River Wear 2020

[cgaines10]

The rod catches start from a fairly low base in 1979 and then steadily rise with the sea-trout catches peaking around 2001 – 2003 before steadily falling to 2011 and then more dramatically to 2019. The salmon catches rise more slowly peaking around 2010 – 2013 and then also falling dramatically to 2019. Sea trout catches are about double those of salmon up until 2011 when the catches of both species become more equal and in the second graph you can see that the combined catch peaks between 2010 and 2013.

What is interesting is how the rod catches compare with the fish counts which are of course combined. I have read many times in books and magazine articles that typically around 10% of the fish that run up a river are caught on rod and line. I don’t know how this percentage was arrived at but like many things in angling it just seems to be one of those nuggets that has been accepted as fact. You would therefore expect the graph for the combined rod catch to roughly shadow the graph of the combined fish count but at a 90% lower level, but this is clearly not the case.

The first year of counts was 1994 but there was obviously a problem because the catches were higher than the counts.

I think the simple answer is that the fish counts are inaccurate and cannot be used as an indication of the number of fish running up the river.

Using rod catch data is fraught with danger due to human error/lies. As you touched on, it's hard to rely on peoples honestly, but could certainly be used as an indicator for sure.

1994 fish counts were only ran for 2 months so explain the error. 2004 & 2006 are also incomplete. So removing them shows a steady decline as per previous.

I would disagree that they are inaccurate, they have a margin of error as with everything, but resistivity fish counters have a 96% reliability or you can choose to believe human data on rod catch. Suppose it comes down to your agenda & whether you believe the decline is true or fabricated.

 

[Andrew B]

Using rod catch data is fraught with danger due to human error/lies. As you touched on, it's hard to rely on peoples honestly, but could certainly be used as an indicator for sure.

1994 fish counts were only ran for 2 months so explain the error. 2004 & 2006 are also incomplete. So removing them shows a steady decline as per previous.

I would disagree that they are inaccurate, they have a margin of error as with everything, but resistivity fish counters have a 96% reliability or you can choose to believe human data on rod catch. Suppose it comes down to your agenda & whether you believe the decline is true or fabricated.

Fish counters are amazing things imo. Tiny river in Wales called the Llynfi that feeds to a lake was fitted with a counter as a trial. The counter measured a run of fish late March to April of salmon up to a meter in length! Nobody had a clue that it had a spring run.
since C&R repeat captures could be a problem using rod caught fish?

 

[cgaines10]

Fish counters are amazing things imo. Tiny river in Wales called the Llynfi that feeds to a lake was fitted with a counter as a trial. The counter measured a run of fish late March to April of salmon up to a meter in length! Nobody had a clue that it had a spring run.
since C&R repeat captures could be a problem using rod caught fish?

Yes they give you a very good insight to when and what is running a river. When positioned correctly, the data can be relied upon.

Absolutely, fish do get caught again due to the increase in people carrying out C&R now.

 

[Stratocaster]

Yes they give you a very good insight to when and what is running a river. When positioned correctly, the data can be relied upon.

Absolutely, fish do get caught again due to the increase in people carrying out C&R now.

I’m sure that fish counters are accurate if the fish are using them and the river is at a suitable level. I don’t dispute the fact that the number of fish running through Durham has declined in the last ten years, what I dispute is that the fall is a reflection of the fish counter data and has crashed by over 70% as many contributors are suggesting.

From the EA data which gives us fish counted and declared fish caught on rod and line it is simple to derive a catch rate by dividing the caught by counted and converting to a percentage. The counts are of two species as are the combined caught figures and if the counter figures were correct then the there would be very little variation in the rate when comparing records over the years. I’ve tried to find out reliable data for C and R and fish recapture and the best I could find was from a Norwegian study which suggested about 10%. In my experience C and R has been slow on the uptake among Wear rods, particularly older rods, and has only been noticeable in the last ten years or so. Looking at 2013 there was a catch of 3254 combined fish so in theory 325 of them were re-caught. The counter(s) recorded 12346 combined counts so the catch rate was 26% and by deducting the theoretical recounts (325) the adjusted rate becomes 24% - a 2% deduction. Since 1995 there has been a remarkable rise in the Wear catch rate – 1995 (9%), 2000 (8%), 2005 (16%), 2010 (16%), 2014 (18%) and 2019 (30.5%) – and if you deduct the theoretical 2% caused by C and R in the last ten years it would still be remarkable.

Think about it, in 2019 the counters recorded 4704 combined counts and if you believe that this figure is a true reflection of the number of fish that passed through Durham then nearly a third (1437) of them were caught by anglers.

Below are two graphs produced from EA raw data – one shows the counter figures between 1995 and 2019 and the other shows the catch rate for the same period.

​

The catch rate graph should be more or less linear – perhaps a slight uptick by 2% for C and R after 2010 but I think this would be counteracted by the reduction in rod pressure due to an ageing and retiring pool of anglers. What we see is anything but linear and is in fact almost a mirror image of the fish count graph.

It appears that when fish counts are high the catch rate is low and visa versa which is counterintuitive so there must be for a reason for it, which I believe is that the counters are inaccurate as they only record fish passes during optimum (low water) conditions. I have been working in Durham for over a year within 150 yards of the Framwellgate fish pass and this year I have seen over a hundred fish run past the dam. Most of these have obviously been during the day in high water and in all that time I have only seen two fish use the counter. All of the others, both salmon and sea-trout, easily jumped the two and a half foot step on each side of the counter and therefore would not have been recorded.

 

[cgaines10]

I’m sure that fish counters are accurate if the fish are using them and the river is at a suitable level. I don’t dispute the fact that the number of fish running through Durham has declined in the last ten years, what I dispute is that the fall is a reflection of the fish counter data and has crashed by over 70% as many contributors are suggesting.

From the EA data which gives us fish counted and declared fish caught on rod and line it is simple to derive a catch rate by dividing the caught by counted and converting to a percentage. The counts are of two species as are the combined caught figures and if the counter figures were correct then the there would be very little variation in the rate when comparing records over the years. I’ve tried to find out reliable data for C and R and fish recapture and the best I could find was from a Norwegian study which suggested about 10%. In my experience C and R has been slow on the uptake among Wear rods, particularly older rods, and has only been noticeable in the last ten years or so. Looking at 2013 there was a catch of 3254 combined fish so in theory 325 of them were re-caught. The counter(s) recorded 12346 combined counts so the catch rate was 26% and by deducting the theoretical recounts (325) the adjusted rate becomes 24% - a 2% deduction. Since 1995 there has been a remarkable rise in the Wear catch rate – 1995 (9%), 2000 (8%), 2005 (16%), 2010 (16%), 2014 (18%) and 2019 (30.5%) – and if you deduct the theoretical 2% caused by C and R in the last ten years it would still be remarkable.

Think about it, in 2019 the counters recorded 4704 combined counts and if you believe that this figure is a true reflection of the number of fish that passed through Durham then nearly a third (1437) of them were caught by anglers.

Below are two graphs produced from EA raw data – one shows the counter figures between 1995 and 2019 and the other shows the catch rate for the same period.

The catch rate graph should be more or less linear – perhaps a slight uptick by 2% for C and R after 2010 but I think this would be counteracted by the reduction in rod pressure due to an ageing and retiring pool of anglers. What we see is anything but linear and is in fact almost a mirror image of the fish count graph.

It appears that when fish counts are high the catch rate is low and visa versa which is counterintuitive so there must be for a reason for it, which I believe is that the counters are inaccurate as they only record fish passes during optimum (low water) conditions. I have been working in Durham for over a year within 150 yards of the Framwellgate fish pass and this year I have seen over a hundred fish run past the dam. Most of these have obviously been during the day in high water and in all that time I have only seen two fish use the counter. All of the others, both salmon and sea-trout, easily jumped the two and a half foot step on each side of the counter and therefore would not have been recorded.

