|
Post by kerrychalmers on Jan 30, 2014 13:02:50 GMT
It would only be fair to everyone to start fishing at the same time [nets/rods] but another problem then surfaces. The spring stocks that have made it into the rivers are safe from the nets but will be caught by the rods Would be possibly better to restrict the netting to say four days per week and cease when the water levels go below a certain river height. Rod fishing to be restricted to a shorter season at each end. The Tay board would for a start be against this. Bob[/ The Tay per se is not at or near crisis point Bob, but the little South Esk must be nearing it. Why netters dont pay the same levies as rods is beyond me. Why the boards dont buy out the nets, continue netting responsibly, sell the fish and use monies for the good of the river, makes sense to me. Stopping Spring Angling would only take money away from the districts affected and possibly cause businesses to close, eg; hotels, bb's, tackle shops and more. The Tay board would rightly be against this move, only maybe 30 fish caught this season so far but many thousands of pounds already come in to the area. I must admit though I,m having second thoughts about the extension, i dont really want to have the predicament of returning a fish to die! Just my own thoughts, Kerry Chalmers.
|
|
fredo
Active Member
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by fredo on Jan 30, 2014 13:22:09 GMT
Would be a reasonable arugment to say that fishing should be banned if netting is to give the stock a better chance. There are others that would argue that if the fish are that scarce then we should not be fishing for them anyway. My gear is already to go ist Febuary so peace to all. Bob SOUTH ESK PROPOSAL TO CLOSE ALL FISHING IN DISTRICT BEFORE JULY FROM 2015 I understand that a South Esk riparian owner has written to the EDSFB proposing that the whole South Esk District should be closed to all forms of fishing (including Catch & Release) until the 1st of July from the 2015 season. The period of this ban on all sorts of fishing - coastal nets and rod fishing - should continue for as many years are required to obtain an accurate understanding of the condition of South Esk stocks of salmon and sea trout. That means the structure of the stock and conservation limits for each population within the catchment's stocks, as well as numbers and health of individual fish in each population. Once it can be shown that the stocks of wild salmon and sea trout are above conservation limits, and allow for a manageable harvest, the board will have to decide, as managers do in Norway, Ireland and Canada, how to regulate and monitor future exploitation. The proposal suggests that nets can start fishing on 1/7 each year and end their season on 31/8. Rods may start fishing on 1/7 and end their season on 31/10, but all salmonids should be returned alive to the river between 1/9 and the end of the season on 31/10. The proposal suggests that no compensation is offered to either rods or nets, although it was accepted that board levies may have to be renegotiated. I understand there is some support for the proposal in the District, but don't hold your breath because these things have a way of being whittled away to nothing! However, if the proposal were accepted, and the ban on on all fishing up to 30 June were to happen, you can see that all the spring run saved from mixed stocks nets would reach their destination rivers, as would the early running grilse and the bulk of the sea trout runs. The measure would therefore affect all east coast Scottish salmon rivers. While the proposal recognises that not everyone will be happy with the suggested new season, the fact is that conservation of the South Esk's salmon and sea trout has to be the priority. Let's see what happens at the board meeting at the Finavon Hotel at 1430 on 5/2/2014! Adipose. An interesting proposal! I can only assume that the idea is being put forward in order to make the Esk Board take a more proactive role in the whole netting problem. In that respect, it is a good idea. But, if politicians were to think this is a good idea and decide that something similar could be included in the fisheries "review" then the mere suggestion of shortening the salmon season is an extremely bad idea. All Sottish salmon angling interests are going to have to present a united front if we are to have any hope of influencing the fisheries review, and this proposal is likely to be very divisive.
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Jan 30, 2014 13:49:05 GMT
I agree that this is a double edged sword. In the first place it does clearly show that anglers and/or river proprietors are serious about protection of the fragile wild atlantic spring salmon resource particularly on the South Esk. On the other hand, if implemented, it will place many jobs and businesses in the Esk river valleys at considerable risk. I do wonder whether this proposal would have come about if there had been no threat of the resumption of early season netting by salmon netsmen ? I hear that USAN have now agreed not to net at Montrose in 2014 until 30th April but will continue to implement the extension decision at their other netting stations on the Moray Firth and on the North Coast in 2014. I also wonder if other affected river boards such as the Deveron and Spey will consider reducing the length of the season on their rivers to place further pressure on the netsmen ?
