logie
Active Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by logie on Oct 20, 2007 20:59:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by John Gray on Oct 21, 2007 12:20:06 GMT
Professor Todd is quoted as follows:
"To ensure the future of wild salmon in an ever-changing environment we do need to especially encourage anglers to release as many females as possible to give them a chance of successfully spawning."
Few, especially here on this forum, would argue with the logic in this recommendation.
The article also notes the effect of sea lice from fish farms on the decline in salmon stocks, yet makes no recommendation for the removal of the offending fish farms from our shores. Nor is such an important matter given as much as a mention in the "The Scotsman's manifesto to protect the seas". Given that the removal of salmon farms from our inshore waters would have a much more beneficial impact on salmon numbers, in the areas in which they operate, than the return of fish caught by anglers, I would urge the Scotsman, as a matter of priority, to add the removal of salmon farms to their manifesto.
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Oct 21, 2007 12:58:40 GMT
John,
Very good points there. I would merely add that it appears, certainly as far as the west coast Scottish rivers go, that there may have been an even more devastating effect on Seatrout numbers from the lice and other diseases from their caged 'for the table' cousins.
I would also urge the Scotsman to make the appropriate adjustments and additions to their declared manifesto.
Mike
|
|
salmo
Advisory Board
Posts: 1,814
|
Post by salmo on Nov 21, 2007 22:26:06 GMT
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Nov 21, 2007 23:31:18 GMT
Genetically they may be salmon, but in reality they are just a cheaply produced source of fish protein, with a relatively large profit margin under normal circumstances, to be sold in top restaurants at top prices. The 'acceptable' face of GM food. No thanks. Perhaps the chancellor will guarantee this company a financial lifeline, so that it can still produce devastating effects on the wild migratory fish stocks Mike
|
|
|
Post by Alex Robertson on Nov 23, 2007 11:59:50 GMT
Read this article with intrest, then picked up the paper and found this short snippet titled ''Fish clean out''. : Fish in Scottish rivers are at risk because the water is too clean, Experts claim that there is not enough nutrients-broken down from waste-to support the food chain. They beleave pollutants must be poured into some rivers to revive the wildlife. This problem is worst in Wester Ross, and a local fisheries trust are now looking for soloutions to ''provide nutrients that allow the fish to survive''.
Just when you begin to understand all this imformation, and it's implications, you get hit with another
|
|
salmo
Advisory Board
Posts: 1,814
|
Post by salmo on Nov 24, 2007 14:33:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by zeolite on Nov 26, 2007 9:47:17 GMT
As regards the rivers being "too clean". Should they not say "too sterile?" In the past the decaying bodies of the spawned salmon would bring sea sourced nutrients into the spawning burns to provide nutrients for the invertebrates that the parr would feed on. Now that there are no salmon the nutrients won't be there. I have heard that these west coast rivers are very pH variable and can get very acidic with snow melt. I am sure that is a factor too.
|
|