COMPULSORY CATCH AND RELEASE

[flee]

It's obvious that there is quite a devide so far anyway with c&r vote but do we have to go as far as everything to be returned,What I suggest is to introduce an annual quota and make sure it is adhered to.
The annual permit I hold states that you can take 1 migratory fish per day. Although it is unlikely that anyone will actually catch 1 every day they went fishing I still think this is too much. as a suggestion maybe something like 4 migratory fish per season:-/.
This way we might find a little bit of common ground and at the same time stop people abusing the privilege of being able to take part in salmon fishing in the first place.

[waddington]

Hello All,
As a fairly new member I have followed this debate with interest, and voted no to compulsory spring c+r, so as suggested, I have ventured to put my head above the parapet to try to explain my reasoning. I fish mainly on the west wales rivers and have to admit that my few salmon a year often come as a welcome surprise as I concentrate mainly on the sea trout. Most of you who fish on the big four in Scotland will be vastly more experienced salmon fishers.
Personally I have never been happy with the concept of fishing for salmon on a total c+r basis. Although this seems an increasingly unfashionable view, ethically I have a problem with setting out to intentionally play a magnificent fish merely to indulge my own selfish whims without the justification that the salmon will provide a fine meal. Please note this does not make me a fishmonger or indeed a kill all angler. I have released plenty of fish and will continue to do so. Certainly the days of several fish killed per angler should be left firmly in the past. What I would object too is losing the right to choose whether to take a fish for the table. To me there is an important difference between either choosing to release a fish voluntarily, or deciding to leave the river after killing a salmon, rather than knowing at the start of a day that you are playing at c+r.
Like it or not we live in a media driven world where everyone has an opinion however little they know about a subject eg fox hunting ban. I don't think that compulsory c+r will ever cut any ice with the anti angling lobby. Compulsory c+r would actually damage our sports reputation as legitimately pursuing a fish by sporting means with the end purpose of a fine meal, is one of the anti angling / field sports lobbies few moral stumbling blocks.
In my opinion, in Wales, compulsory c+r of spring salmon seems to have led frankly to an air of complacency. In the near ten years of this policy I have yet to see any real evidence of a resurgence in spring stock. It does seem that the EA position is that c+r is going to solve the problem on its own. I have to say that I think part of the motivation behind the EA's support for c+r is that it does not actually cost them anything to implement. Surely this policy can only be considered as a part of an extensive package to help spring stocks? It is particularly galling on the Tywi when you see the estuary nets operating during the period of compulsory c+r! Thankfully steps are finally being put in place to obtain a buyout.
So thats my couple of rambling points on this question. It does seem that c+r is preached with increasing zeal these days and many anglers are intimidated by this. This is a possible explanation as to to why so few members have explained their views. These are sincerely held personal views and I accept that those who perhaps do not agree do so with the very best of intentions. After all we all want more fish in the rivers, we just differ as to how this objective can best be reached. I would suggest that individual rules for different rivers and personal conscience is the way forward rather than blanket legislation?
Best Wishes
Waddington

[bobrobert]

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.

Where do Sainsburys get them from? It is ok to take them from the sea but not a river Strange logic

[flee]

supermarkets don't sell wild Salmon they sell farmed Salmon .I read an article on farmed Salmon and inset was a picture of two fish same age different sizes one was almost twice the size of the other. why ? you ask , growth hormones thats why .If c&r was compulsory fair enough but it would be a very cold day in hell when I put farmed salmon on my table. ( major rant)
ok I,m off my soap box now.

[ibm59]

Like it or not , compulsory catch and release for all it's pros and cons , is viewed by many as unjustifiable cruelty.
I personally feel that threads like this , which are likely to be viewed by non anglers and our anti friends , are likely to come back and bite our ars*s in the not too distant future.
And before anyone asks , I kept 3 out of my grand total of somewhere in the mid teens last year.
Can't believe someone actually suggested buying farmed salmon.
He/she obviously doesn't live on the west side of the north.
ps I voted no.

[splash]

ibm59 said:

Like it or not , compulsory catch and release for all it's pros and cons , is viewed by many as unjustifiable cruelty.
I personally feel that threads like this , which are likely to be viewed by non anglers and our anti friends , are likely to come back and bite our ars*s in the not too distant future.
And before anyone asks , I kept 3 out of my grand total of somewhere in the mid teens last year.
Can't believe someone actually suggested buying farmed salmon.
He/she obviously doesn't live on the west side of the north.
ps I voted no.

