Dilemma

[rpsalmon]

I know a club angler who's fees for the same water have risen from £80 per year to around £1k per year (over 5 years), but as he can't afford it he now sells some of his salmon in order to recoup some of the cost. They're all exploiting the fish to some degree. Who is in the wrong?

The angler for selling some of his salmon, or the beat owner who is fleecing the anglers for everything he can get? Or both?

[victorclem]

The owner must take responsibility as it is he calling the shots. If everyone on that bit of water did the same, the fish would be over-exploited, they would then disappear, so too then would the fishermen and the income. Unsustainable. The person calling the shots has the opportunity to organize things in a different way. The fisherman could have walked away, but his reaction is only human, and chances are the next person would be tempted to do the same thing. When they sell the fish, they are blinded by their view of the greedy owner. I would think that when it goes this far, the enjoyment has probably gone.

[tweedsider]

Hello rpsalmon doubtless someone will correct me if I am wrong but I am of the understanding that it is illegal to sell rod caught fish in Scotland. I would assume that this would include fish which have been rod caught in Scotland. There are lenty current rumours on the Whiteadder that anglers from a private club and a syndicate are killing fish in quantities that could not possibly be for their own use. While they may not be breaking their own club or syndicate rules, if what I have written previously is correct, they are in infringment of Scottish law.

[rpsalmon]

If he is found out then the angler will lose his fishing anyway, I think that is what concerns him most. The situation occurred because of gravel movement on a run, as it built up there were more fish stopping and more fish being caught.

I don't think the situation is too different to many others, while the circumstances are different there are still the elements of an owner and angler. Owners charge ever increasing rents and the angler has to pay or lose the fishing to another angler who will pay it. In such circumstances, isn't the angler justified in selling salmon to recoup some of the cost?

What about when owners make it more difficult to catch/land fish by insisting anglers use singles, isn't the angler entitled to "push" the system and secretly use doubles or trebles?

[hornet]

The root cause is with the owner.

Putting pressure on the angler and the fish does not do well for the state of some of our rivers.

Hornet

[williegunn]

No selling salmon is illegal, raising rents is morally wromg but legal.

Will the owner drop the rents when the gravel shifts again and the catches fall?

Not really a useful thread, is it?

[rpsalmon]

The reason I posed the questions (it is a real situation that I know about) was to see whether anglers who previously thought people who sold salmon were "so and so's" would change their mind once faced with a situation they might find themselves in.

In reality there are quite a few people who sell fish, and not necessarily in the direct way. Often difficult to prove. I've heard of a guy who has an astonishing number of supposed relatives, who turn up to collect "free fish". I know of a hotel restaurant that will give you a free meal for two up to £50 value (excluding wine) if you drop off 15Ib of salmon to the owner's house. I have even heard of a small smokery (back garden job I think, but apparently good) who will smoke/slice your fish for "free" if you are prepared to accept a higher than normal level of wastage.

[salmonking]

Well they are both wrong,,but that angler wants shot,
If it means that much to him,THEN PUT THE XTRA HOUR'S IN AT WORK,thats what any decent person would do.

[highplains]

The angler who sells his fish must live with another name - fishmonger.

When we go to the river to fish, it is for sport and the love of our quarry. When we intend to sell our catch then we cease to see the fish for what they are: they start to look like pound coins. Beware the angler that sells his catch for it will not be long before he becomes as snagger, foul hooker and finally an out and out poacher.

[builnacraig]

williegunn said:

No selling salmon is illegal, raising rents is morally wromg but legal.

Not really a useful thread, is it?

On the contrary WG I think this is a really useful thread. The point about rising rents is the issue since selling of fish to cover rents is neither legal or justified. The real problem is that salmon fishing is a finite resource and that as catches and demand increase so will rents. In that case affordable fishing which is available to the general public must be protected.

On the other hand if some of our fisheries were managed differently there could be a vast increase in availability. Take the Helmsdale for example. I understand the river is fished by twelve rods on a daily basis making it very exclusive, expensive and highly productive per rod. It that river was fished on a more democratic manner with say 36 rods available daily and strict regulation to control exploitation there there would be a huge increase in availability to a fantastic fishery. Would the fishery still work in that case? By that I mean would the economic revenue generated be sufficient to maintain jobs, bailiffiing etc. There are plenty of other examples that could be highlighted.

Builnacraig

[williegunn]

builnacraig said:

On the other hand if some of our fisheries were managed differently there could be a vast increase in availability. Take the Helmsdale for example. I understand the river is fished by twelve rods on a daily basis making it very exclusive, expensive and highly productive per rod. It that river was fished on a more democratic manner with say 36 rods available daily and strict regulation to control exploitation there there would be a huge increase in availability to a fantastic fishery. Would the fishery still work in that case? By that I mean would the economic revenue generated be sufficient to maintain jobs, bailiffiing etc. There are plenty of other examples that could be highlighted.

