price. The bank side alone is work next to nothing so the value must be created in the profit/loss statement. If beats change hands for £5 million then someone must be willing to pay that based on the assumption/proof that if the current turnover is maintained there will be a good profit, something they have been shown at the outset of the transaction.

If however these are merely valuations and the beat has been in the family for generations then there was no capital expenditure, if they then valued it more realistically a good return against investment rates could be had?

Springer the maths,

5 million in the Post Office would give you about £250 000/ annum
Your beat would be producing about 400/ fish /season. Let us assume this beat is on the Spey 33 letting weeks, gillie and house / vehicle to pay for plus fishery board levy around £70 000.
So you need £250 000 + £70 000 = £320 000 so you are needing on average £9600/week assume a 4 rod beat £2424 a week on average. Would you be queuing up in February, Springer?

[elwyman]

As I understand it, a salmon beat is valued on the basis of the average catch, at somewhere between £5k - £10k per fish.

Over and above that, supply and demand kicks in - a beat on a famous river will sell at a higher price, particulary when people think catches are increasing, and when city bonuses are good.

As far as investment value goes, I would say that owners are looking for the capital value to increase (as with a house), rather than making money from rental. Ideally rental income should cover annual running costs.

[akflyrod]

108 posts, great!! glad to see everyone has an interest , and a voice on there salmon fishing,
some very interesting posts guys.

[castlikeaghille]

williegunn said:

OK Clag if you won the lottery would you take your 5 million and buy a beat where you could become an "opportunist profiteer"
I think you might find that you would be better with your money in the Post Office and use the interest to rent fishing.

Ah, the Emperor has stirred from his lair.........invest £5m in the Post Office - hhmm - war bonds and obligatory wearing of Tweed in the MWC is over for you Tommy

Moving on. I've had several opportunities over the last few years to buy, or more particularly put together syndicates, to buy beats. I have ultimately turned them down. Not for any sane return on investment reason (because you won't find any of those), but simply because if you buy on a big river you are a minority shareholder in a private company. Now that is rarely a good place to be because you will be sharing democracy with the opportunistic profiteer and his other third generation friends.

However, if some day I have a momentary lapse of reason and buy some salmon fishing I shall do so with no greater expectation than it breaking even. I have my eye on a number of interesting development opportunities, but not on Macallanside, which is more of a dilapidation prospect, so you are quite safe

Adieu

CLaG

p.s. Remember everyone, the flash mobbing of the Karen Stand is set for 16:03hrs on the Saturday...collect the special paper cut out deerstalker and monocle we are all to wear from the temporary WLaF stand next to the portaloo...

[elwyman]

Alan,

I'm not an accountant, but Malcom's calculation assumes that owners are looking for a 5% return on the capital invested, and to cover all running costs.

Malcom shows that is unlikely to be achieved, but what he ignores is the appreciation in value of the asset - like a house increases in value over the years.

Boleside on Tweed was sold in 2003, for about £2.5m - I think the price included some estate houses. With a 5 year average of 400 fish, what is it worth now; £3.5m - £4m at a guess, more if some city slicker fancies retiring up north?

Not a bad return for 4 years (possibly greater than 5%), with some good fishing to boot!

[tynetraveller]

WG's hypothesis is that the beat costs £5 million- If it sells for that then it is catching a lot of fish, so the rents would be pretty high.

As with Grouse moors etc, some beats are worth an economic figure at which they will cover their costs( with a couple of free week for the owners) and hopefully increase in value over time whereas the best few are worth more than that due to the prestige of owning them and or/ the ability to catch the most fish in Scotland ie the Junction.

WG- Have you any idea what Rothes sold for last year?

[williegunn]

tynetraveller said:

/ the ability to catch the most fish in Scotland ie the Junction.

Are you sure that part of the canal catches most fish?

tynetraveller said:

WG- Have you any idea what Rothes sold for last year?

Yes

[pertempledog]

In all fairness Springer I think that this is exactly how this market works - it was the point I was trying to illustrate. It is well accepted that buying a salmon river/grouse moor/deer forest will NOT give you an annual return on your investment, it will possibly cover costs (but not with certainty). The idea of buying such a thing is any combination of a)ego trip, b) longstanding ambition, c) a desire to put something back into the countryside d) a capital investment seeking purely capital growth (perhaps the investor simply does not need or indeed want annual income form this particular investment) e) a plaything.

Who pays for what to help the Salmon stocks is certainly relevant but surely first we have to understand what it is we need to do. I asked if there was anyone out there who knew of what had been done on say the Tweed, or indeed any other river to improve habitat, and whether there had been any tangible results.

P.A.T.

[charlieh]

All this talk of investment returns on salmon fishing is quite irrelevant. The Sunday Times rich list has just been published. Apparently, in order to get into the top 1000, you now have to have a minimum of £70 million. And there are quite a few people who don't appear on the list, too.

Prime salmon fishing in Scotland is a very limited commodity. People wait years for a tenancy on a prime beat at prime time. If you have the money available, what better way is there of securing your fishing than buying the beat and picking the weeks you want for yourself?

I suspect that, for most people who buy a prime beat, the investment aspect is not a significant concern. They don't look for a return on their jet, their house in London, their yacht, their cases of Chateau Petrus or any of the other trappings. They buy these things because they want them, because it adds to their quality of life, and because they can.

There are, of course, a few exceptions to this; buying a beat and splitting it up into timeshare weeks is one way of getting a return on investment, but I don't think that even people who go down this route do so purely for financial gain; I suspect that a good many of them take their dividend in the form of the weeks' fishing that they retain for themselves.

