Thanks Thanks:  1
Likes Likes:  8
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,058

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxie View Post
    I suspect the fact that MS decided that the ER for North Coast Rivers is 40% and the fact that despite fish being tagged, although in pathetic numbers, and entering the various rivers none were actually caught is proving a tricky issue to fudge! It was a fabulous opportunity to get some really good and useful data squandered. I think MS senior management make the EA senior management look good, and that is nearly unbelievable!
    They must all think "thank goodness" for NRW senior management.

  2. #12

    Default Tricky things to fudge..

    Quote Originally Posted by Handel View Post
    They must all think "thank goodness" for NRW senior management.
    Talking of tricky questions..

    Does anybody know why there was another coastal salmon net being quietly operated just south of the Dee over two months last summer? Rumours are that it was being operated by the AST - who were tagging adult salmon with the same sort of 'dongle' acoustic tags being used up in the North?

    What was the purpose of this work, and why was it not publicised?

  3. #13

    Default Radio silence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepwading View Post
    Talking of tricky questions..

    Does anybody know why there was another coastal salmon net being quietly operated just south of the Dee over two months last summer? Rumours are that it was being operated by the AST - who were tagging adult salmon with the same sort of 'dongle' acoustic tags being used up in the North?

    What was the purpose of this work, and why was it not publicised?
    Complete 'radio silence' on this subject it appears - not a peep (or tweet?) from anybody?

  4. #14

    Default

    It seems to me that if MSS are using tax pounds for a large scale well publicised tracking program like Armadale the very least they should do is publish the results. The last I heard they wouldn't even share the basic data as to how many tagged fish ran a river with the river managers, despite needing them to help with the project. The other rumour was that the nets man hadn't been paid for his work either. The deafening silence gives a clue to just what a disaster the project was.

  5. #15

    Default Time for some questions and answers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Loxie View Post
    It seems to me that if MSS are using tax pounds for a large scale well publicised tracking program like Armadale the very least they should do is publish the results. The last I heard they wouldn't even share the basic data as to how many tagged fish ran a river with the river managers, despite needing them to help with the project. The other rumour was that the nets man hadn't been paid for his work either. The deafening silence gives a clue to just what a disaster the project was.
    Perhaps somebody should ask their MSP to raise a Parlimentary Question(s) to the relevant Scottish Minister in the Scottish Parliament?

  6. #16

    Default Mss

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepwading View Post
    Perhaps somebody should ask their MSP to raise a Parlimentary Question(s) to the relevant Scottish Minister in the Scottish Parliament?
    Hi lads,MS&MSS are Govt run body's who are answerable to nobody as long as they tow the SNP party line ,They are quite happy to sit back and watch the Norwiegn fish farmers pollute and poison our west coast rivers ,,and they then have the cheek to administer draconian measure's on the angling fraternity [even when there data is proven to be inaccurate][for proof of this check out what happened to the Loch Lomond system] So go ahead ask your "relevant Scottish minister"to raise it at parliamentary level,,but don't go holding your breath as regs getting any "relevant"answers,,,,

  7. #17

    Default

    Any caught?

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JakeDurn View Post
    Any caught?
    As far as I can glean, and MS hadn't shared data with riparian owners or ghillies when I last checked, around 100 (or a bit less) fish were tagged. Some were recorded running monitored rivers and none were caught.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own country) & Afrique
    Posts
    3,462

    Default Apologies for being boring

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepwading View Post
    I'm old enough to remember the days when the likes of the S&TA etc would be screaming for the publication of such a report.

    Still waiting.......
    It is indeed worrying, as other posters have also noted, that it appears that public monies are not being correctly accounted for in a meaningful and transparent way.

    Perhaps the results are embarrassing because it could be seen as a waste of effort (low sample size) or gave the wrong result (exploitation rate <1%) and proves that angling impacts are statistically insignificant, and the Prof. Plum Hypothesis indeed holds sway.

    Either way, surely we should be told
    "...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

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Paisley strathclyde.
    Posts
    3,311

    Default

    The only reply you will get is what big brother wants you to know.
    Do none of the salmon organisations have email/phones to enquire and let there members know.
    Bob.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •