Thanks Thanks:  18
Likes Likes:  95
Dislikes Dislikes:  4
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 109 of 109
  1. #101

    Default

    Mows
    I would just like to say that i like you and respect your views they are honest and respectful so even if i dont always agree i accept your opinion as what you believe in.

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mows View Post
    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.
    Hi Mows,
    The graph was presented just to show the change in numbers of retained and released fish by anglers before and after the change on the Dee and how that might affect angling effort on each river. It is not intended as proof that effort did switch but merely raises the possibility. I did try looking for angling effort for each river but with no success. It was only used to raise the question of switching of effort between the rivers and the graph is not intended for any other purpose.
    Adding net kills would not be appropriate in this case.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    edzell
    Posts
    1,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SOS View Post
    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
    Hi sos, I don't know Hugh and can't say what his personal preferences are. The statement was his response to a question put to him by a very vocal person, demanding the board stop the in river netting at the AGM 2 or 3 years ago.

  4. #104

    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.
    Oh here we go again. So reared pheasants and partridge don't make good parents say's Charlie H who seems to pop up on all sorts of forums with sage advice. He will be telling us next that all those babies saved by human intervention and who would not have survived otherwise are unlikely to be viable human beings, good parents or whatever. Most species have inbuilt instincts that kick in wherever they were born no matter the circumstances and the salmon is no exception. They ALL have inbuilt instincts which are mainly to survive and reproduce which they strive to do regardless of the obstacles. Save us from Seekings graphs and Mr H's statements of facts which are nothing of the sort. Having said that I would take more notice of a gamekeepers observations that the office bound scientists playing to the script they are being financed to produce.
    Last edited by fixedspool; 13-01-2018 at 11:38 AM.

  5. #105

    Default Put it in a basin.

    SOS,

    I'm glad your skin is thick enough to withstand the absolute brutality of numptie, ostrich, etc and any other naughty word the shy delicate souls you claim to be protecting can't bring themselves to read. The great thing about the written word, especially on here, is that anyone can look back and see exactly what was said, who said it and usually interpret exactly what was meant. You wrongly accused me of asking to use seekings graph. I pointed out that wasn't the case. You replied ignoring this and attack my manners on behalf of unnamed delicate others and start going all mushy and "I like you mows and respect your views..." on us and appealing to me to stop abusing your unnamed delicate flowers.
    I thought we were adults on here. I'm always respectful of different opinions and try to argue sensibly my own position. I sometimes get shirty when subjected to repetitive yoga chanting of the "deed fish cany...." or similar mantras. After the 10th time I think this kind of mindless disruption warrants a sterner response, and so I give it one. (With apologies to any distressed chanting* yoga practitioners in advance).
    Now, my opinion is there's very few on here who are even remotely indisposed by numptie, ostrich,*or the like. And if they were they have their own keyboard and can easily say so. Your response on their behalf is more a smoke screen to disguise that you made a mistake in your haste to get a smart answer back, and don't feel you want to acknowledge that for obvious reasons. But I'm ameanable to your suggestion that we agree to put everything in a basin and start again. If you will, so will I.
    Guess what, I'm not going into therapy because of anything that happens on here. And I'll continue to present my view in the same way regardless. If anyone doesn't like my view, or the way I present it, I'll manage to survive regardless. I've done nothing that could be even loosly described as disrespectful. I make a point of thanking anyone who takes the time to present a post that is well researched and well presented, regardless of whether I agree with the content. On the other side I treat posts which are obviously just wind-ups, badly presented, little more than repetitive rhythmic chanting or otherwise mindless with as little respect as they deserve.
    And lastly, I sat on here for years, just quietly reading, absorbing and learning before I felt I wanted to post. But mostly learning. There's some superb minds on here, all prepared to share their wisdom and knowledge.* There's also some only here to cause bother and who really don't deserve to be answered most times (no, I dont have a list). I'll decide for myself who both are if you dont mind, and if any of my puppy dogs (what's that about?) feel they've been subjected to indelicate language, I'll state right here they're on their own. I won't be riding unsolicited to their aid.
    And purely to save another post, Westie, I don't have an edjit list. I've had a few cross words over time on other threads with one or two persistant tantric chanters which resulted eventually in them getting the message. It wasn't anything I'd say was undeserved or particularly offensive and I took much more than I gave out (and I wasnt alone) before deciding enough.
    A look through my postings will show I'm perfectly willing and able to debate point for point, but I'm intolerant of repetition, ignoring of answers, or of someone ignoring an answer and following up with 3 different unrelated questions. I don't see that changing, because I don't really see that as an unreasonable position to have.

