COMPULSORY CATCH AND RELEASE

[toucan]

Unfortunately, conjecture like this (the Ian Gordon piece) adds nothing to the debate. We have absolutely no firm knowledge that allows the increased catches on the highlighted beats to be linked with any hatchery derived stock that might or might not have escaped at some time. Of course, if you are firmly of an opinion you can choose to use it to support your view, but it provides no new knowledge.

This issue cannot be simplified. The systems involved are incredibly complicated and linked to constantly changing environments, in sea and river. There isn't a conspiracy to hide the truth - we just have to accept we don't know all the answers and keep doing what we know really helps - improving habitat, pressing for reduced marine exploitation, and returning any salmon we catch where the river needs that stock.

Mark

[castlikeaghille]

toucan said:

Unfortunately, conjecture like this (the Ian Gordon piece) adds nothing to the debate. We have absolutely no firm knowledge that allows the increased catches on the highlighted beats to be linked with any hatchery derived stock that might or might not have escaped at some time. Of course, if you are firmly of an opinion you can choose to use it to support your view, but it provides no new knowledge.

This issue cannot be simplified. The systems involved are incredibly complicated and linked to constantly changing environments, in sea and river. There isn't a conspiracy to hide the truth - we just have to accept we don't know all the answers and keep doing what we know really helps - improving habitat, pressing for reduced marine exploitation, and returning any salmon we catch where the river needs that stock.

Mark

Your response encapsulates perfectly the difference in outlook on the world of a research scientist and a manager (whether of a river or otherwise). In a perfect world we would all like to take decisions based on 100% confidence of information and outcome. However, management is not about that precisely because at a micro level the world is a very complex place. Very often, no lets be more realistic 95% of the time, a manager has to make a decision based upon:

- Previous experience
- The knowledge available on the day
- Pragmatism
- A balance of risk and probability against achievement of a desired outcome
- And yes, the I words - Intuition and Instinct

Taking a professional decision based on the above is anathema to a research scientist (fishery or otherwise). There is nothing wrong with that, quite the opposite, when it comes to the credibility of specific research. The problem comes when people with this outlook and training become involved in the management decision making process, or worse become fishery managers. Generally, and there is usually an exception to prove the rule, such individuals have the wrong skill set to be involved in such positions.

If you want to make decisions (and fundamentally that, combined with leadership, is what management is) based on anything more than,say, 70% confidence no meaningful decisions will ever be made leading eventually to paralysis and death of any organisation, enterprise or collective undertaking managed on that basis. That is the point Ian Gordon is making; and that is what we have witnessed over the last twenty years happening to salmon.

Fishery scientists undertake a great deal of excellent research work; but, I suggest, horses for courses.

Regards

CLaG

[toucan]

Experience, knowledge available, pragmatism, balancing risk and probability - yes that's great stuff. But taking these into account doesn't lend any weight to the piece Ian Gordon quotes. It is pure conjecture and, what's more, from a vested interest - a fish farmer. It may be interesting conjecture but he could have just as easily related the catches for three years to Kingussie's shinty results.

So having discarded the first four principles upon which your manager might make his decision, all you are left with is intuition and instinct. That's fine for asserting your own opinions and sounding off from the pulpit. It is not a high enough standard for managing a river or anything else, however highly one may view one's own instinct and intuition.

As you suggest, the experience, knowledge and balance of probabilities have to come into the equation. If we are left only with instinct and intuition, we would be saving eel stocks by grazing more ponies by mill ponds in the hope that the hairs from their manes would wriggle off into the depths.

I certainly don't advocate inactivity but I would urge that the anger and energy be directed where it has most (yes pragmatic) effect. I am led to believe that this lies in addressing the issues of water quality and quantity, habitat degradation and marine exploitation. Hatcheries can help but they are not the solution to everything, even if they are extremely attractive to the punter.

Mark

[beanzy]

dunbar said:

- why have the sea trout stocks increased in parallel with the salmon stocks, despite virtually no sea trout stocking?