I think one aspect of this debate which has not really come across well in the posts on this subject, is that many of those advocating compulsory C&R are not necessarily doing so from a point of principle or personal ethics standpoint, but primarily as a short to medium term exercises design to facilitate a recovery in fish stocks. As game anglers, we should always be able to exercise sensible judgment on fish to be retained for the table where the rules allow, but unless C&R decisions are implemented as policy decisions (for example as on the Dee) and used as a fishery management tool then they become ad hoc in nature at best and subject to interpretation. However, as has been evidenced in other posts on the forum relating to this subject, adhering to the rules where 100 % C&R is not in place such as on the Tweed and Spey, there is a large, subjective difference in what individual anglers may find acceptable within the code

[williegunn]

springer said:

Genetic integrity / against stocking has always been a poor argument, I agree. Tyne fish are a hybrid of many rivers and aren't we lucky, I don't think the big 4 can rival our fish for average weight.

Genetic integrity is a very strong argument against stocking. Running a hatchery is a very expensive business and if you are stocking weak fish that normally would not have made it, what is the point? Especially if they are displacing the natural fish.
Has the Tyne not improved despite the hatchery? DNA analysis of returning fish suggests that very few are hatchery fish.

[waddington]

Springer,
Thanks for accepting the fact that my views were an attempt at an honest contribution. Your position on this debate is entirely Honorable, and your passion for the conservation of salmon is evident in your posts and does you credit.
I do think that anglers have a pretty good conservation record. While there is no room for complancy, it would not do any harm to shout a bit louder to the wider public quite what state our rivers would be in today if it was not for the contribution of anglers. After all, apart from 'a bit of lip service,' who else really cares? On a personal viewpoint, I do worry that this whole c+r debate could in the future turn out to be self destructive for angling.
One point I would make, is that you state you would like to see compulsory c+r for say the next 5 years with a review at the end of this period. I do think that you would find in practice, that once legislation rather than voluntary compliance was in place, that it would become a permanent measure. I don't think that we will ever be able to take a spring salmon again in England or Wales, regardless of stock levels.
I do think that anglers have a pretty good conservation record. While there is no room for complancy, it would not do any harm to shout a bit louder to the wider public quite what state our rivers would be in today if it was not for our contribution. After all, apart from 'a bit of lip service,' who else really cares? On a personal viewpoint, I do worry that this whole c+r debate could in the future turn out to be self destructive for angling.
The Tywi is an example of how this 'temporary legislation' works in practice. The last ten days fishing of the season were closed by the EA, although they have now reopened on a strict c+r basis. This measure was presented to anglers as a temporary conservation measure. It is now accepted by all that this has effectively become a permanent measure, despite stocks being seemingly in no worse state than other neighboring rivers where 'normal fishing' continues. You only have to see the lack of participation by anglers in this compulsory c+r period, at what is the peak time for salmon fishing on the river, to see how unpopular this measure is.
So in essence my point is beware of legislation which is initially accepted as temporary, and subject to review, becoming a permanent fixture. It tends to be the way things work. After all how many laws are repealed when there is a change of Government in this country? The answer is historically not very many, so effectively you become stuck with the legislation. Before you know it the face of salmon fishing will have changed forever.
Best Wishes
Waddington

[castlikeaghille]

williegunn said:

springer said:

Genetic integrity / against stocking has always been a poor argument, I agree. Tyne fish are a hybrid of many rivers and aren't we lucky, I don't think the big 4 can rival our fish for average weight.

Genetic integrity is a very strong argument against stocking. Running a hatchery is a very expensive business and if you are stocking weak fish that normally would not have made it, what is the point? Especially if they are displacing the natural fish.
Has the Tyne not improved despite the hatchery? DNA analysis of returning fish suggests that very few are hatchery fish.

The genetic integrity argument has two basic flaws:

1) The Victorians and Edwardians introduced Norwegian and German salmon strains into just about every major salmon system in the country. So what integrity are we trying to protect?

2) The rest of nature works on the basis that within a given species, the wider the gene pool the stronger the progeny. Why is the salmon different? I suggest it isn't. In terms of size and quantity of salmon the most productive time in the UK salmon rivers occurred during and following the above experimentation.

As for the hatcheries are expensive argument, sorry, particularly in the context of the revenue generated on the big 4 ,that is just proprietors bleat. If in doubt, give John Gibb at the Lochy hatchery or Peter Mantle at Delphi a call. Amazing how many fish one man can breed on a fraction of the smoke screen costs I've seen quoted on big rivers as a reason not to do it.

The imfamous report you refer to is one of the most discredited documents ever produced. Look at the almost immediate recovery of the Carron (West Coast), Lochy, Yorkshire Esk all directly in line with re-stocking. A more interesting case on the other side of the coin is the decline of many Uist Lochs as salmon fisheries which used to yield bumper catches in the 80s. The decision was deliberately taken to stop stocking with salmon in order for the runs of bigger sea trout to return. I think the sea trout have faired well, but the catches of salmon have fallen substantially.

Hatcheries are not the answer per se. However, they have a valuable role to play in the recovery process as all the fisheries above witness.

Regards

CLaG

[tynespeycaster]

castlikeaghille said:

williegunn said:

Genetic integrity is a very strong argument against stocking. Running a hatchery is a very expensive business and if you are stocking weak fish that normally would not have made it, what is the point? Especially if they are displacing the natural fish.
Has the Tyne not improved despite the hatchery? DNA analysis of returning fish suggests that very few are hatchery fish.

The genetic integrity argument has two basic flaws:

1) The Victorians and Edwardians introduced Norwegian and German salmon strains into just about every major salmon system in the country. So what integrity are we trying to protect?

2) The rest of nature works on the basis that within a given species, the wider the gene pool the stronger the progeny. Why is the salmon different? I suggest it isn't. In terms of size and quantity of salmon the most productive time in the UK salmon rivers occurred during and following the above experimentation.

As for the hatcheries are expensive argument, sorry, particularly in the context of the revenue generated on the big 4 ,that is just proprietors bleat. If in doubt, give John Gibb at the Lochy hatchery or Peter Mantle at Delphi a call. Amazing how many fish one man can breed on a fraction of the smoke screen costs I've seen quoted on big rivers as a reason not to do it.

The imfamous report you refer to is one of the most discredited documents ever produced. Look at the almost immediate recovery of the Carron (West Coast), Lochy, Yorkshire Esk all directly in line with re-stocking. A more interesting case on the other side of the coin is the decline of many Uist Lochs as salmon fisheries which used to yield bumper catches in the 80s. The decision was deliberately taken to stop stocking with salmon in order for the runs of bigger sea trout to return. I think the sea trout have faired well, but the catches of salmon have fallen substantially.

Hatcheries are not the answer per se. However, they have a valuable role to play in the recovery process as all the fisheries above witness.

Regards

CLaG

CLag

Could not have put any of the above better even if I had all day, especially your last paragraph.
Well said sir, Peter Gray (dumped by the EA after saving the Tyne)will be right chuffed when I tell him.

[williegunn]

castlikeaghille said:

The genetic integrity argument has two basic flaws:

1) The Victorians and Edwardians introduced Norwegian and German salmon strains into just about every major salmon system in the country. So what integrity are we trying to protect?

Where is the evidence that these fish survived?

castlikeaghille said:

2) The rest of nature works on the basis that within a given species, the wider the gene pool the stronger the progeny. Why is the salmon different? I suggest it isn't. In terms of size and quantity of salmon the most productive time in the UK salmon rivers occurred during and following the above experimentation.

Are you suggesting that a Brora salmon is the same as a Helmsdale salmon?

Rob Wilson once said a Brora kelt was better looking than a Helmsdale fish, bit tongue in cheek I accept but one is long and thin the other short and fat. The rivers are 10 miles apart.

castlikeaghille said:

As for the hatcheries are expensive argument, sorry, particularly in the context of the revenue generated on the big 4 ,that is just proprietors bleat. If in doubt, give John Gibb at the Lochy hatchery or Peter Mantle at Delphi a call. Amazing how many fish one man can breed on a fraction of the smoke screen costs I've seen quoted on big rivers as a reason not to do it.

The Spey hatchery cost £107 530 in 2005; money well spent? or totally wasted?

castlikeaghille said:

The imfamous report you refer to is one of the most discredited documents ever produced. Look at the almost immediate recovery of the Carron (West Coast), Lochy, Yorkshire Esk all directly in line with re-stocking. A more interesting case on the other side of the coin is the decline of many Uist Lochs as salmon fisheries which used to yield bumper catches in the 80s. The decision was deliberately taken to stop stocking with salmon in order for the runs of bigger sea trout to return. I think the sea trout have faired well, but the catches of salmon have fallen substantially.

Hatcheries are not the answer per se. However, they have a valuable role to play in the recovery process as all the fisheries above witness.

Regards

CLaG

More hearsay, where is your evidence?