    Z

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country)
    Posts
    3,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieH View Post
    And I'm afraid I'm not totally sure that I understand what you're saying. But if it's what I think,1. it seems that you don't believe it matters if the Greenlanders and Faroese increase their netting take. 2. If so, don't worry - my point isn't directed to you and you don't have a dog in the fight.

    3. But to recap, I was simply pointing out that, whereas Loxie was suggesting that there was no link between C&R in recreational fisheries and increases in high seas commercial catches, I believe there is, albeit that it may not be a direct causal link and there is an intermediate stage in the logic.

    4. If you don't accept the premise (that increased high seas netting is a bad thing), it would be wrong to expect you to follow the logic and accept the conclusion. But for those among us who would like to see high seas netting restricted (or, at least, not increased), it seems to me that the logic indicates that there is a reason to promote high levels of C&R.

    5.
    I think that in fact we have discussed this by PM previously. Whether or not you believe that C&R has any measurable effect isn't the point. Sometimes the demands of realpolitik mean that it's not just what we do, but what we are seen to do, that matters.
    Thanks for the clarification charlieH. FTAOD:

    1. Correct.

    2. Wrong. I do have a dog in the fight because this is not about evidence, it's about restriction. It's about folk using unrelated issues to force change. Needless and ineffectual restriction of my legal rights because of a butterfly flapping it's wings on the other side of the world is, well, plain wrong. Unconstitutional, probably.

    3. Sounds like really special pleading to me, but no mind, since there is no quantifiable impact of those nets anyway. Other than changing the ICES PFA guesstimate perhaps.

    4. It would only be logical if there were any quantifiable impact. Which there doesn't appear to be, now or in the past. There is no logical argument, and Loxie's post(s) above has refuted the argument you are making pretty conclusively IMHO. But I do understand the SCS "Mission Creep" now.

    5. We are discussing online now. Your interpretation of our private chats is, well, private for you to keep to yourself and vice versa. It's not whether I believe C&R has any measurable impact that matters, correct.

    Because it doesn't, correct.

    But C&R is needless and innefectual, it demonstrably stops anglers fishing, it stops harvest and encourages farmed fish consumption and that industry. Factually there is no benefit, and hence there is harm if it stops anglers fishing. Anglers killed catches retained are all that (ICES) count.

    Confusing realpolitik with this is wrong. Can we be sure this has not resulted from lobbying by vested interests with axes to grind, as opposed to proper scientific evidence. I don't think the case has been made. Hence it just looks like POLITICS.

    Disenfranchising people and treating ordinary salmon anglers as fools is reprehensible, IMHO.

    Now if anyone could prove CCR efficacy, I'd be open minded to stop fishing for them.
    "...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

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country)
    Posts
    3,177

    Default

    Walleye

    Re your post #93. Many thanks for taking the time to post that analysis.

    I agree with much of it. But I think you've missed the main nub of the argument the graph supports and have not really addressed it. We'll get to that at the end.

    I agree that the "causes of the trends are relevant", and that "that the trends do exist in the long term data and to assume the trends stopped when C&R was introduced may be unwise". I have never suggested that these trends don't exist. But as we will see they aren't really central to the argument, because that is not the argument made by exponents of CCR.

    I stonewall agree with you that "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 reason I agree with that analysis is because to me the graph under discussion supports the case that the Net Buffering Hypothesis could be wrong, and should be discarded. Again, I will get to that later.

