Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  186
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 76 of 76
  1. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukasz View Post
    Seeking, nice try with conspiracy theory but I can assure I'm not selective in data presentation. I accidentally missed it, that's all (just like some other years, 2002, 2003, 1997, 1996). I can also assure you that catches in 2008-2011 years were not spectacular on that beat as one may think, comparable to 2012 and of course better than recent years. BUT that's not the point. The point is that 40years ago, one pool produced more fish than the beat in recent years and the beat produced as many fish as entire river now days, and missing catches form 2008-2011 years make no difference to this.
    The problem with taking one year and comparing it is that in most rivers histories there are huge variations in catches. For instance the Thurso last year more fish in one week than used to be caught in the whole season. Does that mean anything? It's interesting to see catch records and old photos but dangerous to try to draw any meaningful conclusions from them. A bit like memories really.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    North Yorks
    Posts
    2,699

    Default

    Again,

    I repeat my point that the Findhorn is a funny river. Depending on the water conditions (and the pre-conditions created some weeks before) one beat can have a bonanza and another a couple of miles away can have a disaster. Obviously the converse applies, as well as the possibility of universal gloom. Generalisations don't work well on the Findhorn owing to the differing character of its sections.
    For example, the pattern of rainfall in 2004 and 2011 meant that the salmon weren't held up in the beat that is the subject of this post, but the stretches above set new records. In 2011 I averaged a fish every 90 minutes of our week, which for Tomatin was regarded as extraordinary. The years either side were very quiet.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cirencester
    Posts
    2,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MCXFisher View Post
    In 2011 I averaged a fish every 90 minutes of our week, which for Tomatin was regarded as extraordinary. The years either side were very quiet.
    That's some fishing! Wow.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    North Yorks
    Posts
    2,699

    Default

    I must stress that was every 90 minutes actually in the water and fishing! It excludes the mealtimes, walking to top and bottom, stand down day etc. If you view the time gross for the 5 x 7 hour days it works out as a salmon every 2 - 2 1/2 hours, or put another way, one before breakfast, one mid-morning and one in the afternoon daily, plus extras.

    There was little expertise involved. It was all down to the sheer luck of having a river full of taking fish running slowly and steadily through resting lies at a perfect water height for fishing. The Cascade Conehead tube was perfect, but I reckon they would have taken a roast chicken. We hadn't seen anything like it since 2004 when the same conditions (and results) prevailed.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country)
    Posts
    2,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukasz View Post
    Seeking, nice try with conspiracy theory but I can assure I'm not selective in data presentation. I accidentally missed it, that's all (just like some other years, 2002, 2003, 1997, 1996). I can also assure you that catches in 2008-2011 years were not spectacular on that beat as one may think, comparable to 2012 and of course better than recent years. BUT that's not the point. The point is that 40years ago, one pool produced more fish than the beat in recent years and the beat produced as many fish as entire river now days, and missing catches form 2008-2011 years make no difference to this.
    I can assure you that no allegation of malfeasance on your part was implied by my comments Lukasz I’m sure it was a good faith omission: no conspiracy theory, I was just pointing out the facts; that some important data was missing for us all to make a fair and reasonable comparison. No problem.

    It’s also interesting to note that the variation in catches even in the “good old days” was extreme – e.g. 78/80- belting catches, 81/82 pretty poor! UDN you say is the cause

    Lets not forget that whilst the devil may be in the detail, individual beat catches obviously vary over time. We all know examples of pool/beats changing over time as rivers change and salmon runs change . Interestingly wasn’t that beat the most heavily netted in-river beats of the Findhorn by N&C right up to the late 1980s? You could therefore make the case that in-river netting held up fish there, all the better for anglers on that beat, and from the 1990s they had a free run to the falls… Who knows, lots of variables.

    Again, the best 15 years for the river as a whole from the period for which we’ve got data, 1952 to 2015 were as follows:

    2006, 3956
    1995, 3540
    2010, 3479
    2008, 3366
    2007, 3038
    2001, 2888
    2004, 2880
    1988, 2823
    1989, 2775
    1998, 2703
    1992, 2639
    1994, 2627
    1978, 2516
    2012, 2456

    That’s not what the data for one small beat, low down the river, would suggest, so perhaps there’s a bigger picture here somewhere One that says, actually the recent years are the “good new days” even despite the modern fly-only “FOF” stuff.

    Like I said the important bit, so important I don’t even think Messrs Graham-Stewart & Campbell-Adamson would disagree with it, is:

    Quote Originally Posted by seeking View Post
    ...Of course catches were high in the past when fishers were better, had more time and better knees and could spin and prawn to their hearts content in order to fund their fishing or buy their kit.

    It's amazing it's so good now in comparison when you really think about it.

    Either way, many thanks for posting the OP, it's always really interesting to look at how things change, great pics of the good old days, and to discuss classic Brit heaps of junk to boot
    "...hooking mortality is higher than you'd expect: further evidence that as a numbers game, catch-and-release fishing isn't always as straightforward as it seems"
    John Gierach


    Fed up of debating C&R - see Hidden Content

    Unless otherwise stated, data used in any graph/figure/table are Crown copyright, used with the permission of MSS and/or EA and/or ICES. MSS / EA / ICES are not responsible for interpretation of these data by third parties

  6. #76

    Default

    It seems a lifetime ago now that fish were killed without a second thought. Its what happened at the time and my opinion is that people 'expected' that the fish would keep coming year after year so the harvest went on.

    There were bad times in the 'good old days' just like there are now. The big difference between then and now is the uncertainty from year to year as to how the runs will shape up. For those who have been around for long enough will perhaps recall the expectation of the arrival of grilse at a set time. Its a brave man now who will put a bet on as to when they will show up in the summer or autumn.

    The tide turned in the 1990's I recall and almost a generation of fishermen have taken up the sport since then. The days of 100% catch and kill are a thing of the past and todays anglers now are far more conservation minded.

    Thanks for posting the images, it is a reminder how so much has changed.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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