[castlikeaghille]

williegunn said:

castlikeaghille said:

The genetic integrity argument has two basic flaws:

1) The Victorians and Edwardians introduced Norwegian and German salmon strains into just about every major salmon system in the country. So what integrity are we trying to protect?

Where is the evidence that these fish survived?



Are you suggesting that a Brora salmon is the same as a Helmsdale salmon?

Rob Wilson once said a Brora kelt was better looking than a Helmsdale fish, bit tongue in cheek I accept but one is long and thin the other short and fat. The rivers are 10 miles apart.



The Spey hatchery cost £107 530 in 2005; money well spent? or totally wasted?

castlikeaghille said:

The imfamous report you refer to is one of the most discredited documents ever produced. Look at the almost immediate recovery of the Carron (West Coast), Lochy, Yorkshire Esk all directly in line with re-stocking. A more interesting case on the other side of the coin is the decline of many Uist Lochs as salmon fisheries which used to yield bumper catches in the 80s. The decision was deliberately taken to stop stocking with salmon in order for the runs of bigger sea trout to return. I think the sea trout have faired well, but the catches of salmon have fallen substantially.

Hatcheries are not the answer per se. However, they have a valuable role to play in the recovery process as all the fisheries above witness.

Regards

CLaG

More hearsay, where is your evidence?

Ah, Emperor, I knew you'd like my post. You haven't actually addressed the key issues. Genetic integrity is a horse, stable door bolted argument on the first point. As for the argument that a Hemsdale fish is unique to Brora one, how do you know? One of the interesting results of our enormous army of fishery scientists (god how did we ever cope without them before) is that we now know rather more strays turn up in the wrong salmon river. If one of those breeds, and logic dictates one has your arian salmon race has gone phutt. I, however, think this is a very good thing indeed.

Most seasons I catch salmon from the Dee, Canal, Macallanside, Tay and Isla among others. I couldn't tell you in advance what any of those salmon would look like. I have had them of all sorts of shapes and sizes. Silver fish from the Dee in September that look exactly like something I might catch from Middle Canal in October and vice versa. That rivers have unique looking salmon is the biggest piece of hearsay posted on this site.

I don't know why £100,000 was spent on the Spey hatchery in 2005. Was that the first year and included Capex? Yes there will be a one off capital cost in building it, but actually, one hatchery could easily serve a number of rivers so that could be split pro rata as could the running costs. I'd be fascinated to know how £100k was spent if that was simply the running cost for a year cos that's many times what's needed elsewhere.

Even if it costs £100k to run a hatchery - what is that as a proportion of the rents charged by profiteers in one season? I'll leave you to deal with Macallan side. But good fuishiers of the forum, the rents generated to fish Upper and Lower Floors alone for the four weeks from Mid October to Mid November is £145,000 alone. There are ten other beats that will be charging in that region (we are through a million) plus another 20 (prime Middle and Lower Tweed) were the rate will be about half so another £million - circa £2m. So 5% of the gross rental from the top Tweed beats for one month of the season will pay your hatchery even if run as a financial farce by Tweedies and scientists. Therefore to run a hatchery would cost all Tweed proprietors pro rata less than 1% of gross rental, and less if shared with another few rivers. More proprietorial bleating between putting the rents up 20% again I'm afraid.

Regardeth

CLaG

[williegunn]

Just what has Tweed prices got to do with hatcheries? To the best of my knowledge the Tweed does not have a hatchery.

You seem to be missing the point, the Tweed does not have a hatchery but still manages to catch around 15 000 salmon a year. The Tyne has a hatchery and their catch is?

On the Spey the 2006 figure for the hatchery was £87916, this includes staff wages electricity etc etc. which equates to 21% of the total budget.

[castlikeaghille]

williegunn said:

Just what has Tweed prices got to do with hatcheries? To the best of my knowledge the Tweed does not have a hatchery.

You seem to be missing the point, the Tweed does not have a hatchery but still manages to catch around 15 000 salmon a year. The Tyne has a hatchery and their catch is?

On the Spey the 2006 figure for the hatchery was £87916, this includes staff wages electricity etc etc. which equates to 21% of the total budget.

Yes Emperor

Thanks to the hatchery, the Tyne rod caught catch has gone from a few hundered in the early eighties to where they are today averaging a few thousand.