    Finally, in regards to effort. You are right. And you will doubtless agree with my argument for many years on here that a knowledge of effort indices are crucial to interpreting catch data. I’m always making that point and putting catch data (rod and net) into context using CPUE when available, as well as reminding the more extravagant claimants that CATCHES are not the same as STOCKS and fly-only CCR doesn’t catch the same as any method catch-it-and-flog-it. This is a problem with ICES, a problem with all the SCS and a problem with ScotGov / EA and classification CLs. However even though it invalidates many of their claims and arguments, they continue to use catches only as a mainstay stock proxy to base their unsound management decisions on. I welcome you to the campaign for them to wise up, and look forward to your involvement in this matter in future.

    However, IMHO your argument that rod effort may underlie this point is moot:- the N Esk counter data tends to validate the interpretation of the catch data and hypothesis proposed by me.

    You ask "could catch returns also have been influenced by fishermen switching from Dee to N. Esk?". The answer is “Who knows, possibly, without effort data it is possible for confusion to arise.” After all, all rivers (especially the Dee because it started all this) should be doing this (lord knows Boards spend so much monies that collation of this data would be a small fraction of the budget). Mind you when it was Hot-Rodding Skandi's abounding no one suggested effort was down. Maybe Ken Reid or Ross McDonald can tell us? charlieH keeps telling us effort is most likely to have increased, and despite the ban on fish sales & bans of method that fishing efficiency nowadays is probably better, despite the collapse in effort in England and Wales (down 40% over the time period 1996-2016).

    So, thanking you for the overview, and some historical perspective, back to the point in hand. Back to the graph. Taken in isolation, the graph and argument is compelling. But in reality it is compelling however you look at it regardless of external variables, because it counteracts much of the argument of the SCS and the supporters of CCR.
    Here is the graph and what I said:



    dee-northie-rcs-performance-vs-logie-count-png
    Quote Originally Posted by seeking
    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.

    Proof positive (P<0.0000005) that C&R rivers do not perform any better than C&K rivers...
    Now it is important to remember that during this period all netting ceased in the Dee in 1999 but significant netting on the N Esk continued to date. If therefore a. rod catches reflect stocks; and b. the Net-Buffering hypothesis holds true (both assumptions that are made by ScotGov etc.), then following on the logic of CCR proponents, plus ScotGov / EA CL methodology, the Dee should have performed better.

    But it hasn’t and hence the only avenue to persue is to refute a. by way of rod effort if you want to believe b..

    Back to the N Esk, well, the rod catch trend (red) closely parallels the trend of the counter (green). Hence the catch reflects the stock to a fair extent. Effort independent. If fishers deserted the Dee for the N Esk as you propose, they must have been inefficient!

    So, basically the graph apparently refutes a number of strongly-held beliefs (?dogma):

    A. because parties including ScotGov and the SCS and their spokespersons on this Forum tell us that if we remove the nets stocks / catches will increase. Well, they didn’t on the Dee. Not only that but on the N Esk, where nets killed many salmon they increased. Hence the “net buffering hypothesis” appears dead in the “All At Sea”

    B. because parties including ScotGov and the SCS and their spokespersons on this Forum tell us that if we implement CCR stocks / catches will increase. Well, again, they didn’t on the Dee. Hence the “CCR will improve things” hypothesis likewise appears dead in the “All At Sea”

    C. because parties including ScotGov and the SCS and their spokespersons on this Forum tell us that if we “kill too many salmon” stocks / catches will decrease. Well, they didn’t on the N Esk where the in-river Nab nets and retained rod catch equate to 100% C&K. The Logie counter data in the graph validate that point. Hence the “Angler harvest decreased stocks” hypothesis likewise appears dead in the “All At Sea”

    and in fairness a couple of others. That is the true point of the graph. N Esk and it's counter is a control experiment on the Dee experiment. Perhaps all we can say is CCR has no significant effect and cannot be shown to have any net benefit over 100%C&K whatsoever.

    It is time that the truth were told.



