|
Post by kerrychalmers on Apr 20, 2014 9:47:57 GMT
Reading elsewhere about a Tay Ghillies proposal to make catch and release mandatory nationwide. What do forum members think of this, is it really necessary?
Kerry Chalmers...( becoming more disillusioned by the day)
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Apr 20, 2014 10:15:12 GMT
I have found the petition you refer to, I sometimes wonder whether people bother to think these days before they click on these petitions. Mandatory Catch and Release probably one of Jock Monteith's most hair brained ideas and that says something.
|
|
herbie29
Active Member
14 lbs spey spring salmon
Posts: 495
|
Post by herbie29 on Apr 20, 2014 12:17:44 GMT
I do agree in catch and release but only on a voluntary basis be it 100% or be it what the fishery board recommend but it is my belief that this petition is a step to far as it will be relatively ease to get it passed into law. But when we do eventually get to the stage when the runs of salmon recover to a harvest-able level then it will be a lot harder to change the law back. I think we should continue to support the increase in voluntary catch and release through education and giving fishery boards more powers to enforce catch and release on rouge beats and angling clubs that flaunt the recommendations through financial penalty's. Over time the fish mongers will slowly die off and responsible beats and angling clubs will clamp down on the rouge individuals that continue whole sale killing of salmon just leaving the board to deal with the irresponsible beats and clubs.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Herbie
|
|
tenet
Active Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by tenet on Apr 20, 2014 18:33:33 GMT
As a visiting angler booking anything up to 8 months in advance I would just love to be in the quandary of potential wholesale slaughter of salmon. I have fished some prime beats on the Spey, Tweed, Esk's and the Tyne and have never seen more than 2 or 3 fish to a rod in any one day more usual 1 or 2 for the week.
Totally concur with WG on this.
|
|
|
Post by earnfisher on Apr 20, 2014 20:21:50 GMT
Dead against it [C&R.] If the fish are that scarce then we should not be fishing simple. If people but the effort in to looking after the rivers better and we all including the netters show restraint then that is all we can do. What realy bugs me about this is the number of "wholy Willies" that tell you they return all there fish so therefore they must be better than those that take a fish. You give them a day on my own beat and let them know that if they wish they can take a small cock fish upto about ten lbs which they always say they could use. Later that day they kill the first fish they catch even if it is a ripe hen in double figures and say they throught it was a small cock fish. Rant over. Bob
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Apr 20, 2014 20:55:26 GMT
Personally I think that the time has come for Scottish salmon anglers to take a good look at themselves and consider whether our current actions are sufficient to sustain a population of atlantic salmon for future generations. Most anglers seem to agree that netsmen killing fish indiscriminately is a bad idea, particularly where some of these fish inevitably come from unsustainable and fragile river stocks. I have fished in many countries in the world where compulsory catch and release is the norm and it has become accepted practice and is seldom questioned as good practice. I think it is probably time that it is strongly considered here also. The only way to make this work properly is to make it compulsory. Voluntary catch and release, although practised by many, leaves the door open to unscrupulous anglers to flout the rules and it appears that many of them are still doing so. I support this petition and I have signed it and I would suggest that we all think hard about doing likewise. If anglers are going to continue to kill fish under existing voluntary conservation schemes, how can we reasonably expect the netsmen to stop doing the same.
The alternative may well be, if our stocks continue to deteriorate,and I haven't seen any evidence that they are improving, that we have to stop fishing altogether to allow stocks a chance to recover to more sustainable levels. What do you want to happen? Personally I would like to still be able to fish and return ( as I do already) all the salmon that I catch in whatever river I fish.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Apr 20, 2014 22:02:29 GMT
Personally I think that the time has come for Scottish salmon anglers to take a good look at themselves and consider whether our current actions are sufficient to sustain a population of atlantic salmon for future generations. Most anglers seem to agree that netsmen killing fish indiscriminately is a bad idea, particularly where some of these fish inevitably come from unsustainable and fragile river stocks. I think it is probably time that it is strongly considered here also. The only way to make this work properly is to make it compulsory. Voluntary catch and release, although practised by many, leaves the door open to unscrupulous anglers to flout the rules and it appears that many of them are still doing so. I support this petition and I have signed it and I would suggest that we all think hard about doing likewise. If anglers are going to continue to kill fish under existing voluntary conservation schemes, how can we reasonably expect the netsmen to stop doing the same. The alternative may well be, if our stocks continue to deteriorate,and I haven't seen any evidence that they are improving, that we have to stop fishing altogether to allow stocks a chance to recover to more sustainable levels. What do you want to happen? Personally I would like to still be able to fish and return ( as I do already) all the salmon that I catch in whatever river I fish. Yes but mandatory so if you have a bleeder which happens, you have to return it to the river to bleed to death, how does that show respect for our quarry. Letting or inviting, the government into salmon fishing, is a huge mistake.