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Jan 30, 2014 16:19:29 GMT
This proposal seems to have got some juices flowing!!
Look guys, there is only one thing that matters, which is that there is an abundance of all populations within the South Esk's stock of wild Atlantic salmon. It is the size and quality of the cake we are talking about, not how the cake should be divided and apportioned.
This proposal is about one river catchment - the South Esk District. That includes fresh and salt water. The job of the Fishery Board is to protect and if possible enhance the river's stock. That is what the proposal is asking the board to do. Is that not reasonable?
I am a keen angler myself, but I draw the line at continuing to exploit threatened stocks, which is probably the case on the South Esk.
If we are to leave future generations with wild salmon and sea trout in the river South Esk we need to take action now. That will mean pain to upper and lower proprietors. When it can be shown that South Esk stocks of early-running salmon have recovered sufficiently to allow a harvestable surplus we can discuss how the cake should be divided.
That's what they do in Ireland, so why not here?
Proprietors and netsmen will lose income. The local economy is bound to suffer. Anglers will lose some of their fishing. If the result of these sacrifices is that once again the South Esk has a healthy stock of spring salmon we will have won and future generations will be glad we did it.
I am for the fish, not the angler, not the netsmen, not the local economy, because I know that if we continue killing spring salmon as we are at present there won't be any fish for angler, netsmen or the local economy.
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.
No, it has to be equal pain. Otherwise, we are lost and so will be our salmon and sea trout. There's no escape: we simply have to face the harsh reality.
Does anyone have a better idea that has some chance of success? If so, let's have it.
Adipose
|
|
|
Post by earnfisher on Jan 30, 2014 16:34:39 GMT
Reading in the old books the shortage of spring fish is always changing. The runs get later each year and then after perhaps seventy years the spring runs pick up again. The other side of the problem which should bother most fishers is if the fishing improves then the rents will go up and up. Bob
|
|
|
Post by kerrychalmers on Jan 30, 2014 17:02:33 GMT
This proposal seems to have got some juices flowing!! Look guys, there is only one thing that matters, which is that there is an abundance of all populations within the South Esk's stock of wild Atlantic salmon. It is the size and quality of the cake we are talking about, not how the cake should be divided and apportioned. This proposal is about one river catchment - the South Esk District. That includes fresh and salt water. The job of the Fishery Board is to protect and if possible enhance the river's stock. That is what the proposal is asking the board to do. Is that not reasonable? I am a keen angler myself, but I draw the line at continuing to exploit threatened stocks, which is probably the case on the South Esk. If we are to leave future generations with wild salmon and sea trout in the river South Esk we need to take action now. That will mean pain to upper and lower proprietors. When it can be shown that South Esk stocks of early-running salmon have recovered sufficiently to allow a harvestable surplus we can discuss how the cake should be divided. That's what they do in Ireland, so why not here? Proprietors and netsmen will lose income. The local economy is bound to suffer. Anglers will lose some of their fishing. If the result of these sacrifices is that once again the South Esk has a healthy stock of spring salmon we will have won and future generations will be glad we did it. I am for the fish, not the angler, not the netsmen, not the local economy, because I know that if we continue killing spring salmon as we are at present there won't be any fish for angler, netsmen or the local economy. 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. No, it has to be equal pain. Otherwise, we are lost and so will be our salmon and sea trout. There's no escape: we simply have to face the harsh reality. Does anyone have a better idea that has some chance of success? If so, let's have it. Adipose You will know that in Ireland when the anglers left the rivers the poachers moved in!!! The Board will have no income if there are no anglers to pay the watchers wages!!! Catch and release IMO does not make a lot of difference overall but at least money can still be made for other projects within the watershed. I,m telling you now stopping angling is not the answer and once a precedent has been set there is no going back. I do not want some person whom possibly has never even been on a river to dictate policy. I want to wait and see what if any difference Ian Gordons crusade has on fishery legislation, and hopefully anglers and netters can come to some agreement on best practice! Kerry Chalmers.
|
|
burnie
Active Member
Posts: 1,183
|
Post by burnie on Jan 30, 2014 17:28:25 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.
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Jan 30, 2014 18:15:46 GMT
Thanks both.
No new ideas then.
Just the same old arguments, which have failed us over a very long period.
Anyone got a plan?
|
|
|
Post by kerrychalmers on Jan 30, 2014 18:27:20 GMT
Thanks both. No new ideas then. Just the same old arguments, which have failed us over a very long period. Anyone got a plan? Well Adipose we could always sack the Esks board and employ either the Tay or Dee boards to take control. ? They are doing ok just now! ? Kerry 'same old, same old' Chalmers.
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Jan 30, 2014 20:22:18 GMT
Kerry,
you are welcome to take over the EDSFB
You could have Mr George Pullar, Dr Marshall Halliday, Old Uncle Tom, Cobley and the whole shebang.
Please rescue us, but above all else, give us a plan.
I wonder how many more spring salmon would swim up the Tay or the Dee if Mr George Pullar was unable to set his Usan nets in April, May and June?
How often do you fish the South Esk?
Adipose
|
|
|
Post by kerrychalmers on Jan 30, 2014 21:00:12 GMT
Kerry, you are welcome to take over the EDSFB You could have Mr George Pullar, Dr Marshall Halliday, Old Uncle Tom, Cobley and the whole shebang. Please rescue us, but above all else, give us a plan. I wonder how many more spring salmon would swim up the Tay or the Dee if Mr George Pullar was unable to set his Usan nets in April, May and June? How often do you fish the South Esk? Adipose. Dont fish it enough nowadays Adipose! Got into the Northie late spring and really enjoyed it for a while but got scunnered by the netting and only had 2 days last year. Will not fish either of them this season and will concentrate mainly on the Tay and possibly a couple of shots on the Dee. Dont be disheartened Adipose you just never know? Kerry Chalmers.
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Jan 30, 2014 21:06:53 GMT
Adipose, Your last post in response to Kerry makes me further question the motives for proposing partial closure of the season on the South Esk. Please forgive me for also being cynical about the motives of the proprietors on the Esks to reduce the length of the fishing season from 2015. I have had a look at those beats on the North and South Esks that actually report salmon catches on Fish Pal.Assuming these figures are accurate, and I have no reason to believe that they are not, from what I can see the majority of beats are showing no significant drop in rod catches over the period February-May 2009-2013. In fact for many beats 2013 proved to be one of the best springs for rods for many years , more so on the North Esk but also quite significantly on the South Esk (i.e Kinnard Upper). Finavon Castle was slightly above the 5 year average. Can you say categorically that this proposal has not been made solely to put pressure on the netsmen at USAN ? I'm afraid as yet I have not thought of another plan but on the assumption that many spring fish will be caught right up to the season end when they are stale and ready to spawn would it not be prudent in the interests of conservation ( if that is indeed the sole motive for partial closure of the rods) to close the threatened river for the whole season ? 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.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Jan 30, 2014 21:18:44 GMT
There are a few problems with the suggestion. 1. If the Esks’ board decided to close one part of the area for conservation the entire district would have to be closed. i.e. both Esks 2. The netsmen could ironically raise the mixed stock argument and continue to fish for stock from other rivers. I just cannot see it happening.
|
|
|
Post by glenclova on Jan 30, 2014 22:15:27 GMT
Why not start with something simpler and try to make sure that the nets are lifted at the weekend as they should be. This would at least allow a few more fish to escape. If the rivers were closed (even temporarily) in the current political climate the nets would be compensated and when the stocks recover guess who would benefit most ?
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Jan 30, 2014 22:36:26 GMT
Devronmac
You may not believe it, but, as far as I am aware, there is no conspiracy theory here.
Marine Scotland has told us that the justification for their South Esk tagging and tracking project, started in 2012 and ending at the end of 2014, is that South Esk spring salmon stocks are likely to be below their conservation level. However, MS has to date not published CLs for any river.
This assessment of the South Esk's spring component is backed by SNH's assessment of the river's performance as an SAC (along with the river's freshwater mussels, also assessed as being in poor condition).
Those two assessments showed up the South Esk in comparison with the North Esk, Dee and Tay (the last two also SACs). It was decided that action was required to improve the South Esk's assessments: the following projects were or are being implemented: 1) EU Life Funding projects in the upper catchment. 2) South Esk tagging and tracking project (ongoing) 3) South Esk as priority catchment for dealing with diffuse agricultural pollution (SEPA) 4) South Esk as National model for river/fishery management.(Marine Scotland) A favoured river indeed, you would have thought!
But there was a problem, namely the activities of the Usan mixed stocks fishery.
In one month, May 2011, the Usan nets killed 2,307 MSW salmon. The tagging project provided an indication of how that catch might be attributed to other east coast rivers. The estimated number of MSW spring salmon attributable to the North and South Esks totalled close on 2,000 fish, with the Dee, Tay, Don and Spey also affected.
In that context, compounded by a review of fisheries announced at the Tay 2014 opening, and the SNFAS announcing resumption of netting from February 2015, after a 15 year lay-off, some people in the South Esk District decided that it is time to take action to reduce the killing of early running salmon.
In a review of recent efforts to resolve the problem there are two issues that stand out: 1) the unwillingness of the Scottish Government to restrict the activities of mixed stocks fisheries, despite international pressure, if there is any aspect of the restrictions which are judged to be unfair to the netting interests 2) Silence from the Minister following the report submitted by the Mixed Stocks Fishing Working Group in 2011.
Under the 2003 (consolidated) Salmon Act the Esk District Salmon Fishery Board has the power to implement measures to protect or enhance stocks of salmon in the South Esk catchment. Any appeal against a board decision is referred to the Minister to adjudicate.
That is where I understand the situation has reached. The proposal to the EDSFB will I understand be discussed next week. The proposal is unusual in that a group of riparian owners (upper proprietors) have agreed to forego income from the first four and a half months of the season to demonstrate their commitment to stock conservation as their top priority. I gather that the expectation is that the Usan nets should follow suit.
It really is that simple! (Did I say "simple?") No conspiracies or hidden agendas as far as I know.
However, there is a qualification which is the necessity to carry out a proper stock assessment project in the South Esk catchment to determine the structure, numbers and quality of South Esk salmon stocks and their component populations. That assessment, using all available methods and technologies, should take place during the shortened season. Finally, there must be an exit strategy for any change in duration of the fishing season.
I hope that clarifies the situation. I write as a well informed observer. I am not a member of EDSFB but I shall watch with interest the outcome of next week's board meeting!
Adipose
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Jan 30, 2014 22:38:21 GMT
There are a few problems with the suggestion. 1. If the Esks’ board decided to close one part of the area for conservation the entire district would have to be closed. i.e. both Esks 2. The netsmen could ironically raise the mixed stock argument and continue to fish for stock from other rivers. I just cannot see it happening. Willie Gunn, That is incorrect. As you will see in the MS catch returns, there are two districts, one for the South Esk and the other for the North Esk. Adipose
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Jan 30, 2014 22:53:16 GMT
It would only be fair to everyone to start fishing at the same time [nets/rods] but another problem then surfaces. The spring stocks that have made it into the rivers are safe from the nets but will be caught by the rods Kerry Research shows that spring salmon are not easily caught during the summer months, but when water temperatures drop and spates arrive in the autumn spring salmon do become more aggressive and catchable. It is actually illegal to kill gravid salmon, so all those spring salmon should by law be returned alive to the river. Research also shows that fresh salmon are more vulnerable to C&R than fish that have been in the river a while. Physiological changes as salmon prepare for spawning make them more robust. Their skin is thicker. They are less vulnerable to lesions and disease. So, backed by science, we should accept that spring fish allowed into the river, despite initial vulnerability, will mainly be safe from over exploitation. Adipose
|
|
|
Post by devronmac on Jan 30, 2014 22:55:06 GMT
Like you I will await the outcome of the Esk Board's deliberations with interest as the decision may have potential impacts on other SACs suffering declining stocks. I am aware that any board decision can now be challenged by anyone under the latest Salmon Act legislation. Thanks for clarifying the postion so clearly.
|
|
|
Post by adipose on Jan 30, 2014 23:07:38 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
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Jan 30, 2014 23:58:25 GMT
That is incorrect. As you will see in the MS catch returns, there are two districts, one for the South Esk and the other for the North Esk. Adipose I think you will find there is only one fishery board. www.erft.org.ukEsk Disctrict Salmon Fishery Board The EDSFB is the statutory body with responsibility for the management of salmon and sea trout stocks in the Rivers North and South Esk. And I think they cannot split up the district. Take for example the Ness board, the Ness system opens 15th January but only by local agreement the lower river does not fish till 1st February. If leglisation was passed it would be for all the district.
|
|