    PS - Like Webster before you, perhaps you need reminded to qualify the graphs and data with a disclaimer stating that it is MSS data and is used with permission and they're not responsible for the interpretations.
    "...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. #108

    Default

    If the cobble nets on the North Esk are to be removed this year with an avg c&k at 3000 fish what could it mean for the North Esk. For a start it would mean that 3000 more fish would go through the counter (i am assuming the counter is above the netting station) so if we take that 3000 fish and deduct 10% for rod catches which is 300 and leave them aside because we dont know how many would be killed/die/or become infertile due to being caught and released.
    We now have 2700 of which half are females 1350 x avg 6000 eggs per fish = 8,100,000 with a 2% survival rate =162,000 smolts if they only have a 2% survival rate that means a return of 3240 fish and the same calculations for the following year = 3499 fish of course there are many other factors that would affect these figures either way and if you add the rod caught fish that are released this also has a bearing on these figures.
    As the numbers for the logie counter was down in 2016 and the rod catches for 2015 and 2016 were almost 50% down on the ten year avg this might only cushion the blow for a couple of years but if it meant that these fish were to increase stocks year on year this is where the removal of barriers and obstructions and habitat restoration would come in to play to accommodate these extra fish. So does c&r work or does c&k not matter a jot.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seeking View Post
    Walleye

    Re your post #93. Many thanks for taking the time to post that analysis.

    I agree with much of it. But I think you've missed the main nub of the argument the graph supports and have not really addressed it. We'll get to that at the end.

    I agree that the "causes of the trends are relevant", and that "that the trends do exist in the long term data and to assume the trends stopped when C&R was introduced may be unwise". I have never suggested that these trends don't exist. But as we will see they aren't really central to the argument, because that is not the argument made by exponents of CCR.

    I stonewall agree with you that "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 reason I agree with that analysis is because to me the graph under discussion supports the case that the Net Buffering Hypothesis could be wrong, and should be discarded. Again, I will get to that later.

    Finally, in regards to effort. You are right. And you will doubtless agree with my argument for many years on here that a knowledge of effort indices are crucial to interpreting catch data. I’m always making that point and putting catch data (rod and net) into context using CPUE when available, as well as reminding the more extravagant claimants that CATCHES are not the same as STOCKS and fly-only CCR doesn’t catch the same as any method catch-it-and-flog-it. This is a problem with ICES, a problem with all the SCS and a problem with ScotGov / EA and classification CLs. However even though it invalidates many of their claims and arguments, they continue to use catches only as a mainstay stock proxy to base their unsound management decisions on. I welcome you to the campaign for them to wise up, and look forward to your involvement in this matter in future.

    However, IMHO your argument that rod effort may underlie this point is moot:- the N Esk counter data tends to validate the interpretation of the catch data and hypothesis proposed by me.

    You ask "could catch returns also have been influenced by fishermen switching from Dee to N. Esk?". The answer is “Who knows, possibly, without effort data it is possible for confusion to arise.” After all, all rivers (especially the Dee because it started all this) should be doing this (lord knows Boards spend so much monies that collation of this data would be a small fraction of the budget). Mind you when it was Hot-Rodding Skandi's abounding no one suggested effort was down. Maybe Ken Reid or Ross McDonald can tell us? charlieH keeps telling us effort is most likely to have increased, and despite the ban on fish sales & bans of method that fishing efficiency nowadays is probably better, despite the collapse in effort in England and Wales (down 40% over the time period 1996-2016).

    So, thanking you for the overview, and some historical perspective, back to the point in hand. Back to the graph. Taken in isolation, the graph and argument is compelling. But in reality it is compelling however you look at it regardless of external variables, because it counteracts much of the argument of the SCS and the supporters of CCR.
    Here is the graph and what I said:



    dee-northie-rcs-performance-vs-logie-count-png

    Now it is important to remember that during this period all netting ceased in the Dee in 1999 but significant netting on the N Esk continued to date. If therefore a. rod catches reflect stocks; and b. the Net-Buffering hypothesis holds true (both assumptions that are made by ScotGov etc.), then following on the logic of CCR proponents, plus ScotGov / EA CL methodology, the Dee should have performed better.

    But it hasn’t and hence the only avenue to persue is to refute a. by way of rod effort if you want to believe b..

    Back to the N Esk, well, the rod catch trend (red) closely parallels the trend of the counter (green). Hence the catch reflects the stock to a fair extent. Effort independent. If fishers deserted the Dee for the N Esk as you propose, they must have been inefficient!

