Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46
Like Tree79Likes

Thread: Daft Spey Rule

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    799

    Default Daft Spey Rule

    Why oh why is there a rule that you must you put your first cock fish back all season. This is just nuts. I won't be fishing the Spey.
    FloatinglineNelly likes this.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    7,241

    Default

    Didn't you post the same comment just the other day ?
    kingfishben likes this.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stirling
    Posts
    4,830

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingfisher View Post
    Didn't you post the same comment just the other day ?
    Different day, different cock fish.
    Respect My Authorita!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    94

    Default

    It's your first fish that is returned ;cock or hen and then if the second IS a cock you may keep it, if a hen she goes back, your 3rd...damn I've never got that far!!!
    Bruino likes this.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Stirling
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Because salmon fishing is rapidly becoming a 100% CCR past time of the rich and famous where the rules and limitations that are enforced by fishery boards/riparian owners/associations are enforced upon us due to the poor returns of returning adults caused by in river predation/in river conditions/poor sea survival . I quoted on other threads that in 20 years we anglers will be fishing with no hooks so as to cause the fish no harm and that we will be measuring the success of a days fishing by the amount of rises we provoked to to our hookless flies..now being quoted in T&S.

    No retaining of springers,no retaining of hens, no retaining of fish over 10lb, first fish back,3rd fish back , no shrimp, no prawn, no worm, no multi treble lures, no treble hooked lures or flies, no spinning , fly only, no spinning below a foot, doubles only, barbless hooks only, no sink tips in summer, must have landing net..all the above rules are being implemented on most systems since the crash in numbers which were not the result of anglers taking the occasional clean fish for the pot..while our children are presented with frankenfish from the ever growing fish farms.

    Salmon anglers have not caused the decline in returning salmon numbers and I am sick and tired of having the rules changed every season because the reason for the declining numbers of returning salmon has not been properly investigated and rectified by the governments as they are too deeply involved with RSPB and Norwegian salmon farmers ..

    Rant over and I must stop typing after session in the pub..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    324

    Default

    you forgot the ghillies ! the foot soldier of the speyfishery board an its owners ,they are very keen on having you put everything back but if you ask them "why " they can only answer " its the boards recomendations " and then there are the scientists who advise the board ,what can be an easier option for them than to advise returning everything ? its the same old " we havent got a clue " but lets make the anglers pay for our total lack of answers
    buntinbee and MarkR like this.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country)
    Posts
    2,713

    Default

    Given that WFR and Scots Categorisations and associated ineffectual and unnecessary restrictions on anglers ultimately emanated from Speyside (admittedly the Scientists did not adequately evaluate the failed experiments of Deeside and EA-side), with the flames being fanned by the SCS, I'm surprised that Ness Glen has not leapt in here to defend the Honour.

    Dr Campbell hopefully will remain as a bit of an anomaly
    "...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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    5,519

    Default

    I think there is a competitive element to it. Board A introduces more restrictions dressed up as "conservation measures", so board B feels obliged by peer pressure to follow suit. Board C isnt being outdone by anyone so takes it one step forward and the merry-go-round continues, presumably until most people give up and go home. In my view a more science based approach combined with a dose of common sense would better serve everyone. I am aware of the moral high ground argument and was all for it until recently when I have come to believe that the regulatory authorities do no give a proverbial. That can be seen by the farcical WFD debacle including the justification for CCR on the basis that most fish are returned anyway so it's not going to make much difference! I'm all for common sense restrictions and have no desire to go back to seeing rows of dead coloured fish. Surely if we put back big fish, especially hens, coloured fish of all sizes and more than a modest number for our own consumption no other restrictions are needed? If a river cannot sustain 2 or 3% mortality by rod fishing the stock is beyond recovery anyway!
    Last edited by Loxie; 08-03-2017 at 01:01 PM.
    Andy R likes this.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Culrain. Sutherland
    Posts
    2,232

    Default

    This is nothing, try not being able to start your season until the first of june despite the rivers opening on the 11th january and having to accept the bull excuse that spring fish will only take a fly once as a reason for not being allowed to start earlier (especially as everything is returned up to the 16th of june anyway)

    Especially as the real truthful answer is simply "we don't want you plebs catching what we perceive to be our fish before us, now back in your box scum"......
    Last edited by carbisdale caster; 08-03-2017 at 01:19 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seeking View Post
    Given that WFR and Scots Categorisations and associated ineffectual and unnecessary restrictions on anglers ultimately emanated from Speyside (admittedly the Scientists did not adequately evaluate the failed experiments of Deeside and EA-side), with the flames being fanned by the SCS, I'm surprised that Ness Glen has not leapt in here to defend the Honour.

    I'm puzzled by the bit I've highlighted - can you elaborate?

    FWIW my impression has always been that the SFB (and remember that this thread is supposedly about their recommendations, not those of the WFR) wasn't ever very much in favour of the WFR - either the process or the conclusions.

    Have you read the Spey report in this month's T&S?

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •