Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  7
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ireland/Scotland
    Posts
    600

    Default Salmon farmers promoting catch and release?

    Just a little query on the motivations behind the salmon farming industries drive for a 100% catch and release policy on UK anglers? Why are they so keen for us to 'let them all go'?
    I understand just now that it is in their interests blaming the demise of the salmon on the big bad angler chapping all the fish rather than the destruction of the whole west coasts ( possibly all rivers through smolt migration paths) salmon run through their filthy industry. Do they also possibly believe that if I can't chap a fish I'll substitute it with some of their cancerous produce?
    But what gets me is if 100% c&r is introduced and what could realistically happen is that then there is no decernible rise in salmon abundance, what then? Would that not return the spotlight back on to the salmon farmers as to why the rivers aren't recovering?
    Anyway I'm just interested in the motivations of the salmon farmers and I'm sure some of you will be able to enlighten me further.
    I'm also fully aware of the many different pressures on the salmon and that is a different debate.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bradan_eire_alba View Post
    Just a little query on the motivations behind the salmon farming industries drive for a 100% catch and release policy on UK anglers? Why are they so keen for us to 'let them all go'?
    I understand just now that it is in their interests blaming the demise of the salmon on the big bad angler chapping all the fish rather than the destruction of the whole west coasts ( possibly all rivers through smolt migration paths) salmon run through their filthy industry. Do they also possibly believe that if I can't chap a fish I'll substitute it with some of their cancerous produce?
    But what gets me is if 100% c&r is introduced and what could realistically happen is that then there is no decernible rise in salmon abundance, what then? Would that not return the spotlight back on to the salmon farmers as to why the rivers aren't recovering?
    Anyway I'm just interested in the motivations of the salmon farmers and I'm sure some of you will be able to enlighten me further.
    I'm also fully aware of the many different pressures on the salmon and that is a different debate.
    SURELY A DISTRACTION.
    To hide their contribution to the loss of salmon and sea trout. What needs publicising is this link to what they are producing.
    Norway's fjords flooded with escaped, diseased farmed fish -The Common Sense CanadianThe Common Sense Canadian

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ireland/Scotland
    Posts
    600

    Default

    Yes Bassfly I see the distraction element but that's going to be very short sighted. Yes I read that thanks for highlighting. Very worrying.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cill Chainnigh
    Posts
    6,721

    Default

    I would guess that if angling went 100% C&R then all netting would have to follow suit.

    With zero wild fish on the market, that would leave only the genetically modified disease ridden muck that is farmed salmon for sale. Were this the case the farmers would be in a stronger position to control quantity, quality, price, etc
    To one who has roved on the mountains afar
    Oh! For the crags that are wild and magestic
    The steep frowning glories of dark Lochnagar.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country) & Afrique
    Posts
    3,809

    Default

    http://www.salmonfishingforum.com/fo...read68864.html

    And lo, it appears it did come to pass...





    Recently Tony Andrews posted this on here:


    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Andrews View Post
    The best measure we have of whether rivers have sustainable stocks of wild Atlantic salmon is Conservation Levels (CLS). In England and Wales most rivers are, according to the Environment Agency, now below their CLS. We don't have CLS in Scotland: I understand this is because of the complexity of deciding which populations are healthy (above a notional CL) or fragile/ threatened (probably below their CL)

    From a conservation viewpoint we really shouldn't be killing fish inrivers whose stock is below its CL, but from a socio-economic viewpoint there may be strong reasons for continuing to fish on a strictly C&R basis....TA


    And elsewhere this month, this was posted:


    [CallanderMcdowell] reLAKSation no 696 - fish and seafood views

    Quote Originally Posted by Callender McDowall
    Licence to kill: The Times newspaper reports that a new system to be
    introduced by the Scottish Government is needed to preserve stocks of wild
    fish. By next seasons, anglers will have to buy a licence if they wish to
    kill any of the salmon they catch.

    However, the Times says that the plans have angered some of the country's
    anglers, many of whom already have to cope with some of the toughest
    restrictions on salmon fishing anywhere in the world. A tight licensing
    system will restrict anglers' ability even further to indulge in the age old
    tradition of taking home a fish for the pot.

    A representative of Lairg Angling Club in Sutherland told the Times that he
    believed the voluntary system of catch and release was working well. He
    would rather see the "Scottish Government clamp down on bad practices by
    fish farms and the netters than hammering the poor bloody angler."

    We, at Callander McDowell, can only wonder that if the voluntary system of
    catch and release is working so well. The Salmon & Trout Association
    recently stated that the Scottish rod catch was the lowest in over sixty
    years and just 50% of the ten year average. Whether this is an example of
    catch and release working well is unclear. 2013 wasn't a good year either.

    The representative of Lairg Angling Club prefers that the Government clamp
    down on salmon farms and netters than hammering the angler. This view is not
    unexpected. It is much easier to blame others than look at your own actions.
    Whereas the odd salmon taken by an individual angler doesn't seem of any
    note, the combined rod catch usually well exceeds the total number of salmon
    caught in the nets. If the salmon caught by netsmen is significantly
    damaging wild stocks, then so must the rod catch? Just because the net
    caught fish are caught at sea doesn't make any difference as all the salmon
    caught whether at sea or in the river are returning to spawn. The Salmon &
    Trout Association said that decisive action is required to significantly
    reduce the number of fish killed particularly the most vulnerable stocks.
    Clearly that must mean all salmon stocks especially as the highlighted
    spring fish remain in the river throughout the year and are still vulnerable
    to catching.

    It is also expected that the angling sector blame the salmon farming
    industry for any decline. Salmon farms are highly visible and are an easy
    target to blame than other factors such as climate change and marine
    mortality. However, whatever we say, the jury is still out in respect of
    damage to wild salmon from fish farms. It is just a simple connection to
    make. Salmon farms are present. Wild salmon are in decline. Therefore wild
    salmon must be in decline due to the presence of salmon farms. We, at
    Callander McDowell have been accused in the past of science data denial but
    whilst we acknowledge that sea lice on salmon farms are a major problem for
    salmon farms, the evidence that that they are responsible for the decline in
    wild salmon is rather thin on the ground, especially as wild salmon are just
    as much in decline where salmon farming is not to be found.

    A representative of the Ladykirk and Norham Angling Club in the Borders told
    the Times that he appreciated the need to protect wild salmon stocks but saw
    no reason to stop anglers killing fish if stocks were high. The problem is
    that no angler really knows if stocks are high or not. There may be more
    fish in the river from one week to the next or one month to the next but
    that doesn't mean the overall stock is high. In fact, it is only the rod
    catch that gives an indication of the stock and even this is not reliable.
    Last year for example, the fishing was poor only because water levels meant
    that fish couldn't enter the rivers. This translated into a low catch but it
    doesn't mean that many other fish weren't swimming up and down the coast
    line in large numbers. Yet, the representative form Ladykirk & Norham
    Angling Club told the newspaper "that if the numbers in the river are there
    then there doesn't seem to be any harm in taking them".

    We, at Callander McDowell, don't think that there is any rush to introduce a
    licencing scheme. Instead, we would prefer to see mandatory catch and
    release for a trial period. Certainly, this cannot harm the stocks if they
    are healthy and should help if they are not.

    Anglers say that the current voluntary measures for catch and release result
    in 80% of the catch being returned to the rivers whilst the remaining 20%
    are killed. They argue that this shows how responsible they are to the
    conservation of wild stocks yet in some recent years this means that over
    20,000 fish have been killed when they could have been returned to the river
    to spawn and generate new stock. Catch and release has only been prevalent
    since the turn of the millennium. The percentage of fish returned has
    steadily increased over the years but seems to have reached a peak, but
    surely if anglers can return 80% of the fish they catch, why not return all?
    Anglers fishing for other species would be horrified if anyone killed the
    fish they caught instead of returning them. Why should salmon be any
    different? No-one is suggesting that anglers cannot fish for salmon but just
    that they should not kill them. Some rivers including the River Dee already
    operate a mandatory catch and release policy. Why not all rivers if there is
    so much concern about the state of stocks? As we have already stated surely
    mandatory catch and release is the immediate solution not a licence to kill.
    Worrying times, indeed.
    Last edited by seeking; 16-02-2015 at 03:48 PM.
    "...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. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    stepps, Glasgow
    Posts
    6,916

    Default

    Bet me to it KGM LOL!!!!!!!!!

    The sad thing is the ONLY folk with a real concerning thought about wild salmon numbers are anglers and they are the ones getting all thye bad press from the netters (recall the netsmen saying "anglers kill blah blah" numbers of fish), and now the fish farmers. you couldnt make it up LOL!!!!
    Unferkinbelievable

    We anglers have (a wee bit like out shooting cousins), sat back, said we are nasty and its all our fault and everyone else has just charged in!!!!!!!!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Ireland/Scotland
    Posts
    600

    Default

    Well thank you seeking. I just hope that we are all aware of where this path of 100% c&r has the potential to end up. It ends with closure of rivers to angling. After no improvement in numbers the salmon farming industry starts lobbying for rivers to be closed to angling due to c&r mortality and stress leading to fish not spawning with an ever dwindling stock. Also when you have anglers, angling interest groups singing off the same hymn sheet as the salmon farming industry it's quite worrying. I'm fully aware that stocks are fragile or worse in some areas and 100% c&r in these rivers won't change anything.

    I also know this has been debated here before but the fyne, Kinglass etc haven't been fished in years. I walk them regularly and can assure you there is no numbers of fish present. They suffer from hydro, forestry and numbers dropped before the fish farms. However they would have returned to some level where angling could be practiced if it was not for the presence of the farms. It's a dream of mine to fish and land a fish off the fyne or Kinglas. ( A fish is a salmon for those not from these parts)Unless the farms go totally or onshore, that'll never happen.

  8. #8

    Default

    I think it is more than just a distraction. There is a strong element of divide and rule. Also every time there is bad press from them over lice, escapes, etc they just trot out the usual cr*p about how if anglers really cared they would put them all back. Its a bit like the old saw about an interviewer asking a politician when he stopped beating his wife.

  9. #9

    Default

    Divide and conquer.
    They've seen the writing on the walls for the netsmen , and it doesn't take much imagination as to where the Salmon Angling Taliban's searchlight will next be pointed.

    Pity it'll be around 30 years too late.

    The longer they can keep us squabbling amongst ourselves , the longer their profit driven , foreign , filthy , trade can continue unhindered.

    A little Bird told me that Brian Rix wrote this script.
    Last edited by ibm59; 16-02-2015 at 05:19 PM.
    Remember Thomas Muir of Huntershill

  10. #10

    Default

    100% c and r should be cheaper fishing. but we are expected to pay the same whether we release fish or keep them. its all about money not conservation.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •