Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  55
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grassy_Knollington View Post
    Walleye

    Iím not saying everything would turn out well, I donít know what would happen. Maybe we would see a new dawn of cooperation and bumper returns. Maybe we would see no change and all the fishes would go extinct.

    Iím just suggesting that a different approach might produce better results than our current way of doing businesses- which has largely failed to deliver for all the 35 years or so Iíve been fishing. Do the same thing, get the same results.

    I donít suppose that netsmen are any better or worse folk than anglers. They have their motivations and we have ours. Both of us want stronger runs of fish surely? Viewing every netsmen as a rapacious villain intent on destruction is just as simplistic as viewing every Salmon fisherman as a tweed-wearing toff.

    If weíre sceptical about their commitment then my hypothetical policy would include habitat work as a legally enforceable condition of their annual licence, punitive fines for quota violation and (for the Haaf netters) Viking helmets.

    Of course that raises a bigger point in that there are pretty much no places where there are any opportunities for initiating, coordinating, measuring, overseeing habitat improvement by the average Joe Angler. Sorting that out would be a hypothetical pre-requisite if my hypothetical plan.
    I certainly haven't said netsmen are rapacious villains. They are just motivated by different things than we are.

    Serious question, when has a netsman ever voluntarily done anything to try to improve future salmon runs? I'll answer - never. Because delayed discounting or delayed gratification is incompatible with the opportunity of making as much money as you can today.

    Salmon farmers are the same. Their drive is to make as much money as they can today and will not change their behaviour unless there is strong legislation or a paradigm shift in the market to make them do so.

    Contrast that with salmon anglers, many of whom use their own time and money to work towards improving salmon runs and many of whom (mistakenly I believe) will put fish back in the hope there will be more in future.

    It's the difference between doing something because you love to do it and want to hand it down to future generations and doing something for profit.

    It's a subtle difference but an important one.

  2. #22

    Default

    Netting salmon should be history

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Upper Teesdale
    Posts
    328

    Default Haaf nets

    Just out of curiosity...can Haaf nets practise C&R ?

    If returning Salmon numbers were rudely buoyant, I would have no problem with the 'Small Scale' preservation of an historical practise.
    We too readily cast aside hard earned skills, & knowledge, honed over millennia.

    The issue here is that salmon numbers are not buoyant, but are heading ever increasingly towards a tipping point of general survival.
    All parties who are sincerely concerned with preservation, need to play their part.
    If that means a cessation of, or adaption of, their current practises, so be it.

    They also need to unite, and provide a common front, to both challenge, and where needed rebuff, those who seek to exploit salmon without recompense.
    To often have I witnessed hard work, & good intent, dissipate, & disappear, not from the challenge it faced, but by being undermined, & fragmented from within, by bickering, and false friends!
    Do you think they don't have disagreements within the RSPB? They do, but they stay internal, so providing a united front to get their points across, and one the powers that be pay attention to !

    In my personal opinion, there are many facets to the decline of Salmon numbers we are now facing. Some are greater, and some are lesser, but they are all equal in having a negative effect. Some mean more to others, than they do to yourselves, but are still none the less relevant to the general problem. Some are more easily rectified than others, and should be prioritised, but just because things are hard, and possible returns are slowly achieved, they should not be forsaken, but a realistic timeline accepted.

    'My way, or No way, is going to get us Nowhere !'

    Now where did i dig that fox hole ?

    Mel....

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    edzell
    Posts
    2,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walleye View Post
    I certainly haven't said netsmen are rapacious villains. They are just motivated by different things than we are.

    Serious question, when has a netsman ever voluntarily done anything to try to improve future salmon runs? I'll answer - never. Because delayed discounting or delayed gratification is incompatible with the opportunity of making as much money as you can today.

    Salmon farmers are the same. Their drive is to make as much money as they can today and will not change their behaviour unless there is strong legislation or a paradigm shift in the market to make them do so.

    Contrast that with salmon anglers, many of whom use their own time and money to work towards improving salmon runs and many of whom (mistakenly I believe) will put fish back in the hope there will be more in future.

    It's the difference between doing something because you love to do it and want to hand it down to future generations and doing something for profit.

    It's a subtle difference but an important one.
    Joseph Johnson, did more than his fair share of helping salmon in the river.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Dumfriesshire
    Posts
    1,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowforcefly View Post
    Just out of curiosity...can Haaf nets practise C&R ?

    If returning Salmon numbers were rudely buoyant, I would have no problem with the 'Small Scale' preservation of an historical practise.
    We too readily cast aside hard earned skills, & knowledge, honed over millennia.

    The issue here is that salmon numbers are not buoyant, but are heading ever increasingly towards a tipping point of general survival.
    All parties who are sincerely concerned with preservation, need to play their part.
    If that means a cessation of, or adaption of, their current practises, so be it.

    They also need to unite, and provide a common front, to both challenge, and where needed rebuff, those who seek to exploit salmon without recompense.
    To often have I witnessed hard work, & good intent, dissipate, & disappear, not from the challenge it faced, but by being undermined, & fragmented from within, by bickering, and false friends!
    Do you think they don't have disagreements within the RSPB? They do, but they stay internal, so providing a united front to get their points across, and one the powers that be pay attention to !