Incidentally, I have heard that Upper Hendersyde has been sold recently, and that it was a 'name your price' kind of deal. Is any of this true, and if so does anyone know what it went for, and who has bought it?

[sagecaster]

pertempledog said:

I asked if there was anyone out there who knew of what had been done on say the Tweed, or indeed any other river to improve habitat, and whether there had been any tangible results.
P.A.T.

Not quite the answer your looking for and poses something of a conundrum (I have mentioned this before somewhere else on the forum). On the Upper Tweed from Peebles to Walkerburn the river used to be heavily polluted by the mills right up to the mid 1970's. Streams of dye and untreated effluent would flow daily into the river and yet the river still produced fish in abundance. Grilse and late Springers could be taken in late May below Peebles. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that when the mills were discharging, it would push fish across the river into clearer water where they could be caught. Of course most of the mills have either gone or tidied up their act now and the river is now cleaner than ever.

So here's the conundrum, why if the river(tweed) is cleaner, 98% accessible to salmon, has no meaningful netting, C&R, returning relatively fewer fish. I have my pet own theory about this and its nothing to do with habitat in terms of quality banks etc, spawning habitat etc. It was the demise of DDT in sheep dip which happened in the mid 1970's, and introduction of OP's, Mectins and the worst culprit of all Pyrethroids into sheep dips. Want to know why there is no fly life then there's your answer.

Do you know that Pyrethroids can be lethal to fly life at below measurable levels in PPMillion. So if you suspect a pollution event, there's no evidence there to prove it.

[tynetraveller]

In my experience the majority of the rich do not enjoy pooring money down the drain and will not buy something that costs them a lot of money every year unless there is a long term gain to be made- After all, if you have the money to buy several weeks a year on the best beats, why own one if it will cost you more?

WG- Thanks for your enlightening reply on the Rothes question. It puts me in mind of one of my favourite Blackadder quotes

Capt. Darling 'I wasn't born yesterday you know'
Blackadder ' Pity, we could have started your personality from scratch'

[charlieh]

tynetraveller said:

In my experience the majority of the rich do not enjoy pooring money down the drain and will not buy something that costs them a lot of money every year unless there is a long term gain to be made- After all, if you have the money to buy several weeks a year on the best beats, why own one if it will cost you more?

Because all the money in the world doesn't necessarily buy you a place at the table. If I wanted to fish a prime beat at prime time, and was worth, say, £70 million, it might be quicker and easier to buy the beat and rearrange the existing tenancies to suit me than wait for a vacancy to arise!

Provided that you are sufficiently wealthy to be able to put down a substantial sum of money, I think there is no reason why ownership of a beat should require you to pour further money into it. You might make only 1-2% on your capital, but it's unlikely to run at much of a loss.

[pertempledog]

Probably right but are we not straying from the discussion a little. That chat was not so much about the relative merits in rivers as investments as about who might be asked to pay for what, and again I suggest it is premature to pose this question until we know what is required.

If Sagecaster is correct on his admittedly personal theory about Pyrethroids and their effect on the natural food chain upon which the juveniles are presumably dependent for survival and growth, then what should be done about it? Do we have other knowledge or suspicions that ought to be added to a hit list of things to be dealt with?

P.A.T.

[elwyman]

pertempledog said:

If Sagecaster is correct on his admittedly personal theory about Pyrethroids and their effect on the natural food chain upon which the juveniles are presumably dependent for survival and growth, then what should be done about it? Do we have other knowledge or suspicions that ought to be added to a hit list of things to be dealt with?

P.A.T.

Good news - pyrethroid sheep dip was banned last year. It really was lethal stuff:

"A few drops of SP dripping from a wet sheep into a stream will kill all the invertebrates for up to 10 kilometres downstream, with knock-on impacts for fish, the rest of the aquatic ecosystem and fishing businesses. "

www.buglife.org.uk/News/newsarchive/pyrethroid.htm

[tynetraveller]

Yes- Cypremethin was banned last year, so the farmers should have used up the last of the stash in the back shed by 2025 or so! I may live to see improved runs of salmon and sea trout with no hatcheries needed.

[sagecaster]

elwyman said:

pertempledog said:

If Sagecaster is correct on his admittedly personal theory about Pyrethroids and their effect on the natural food chain upon which the juveniles are presumably dependent for survival and growth, then what should be done about it? Do we have other knowledge or suspicions that ought to be added to a hit list of things to be dealt with?

P.A.T.

Good news - pyrethroid sheep dip was banned last year. It really was lethal stuff:

"A few drops of SP dripping from a wet sheep into a stream will kill all the invertebrates for up to 10 kilometres downstream, with knock-on impacts for fish, the rest of the aquatic ecosystem and fishing businesses. "

www.buglife.org.uk/News/newsarchive/pyrethroid.htm

I asked the wild trout trust how quickly a river would recover from a pyrethroid pollution event thinking that research must have been done on this. I was disappointed to learn that very little research had been done, but suggested that past experience pointed to 3 to 5 years. I would be surprised if highland burns would recover anything like that quickly thanks to the steepness of terrain and shorter summer.

Pyrethroids are banned from sheep dip, but they are alive and well in many other agri-pesticides. Pyrethroids were only really used extensively in sheep dip in the last 10 years, OPs and mectins are still used and although relatively harmless compared to the pyrethroids, they are still insecticides. They kill nearly all the insects that try and break down the dung, so I simply don't believe that this can't be a danger to river insect life.

The situation is definitely improving and more positive, but lets not take our eye off the ball and keep pressure on SEPA and the fishery boards to monitor fly life as well as parr densities.