Thanks Thanks:  19
Likes Likes:  95
Dislikes Dislikes:  4
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 109
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    5,402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zorro View Post
    SOS,

    I think you should take some time to actually read again and understand any posts you intend to misquote or this will just continue to embarrass you. My old teacher used to say "read what's there boy, not what you think might be there to suit your case".* I didn't ever ask to use seekings graph. He generously offered me the use of it to assist in the future in dealing with edjits that regularly elect not to play nice. It was offered without any soliciting by myself as a slow re-read of mine and seekings posts will show, and I gratefully accepted the offer which I may never decide to take up. Before getting deeper in perhaps you might ask seeking if I asked him if i could use his graph, just in case you misread anything again. So, that's your two free strikes used up. You can decide where you take this but I think we both know what you need to do now.

    Your last post borders on unpleasant, and as I already pointed out if needed I can usually do that really well too. Your choice.

    On your last point on moves afoot to save the capercaillie, rather than kill them maybe the untried and much vaunted C&R method might be tried. But if they're serious about conservation it might be better to use a technique with a proven record. And I'll include a hatchery and captive breeding program in the list of suggestions.

    Z

    Zorro

    I'd be most interested in a run down of who the 'edjits that regularly elect not to play nice' are?

    I've seen a bit of it over the many years elsewhere, but certainly not in this thread. In fact everyone appears to be being very well behaved on what is usually a contentious subject.

    Mind you, there is the usual 'you will listen to my point of view, but I'll not listen to yours', going on.

    Plus ca change......
    ..........so many flies, so little time!

  2. #92

    Default

    Zoro
    Maybe you should look back at your posts on this thread and on the subject of smolts ,The words muppets,numpties,unwashed ostriches and many others will appear i can take any of them and more but some on the forum cant and find them unpleasant,maybe you and your puppy dog are barking up the wrong tree if you want a hatchery but think c&k is better than c&r, TFIF.

  3. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seeking View Post

    Attachment 26585
    Blue line = Dee (C&R River salmon rod catch ex-Oct season extension); Red line = N Esk (equivalent to 100% C&K river because of extensive in-river netting plus some rod retention totalling >>100% of total rod catch) salmon rod catch. Green line = Logie counter count (~minimum estimate of salmon passing upstream of counter above main fisheries [i.e. killing of salmon]). Black line = 100% line, representing the 1996 total to which the relative performance of the other lines are compared.
    Seeking, an interesting comparison to use. There is much data on the two rivers with C&R and reductions in netting being introduced over the years. Taken in isolation, your graph and argument is compelling.

    However, I am a curious sort so I thought I'd dig a little deeper and have a look at all the data available.

    I plotted the annual rod and net catches from 1952 to 2016 as below. The graph shows interesting long term trends on both rivers which IMO may mean a simple experiment comparing the rivers to prove / disprove C&R vs C&K may be a little too simplistic when so many other factors may be influencing rod catches on both rivers in the longer term.

    1952-2016-jpg

    Long term trends show much reduced rod catch on the Dee and much increased rod catch on the N. Esk. Could your graph simply be a continuation of these much longer term trends? I am not sure the causes of the trends are relevant, just that the trends do exist in the long term data and to assume the trends stopped when C&R was introduced may be unwise.

    To add further context to your graph, I plotted the total net catch for both rivers from 1996 to 2016 as below.

    net-catch-png

    At the start of your time series, Dee net catches drop rapidly to zero in the first few years so netting (whether you believe it matters or not) has remained unchanged on the Dee for most of the time series while on the N. Esk there has been a steady reduction over the entire series of ~70%.

    Of course, I am not proposing this as evidence of net buffering. It is no such thing. I am merely pointing out evidence of trends which may or may not influence the relative performance of each river.