Hello folks, I can't contribute anything to the salmon side of things, but I know a decent bit about brown trout and a little bit about sea trout. If you up the pressure on the brown trout by increasing the number of parr in the river you'll get the young browns to start migrating down stream in search of greater pickings, eventually creating a head of sea trout even where none existed previously.

You'll also get some nice fat 'alpha' brownies who have a taste for little browns and salmon parr. the problem is it's hard to catch these lunkers as they're normally under tree roots and rockpiles in the pools full of parr. I used to try to target one or two when on hols in Ireland, but you just end up hooking parr all day no matter how big you go with the fly as they're savage little buggers.

[sagecaster]

Springer,

Hear, hear , I did mention something about seeing the bigger picture about 5 pages back!

Clag, Touc

I have experience of both working in a scientific and managerial background(nothing to do with fishing I might add, land based) and I have learned through bitter experience that relying wholly on the practical application of scientific research, trialling and statistical results analysis, while produced in good faith and sound science, just does not yield the same results on a larger scale. The scale of the dynamic and variance is just too great and renders science less reliable. I have found that it's a good starting point, but ultimately the inclusion of the application of practical experience and intuition(which may include conclusions drawn from conjecture and gut feeling) generally make the difference.

Ultimately I believe the responsibility of fishery management of a river catchment should be down to a one fishery manager using scientific research as part of his armory and not all of it.

[castlikeaghille]

sagecaster said:

Ultimately I believe the responsibility of fishery management of a river catchment should be down to a one fishery manager using scientific research as part of his armory and not all of it.

Exactly; the dog should wag the tail.

[Fruin]

springer said:

The problem seems to lie IMO with the anglers, many can't seem to see, or don't want to see that a short term sacrifice will pay dividends. All this what about my right to choose stuff is b*ll*cks. By choosing voluntarily to put fish back carefully you reduce the need for managers and scientists involvement.

Springer,

The poll is about compulsory catch and release and not voluntary. If the question was posed "Do we think that anglers should voluntarily practice catch and release?", we may have seen the results swing the other way.

IMO, where C&R is truly required, on failing systems, it's implementation is more likely to slow the decline in stocks than contribute independently to any recovery.

I do think that a degree of C&R is required on every sytem, but I think we tread a dangerous path if we start shouting that it's all the anglers fault and if they put all their fish back, the system will recover.

The only way to measure it's effectiveness would be to take a failing system and do nothing to assist a stock recovery other than the introduction of mandatory C&R. If stock improves we have an answer. I really don't think that any system would rely wholly on C&R to improve stocks.

[tynespeycaster]

springer said:

The problem seems to lie IMO with the anglers, many can't seem to see, or don't want to see that a short term sacrifice will pay dividends. All this what about my right to choose stuff is b*ll*cks. By choosing voluntarily to put fish back carefully you reduce the need for managers and scientists involvement.

Man is the problem, whichever way you look at it.

Springer,

Of course you are quite correct, but shall we all just pack in fishing now?? That would really help the cause!!

Or shall we wait for the 'antis' to pick up that we just play with our fish for our pleasure, are not interested in taking them for food. That should ensure that fishing will be banned soon enough.

Another can of worms maybe

[exerod]

Right I don't usually get involved in this sort of thread as there are so many others who say what I think but say it so much better.

But what is this all about,

springer said:

IMHO the biggest problem with the recovery of salmon stocks in the UK is with the anglers.

Alan behave, what of pollution, abstraction, farming practices, forrestry, fish farming, problems at sea, etc, etc.

springer said:

Not killing returning spawner's is by far the cheapest and easiest conservation measure, I would also say its the most effective and least damaging short term solution.

It may well be the cheapest and easiest (especially good from the point of view of the EA) but most effective? Rod and line angling (even using spinner and bait) is the least effective method of catching fish, there will always be more in there than we ever get out *. Earlier in the thread you quoted figures showing the huge difference one returned salmon could make to future stocks - 1 fish becoming 7000 after 8 years. This is absolutely wonderfull! But why don't the far greater numbers of fish that never get caught achieve this projected increase? Simple, because environmental factors are so much against them. You can put every one back or even stop fishing altogether but it wont make a jot of difference in the long run unless the very much bigger real problems facing them are sorted.

