Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  43
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Arbeg haze or River Tay
    Posts
    1,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flyman View Post
    Have a look at the river Coe and leven in lochaber.+ the nevis.I thought Salmon were now extinct in the Coe.Science fiction methinks.
    Still fish in the Coe but not many.

    Words fail me in this joke of a system,I think in a few instances where there is lack of a fisheries board pressure they just let it be CAT 1 or 2.
    Come on the Forth Carron was a 1.
    Usual SNP pish

    The River Garnock a 1 !!
    The Nevis a 1 !!
    The Doon ...
    Last edited by Svardsvard; 05-01-2017 at 05:27 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    7,442

    Default

    Would like them to share the catch returns for all these rivers in another column, to allow us to see what they base their catagories on?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cirencester
    Posts
    2,350

    Default

    Is this mumbo jumbo not legally challengeable?

    Seems a bit of a farce to me, although the one saving grace of 'cooking the books' is surely that some angling clubs facing potential extinction due to a higher category might now be viable again?

    I suspect 2018 will see an awful lot of new Cat 1 rivers!

    Oscar.

  4. #14

    Default

    Can anyone explain why it matters? A couple of years ago there were no categories and that was fine. Last year there was uproar due to loads of cat 3 designations and now people are complaining there are too many cat 1 and 2? I cannot understand the problem. We don't need a national government to categorise each individual river for the owners and anglers to manage them.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    4,889

    Default

    The rivers and their contents do not change but the effect of the classification can have far reachung consequences to lets and angling associations/clubs.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxie View Post
    I cannot understand the problem.
    Neither can I .
    Suppose it all depends on how you view mandatory c&r as a conservation measure.

    Personally , I thought it had been shown to be nowt more than a conscience salver quite some time ago.
    Remember Thomas Muir of Huntershill

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    N W Highlands
    Posts
    219

    Default Cats can be useful......

    There may be more to this than meets the eye at first reading and I cannot offer all the posibilities, but.
    Us who live by these rivers know the local situation. However I suspect many do their homework from afar and then travel some distance to reach our NW rivers will use the cat as some sort of a guide, not very accurate I grant you.
    The SG in cahoots with MSS I suspect also use the cats as a way of trying to convince the unwary that the viability of the river is strong and therefore another salmon farm won't do any more damage.
    I do not like the idea of cats either but it is peg to hang some argument on, even if its just helping to expose how wide of the mark the MSS's interpretation of the data is.

    M

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    East Lothian
    Posts
    2,653

    Default

    True ibm59

    But I think folk are right to continue to question the scientific (or otherwise) basis under which these decisions have been taken.

    To make no comment as various catchments are seemingly randomly re-categorised implies agreeance with the nonsense.

    I suspect that the post earlier highlighting the question of what influence the river board has on categorisation (and the likelihood therefor of a pious board unjustifiably maintaining a categorisation of 3 whilst a liberal board steers the decision to cat 1) is an interesting one. If true it makes a mockery of science and our basic rights all in a oner.
    Last edited by ozzyian; 05-01-2017 at 10:49 AM.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ozzyian View Post

    But I think folk are right to continue to question the scientific (or otherwise) basis under which these decisions have been taken.

    To make no comment as various catchments are seemingly randomly re-categorised implies agreeance with the nonsense.
    Absolutely
    Remember Thomas Muir of Huntershill

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    7,442

    Default

    As I said above a column but expanding it a little showing the catches from last year to the preceding year so we can at least see what the movements are and in what direction.

    Now I understand the clubs (in particular) wishing to hold onto/gain Cat 1 or even 2 by "potentially" manipulating the catch returns, thus distorting the figures, but I would still like to see back to back catch figures for all the rivers.
    They of course must have these in order to categorize the river

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •