COMPULSORY CATCH AND RELEASE

[JJ]

Springer's post was the most compelling argument for c&r I have ever seen (backed by the Atlantic Salmon Trust's data).

One fish killed could have been worth 800 more fish within 5 years?!

I am sorry but its time to stop killing fish for the table (buy them at Sainsburys instead), we owe it to ourselves to protect our own sport for the the future in whatever (albeit small) way we can.

IMHO It is time to conserve fish so that salmon fishing is a viable sport worth the hassle and expense in the future..

[sagecaster]

Ok there appears to be a complete misunderstanding as what C&R is really about, this frustrates the hell out of me! Hence the reason I support compulsory C&R..... for now, say for 5 years.

It's a stock management tool and that's all, forget the politics, whether you want to kill one for the table is neither here nor there, you all need to look at the bigger picture.

One of the most significant nuggets of simple statistics I learned recently via the AST put it in the simplest and starkest terms.(which I'm afraid pours cold water on much of Springer's info, accurate though it may be)

Simply put, currently in the majority of Scotlands rivers every salmon that survives to spawn reproduces itself... ie maintains the status quo. So for future seasons you are effectively reducing your stock with every fish you kill.

Its acknowledged that this is a generalisation, as apparently some seasonal runs on parts of the dee, tweed etc are very well stocked, but for the rest of our rivers its a rule of thumb to follow.

So as things stand at the moment if you want to see less fish in your rivers so that our kids can miss out on the sport we have just to keep killing them.

Make no mistake every single fish is important to just maintaining our stocks, it barely makes a dent on even improving them.

[macd]

well put zephead

we also need to consider the practice of C&R. If we take the point that every fish counts, then lets understand that science tells us that c&r can realise a 95% survival rate. I think the studies all support this.

Having got into an argument with one of the forum luminaries some time ago I contacted the ASF and asked whether these figs are in fact at the higher end of what c&r can realise. They conceded the point that the research was carried out by scientists and anglers who where expert in the c&r process.

My point is that we must be aware of the need to carry out c&r to the highest standards in order to deliver the highest survival rate. Its all very well taking the moral high ground, but the education of anglers is the critical factor.

For info, check out the scottish parliament minutes re: the c&r order on the n.esk. It is based on an expected 80% survival rate. The 15% gap is simply the difference between c&r 'lab conditions' and the practice of c&r on the riverbank. (This is my own assumption based on what the ASF told me).

The scientists have failed to factor in human error.

It makes sense therefore for all of us, me included, to acquaint ourselves with best practice in order take full advantage of c&r as a conservation measure.

here endeth the lethon.

[sagecaster]

springer said:

sagecaster said:

One of the most significant nuggets of simple statistics I learned recently via the AST put it in the simplest and starkest terms.(which I'm afraid pours cold water on much of Springer's info, accurate though it may be)

Simply put, currently in the majority of Scotlands rivers every salmon that survives to spawn reproduces itself... ie maintains the status quo. So for future seasons you are effectively reducing your stock with every fish you kill.

You've lost me a bit sagecaster, are you saying that the AST is contradicting itself?

My post was based purely on the survival rates quoted by the AST for the ratio between eggs and returning adult salmon.

Sorry, have not made myself clear. What you are quoting is quite correct and has been well established for a number of years... as long as populations have not dropped too low. This can be seen in the results of the reestablishment of the Spring run on the Dee by C&R. Hence these surplus C&R fish spawned and gradually over a period of time managed to reestablish the Spring run.

The problem as I understand it is that the majority of our rivers have some runs of fish that are so low they have almost reached their critical mass from which they cannot recover without improving on mortality rates or stocking.

Hence in these scenarios on current sea mortality, returning populations and fishing pressure each fish can only be expected to reproduce itself.

Indeed I know of one west coast river that went from 40 down to one known spawning pair at its lowest ebb without any fishing pressure. There were virtually no parr and was almost extinct of salmon. Although the salmon is a prolific breeder, here they reached a position where there were simply too few spawners left to kick start the recovery process. Happily they introduced a hatchery just in time and after 10 lean years are catching a few fish again.

