|
Post by adipose on Jan 31, 2014 9:18:25 GMT
One fishery board. Two districts. The two rivers, one an SAC, the other Scotland's marker river, have been managed separately for years. I know. I have the scars to show it! Adipose
|
|
|
Post by earnfisher on Jan 31, 2014 10:49:21 GMT
Need to disagree again. To much science and not eneough common sence results nothing much done. W.G. raises a good point in that Usuan could argue there catch is "mixed stock" so should be able to carry on. Spring fish get less backend fish get more. It has been going on possibly since time started. Bob
|
|
GPT
Active Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by GPT on Jan 31, 2014 11:57:07 GMT
There's no dodging this issue. It's no use saying "catch and release will solve the problem" because the netting interests will continue to persuade politicians that it is unfair that they should have to close their businesses while rods can fish and proprietors receive letting income. It is this part of the argument I don't understand. Is the issue we're all worried about 'fairness' in the income received by fishing proprietors vs netting interests or is it protecting the interest of the fish? If it is the latter then I fail to see the relevance of the argument about financial fairness; if the former then are politicians really going to prefer a solution whereby fishing proprietors, gillies, hoteliers, tackleshop owners etc. etc. in addition to the netsmen are all out of pocket rather than just the netsmen just to make it 'fair'?
|
|
|
Post by earnfisher on Jan 31, 2014 12:48:17 GMT
Have argued for years that hotels/tackleshops/b&bs and others should contribute to the S.F.B.s as it is in thee intrests to have a healthy rivers. Why should we have to pay a fortune to the fishery boards in the form of a levy when others also benifit. Agree [not that i want to.] with Mr. Pullar that the landowners are still getting paid for there fishing. A simple answer would be to charge a higher levy on the netsmen which goes to the river boards for river maintance. Bob
|
|
fredo
Active Member
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by fredo on Jan 31, 2014 13:50:17 GMT
For this proposal to have any (remote) chance of success, then some figures will have to be produced that show conclusively that the S Esk spring run is in danger if all fishing is not stopped (aside from the argument of how long for and how do you measure when fishing can resume?) to protect the salmon. So I suspect I am right in assuming that the N Esk counter data would be used to give some kind of an informed opinion regarding the health of the S Esk spring run. Has there been a significant decline in the N Esk spring run.......enough to even suggest a problem with the S Esk? In short, I believe Pullar would only need to appeal any decision to stop fishing made by the Board to the SG in order to get it overturned. In the short term I do not believe netting will be stopped at Usan. A campaign led by ghillies and others employed in freshwater fisheries backed up by science and the owners of freshwater fishing rights stands a very good chance of getting salmon netting phased out and salmon aquaculture managed in a more sympathetic way for wild salmon and sea trout. But only if all interested parties back the same plan. Any proposal that would create economic hardship is a non starter.
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Jan 31, 2014 15:55:07 GMT
Sadly it is not a question of what you and I think. All these arguments have been rehearsed many times by sensible people, clever people, frustrated people, well-informed people, people who haven't a clue what they are talking about, prejudiced people, expert people, scientific people, ordinary people and silly people. None of these people, nor the argumentss they have deployed - social, economic, commonsense, idealistic, scientific, legal or anything else, have made a jot of difference. I could show you some scars!
Why not?
I suggest because the Government, advised by a small cadre of civil servants, have sympathy for the 'beleaguered netsmen' (not to mention the aquaculture milch cow!) and none at all for the interests of anglers, toff-owners et alia, who they regard as not-serious players, as opposed to workers. Whether we think we are right has absolutely nothing to do with it. We can argue all the sensible things in these forum pages, but in the final analysis the decision on how the (diminishing) cake is divided is in these people's hands.
What can we do?
We can get real by taking action which challenges those prejudices head-on. I suggest that the South Esk District (yes, it is a discrete district) approach is the best chance we have of saving spring fish from just about every east coast river.
Focus on the South Esk and don't allow distractions to change that focus.
A change in the killing regime in the South Esk District will serve all of eastern Scotland. That is just the first step. Once that moratorium is in place then the real planning work starts. But first let's stop killing spring salmon!
