djb
Active Member
Posts: 359
|
Post by djb on Nov 25, 2007 17:35:53 GMT
Guay,
If you think about the number of people who actively post its not a bad response (for an Internet poll). Would be good to get a few more votes and views before the AGM though....
;D
|
|
|
Post by victorclem2 on Nov 25, 2007 19:15:16 GMT
Speyducer,
Good analysis above. You have put a bit of thought in to that. My own thought was that % of fish being released would probably be a bit better than the % of anglers in favour. So, this backs that up.
Going by this and results on other forum (73 votes, 75% in favour), looks like you would get 75-85% return rate on the Tay if you asked for 100%, allowing that all the chappers were not concentrated at the lower end of the river catching all the fish.
VC
|
|
logie
Active Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by logie on Nov 25, 2007 19:53:36 GMT
If you put 80% back it will definitely help but the problem is trying to remove the temptation of classifying a fish as injured. Surely it is always better to go for 100% if the situation is as urgent as it sounds.
This might sound draconian but I think the Tay Board should ban bait fishing and spinning as well if they are trying to get a quick turnaround on the situation. Alternative would be to allow spinning but limit the hook size and use singles.
Most fly anglers seem to be very pro conservation and the other anglers will easily take up fly fishing if it is the only option like they do in some parts of the USA and Canada.
The only problem with fly only is getting the youngsters started so each area should look best how to do this.
logie
|
|
djb
Active Member
Posts: 359
|
Post by djb on Nov 25, 2007 20:20:12 GMT
Logie,
you're right bait has to go ....
Victor what happened to spinning on the Dee?
|
|
|
Post by guay on Nov 25, 2007 20:23:07 GMT
Good Point Logie, i personally dont spin but in the context of my job sometimes have to ie; Boatwork and use singles on nearly all my lures including fly!! and believe that singles are far better hookers, but youve got to remember most of the Tay is not "Classic fly water" unlike the other 3,as you say you must think about the kids and indeed the elderly and infirm!!!, everyone deserves a day out!, would you also ban Harling?, am personally against banning methods after all the hooks dont kill the fish!! its the mentallity of the guy holding the rod that could be the problem Regards Guay
|
|
djb
Active Member
Posts: 359
|
Post by djb on Nov 25, 2007 20:29:50 GMT
Your right Guay...some beats would be difficult to fish if you banned spinning (esp from the boat) and harling, as bank access is difficult on some of these (very deep pool) beats. At least if your on a boat your with a ghillie so any fish caught can be quickly released...
|
|
|
Post by victorclem2 on Nov 26, 2007 11:15:45 GMT
JSA,
A couple of the Dee beats still allow a certain amount of spinning for a proportion of the season. The regime up there is not so draconian that the law is being laid down to that extent. Peer pressure dictates that 100% C & R is the recognized policy, and that fly-fishing is the preferred method used. I dont believe there are any serious issues with a limited amount of spinning.
VC
|
|
|
Post by guay on Nov 26, 2007 19:05:25 GMT
Vearing slightly off the suject, The Question of angling pressure during the 50s, 60s 70s etc. youve got to bear in mind during these years it was very scarce for the "general public" to either have leasure time ind importantly "OWN A CAR " can members imagine how difficult it would be to enjoy the delights of the river bank if you had to get a bus!!!
|
|
djb
Active Member
Posts: 359
|
Post by djb on Nov 26, 2007 19:24:28 GMT
Valid point Guay - that itself should be an indicator that things are not right given the increase in angling pressure over the last few years.
If you looked back at the numbers of fish caught over the last 30 years vs rod pressure there has to be a significant drop in fish due to the increase in people fishing/availability over the last 10 or so years particularly with increased availabilty via FishTay etc.
|
|
|
Post by guay on Nov 26, 2007 19:30:02 GMT
JSA, absolutly, the main change over the past few years for what ever reason is accessability!!!
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Nov 26, 2007 19:43:27 GMT
Scottish Salmon Caught (all methods 1952-1993)
Col 1 = year Col 2 = Fixed Engine commercial caught (& retained) Col 3 = Net & Coble commercial caught (& retained) Col 4 = Rod & Line caught & released (figs not known for this period Col 5 = Rod & Line caught & killed Col 6 = All commercially killed salmon Col 7 = All killed salmon Col 8 = % of total as caught (returned or killed) by rod & line Col 9 = % catch & release (rod & line)
Year FE N+C R+L rel R+L,k CommK All K %RC %C&R 1952 189760 154358 #DIV/0! 41097 344158 385255 10.67 nk
1953 177233 124897 #DIV/0! 50103 302130 352233 14.22 nk
1954 155498 156490 #DIV/0! 59161 311988 371149 15.94 nk
1955 178729 159389 #DIV/0! 50639 338118 388757 13.03 nk
1956 141357 117954 #DIV/0! 56149 259311 315460 17.8 nk
1957 176885 163868 #DIV/0! 74106 340753 414859 17.86 nk
1958 190730 161868 #DIV/0! 70949 352598 423547 16.75 nk
1959 163526 169693 #DIV/0! 51040 333219 384259 13.28 nk
1960 159382 177263 #DIV/0! 61344 336645 397989 15.41 nk
1961 138613 140580 #DIV/0! 54943 279193 334136 16.44 nk
1962 191876 228929 #DIV/0! 72129 420805 492934 14.63 nk
1963 188421 171156 #DIV/0! 81406 359577 440983 18.46 nk
1964 252103 216465 #DIV/0! 81957 468568 550525 14.89 nk
1965 179045 181442 #DIV/0! 78229 360487 438716 17.83 nk
1966 184822 181317 #DIV/0! 71864 366139 438003 16.41 nk
1967 251181 275713 #DIV/0! 77796 526894 604690 12.87 nk
1968 188948 192518 #DIV/0! 52616 381466 434082 12.12 nk
1969 232021 278168 #DIV/0! 52069 510189 562258 9.26 nk
1970 158727 187480 #DIV/0! 62829 346207 409036 15.36 nk
1971 188485 185751 #DIV/0! 49525 374236 423761 11.69 nk
1972 208926 200916 #DIV/0! 59646 409842 469488 12.7 nk
1973 252017 212687 #DIV/0! 66306 464704 531010 12.49 nk
1974 218076 199777 #DIV/0! 59920 417853 477773 12.54 nk
1975 181068 181022 #DIV/0! 68252 362090 430342 15.86 nk
1976 140405 113995 #DIV/0! 48674 254400 303074 16.06 nk
1977 140956 127728 #DIV/0! 64567 268684 333251 19.37 nk
1978 154543 135485 #DIV/0! 77396 290028 367424 21.06 nk
1979 121160 117420 #DIV/0! 81165 238580 319745 25.38 nk
1980 117250 106275 #DIV/0! 70504 223525 294029 23.98 nk
1981 143210 118956 #DIV/0! 63293 262166 325459 19.45 nk
1982 154956 116593 #DIV/0! 64754 271549 336303 19.25 nk
1983 153204 136304 #DIV/0! 66070 289508 355578 18.58 nk
1984 160201 101418 #DIV/0! 58673 261619 320292 18.32 nk
1985 114537 82033 #DIV/0! 76090 196570 272660 27.91 nk
1986 156636 119438 #DIV/0! 75178 276074 351252 21.4 nk
1987 113637 84016 #DIV/0! 71126 187653 268779 26.46 nk
1988 85004 79768 #DIV/0! 96488 164772 261260 36.93 nk
1989 97554 93266 #DIV/0! 88007 190820 278827 31.56 nk
1990 47817 49555 #DIV/0! 71646 97372 169018 42.39 nk
1991 45615 30736 #DIV/0! 62450 76351 38801 44.99 nk
1992 56673 44947 #DIV/0! 82897 101620 184517 44.93 nk
1993 53767 32999 #DIV/0! 79477 86766 166243 47.81 nk
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Nov 26, 2007 19:49:30 GMT
Scottish Salmon Caught (all methods 1952-1993)
Col 1 = year Col 2 = Fixed Engine commercial caught (& retained) Col 3 = Net & Coble commercial caught (& retained) Col 4 = Rod & Line caught & released (figs not known for this period Col 5 = Rod & Line caught & killed Col 6 = All commercially killed salmon Col 7 = All killed salmon Col 8 = % of total as caught (returned or killed) by rod & line Col 9 = % catch & release (rod & line) Col 10 = All captures (returned or killed) Col 11 = All rod & line captures (returned or killed)
1993 53767 32999 #DIV/0! 79477 86766 166243 47.81 nk
1994 76446 30130 6595 76827 106576 183403 43.91 7.91 189998 83422
1995 62387 31512 12133 73989 93899 167888 47.84 14.09 180021 86122
1996 42457 22241 10409 59169 64698 123867 51.82 14.96 134276 69578
1997 26085 10980 10906 49777 37065 86842 62.08 17.97 97748 60683
1998 21885 9854 13455 59891 31739 91630 69.8 18.34 105085 73346
1999 10291 7553 14839 37694 17844 55538 74.64 28.25 70377 52533
2000 22988 12521 21068 44653 35509 80162 64.92 32.06 101230 65721