We can see this happen in the smaller rivers easily due to their small populations, but I have been reliably informed via AST that there are populations of fish type(grilse, MSW) within 'the big four' that are not managing to maintain their status quo, indeed I was told the lower Dee(not the spring run) for eg is now seeing its spawning numbers falling and below recommended restocking levels. Why this is happening in a C&R river no-one knows.

[johnmac]

I am for compulsory catch and release in the Spring, and think it's just a matter of time before it is introduced on the Tay system???

I dont think it will solve all the problems, the biggest challenge is in smolt survival, i.e. sea lice infeastations from fish farms on the West coast, and the apparent poor feeding at sea.

It is these two problems in particular which will be the hardest to sort, but releasing all spring fish will at least help in some respect?? Yes it will proably effect the number of anglers in the Spring for a few seasons, possibly beats might have to lower prices to encourage rods?? but if it works and numbers increase then four or five years down the line there will hopefully be a better Spring run??

[zephead]

Some great points here and very interesting information.

I'm afraid,however,the one about foxhunting being a minority sport is way off beam in this context and the lessons learned with country sports first waltz with the legislators is very relevant to the C&R argument and one for which we,as salmon anglers,should be extremely grateful.

The very esence of why I am against Complusory C&R across the UK in legislative enactment is because some spotty youth in a Government policy unit,frankly of whatever political hue you wish to take if they think a ban will get them votes,will work on the basis that catching fish to just put them back when they were principally a fish for the table is cruel and immoral-exactly like the Blaired,sorry,blurrred argument against hunting with hounds.

This Government,when up against stark facts in a jointly commissioned report into a legitimate and purposeful pursuit chose to swing it thro both Houses,the Upper House being disgracefuly damaged by that Callaghan-bred witch,on the moral ticket as a sop to their backbenchers and increasingly urbanised and misinformed electorate after Blairs late-night "hope none's watching" statement on big Jezza's Newsnight.

Foxhunting,like game angling,provides a lot of crucial income to country people in the more remote ,and often,upland parts of these Isles.It is first and foremost a management tool-a sport second.

The myopic scrotes in Westminster couldn't see past the red coats and stirrup cups,point to points and hunt balls and sure as the Derby follows the Lincoln they'll have a field day when the day comes to taking C&R onward and upward to an outright ban on salmon angling.The Croydon-Man Civil Servant in his Slaters grey suit and Hush Puppies-cos that's who we are dealing with here once they get the call from the new vote winning policy unit-won't be canvassing opinion on an overgrown piece of Wear club water talking to a guy that works in Electrolux in Spennymoor.No,they'll be up on Speyside doorstepping/riverbanking (whichever is the correct PC term I'm not sure)some unfortunate old boy in his tweeds that isn't savvy to the spin and subterfuge with which his honest responses to questions will be interpretated.

Next thing you'll have an independant film co owned by some anti-Thatcher '80s comedian/enne sending a crew to film on the Dee and Tweed and presenting a "one-hour- special-with-lively-debate-to follow-chaired-by-Forktongued-Craven-after-the-10 o'clock- news" Ban Salmon Fishing documentary that is spectacularly skewed in exactly the way they did with foxhunting and horseracing.Before we know it we'll all be down to Whitehall for another march.

And the "angling lobby is big holds we'll be ok" holds no water either as there is no chance of the coarse lads coming to our defence.We will see the same stunt played on us as they did with foxhunters-sacrifice the coursing lads and staghound packs and we might let foxhunters off.Thankfully everyone stood together but I doubt the serried ranks of the Walsall and Shenley Maggot- Drowners would give a tinkers toss about serving salmon and game anglers up on a platter to the Governmnet to save their own ends.

The comittment to improve things as many others and especially Springer rightfully suggest is required,IMHO thro education,individual beat and fishery regulation on an case by case basis and by getting more people to question whether the odd fish-and thats all I ever take week and usually later in that week/season once more than a few have been returned-is something they really have a use for.

My worry would be as an occassional Tyne fisher would be that the Tyne should be first to see an outright ban if we roll over and let full-season legislative C&R get a hold.After all once Croydon-Man in the policy office gets revved up and genned up on his subject matter and sees how much money is being allocated to the preserve of a fish for essentially a sporting purpose-because salmon aren't cuddly and picturesque lambs/foxes/deer bit players in the post Foot and Mouth tourist playground the Government wish our Countryside to be-then it'll be cheerio to the Kielder hatchery and all of Peter Gray's fantastic work will have been undone and we'll have the salmon fishing version of Langholm Moor on our hands in a handful of seasons.The same will happen at Holyrood against a backdrop of the incompetent suggestions of open season on red deer which again demonstrates the need to put our own house in order before the legislators do it for us.

ZH.

[williegunn]

sagecaster said:

[

I was told the lower Dee(not the spring run) for eg is now seeing its spawning numbers falling and below recommended restocking levels. Why this is happening in a C&R river no-one knows.

Natural cycle perhaps? Just look at the old records going back hundreds of years and the cycles changed, the Spey and others have changed fronmSpring to grilse rivers and back again.

[akflyrod]

all is fair in the fishing game, some good points raised , but as it stands at this minute , you cannot impose yourwishes on othere anglers, how many fish would you estimate are released say on the clyde, and would you be willing to go there and express your views on c&r, or even the forth, i donnie think so

[macd]

Go Zephead-testify

When politcos came for the foxhunters,
I remained silent;
I was not a foxhunter.

When they locked up the toffs,
I remained silent;
I was not a toff.

When they came for the beaters and stalkers,
I did not speak out;
I dont hunt.

When they came for the salmon anglers,
there was no one left to speak out.




for the orignal poem and some insight into poitical apathy see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[ibrox]

There is no point fannying about with catch and release until someone does something about the problem out at sea, we're fecked IMHO. That is where the problem lies, that is where you can solve your problem. I practice 100% catch and release but its a waste of time until the problem is solved out at sea. End off.


Mike

[akflyrod]

applauded

[dunbar]

ibrox said:

There is no point fannying about with catch and release until someone does something about the problem out at sea, we're fecked IMHO. That is where the problem lies, that is where you can solve your problem. I practice 100% catch and release but its a waste of time until the problem is solved out at sea. End off.


Mike

Surely if the problems are at sea, this underlines the absolute importance of doing everything we can in the areas within our control, ie freshwater. I am 100% sure your 100% C&R is not in vain.

[ibrox]

I have no interest in getting into a slanging match with anyone springer but who's being niave here. the only thing your doing by condoning C&R is putting off the inevitable. you can fanny about with your C&R all you want, while the trawlers take tons of sand eels every trip and trashing the sea bed and not giving a sh#t and no one prepared to stop them, there will be nothing to catch and release in the next 20 years if you don't sort out the problem at sea.

Are you on a different planet from the rest of us?

'The C&R will solve the problem' attitude is what gets me banging my head against the wall. we're not the problem THE PROBLEM IS AT SEA. SORT THAT OUT AND EVERYTHING ELSE WILL FALL INTO PLACE

[dunbar]

macd said:

Go Zephead-testify

When politcos came for the foxhunters,
I remained silent;
I was not a foxhunter.

When they locked up the toffs,
I remained silent;
I was not a toff.

When they came for the beaters and stalkers,
I did not speak out;
I dont hunt.

When they came for the salmon anglers,
there was no one left to speak out.




for the orignal poem and some insight into poitical apathy see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Sorry, but I find that mawkish nonsense of the type peddled by the Daily Mail and its ilk. Don't confuse a lack of support for foxhunting with that of political apathy.

The greatest threat to fishing is not from some sinister arch plan of the government, from Peta or Advocates for Animals etc, but from within our own lot - by the way we conduct ourselves, the lack of unity and unwillingness to play our part in conservation.