OK, I know it may not work, but I have yet to see a better idea. I for one will not be smiling if it fails.
Is anyone going to the public board meeting on 5 Feb? I'm not sure I can make it.
Adipose
|
|
burnie
Active Member
Posts: 1,183
|
Post by burnie on Jan 31, 2014 18:56:42 GMT
It would seem that C&R is working on the Dee with many beats having better fishing. Obviously the nets don't hit that river so hard, so maybe buy some of the spring months from the netsman and introduce C&R on ALL beats in the spring, it would be a start and do some proper science to back up the findings. At the moment we have just opinions from people with vested interests only. I couldn't agree more with you that we need "some proper science" . Are you sure that it is C&R that has improved catches on the Dee? Where are the data for this assertion? I ask that question in the context of the c95% of smolts that never make it back to the river. Isn't the main problem at sea? I have also heard from at least two fishery biologists that Dee spring salmon counts contain a number of multiple catches of the same fish, which surely distorts the catch figures? Finally, "vested interests" you say. Whose? Adipose I think the fisheries owners and the netsmen would be the ones with vested interests, but also anglers who want to kill fish for the table. With proper science we could see firstly how valuable spring fish actually are to a river and see if it is possible to take these fish without catastrophic consequences for the fish stock. I'm thinking blinkered actions re Herring and recently Cod and Haddock. We need to take some action and it has to be total and across the board, we cannot keep killing things and expect them to keep surviving in the numbers we demand to satisfy our own needs. This applies to other fish species and indeed wild animals like Red Grouse for example. Good science backed up with some good conservation will work and to keep all parties on side and working with rather than against the measures, all parties also need to get something out of this. If ever there was a use for EU money or something similar this is it, businesses either need to be bought out or compensated, but only if the science backs up the fact that they can continue without having a serious effect on the stock viability. Like wise rods may have to either reduce the time they fish, or C&R has to be done on all beats and not be open to individuals to decide if they feel like taking part or not. I have seen fish killed in the restricted period by anglers claiming the fish "was bleeding and would not survive" when clearly the fish would have been fine to return, it's the old "I've paid so I want something for my money" attitude. Conservation is something we can all have an effect on, I am fishing in the salt during the winter and return every Cod I can, purely as a conservation effort. I take fish for the table too, but only what I can use and without taking too many. With reference to figures on the various websites, I have been made aware that a few anglers fishing beats that allow the taking of the second then fourth fish and return the first and third etc, actually have killed the first fish, fearful they might not catch another and then record two fish caught to cover themselves, so in my experience, some figures may not be as accurate as they might be. There's nothing wrong with taking fish for the table(or any other wild crop), but we need to understand if the wild can actually sustain the level, be it with a net or a rod, we need to protect the future stocks, that has to come first, not grab what you can when you can.
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Jan 31, 2014 21:00:54 GMT
Need to disagree again. To much science and not eneough common sence results nothing much done. Bob I have three questions for you: 1) what do you need to disagree with and why? 2) "too much science" you say. Really, do you think that? 3) what is your definition of common sense? Adipose
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Feb 1, 2014 12:24:32 GMT
It would be good if someone from this forum were able to be present at the Esk DSFB Board meeting. However it is most unlikely that unless they are a board member they will be able to have any say in the proceedings and accordingly will just have to listen to what is being discussed. Most boards are quite happy to have the public attend these meetings on the understanding that the attendees do not participate. For me it would be a 200 mile round trip and as a non South Esk angler I would think that perhaps my motives for attending might be questioned. However there are regular contributors to this forum who regularly fish the South Esk and who would probably be affected by any closure of the river, and it would be really good if one of those could attend and report back as we are all extremely interested in the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Feb 1, 2014 15:39:37 GMT