|
|
tenet
Active Member
Posts: 431
|
Post by tenet on Apr 21, 2014 7:33:39 GMT
The EA imposed a compulsory C&R on the river Wye and ALL fish have to be returned. During the 1st year of its implementation a well respected proprietor chapped a bleeder and donated it to a local nursing home. The EA made an example of him and he was given a substantial fine. There is now a large sign on his fishing hut saying "All fish to be returned Dead or Alive".The Dee has had a very successful C&R policy but from what I can see the spring component has been reducing over the past few years with an absolute disaster this year (unless you were on Ballogie)
C&R is not going to solve the problems - the problems are occurring in the high seas. This could be the eco system being upset by the mass harvesting of sandeels thereby creating a shortage of feed for our native sea fish - their preferred fish having been taken they rely on the smolt migration. It could be high seas netting but we just don't know. £Millions were expended on the SALSEA project - do we have any answers??
For sure the likes of Usan are not going to give up their lucrative business just because (in their eyes) a few Tweedies are not catching their fair share of fish. They would want substantial compensation and who pays that. Perhaps the Irish method of licencing and issuing gill tags is the way forward with substantial fines for miscreants - now that would put the cat amongst the pigeons.
|
|
|
Post by earnfisher on Apr 21, 2014 8:13:51 GMT
Once it is made law the netsmen will want the rod season shortened to the same as there own OR there season extended and they will still try and kill as many fish as possible. In my view we are cutting our own throats. It is time that we pointed out to all others that there would be NO SALMON LEFT were it not for the fishers looking after the rivers and careing for them. Also the fishers that tell us we never kill any fish and will return them all, so what has that to do with the law of the land. Bob
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Apr 21, 2014 12:43:10 GMT
The dilemma of the bleeding fish ! Unfortunately too many anglers use the excuse of sight of a bit of blood to kill a fish. There will always be the occasional situation where the fish is so deeply hooked that it has probably bled to death before it has been landed or its survival chances have been seriously compromised. Provided these situations are witnessed by a responsible person who can verify that the killing of the fish was absolutely necessary I do not have a problem with this and I do not think that any reasonable angler would say otherwise. Unfortunately too many fish, bleeding to a minor extent,are still being killed without good reason, when their survival to spawn is still viable or at least their future survival is worthy of any question of doubt. What is the solution to deal with the latter situation ? I have to hold my hand up and say that in the 60s and 70s when it was accepted practice, I killed a lot of salmon,in fact I'm probably partly responsible for some of the shortages of stocks that we are now experiencing. However, several years ago I took the decision to return all the fish I catch,and to reduce my hours of fishing to a maximum of 7 hours in any one day. In the last 10 years I have killed one salmon due to serious bleeding. Some salmon anglers it seems do not even need the excuse of a bit of blood to kill a fish. This may be perfectly legitimate if the specific river conservation rules permit this kind of action. I would respectfully suggest that we really cannot afford to be killing salmon any longer and tighter rules are now needed across the board.Every salmon that reaches out native rivers is a survivor and in a gradually declining stocks situation is worthy of greater respect than has been shown by anglers in the past. If it can work abroad why can't it work here ?
|
|
mows
Active Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by mows on Apr 21, 2014 13:25:15 GMT
Posted this on another thread re the C & R petition.
For all of the ardent C & R advocates on this thread, what do you consider is the overall objective of a legally binding catch and release law?
Is it to increase stock numbers?
If so why are you promoting catch and release per say?