[Willie The Gillie]

There's alot more to it than just what happens at sea. On most/all UK rivers there's been huge ecological interference from farming, hydro, forrestry, temp changes, pollution and a general lack of care about our (what was always thought to be a self replenishing) natural asset. Chapped salmon don't spawn. The Dee's C & R policy coupled with substantial habitat enhancement work put catches up (albeit I've read they lost a lot of the habitat through careless farming practises (siltation). I'd be all for a temp. C & R policy especially for our springers until we get a firmer grip on all issuse that threaten our salmon runs. The sea problem seems to be the biggest excuse of all for not maximizing our rivers spawning/juvenile potential.

[salmonking]

ibrox said:

There is no point fannying about with catch and release until someone does something about the problem out at sea, we're fecked IMHO. That is where the problem lies, that is where you can solve your problem. I practice 100% catch and release but its a waste of time until the problem is solved out at sea. End off.


Mike

Just wondering why you practice c&r Mike,,,what reason??
obviously you think there are benefits somewhere along the line or you wouldn't be practicing it.
Its funny but i live right on the coast and you would almost think
the sea had sorted itself out,with the amount of sandeels ect./
of course this is not the case as we all know....and its basically out of our hands concerning the sea,,,so educating the anglers
on c&r IMO is a must,,,even though it be a slow process.

[splash]

Annan Angler, its well worth having a brief visit to the Atlantic Salmon Trust's Website. If you look at the section on International Accord, you will see that their approach to conservation of the Atlantic salmon is a holistic one, covering seven major issues such as marine predation, the impact of mixed population fisheries, the effects of aquaculture etc but importantly , in river, issues feature prominently too, including C&R as a management tool. Its well worth reading this section. With rivers like the Tweed and Spey featuring catch returns of over 10,000 fish last year, its simply negligent to say that C&R has no impact on fish populations. The key to its success though is for C&R to be implemented at the policy level, appropriately managed across a river system and not left to individual beats to make ad hoc decisions

www.atlanticsalmontrust.org/

Perhaps we should all forgo a days fishing and donate the equivalent amount to the AST instead - Sorry Zephead its the Guardian reading, liberal do gooder element in me I know, just off for a bowl of muesli

[zephead]

Couldn't agree more Salmonking.

A "bugger you Jack I'm all right" attitude is what will get salmonn fishing hung.

How on God's earth we are ever likely to get substantial public assistance into high seas salmon habitat issues as well as those more closer to home is beyond me when we continue to fatally flaw our arguments by a lack of riverbank restraint.

ZH

[zephead]

Splash,

Try it with some of those red Nigerian berry things I bought the other day-apparently they are good for blood pressure.Consumption has gone up considerably in the last hour since I logged on.

The AST work is brilliant and is exactly the sort of thing that if further public loot is chucked its way it will be with a complusory C&R caveat because the public purse holders perception of why we want more fish in our rivers is to thump em on the head.

On a separate matter-good to note your AST support-you will have a pm shortly and yes,it will cost you money!

ZH

[ibrox]

I'm not interested in looking good Springer, that's your department.

I'll be honest I wouldn't know where to start campaigning, Springer, but would gladly help you in yours as I am sure other forum members would, can we have details?

Where in my posts did I quote you as saying, 100% C/R would solve the problem. Maybe you should read my posts thoroughly.

The point I'm trying to get across is all the good work done to improve the riverbanks, habitat and C/R, yes C/R, will be in vain if the problem at sea are not dealt with too.

Tell me I'm wrong but salmon are migratory fish and come inland to spawn not feed. We have all commented in the past about skinny grilse. They are findind it hard to find their natural food source IMO, which goes back to trawlers and the tons of sand eels which are caught and turned into fertilizer.EH!!! what a waste. What's wrong with good old fashioned sh#t!

These trawlers are destroying the natural habitiat and food source of the salmon.

It's all well and good fixing the problem on land, we need to look at the bigger picture.


Salmonking, the reason I C/R is because I want to.