Adipose, Incidentally I have never fished the South Esk and fail to see why this is actually important in this debate ? I don't have full details of catches on all beats of the river but perhaps as an informed South Esk angler you do have this information to hand and can correct me if I am wrong. Devronmac, I see that I haven't answered your post asking for my view on South Esk catches. If you read the Finavon Castle Water website blogs you will see that the author reckons that the catch returns from Cortachy and Downie Park, Inshewan, Finavon and Kinnaird (all beats) when added together represent two thirds of the river's catch of both salmon and sea trout. I am comfortable with that idea as a rule of thumb. You can work out how the river is doing by taking the Fishpal catches over the last five years and compare them with the Marine Scotland catch stats for the South Esk during the same period. I don't think there's any shortage of catch data. My concern is that there is too much dependence by government statisticians on rod catches in reaching conclusions about the wellbeing of South Esk stocks. My view is very simply that no one really knows what the situation is. As far as vested interests are concerned I cannot say whether the beat owners are cynically presenting a case for partial closure of the season to feather their own nests. If they are doing that I fail to see how, but I suppose there might be some clever angle which we haven't thought about. But I rather doubt that because, to be absolutely frank, most South Esk owners couldn't care one way or the other about who catches the fish. They just want to know that there are good numbers of fish. That, I must emphasise, is my personal reading of the situation. In fact I see the total closure of the river during the period when the spring salmon enter the river as a positive step. Contrary to what has been said in other posts in this thread spring fish become virtually unwatchable during the summer months, but I am sure you know that, and that they start taking the fly again when the water cools in the autumn and they start getting aggressive near spawning time. I think we should give the proposal a cautious welcome and wait to see what happens at the board meeting next week. Adipose
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Feb 1, 2014 15:58:07 GMT
It would be good if someone from this forum were able to be present at the Esk DSFB Board meeting. However it is most unlikely that unless they are a board member they will be able to have any say in the proceedings and accordingly will just have to listen to what is being discussed. Most boards are quite happy to have the public attend these meetings on the understanding that the attendees do not participate. For me it would be a 200 mile round trip and as a non South Esk angler I would think that perhaps my motives for attending might be questioned. However there are regular contributors to this forum who regularly fish the South Esk and who would probably be affected by any closure of the river, and it would be really good if one of those could attend and report back as we are all extremely interested in the outcome. Devronmac, I am sure we will get some feedback. You asked me why I think it is important that people with knowledge of the South Esk (as well as others) take an active interest in this debate. Again, I think the best place to get information on the history and issues affecting this much abused river is in the blogs on the Finavon Castle website. I sometimes wonder whether other rivers have a source of quality information as in those blogs? Local knowledge of the South Esk, including the history of netting, dyke removal, catch returns, especially the huge number of salmon and sea trout killed by the nets at Montrose (more than any other Scottish river it can be argued), are the background against which this debate is taking place. I hope that answers your question. Adipose
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Feb 1, 2014 16:47:32 GMT
Adipose
I regularly read this bulletin and I am in frequent touch with the author. Thanks for answering my unanswered questions.
Devronmac
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Feb 13, 2014 16:06:46 GMT
Report in yesterday's Courier that Usan Fisheries have been charged on twelve counts of ignoring slap times during the 2013 season. So far no response from the Pullars. Important to keep a low profile to allow the legal process to run its course, avoiding triumphalism etc. at last there may be a redress for those who argue for conservation of wild salmon and grilse. A small step in the right direction perhaps. Adipose.
|
|
|
Post by kerrychalmers on Feb 14, 2014 12:12:27 GMT
Tony Andrews ' Finavon Castle blog' makes for some good reading for those interested! Dont know how to put a link up maybe someone else can.
Kerry Chalmers.
|
|
|
Post by G Ritchie on Feb 14, 2014 15:36:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by earnfisher on Feb 24, 2014 16:22:28 GMT
Anyone heard anything else about this review that is starting soon. Bob
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Feb 24, 2014 16:47:25 GMT
It is not due to commence until March of this year and will start after Andrew Thin who is to head up the review completes his contract with SNH.
|
|
|
Post by earnfisher on Feb 25, 2014 17:33:28 GMT
Thanks. Bob
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Feb 27, 2014 17:59:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by builnacraig on Feb 27, 2014 21:38:45 GMT
I like the tone of the letter Paul Whelhouse.
BnC
|
|