As anyone who has fished the river for thirty years will tell you, and has been the subject of recent letters in the T&S, Canal catches are in real terms of numbers and size going backwards at an alarming rate, and certainly in inverse proportion to rents which are rocketing skywards. The only reason the total numbers are maintained in any semblance of the past is because of the vastly increased fishing pressure on the river in terms of rods and months fished. The beats I fish are in general running at anywhere between 30 - 35% of the catches of the mid eighties and that shortfall is increasing, not to mention the fact that the average size is also down about 30 - 40% on autumn fish. No river desperately needs a hatchery (among other measures) more than the Tweed and it would cost relative buttons to put in place.


Adieu

CLaG

[zephead]

And in the Tyne's case being "dead" twice with some scarily low catch returns on two or three prolonged occassions.

I had forgotten just how bad it had got til I picked up The Tyne Waters-a fascinating read that I'm sure the awfully nice people at Coch-y-Bonddhu books will sell you if you ask nicely at the CLA,Scone or by virtual shopping.

In addition I would also like to point out that,along with many salmon anglers,I am sick and tired of seeing inaccurate representations of Peter Gray's excellent work.

The most recent example was a picture in T&S of him wading the Tyne.This is a clearly doctored picture as every Tyne angler knows he walks on water.

There should be a John Smeaton style pledge a 1000 pints campaign so he never has to put his hand in his pocket again when on a light soiree in around the nightspots of Newcastleton.

ZH

[bobrobert]

Sainsbury's get them from a fish farm, not wild fish but bread in captivity and living in a cage offshore, fed shite and swimming in it.

I would rather eat someone else's toe nails

All of them? I mean the fish that Sainsbury's stock

[bobrobert]

I have read just about all of these threads - tedious - but at the end of the day does anyone have a good method of imposing catch and release?
I don't thinks so and preaching to the various anglers doesn't help because they know that it can't be made compulsory in reality

[zephead]

Yep-its called a water bailiff/nosey bugger on a bridge/up a tree with an infra-red camera,all with a mobile and the local coppers number and,if you clonk one on the North Esk in the Spring,you'll find out just how enforceable it is as it's on the Statute book in North Britain.

Same as the fisher who removed a dead,but recently caught and returned,fish from Tyne Green about 7/8 years ago(Springer will know I'm sure and provide stats and details and cause of death,last meal,known relatives etc etc) and was going to take it to the EA at 4 Lane Ends or wherever they reside these days and by the time he got home he was greeted by the EA and Northumbria's finest and was facing a £2,000 fine.

The claret erosion of the brain cells means I can't recall whether he was successfully prosecuted but I'm sure it went to Court.

Maybe it'll be harder to enforce in Scotland because their aren't loads of EA spooks like there are in England (perhaps a recent poster in relation to the Wall at Durham can confirm?) or maybe ghillies and boatmen will be asked to police their beats adding even more to their workload and stress.

Perhaps the ghillieing fraternity could comment further?

ZH

[severnfisher]

I'm temped to side with CLAG on the pseudo scince stuff, but .....

Having read all the material on this thread I have to say that we should be looking for areas of agreement.

Strict catch limits - say two fish per season with tagging

Proper policing of catch limits - perhaps clubs and fishery boards etc to have legally enforcable inspection rights on people selling wild salmon in their area.

upping the legal penalties for violation of above

Promotion of voluntary catch and release.

Would that provide a basis for unity and hence help lobbying with the legislative authorities?

[wilbert]

Strict catch limits - say two fish per season with tagging

This could happen sooner than you think in England and Wales. My local river the Ribble in Lancashire has a 2 fish per season bylaw in place and has started a 3 year pilot scheme for carcass tagging. Rod and line fishermen are issued with 2 tags which have a serialized number and are recored on their licence just like in Ireland from what I can gather. The estuary nets men are also issued with tags on a monthly basis but do not have any restrictions on the amount that they can use (typical, lets see how many they declare this year). If this is successful then the EA are looking to use the scheme on all other rivers but the limits may differ between river systems.

From my experience the younger anglers and the new comers are more inclined to return fish than the older ones that have been chapping fish for years but this is not always the case.

I want to experience what it was like to fish on our rivers when they were at their prime and to leave a sustainable salmon fishery for the future generations.

I think that it is important to have to option to keep a fish or 2 in a season but you must use some common sense and try to find a balance if there is such a thing. Each river system is different in terms of size of catchment and numbers of returning fish so a blanket rule would not work.

I would love to have a hatchery on the main Ribble to kick start areas where habitat work has been carried out and spawning fish are either non existent or very low in numbers. I dont buy into the genetic integrity ideas and think that expanding the gene pool can only be a good thing as interbreeding has never been a good thing, take Burnley for example! Johnny six fingers.