    So, basically the graph apparently refutes a number of strongly-held beliefs (?dogma):

    A. because parties including ScotGov and the SCS and their spokespersons on this Forum tell us that if we remove the nets stocks / catches will increase. Well, they didn’t on the Dee. Not only that but on the N Esk, where nets killed many salmon they increased. Hence the “net buffering hypothesis” appears dead in the “All At Sea”

    B. because parties including ScotGov and the SCS and their spokespersons on this Forum tell us that if we implement CCR stocks / catches will increase. Well, again, they didn’t on the Dee. Hence the “CCR will improve things” hypothesis likewise appears dead in the “All At Sea”

    C. because parties including ScotGov and the SCS and their spokespersons on this Forum tell us that if we “kill too many salmon” stocks / catches will decrease. Well, they didn’t on the N Esk where the in-river Nab nets and retained rod catch equate to 100% C&K. The Logie counter data in the graph validate that point. Hence the “Angler harvest decreased stocks” hypothesis likewise appears dead in the “All At Sea”

    and in fairness a couple of others. That is the true point of the graph. N Esk and it's counter is a control experiment on the Dee experiment. Perhaps all we can say is CCR has no significant effect and cannot be shown to have any net benefit over 100%C&K whatsoever.

    It is time that the truth were told.



    PS - Like Webster before you, perhaps you need reminded to qualify the graphs and data with a disclaimer stating that it is MSS data and is used with permission and they're not responsible for the interpretations.
    Hi Seeking, thank you in return for your thoughtful and considered response.
    My main point is that the graph in itself can't be used to reject or prove the hypothesis that catch and release increases catches because there are many other independent factors which may account for the relative performance of the two rivers, such as...
    They are different rivers.
    They are different catchments.
    No effort data is available.
    Long term underlying trends are not accounted for.
    Angler behaviour may have changed due to different rules on each river.
    Angling effort may have changed due to different rules on each river.
    For the majority of the time series, Dee gets no benefit from net buffering while N Esk does through gradual reduction over the whole time series.

    There are simply too many influences on the data other than CCR to use the graph as proof positive that CCR doesn't work.

    Now, I probably should point out at this stage that I believe that CCR doesn't and cannot increase stocks over and above what is released back to the river in that year, unless of course there is a risk there will not be enough spawners (control limits!) to create the magic surplus required to ensure capacity is reached for the next most important stage in the lifecycle; smolt production. However, the graph in question cannot be used against CCR when there are way too many known and unknown variables aside from CCR which can affect the the relative performance, for which no data exists and the impact on performance cannot be quantified. I hope you understand this important point.

    I think about it from this perspective: If a researcher was presented with that graph and asked to formulate and test hypotheses about why the relative performance of the two rivers is different, she would come up with my list of hypotheses and probably many, many more as well as the CCR hypothesis and several more you may have. The list should be exhaustive. The problem she will have is that no reliable data exists to reject these hypotheses yet many, even you admit, are plausible reasons why performance is different. So in that case, would that researcher pin her hat on this graph is 'Proof positive, p = 0.0000000005, that C&R rivers do not perform better than C&K rivers"? I certainly wouldn't, regardless of what I believe, and I think, hand on heart, you wouldn't either.

    Regarding net buffering, logic dictates that if fewer fish are netted in any given year then more fish will make it into the river or adjacent rivers that year and angling would have been better in that year than it would have been if there had been netting in that year. The only issue is proof (how can I know what would have been caught had the nets not operated in that year?) which is why I am really hesitant to present any time series graph for or against net buffering. It would be as unwise as the CCR example above. However the logical argument is, well, logical and just because the benefit to anglers in any given year can't be measured doesn't disprove the logic that catches would have been better had the nets not operated.
    This is net buffering; a real logical thing but impossible to measure or design and execute an experiment to measure it. But it does impact angling, however unmeasurable it may be.

    Whether netting threatens the survival of the species is another question entirely and I happen to mostly agree with you on that one. Netting does affect angling though, which is why most anglers including me, are against netting.

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

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
  •