    The final graph shows the impact of the introduction of C&R.

    fisherman-behaviour-jpg

    It is often said that CCR influences or will influence where people will fish i.e. effort may reduce on rivers where CCR is introduced. Given that these rivers are in the same region, could catch returns also have been influenced by fishermen switching from Dee to N. Esk?

    All things considered, there are so many factors affecting the rod catch returns on the Dee and N. Esk, I don't think they can be used to prove or disprove anything.
    Last edited by Walleye; 12-01-2018 at 11:21 PM. Reason: missing graph

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    edzell
    Posts
    1,732

    Default

    Cheers walleye food for thought, but I think your about 2000 per annum short on the esk retained each year in the last graph

    Cheers

    Mows

  5. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zorro View Post
    On your last point on moves afoot to save the capercaillie, rather than kill them maybe the untried and much vaunted C&R method might be tried. But if they're serious about conservation it might be better to use a technique with a proven record. And I'll include a hatchery and captive breeding program in the list of suggestions
    I'm not sure about caper, but we know that red grouse are effectively impossible to rear in captivity; looking at game birds more widely, most gamekeepers would tell you that pheasants or partridges of hatchery origin make very poor parents. Habitat improvement and vermin control, rather than captive breeding, is the best way to promote a self-sustaining wild game population. And funnily enough, the same seems to be true of salmon.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    edzell
    Posts
    1,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieH View Post
    I'm not sure about caper, but we know that red grouse are effectively impossible to rear in captivity; looking at game birds more widely, most gamekeepers would tell you that pheasants or partridges of hatchery origin make very poor parents. Habitat improvement and vermin control, rather than captive breeding, is the best way to promote a self-sustaining wild game population. And funnily enough, the same seems to be true of salmon.
    I'm led to believe that caper can be readily bred in captivity. Like rivers with almost no salmon, a quick hatchery boost may be all you need.

  7. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mows View Post
    Cheers walleye food for thought, but I think your about 2000 per annum short on the esk retained each year in the last graph

    Cheers

    Mows
    Hi Mows,
    I used the MSS data but of course I could have made an error in processing it. So after your post I checked here (see figure 3) and the numbers in my graph seem to be correct.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...fd-nXDaje-P9oG

    I also recreated Seeking's graph just to check I had used the correct data source and I was able to recreate it no problem with the MSS data.

    Edit.... The sum of retained and released in my last graph matches the total catch in the first graph and the total catch in figure 3 in the link.
    Last edited by Walleye; 13-01-2018 at 12:42 AM. Reason: Added explain of data

  8. #98

    Default

    zoro this is the reality of the forum make a point or suggestion and be prepared to be shot down it has happened to me several times but as i said i can take it. Even seeking is wrong sometimes but without his views or opinions the forum would die so without the slagging that i have done in the past lets debate discuss and disagree for the entertainment of the people who look on from the outside

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    edzell
    Posts
    1,732

    Default

    Hi wallye, I was refering to the additional 2000 odd fish caught and killed by the in river nets each year. For a like for like comparison of caught and retained fish, these should also be included in my opinion.

    Cheers

    Mows.
    Last edited by mows; 13-01-2018 at 01:08 AM.

  10. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mows View Post
    Hi SOS,

    That 3000 is just the in river nets (100% catch and kill), the rod catch is additional.
    These catch and kill numbers have been steadyish for a lot of years and fish returns steadyish as well.
    According to Hugh Campbell Adamson, the river North Esk has a demonstratable ability to withstand such harvestable numbers and as such there no justification to cease in river netting on salmon sustainability grounds.

    With respect to Westies comments on this years figures, I hardly ever saw the river in November, but what I did see would indicate not much fish going through.
    I think the numbers will be very good until July maybe August, but will probably be pretty poor after that.

    Cheers

    Mows
    If that is Hugh Campbell Adamsons view of any river in my view he has burned his bridges and would be aswell packing in ,it is the continuing joke that these people are in it for the salmon or the salmon fishermen they are in it for them selves and will take the buck who ever offers it

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 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
  •