Buying out nets. Improving river systems and access to spawning areas will help. Stopping in sea fish farms. Stopping the catching of prawns and sand eels would make a huge difference. Reducing the number of predators, both inland and offshore will definitely help. Reduce or stopping fishing would help.
These would all contribute more to fish numbers than catch and release. Have you already signed up to these campaigns
Is it so that you can improve your chances of catching more fish, or more specifically the same fish more times.
Then vote on because it will happen.
If it is to make you feel good.
Again vote on, it certainly gives me a rosy glow. Then again so does eating one ive caught. Finding one that has been in the freezer for a year certainly doesnt.
If it is to take the moral high ground against the nets. Then vote on, it may make a difference.
Is it because you dont know any better?
Have you been told that salmon are almost extinct or at least in serious decline? Is it because someone else says it will make a difference. Is it because 28000 salmon were chapped by rods last year and that this is not sustainable? Is it because the nets take all the salmon. Is it because the rivers that most ardently advocate C & R are fairing better? Is it because spring salmon are a separate species that require extra help. Is it because one professional fishing guide has already had superb press for another petition? Are all rivers the same?
If its any of the above, research the facts yourself and then make up your mind.
28000 is probably just the number of Salmon that that enter the Dee each year. How many rivers are there in the UK? What is the total number of salmon in the UK each year.
Do we need legal powers for C & R? Voluntary seems to work on the Dee fine, ive seen a huge change in the Tay. Most of the Northie is similar.
If you feel that the trend isnt going in the right direction or that it wont get there eventually, again vote on.
If we are going to vote for C & R will we amend the petition to demand that prawn fishing is promoted above fly fishing as it has less chance of deep hooking fish!?
I havent kept a fish for a lot of years now. But i let them go because i like it. Not because i think it makes any difference other than someone else having a chance to catch the same fish.
Dead fish cant spawn, is a genuine sentence. Its not as straight forward as it is easy to say. For a large proportion of the UK rivers it wont actually have any relevance.
Cheers
Mows
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Apr 21, 2014 14:19:27 GMT
The dilemma of the bleeding fish ! Unfortunately too many anglers use the excuse of sight of a bit of blood to kill a fish. There will always be the occasional situation where the fish is so deeply hooked that it has probably bled to death before it has been landed or its survival chances have been seriously compromised. Provided these situations are witnessed by a responsible person who can verify that the killing of the fish was absolutely necessary I do not have a problem with this and I do not think that any reasonable angler would say otherwise. You might not have a problem with it but the law would hence my argument for not signing the petition.
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Apr 21, 2014 16:16:48 GMT
Mows. I think my answer to your multiple question response is this. How many of these issues is within the immediate control of anglers ? In my opinion 28000 salmon killed by anglers alone ( if this figure is entirely accurate) is certainly quite enough reason for me to back this petition.The Faroese and Greenlanders did not give up their commercial salmon fishing so that Scots can continue to kill salmon either by rod and line or by coastal netting. Hardly surprising that they seem to be likely to change their minds ( if they have not already done so) with potentially catastrophic results for salmon angling in Scotland. However all this is my opinion and I'm not forcing anyone's hand here. I'm just asking you to think about it.
|
|
|
Post by kerrychalmers on Apr 21, 2014 17:51:16 GMT
Mows. I think my answer to your multiple question response is this. How many of these issues is within the immediate control of anglers ? In my opinion 28000 salmon killed by anglers alone ( if this figure is entirely accurate) is certainly quite enough reason for me to back this petition.The Faroese and Greenlanders did not give up their commercial salmon fishing so that Scots can continue to kill salmon either by rod and line or by coastal netting. Hardly surprising that they seem to be likely to change their minds ( if they have not already done so) with potentially catastrophic results for salmon angling in Scotland. However all this is my opinion and I'm not forcing anyone's hand here. I'm just asking you to think about it. 28000 out of circa a million is a fair enough harvest and not ott in my opinion. This is a preposterous resolution and not one I will back. Kerry Chalmers.
|
|
|
Post by earnfisher on Apr 21, 2014 18:41:06 GMT
The number of fish quoted killed would feed the seals for how long day/week/fornight?? Fishing and other field sports is on the way out so why help others to kill it. When others are delt with goosanders for example would do more good. I enjoy killing the odd fish and taking it home to be enjoyed. What is so wrong with that. Bob
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Apr 29, 2014 1:20:17 GMT
However all this is my opinion and I'm not forcing anyone's hand here. I'm just asking you to think about it. Devronmac, thank you for asking us to think about the compulsory Catch & Release proposal. I have done some thinking and offer you my thoughts. I believe we need to separate the moral question about mandatory C&R exploiting salmon for fun on their migration to their spawning reds from the idea of making it illegal to keep a fish to eat. Let's not go down that stony, emotive and unproductive morality road. Nonetheless it troubles me... I have therefore confined my thoughts to two issues: 1) the practicality, value and impact on recreational fishing of compulsory C&R in law. 2) the effectiveness of compulsory C&R in conservation terms. We already return 90% plus of early running salmon to spawn on a voluntary basis. That percentage continues to improve, year on year, largely I suggest as the result of growing awareness of the need for conservation in the angling community and from peer pressure. If we are a,ready achieving such high levels of conservation action on a voluntary basis why do we need to change that? More laws, rules, regulations, except where they can be seen to apply in a particular river catchment, will make recreational fishing less attractive. Salmon fishing is an ageing sport. Young people are unlikely to be interested in participating in a highly regulated, red tape constricted, activity. We fish for pleasure. We are all hunters. Let's open our trust to a new generation of anglers and tourists by setting examples of restraint and good management, as indeed we are starting to do. Let's build on the huge improvements made to our sport over the last decade and continue to improve our own actions while educating on comers to our sport in conservation and personal responsibility. The socio-economic side of our sport is critical to its survival. Let's not jeopardise that by making knee jerk proposals that can only damage the future of recreational salmon (and Seatrout) fishing. At other times of year, after the spring runs are over, when salmon and grilse in most rivers are more abundant, the national voluntary C&R average is over 70%. That is an impressive indication of how our fellow anglers are responding to the need to show restraint. This national average is improving steadily. Every river catchment is different. Stocks of salmon and populations within the catchment's stock, vary from river to river. While some rivers are indicating that there may be fragility in certain (genetically distinct) populations of fish, stocks in other rivers appear more robust. The two terms, 'stock' and 'population' are central in defining the well being of salmon in a particular catchment. In my view it is absolutely essential that we make our conservation decisions on the basis of the well being of populations, not the overall stock. Why are some populations more abundant than others? That is the question being addressed by scientists. The answer lies in the ocean. Climate change, shortage of food, changing weather patterns, human actions and many other causes will eventually explain why populations of spring salmon return to (eg) the Aberdeenshire Dee so early in the year while they don't get going on (eg) the Spey until two months later. The location of marine feeding grounds, and the availability of quality prey species in each marine location, may provide some answers. Each catchment is different as I have said, and therefore the management interventions need to be tailored to each river and each population. This cannot be done without a much better knowledge than we currently have of the well being of stocks in every salmon catchment in Scotland. We therefore need to have Conservation Limits (CLS) for every catchment. Why 'catchment' ? Because it is simply not enough to confine our management actions to the performance of the main stem of any given river. On the basis that 70% plus of the water that flows into the estuary is contained within tributaries of less than 5m in width we need to understand the performance in terms of smolts recruitment and returning adults abundance of the whole catchment. We don't have those data at present. Why not? Because I suggest, management of migratory fisheries in Scotland is simply not up to the task as it is in Ireland, England, Iceland or Canada. In Scotland we operate on the basis of guesswork. We continue to blame scientists when we should be aiming our accusations at the fishery boards, whose incompetence is generally (but not always) breathtaking. Fishery Boards are very good at blaming scientists and government for failing to take decisions locally. Good salmon conservation must be done on a local (catchment) basis, and most definitely not on a crude, knee-jerk, national basis as the Jock Monteith proposal advocates. I will not sign the petition because the problem for our salmon does not reside in the river catchments. I accept that we need to keep improving riparian habitats, but in general our river catchments are generating sufficient smolts to ensure sustainable stocks. The reality is that 90% plus of our salmon die at sea, and that is where our efforts should now focused. In our estuaries, along our coasts and in our inshore waters, along ocean migration routes and into distant mixed stocks fisheries. Those are the places where our understanding of why fish die at sea must now be focused, prioritising on actions that can be taken to minimise human obstructions or exploitation, especially of mixed stocks. We will make a complete Ass of the law if we demand compulsory C&R on a national basis. The issue is a local one and should be dealt with locally. All options, from complete closure of a fishery, to allowing all forms of controlled exploitation are open to the local manager whose decisions can be taken on the basis of conservation and socio economic factors. The power should reside with local fisheries, not centrally with government. To me it is obvious that Jock Monteith has not thought through his proposal. Now it is time for him to think about conservation limits on a catchment basis. Jock needs to think in terms of using a scalpel, not a baseball bat, to help our beleaguered salmon (and sea trout). It would have been better if he had consulted more widely before publicising this half baked petition. Adipose
|
|
GPT
Active Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by GPT on Apr 29, 2014 9:39:46 GMT
Irrespective of its direct affect on conservation, does anyone agree that total C&R would increase pressure on the netsmen to stop mixed stocks netting? Something that could arguably have a much larger effect.
It always seems a little hypocritical to call for an end to netting whilst still killing fish yourself and I'm sure that is a point not lost on the Pullars of this world. As I have said before 10,000 anglers taking one for the pot has the same result as one guy with a netting station killing 10,000 on his own.
|
|
|
Post by kerrychalmers on Apr 29, 2014 10:14:00 GMT
However all this is my opinion and I'm not forcing anyone's hand here. I'm just asking you to think about it. Devronmac, thank you for asking us to think about the compulsory Catch & Release proposal. I have done some thinking and offer you my thoughts. I believe we need to separate the moral question about mandatory C&R exploiting salmon for fun on their migration to their spawning reds from the idea of making it illegal to keep a fish to eat. Let's not go down that stony, emotive and unproductive morality road. Nonetheless it troubles me... I have therefore confined my thoughts to two issues: 1) the practicality, value and impact on recreational fishing of compulsory C&R in law. 2) the effectiveness of compulsory C&R in conservation terms. We already return 90% plus of early running salmon to spawn on a voluntary basis. That percentage continues to improve, year on year, largely I suggest as the result of growing awareness of the need for conservation in the angling community and from peer pressure. If we are a,ready achieving such high levels of conservation action on a voluntary basis why do we need to change that? More laws, rules, regulations, except where they can be seen to apply in a particular river catchment, will make recreational fishing less attractive. Salmon fishing is an ageing sport. Young people are unlikely to be interested in participating in a highly regulated, red tape constricted, activity. We fish for pleasure. We are all hunters. Let's open our trust to a new generation of anglers and tourists by setting examples of restraint and good management, as indeed we are starting to do. Let's build on the huge improvements made to our sport over the last decade and continue to improve our own actions while educating on comers to our sport in conservation and personal responsibility. The socio-economic side of our sport is critical to its survival. Let's not jeopardise that by making knee jerk proposals that can only damage the future of recreational salmon (and Seatrout) fishing. At other times of year, after the spring runs are over, when salmon and grilse in most rivers are more abundant, the national voluntary C&R average is over 70%. That is an impressive indication of how our fellow anglers are responding to the need to show restraint. This national average is improving steadily. Every river catchment is different. Stocks of salmon and populations within the catchment's stock, vary from river to river. While some rivers are indicating that there may be fragility in certain (genetically distinct) populations of fish, stocks in other rivers appear more robust. The two terms, 'stock' and 'population' are central in defining the well being of salmon in a particular catchment. In my view it is absolutely essential that we make our conservation decisions on the basis of the well being of populations, not the overall stock. Why are some populations more abundant than others? That is the question being addressed by scientists. The answer lies in the ocean. Climate change, shortage of food, changing weather patterns, human actions and many other causes will eventually explain why populations of spring salmon return to (eg) the Aberdeenshire Dee so early in the year while they don't get going on (eg) the Spey until two months later. The location of marine feeding grounds, and the availability of quality prey species in each marine location, may provide some answers. Each catchment is different as I have said, and therefore the management interventions need to be tailored to each river and each population. This cannot be done without a much better knowledge than we currently have of the well being of stocks in every salmon catchment in Scotland. We therefore need to have Conservation Limits (CLS) for every catchment. Why 'catchment' ? Because it is simply not enough to confine our management actions to the performance of the main stem of any given river. On the basis that 70% plus of the water that flows into the estuary is contained within tributaries of less than 5m in width we need to understand the performance in terms of smolts recruitment and returning adults abundance of the whole catchment. We don't have those data at present. Why not? Because I suggest, management of migratory fisheries in Scotland is simply not up to the task as it is in Ireland, England, Iceland or Canada. In Scotland we operate on the basis of guesswork. We continue to blame scientists when we should be aiming our accusations at the fishery boards, whose incompetence is generally (but not always) breathtaking. Fishery Boards are very good at blaming scientists and government for failing to take decisions locally. Good salmon conservation must be done on a local (catchment) basis, and most definitely not on a crude, knee-jerk, national basis as the Jock Monteith proposal advocates. I will not sign the petition because the problem for our salmon does not reside in the river catchments. I accept that we need to keep improving riparian habitats, but in general our river catchments are generating sufficient smolts to ensure sustainable stocks. The reality is that 90% plus of our salmon die at sea, and that is where our efforts should now focused. In our estuaries, along our coasts and in our inshore waters, along ocean migration routes and into distant mixed stocks fisheries. Those are the places where our understanding of why fish die at sea must now be focused, prioritising on actions that can be taken to minimise human obstructions or exploitation, especially of mixed stocks. We will make a complete Ass of the law if we demand compulsory C&R on a national basis. The issue is a local one and should be dealt with locally. All options, from complete closure of a fishery, to allowing all forms of controlled exploitation are open to the local manager whose decisions can be taken on the basis of conservation and socio economic factors. The power should reside with local fisheries, not centrally with government. To me it is obvious that Jock Monteith has not thought through his proposal. Now it is time for him to think about conservation limits on a catchment basis. Jock needs to think in terms of using a scalpel, not a baseball bat, to help our beleaguered salmon (and sea trout). It would have been better if he had consulted more widely before publicising this half baked petition. Adipose So true Adipose, so true! Most sensible post I have read re; Mandatory Catch and release. Kerry Chalmers.
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Apr 29, 2014 19:45:14 GMT
It always seems a little hypocritical to call for an end to netting whilst still killing fish yourself and I'm sure that is a point not lost on the Pullars of this world. I am not demanding "an end to netting", nor have I ever demanded that. But I am asking that we end the practice of mixed stocks coastal netting where it can be shown that populations of salmon (and/or sea trout) are below their conservation limits. If there is reasonable doubt about the well being of a population, then any form of mixed stocks exploitation that might threaten that population should cease until all stock components (populations) are above their conservation limits. By definition, if stocks are above their CLs - and by that I mean every population within the stock - then it doesn't really matter from a conservation viewpoint who exploits the surplus, nets or rods. If you want rods to have the lion's share of the catch, then the management concerned will need to justify their limits on nets catches in favour of the rods on socio economic grounds, or on the basis of fairness, or whatever. It is the managers that decide, not the scientists. Whatever Andrew Thin's conclusions on the future structure of Scottish migratory salmonids management, his team will need to address the issue of how to apportion the surplus of fish above their CL to rods and nets. If a population does not meet its CL, there is no doubt in my mind that an option is to close down a fishery until such time as the population recovers. That decision must rest with local managers, supported if need be by scientists. The key question they must answer is, "how soon can we have CLs for every salmon river in the country?". The structure of the stock of each river catchment will need to be defined before determining the CL for each component (population) of that stock. Until that is completed we will continue to operate on the basis of guesswork. However, in my view, an educated guess is better than nothing. adipose
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Apr 30, 2014 9:19:46 GMT
Adipose, Thanks for your reasoned argument with which I am largely in agreement.I think that the fact that this petition has less than 400 signtures indicates that it is not proving very popular. It is good however that Kelly has raised this question on the forum and that we have had a good think about it, with contributions to the debate by some of us. It would be good to know how soon we are likely to be able to determine a CL for every river catchment ? Does anyone know ? Has the process been started yet ? I see that Andrew Thin is inviting comments from all quarters about how the Wild Fisheries Review should proceed so those that have criticised it on this forum now have a golden opportunity to have their input to the review.I will post the link for the latest update and a contact for comments later today.
|
|