Builnacraig

I feel it is really up to the owners of the Helmsdale how they run their fishing, discussing on here, whether it would be better with 36 or 72 rods/ day will have very little impact.

[rpsalmon]

As a matter of fact, the angler in question very much understands that we do not go fishing to catch as many fish as possible. It is just that he is in the situation where he knows he will catch at least 30 fish before the end of September, and apart from 2 or 3 that he keeps for himself, kills and sells some of his fish to recoup some of his fees.

Ordinarily I wouldn't want to know someone who was selling fish, but I know the chap and know that he lives for fishing. I know why he does it, not for financial gain but because he is addicted to salmon fishing and realistically if he didn't pay to fish on this beat then he has nowhere else to fish and would have to give it up.

I know certain people, who probably about 10 years ago would still kill every fish they caught and sometimes proudly display 10 fish on the bank, would throw him off the beat. It may be the bonds of friendship with a knowledge that the man is not out to kill every fish going, but while I think he is going too far-I find it very difficult to condemn him.

[tweedsider]

Just a matter I would like to raise on this thread, take a look in one of Arthur Ogelsby's books. There in is a picture of the man himself at Ednam House Hotel in Kelso with umpteen, I am sure into the teens of salmon. This was of course back in the days before salmon stocks were devastated due to a number of reasons, when nobody would have dreamt of returning a fish, nor was it illegal to sell rod caught salmon in Scotland. Arthur must have had a lot friends to distribute such a catch amidst. Bear in mind that this was for one angler for one day, the same scenario would have been seen in other fishing hotels on Tweed , such as Tillmouth Park, The Collingwood Arms etc etc. I suspect that in that era many rod caught fish would through the offices of a local salmon merchant end up on Billingsgate Market.
As forum members know fish mongering on that scale holds no place in modern salmon angling, but is an example of how over a few decades situations and attitudes have had a complete reversal.

[rpsalmon]

I remember Arthur Oglesby commenting in Trout & Salmon (Late Eighties or early nineties), something along the lines of...that he wouldn't bother returning a foul hooked salmon. My respect for the man took a hard hit when I read that, I was astonished to later read that he backed up that opinion in later "letters to the editor".

[tweedsider]

I seem to recall in the distant past thet there were conditions where it was permissable to keep a foul hooked fish. A badly injured fish being one of the obvious. But there were others I am sure related to were the foul hook was placed. Can any members throw some light upon this.

[rpsalmon]

Apart from badly injured fish, the only other "foul hooked" fish that could be kept were those hooked on either side of the outside of a fish's mouth because they had taken the lure across the body and the hooks at the rear had gone into the side. However as far as I am aware, because this kind of hooking is a result of normal and fair angling methods, it is still generally regarded as fairly hooked and can be kept.

I used to have quite a few of these "outside of the mouth" hookings occur when I used Toby lures in the spring, but unlike most, I have always returned the vast majority of fish.

[flee]

If an angler finds his fishing is becoming too expensive, rather than becoming a fishmonger which is heavily destructive to the quantity of fish what spawn in that river year in year out he should seek water to fish that suits his pocket and stop being so damned selfish and neglectful.
Take a look at catch returns for rivers in previous years up to end of 2006 and you will see what hapens to rivers when they are explioted .one example that I can think of is the Dee what is now entirly catch and release,the figures do the talking and we CAN learn from history.
I'm all for putting one on the table now and again but if anglers can't be trusted to keep to that then c&r is the only way these fishmongers can be kept off our rivers.

[kercock]

In the old days the Tay Salmon fisheries reports spoke of Salmon"hooked about the head" which tells me that the fish had indeed gone for the lure but instead of taken the lure in it's mouth had given it a "glasgow kiss" to stun the target,intending to turn and swallow it but had hooked itself. That in fact happens a lot, with the hook catching in the gill plates,hence the angler feels the initial surge and pull of the fish then..............bugger all.
The angler who sells his fish to pay for his fishing is wrong,no matter which way you look at it , in fact, it tells you a lot about the man himself.
It is illegal,how can he justify getting himself a conviction,with all the ramifications that causes. Getting into an angling club becomes impossible and if he is in one, he will find himself out of one pronto!.
One very well known scottish angler in fact a world champion got himself a poaching conviction. We will never know what that cost him in real terms. His sponsorship ended right away and although it was a fair amount of years ago, the stigma is still there,big time.
When he gets caught,and be very sure he will, he deserves all he gets. Common sense applies.

[flee]

People like that will eventually get their come-upppance, but how much damage will they do until that day comes?

[salmondan]

flee said:

If an angler finds his fishing is becoming too expensive, he should seek water to fish that suits his pocket and stop being so damned selfish and neglectful.

Hear hear. There is plenty of affordable fishing available on association waters the length and breadth of Scotland. Sure, it may not be quite as productive as the fishing he has now but when he is sat in court acquiring his shiny new criminal record...