2001 25041 7233 27699 44597 32274 76871 69.14 38.31 104570 72296
2002 16865 6796 24042 33878 23661 57539 71 41.51 81581 57920
2003 26003 7244 28987 23381 33247 56628 61.17 55.35 85615 52368
2004 20758 6402 46249 46669 27160 73829 77.38 49.77 120078 92918
2005 20943 8194 45970 37830 29137 66967 74.2 54.86 112937 83800
2006 18800 6161 47471 38430 24961 63391 77.48 55.26 110862 85901
NOTE: between 2003 and 2006 inclusive, % of rod & line catch & release (ALL of Scotland) has been steady at 50-55% only!
Mike
|
|
|
Post by victorclem2 on Nov 26, 2007 21:41:39 GMT
Mike,
I see you are a man for figures. Can you work out C & R % for Tweed, Dee, Spey and Tay for the last 15 years, put them all on the same graph for comparison and post graph on here?
(By Thursday please!?!?)
That should keep you occupied for a while, and make things easier to see than the above computer print-outs!!!!!
VC
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Nov 26, 2007 22:06:03 GMT
Mike, I see you are a man for figures. Can you work out C & R % for Tweed, Dee, Spey and Tay for the last 15 years, put them all on the same graph for comparison and post graph on here? (By Thursday please!?!?) That should keep you occupied for a while, and make things easier to see than the above computer print-outs!!!!! VC Victor, The extremely difficult gets done by return; The impossible takes a few days; Miracles take a little longer!! ;D ;D Mike
|
|
stuart
Active Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by stuart on Nov 26, 2007 22:12:47 GMT
I think it should follow the Dee and try for 100% c & r untill stocks improve. Anything less is just adding temptation to the fishmongers who will keep far more than they need. I don't mind someone taking a fish for the table if it is at the right time of the year and perferably a c0ck fish, but who really needs more than a couple of fish for the seasn.
|
|
|
Post by victorclem2 on Nov 27, 2007 16:56:32 GMT
MIke,
I notice you did'nt say "no".
VC
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Nov 27, 2007 17:12:54 GMT
MIke, I notice you did'nt say "no". VC Victor, As far as official figures go, there are only rod-caught catch & release figures going back to 1994 I think. Separating these out for the different major Scottish river systems may be very difficult or indeed impossible. I will look into it a bit more. Regards, Mike
|
|
djb
Active Member
Posts: 359
|
Post by djb on Nov 27, 2007 19:36:10 GMT
Hornet,
Looking at the comments the votes have been mainly cast by those who fish the Tay regularly & few of the ghillies and a small number of others i.e. who fish the Tay occassionally or would like to & those who support (or otherwise) C&R and would like to see the Tay improve.
It also look like most of the votes on both forums have been cast in the main by the regular posters.
It would be good to see some more of the other members vote whichever way they see fit - this is an important subject for all - you dont want the same to happen on your own river as has happened to the Tay over the last 2-3 decades so please vote and let us know your views.
Remember C&R is only part of an overall package of measures including habitat restoration and other initiatives to try and increase the salmon stocks on the river.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by victorclem2 on Nov 27, 2007 21:11:05 GMT
Mike, Figures from 1994 for the Big Four only will be fine. If the figures are very variable from year to year, a five-year rolling average will iron them out. I think that will be all for now. If I think of anything else I will get back to you! VC
|
|
alta
Active Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by alta on Nov 27, 2007 21:55:37 GMT
I voted for 100% catch and release based on the general information I have read about this river. If the river ever returns to a state of abundance I would be in favour of anglers taking fish again but on a very limited basis.
alta
|
|