We have had compulsory C&R in England and Wales for spring fish now since '99 (or '98?) and I haven't been able to walk across the backs of spring fish yet! If we say anglers are the "biggest problem with the recovery of salmon stocks in the UK" then how long before rivers get closed, as has happened in Ireland. Call me cynical but I think the EA would be delighted to shut rivers and walk away from salmon altogether other than for a bit of electrofishing every few years to be able to say stocks were still too low to reopen them for fishing.

Andy

* Which is not to say we should take everything we catch, like most on here I return the majority of my catch (and also fish barbless and don't use trebles on spinners). I do this because a) it is the law (up to June 16th). b) I don't have a use for more than a couple of salmon. c) because we need to be seen to be doing our bit BUT it is a very small bit!

[robbie]

Hi people

I would like to add my few humble thoughts (but sadly no answers!) to this thread .
Firstly I will say that I am against a legally enforced compulsory C&R. Being a shooting man, I am very wary of any legally imposed laws on any sport.
(The handgun law is a good example. A ban on legally owned hand guns that has achieved zip. In fact gun crime is up something like 300% since the ban was introduced.)

The debate on hatcheries, Netting, trawlers etc has been well covered already and I am not going to rake over those volatile coals, especially as that leads me nicely to my thoughts on forums such as this.
I love the phrase " Pushing on an open door" and in many ways that is how I see this forum. We discuss the C&R topic robustly , However we all want the same thing ,the improved environment and protected future welfare of the Salmon.
We are all mad keen Salmon anglers (or you would not be reading this) and as such we will devour every scrap of info/video/book on our chosen pastime and then debate it with our like minded friends on forums like this. This is enjoyable and a great source of information, it also gives me a benchmark of common trends and beliefs and helps me to review my own behavior and decisions.
Sadly, we are the minority. The fair weather, occasional angler or the "annual week on the Tay and no other fishing" people make up the majority. They rarely,if ever, read angling press or belong to any associations. If I was to be impolite, I would suggest that they have never been introduced to the "spirit" of angling and just regard it as a pleasant way of spending a few holiday hours. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this, however if we were to look at educating people like this, it may, in some small way, go to help our cause.
The last ten years has seen a massive change in the attitude to Pike and Pike welfare. Pike fisherman (including occasional) are now practicing C&R. In addition, nowadays it would be a rare sight to see a Pike angler without an unhooking mat and unhooking forceps. This change of attitude was was created without the need for any legally enforceable laws It was created by the hard work of individuals and associations such as the PAC raising awareness by a constant drip feed of education. This manifested itself in ways such as creating pike welfare leaflets for clubs and associations, leaflets for members to hand out to the non converted, non-aggressive conversations, support from angling press, free teach- ins with local clubs, competitions for Charity etc etc etc.
It could be argued that the fairly solitary, fragmented way salmon fishing is carried out probably won't lend itself to those methods mentioned, or can it ? I am also not that naive to believe everyone who kills fish does so for the rare, occasional supper.

I can hear some peoples blood boiling from here at my use of Pike Fishing as an example, however it shows how attitudes can be changed.

My God have i just written all that !!!! Sorry

PS Do any Salmon Fishing organizations exist in the UK other than the S&T

[sagecaster]

robbie said:

PS Do any Salmon Fishing organizations exist in the UK other than the S&T

www.sana.org.uk/ Most of their members are trout fishing enthusiasts focused on competition fishing. However, they are within the consultation framework for migratory fish and as a volunteer organisation do a surprising amount of work lobbying behind the scenes.

[acw]

PS Do any Salmon Fishing organizations exist in the UK other than the S&T [/quote]

well there is the Atlantic Salmon trust
www.atlanticsalmontrust.org

They are suppliers of a lot of Scientific information ,and their annual auction of fishing has some very interesting lots .I have had some good days from bigdding for these lots >