    In my personal opinion, there are many facets to the decline of Salmon numbers we are now facing. Some are greater, and some are lesser, but they are all equal in having a negative effect. Some mean more to others, than they do to yourselves, but are still none the less relevant to the general problem. Some are more easily rectified than others, and should be prioritised, but just because things are hard, and possible returns are slowly achieved, they should not be forsaken, but a realistic timeline accepted.

    'My way, or No way, is going to get us Nowhere !'

    Now where did i dig that fox hole ?

    Mel....
    Yes they can catch and release salmon and sea trout, although I have yet to see a return from a haaf netter where they have.

    I agree we all need to pull together but it is the netters that are breaking ranks and looking after themselves.

    Cat 3 means unsustainable so how can any retention of salmon be sustainable?

    Let them do habitat improvements and give them some fish, pretty poor justification really.

    Current fee for an Annan haaf net, £30.

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walleye View Post
    I certainly haven't said netsmen are rapacious villains. They are just motivated by different things than we are.

    Serious question, when has a netsman ever voluntarily done anything to try to improve future salmon runs? I'll answer - never. Because delayed discounting or delayed gratification is incompatible with the opportunity of making as much money as you can today.

    Salmon farmers are the same. Their drive is to make as much money as they can today and will not change their behaviour unless there is strong legislation or a paradigm shift in the market to make them do so.

    Contrast that with salmon anglers, many of whom use their own time and money to work towards improving salmon runs and many of whom (mistakenly I believe) will put fish back in the hope there will be more in future.

    It's the difference between doing something because you love to do it and want to hand it down to future generations and doing something for profit.

    It's a subtle difference but an important one.
    I think you would be surprised. When we asked on the Exe, the netsmen were incredibly eager to help and donated time and cash to the cause, pro rara far more than anglers.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Walleye View Post
    I certainly haven't said netsmen are rapacious villains. They are just motivated by different things than we are.

    Serious question, when has a netsman ever voluntarily done anything to try to improve future salmon runs? I'll answer - never. Because delayed discounting or delayed gratification is incompatible with the opportunity of making as much money as you can today.

    Salmon farmers are the same. Their drive is to make as much money as they can today and will not change their behaviour unless there is strong legislation or a paradigm shift in the market to make them do so.

    Contrast that with salmon anglers, many of whom use their own time and money to work towards improving salmon runs and many of whom (mistakenly I believe) will put fish back in the hope there will be more in future.

    It's the difference between doing something because you love to do it and want to hand it down to future generations and doing something for profit.

    It's a subtle difference but an important one.
    I think I did say something about different motivations.

    I personally donít think the person who does it because they love it is morally superior to the person who is being paid for it, thatís just how I see it.

    Putting aside our moral judgements and looking at the outcomes, we could ask ourselves if those who love Salmon do a better job than those who get paid to look after them, or are compelled to look after them.

    It is in the long term interests of netters to have more fish to sell and Salmon fishermen to have more fish to catch. If both groups can make a practical difference to improve stocks, then surely both groups benefit? The netters MOWs refers to opened up miles of spawning habitat. They may only have done that to sell more fish, but everyone benefited from their work.

    Crucially, I wouldnít rely on goodness of spirit, I would make habitat work a legally enforceable condition of net licenses. If they donít want to do it, they donít fish. No doubt weíll have folk saying Ďwho will monitor them etc etcí the same folk who monitor the close seasons and stop betting in the first place maybe?

    As MOWS has mentioned, there are a few great examples of cooperation and habitat enhancement by netsmen in Scotland over the years, the Johnsonís in Montrose are probably the best example. This can be partly attributed to the much maligned (including by me) fishery board structure which ensured representation for anglers and netsmen. Joint ownership, levies and a stake in the future of the rivers were also important factors.

    Clearly this pattern wasnít always followed and, as Westie highlights, some operators were genuinely, the rapacious villains of the piece - helped by poor governance and oversight.

    I would suggest that likelihood of such behaviour increased as margins fell and the older businesses & estates sold their rights to less capable individuals.

    Like I said, just an idea and if we donít try we wonít know the outcome. Alternatively, we can carry on as we are, all alone, bleating in the corner about a lack of fish that we love to catch.

    Meantime Scotgov and the EA play both sides of the coin, telling everyone they are doing a great job while anglers have to be restricted to protect the fragile Salmon. Itís worked really well over the last 40 years...

  8. #28

    Default

    No form of commercial Salmon netting is now supportable . And I reckon that the practice of dragging salmon out of rivers by rod and line for amusement , whether or not they are to be returned is heading down a slippery slope .

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stirling
    Posts
    6,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mows View Post
    Joseph Johnson, did more than his fair share of helping salmon in the river.
    I was just going to say exactly the same Alan.
    Whilst they controlled the in river netting they also developed a hatchery and seeded out every tributary on the river every season. I'm not saying hatcheries work per se, only that as netsmen they did take it as a serious responsibility to look after future generations.
    Mind you, they did control nearly all the rod fishing from Pert downstream so it might just have been in their interests.
    Respect My Authorita!!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    North Tyne
    Posts
    601

    Default

    I had a chat with a nets man a few months back and he told me we should be working together, made a point about telling me how they killed all the thin skinny salmon so was doing us a favour , ďwhat kelts?? ď I replied his reply to that was ď whatís a keltĒ so I brought another pint and changed the subject.
    Last edited by Mattytree; 26-01-2020 at 02:08 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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