So because rod catch didn't increase when we had high numbers of fish, but instead increased when numbers are relatively low compared to the mean, you summarise that the count data must be wrong? It's certainly worth looking into, but there's so many variables that could be the reason for this.

If we only want to look at rod catch data;












Literally all of them follow the same pattern near enough & all are around our catchment. Increase in the late 90s/start of 2000s


Above graph from a different data source.

 

[Andrew B]

I’m sure that fish counters are accurate if the fish are using them and the river is at a suitable level. I don’t dispute the fact that the number of fish running through Durham has declined in the last ten years, what I dispute is that the fall is a reflection of the fish counter data and has crashed by over 70% as many contributors are suggesting.

From the EA data which gives us fish counted and declared fish caught on rod and line it is simple to derive a catch rate by dividing the caught by counted and converting to a percentage. The counts are of two species as are the combined caught figures and if the counter figures were correct then the there would be very little variation in the rate when comparing records over the years. I’ve tried to find out reliable data for C and R and fish recapture and the best I could find was from a Norwegian study which suggested about 10%. In my experience C and R has been slow on the uptake among Wear rods, particularly older rods, and has only been noticeable in the last ten years or so. Looking at 2013 there was a catch of 3254 combined fish so in theory 325 of them were re-caught. The counter(s) recorded 12346 combined counts so the catch rate was 26% and by deducting the theoretical recounts (325) the adjusted rate becomes 24% - a 2% deduction. Since 1995 there has been a remarkable rise in the Wear catch rate – 1995 (9%), 2000 (8%), 2005 (16%), 2010 (16%), 2014 (18%) and 2019 (30.5%) – and if you deduct the theoretical 2% caused by C and R in the last ten years it would still be remarkable.

Think about it, in 2019 the counters recorded 4704 combined counts and if you believe that this figure is a true reflection of the number of fish that passed through Durham then nearly a third (1437) of them were caught by anglers.

Below are two graphs produced from EA raw data – one shows the counter figures between 1995 and 2019 and the other shows the catch rate for the same period.
View attachment 52775
View attachment 52776

​

The catch rate graph should be more or less linear – perhaps a slight uptick by 2% for C and R after 2010 but I think this would be counteracted by the reduction in rod pressure due to an ageing and retiring pool of anglers. What we see is anything but linear and is in fact almost a mirror image of the fish count graph.

It appears that when fish counts are high the catch rate is low and visa versa which is counterintuitive so there must be for a reason for it, which I believe is that the counters are inaccurate as they only record fish passes during optimum (low water) conditions. I have been working in Durham for over a year within 150 yards of the Framwellgate fish pass and this year I have seen over a hundred fish run past the dam. Most of these have obviously been during the day in high water and in all that time I have only seen two fish use the counter. All of the others, both salmon and sea-trout, easily jumped the two and a half foot step on each side of the counter and therefore would not have been recorded.

Apologies for not studying the graphs as I normally would. What with all the Covid stuff I feel like I’m all graphed out and liable to overdose ?

 

[1255Durham]

I’m sure that fish counters are accurate if the fish are using them and the river is at a suitable level. I don’t dispute the fact that the number of fish running through Durham has declined in the last ten years, what I dispute is that the fall is a reflection of the fish counter data and has crashed by over 70% as many contributors are suggesting.

From the EA data which gives us fish counted and declared fish caught on rod and line it is simple to derive a catch rate by dividing the caught by counted and converting to a percentage. The counts are of two species as are the combined caught figures and if the counter figures were correct then the there would be very little variation in the rate when comparing records over the years. I’ve tried to find out reliable data for C and R and fish recapture and the best I could find was from a Norwegian study which suggested about 10%. In my experience C and R has been slow on the uptake among Wear rods, particularly older rods, and has only been noticeable in the last ten years or so. Looking at 2013 there was a catch of 3254 combined fish so in theory 325 of them were re-caught. The counter(s) recorded 12346 combined counts so the catch rate was 26% and by deducting the theoretical recounts (325) the adjusted rate becomes 24% - a 2% deduction. Since 1995 there has been a remarkable rise in the Wear catch rate – 1995 (9%), 2000 (8%), 2005 (16%), 2010 (16%), 2014 (18%) and 2019 (30.5%) – and if you deduct the theoretical 2% caused by C and R in the last ten years it would still be remarkable.

Think about it, in 2019 the counters recorded 4704 combined counts and if you believe that this figure is a true reflection of the number of fish that passed through Durham then nearly a third (1437) of them were caught by anglers.

Below are two graphs produced from EA raw data – one shows the counter figures between 1995 and 2019 and the other shows the catch rate for the same period.
View attachment 52775
View attachment 52776

​

The catch rate graph should be more or less linear – perhaps a slight uptick by 2% for C and R after 2010 but I think this would be counteracted by the reduction in rod pressure due to an ageing and retiring pool of anglers. What we see is anything but linear and is in fact almost a mirror image of the fish count graph.

It appears that when fish counts are high the catch rate is low and visa versa which is counterintuitive so there must be for a reason for it, which I believe is that the counters are inaccurate as they only record fish passes during optimum (low water) conditions. I have been working in Durham for over a year within 150 yards of the Framwellgate fish pass and this year I have seen over a hundred fish run past the dam. Most of these have obviously been during the day in high water and in all that time I have only seen two fish use the counter. All of the others, both salmon and sea-trout, easily jumped the two and a half foot step on each side of the counter and therefore would not have been recorded.

Salmon and Seatrout caught and not released from all waters downstream of the counter (I would guess a decent percentage) are on your caught side of the figures but not in your figure through the fishpass.

 

[mr wolf]

Dear Mr wolf

There are several research projects being undertaken to look how best to control or eradicate signal crayfish.

Unfortunately there are currently no effective controls that would apply to rivers such as the Tees.

A possible solution to your problem would be to fly-fish.

I hope that helps.

Regards

Paul Frear. I contacted the environment agency no solution at the moment they burrow into the bank bait fishings impossible fishings so good barnard castle AC cant get members salmon have died a death. How are fish supposed to achieve the breeding cycle if these are in the becks where they spawn crawfish eating eggs It's not going to happen educate yourself watch the youtube video. Trapping doesn't work nor pesticide they travel on land. From the tees theirs a small Gill near Eggleston they went up there to join the gaunless I'm in my late 60s but its the youngsters that won't have a future fishing.40year ago we fished snow hall Gainford back end you could see salmon running 20 pound trout 18 inch regular not the river it was Ask the angling centre in north road darlington I did crawfish infested in all the lower tees.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qImSSqYh298
Dear Mr wolf

There are several research projects being undertaken to look how best to control or eradicate signal crayfish.

Unfortunately there are currently no effective controls that would apply to rivers such as the Tees.

A possible solution to your problem would be to fly-fish.

I hope that helps.

Regards

Paul Frear.

Signal Crayfish has become a plague in Britain YouTube

 

[mr wolf]

Signal Crayfish has become a plague in Britain watch this they kill everything river wear will go same as tees

 

[greenlaner2009]

One thing all these graphs show me is all these anecdotal stories of the river wear in the 70s 80s and 90s being alive with fish, Fish behind every stone all the way up the river is complete and utter bull manure, preached by people with an agenda for CCR. All these old timers looking back with rose tinted glasses are just full of shite.

 

[cgaines10]

Signal Crayfish has become a plague in Britain watch this they kill everything river wear will go same as tees

Would that be the better fly life, like we see on the Tees? Better trout & grayling fishing? Along with better course fishing?

The crayfish keep the otters & mink busy too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teesfisher]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When it comes down to overall biodiversity, and the overall state of fish populations, the Tees is by far the best of the NE rivers.

 

[GOD]

To use any formula is fine but all we have as the constant are the fish counts.If in theory two thirds bypassed as you say this would mean in the early 2000s that would have meant 60,000 fish !!! (very much doubt that) pro rata by the same calculation in 2020 there would be 15000..(again no chance).No matter either way as the numbers are guesses,all I know for sure is that I was informed that nothing spawned in terms of sea trout at all last year in the main river at stanhope for the first time in a riverwatchers lifetime and there hasnt been a run of fish up linburn at all this year....worrying first hand observations by trusted long standing genuine people with nothing to gain from telling lies

im just going by what i watch when im down durham. i can stand for hours watching them over the years and there has always been more jumping the pools than using the passes from what i have witnessed

 

[cgaines10]

 

[Kaney]

One thing all these graphs show me is all these anecdotal stories of the river wear in the 70s 80s and 90s being alive with fish, Fish behind every stone all the way up the river is complete and utter bull manure, preached by people with an agenda for CCR. All these old timers looking back with rose tinted glasses are just full of shite.

I’m not an old timer well not in my head anyway Lol, but as a teenager in the early 80’s I spent every spare minute out with the dogs gun and ferrets in Weardale. Mostly hanging about the becks that feed the river and I still frequent the same becks and I’m certainly not advocating catch and release and I’m certainly not full of **** but their are noticeably less fish than there were in those “halcyon days”

 

[Stratocaster]

Salmon and Seatrout caught and not released from all waters downstream of the counter (I would guess a decent percentage) are on your caught side of the figures but not in your figure through the fishpass.

That’s a good point – I hadn’t thought of that. I guess that those numbers would have affected the catches and counters in every year but in the last ten years or so would have had a lessening impact because of C and R which in 2019 is estimated to have been about 89% nationally.

The lower beats are more successful in dry years when the levels are low which is also when I believe that the fish use the counter(s) more so the counts are higher. Conversely, the upper beats do better in wet years when I believe the counter(s) are bypassed so the counts are lower. I suppose that pre-2010, when more fish were being killed, then those fish caught below Durham would have supressed the fish counts, pushing up the catch rate, but in more recent years those fish would have been returned to the water and might have been counted like the rest. As Cgaines has said, there are so many variables and we can only look at trends. I just think that in recent years when the counts seem to have fallen off a cliff they are inaccurate because large numbers of fish have gone through Durham on high water and bypassed the counter. The proportion of fish caught to those counted in 2019, almost one in three according to EA data, says it all to me – how can that be possible, unless they were all caught and killed below Durham which didn’t happen.

 

[Jp12345]

One thing all these graphs show me is all these anecdotal stories of the river wear in the 70s 80s and 90s being alive with fish, Fish behind every stone all the way up the river is complete and utter bull manure, preached by people with an agenda for CCR. All these old timers looking back with rose tinted glasses are just full of shite.

Finally somebody talking sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lax0341]

My question in that topic is : Who cleans the counters from debris etc. ? When I last visited them they where blocked by pieces of wood, debris and other obstacles. If the counters are blocked the fish will pass beside them.

 

[reedwarbler]

Finally somebody talking sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could you tell me why all of us full of shite old timers want to tell lies?

 

[greenlaner2009]

A question for the old timers could you explain how if the 70s 80s and 90s where so good why is the catch data so poor.

 

[Walleye]

I think its because few used to pay for a licence and even fewer report fish catches.

 

[NEbody]

Back in the day, was there not a sea trout only licence, which might explain why reported sea trout numbers were better than reported salmon?

It seems to me that there are 3 versions of the story:
1 the counter that fish can easily bypass in decent running conditions so will always understate runs by an unknown amount.
2 catches reported by anglers who, accidentally or deliberately, tell an approximate version of what they’ve actually caught and the extent of that approximation has probably changed over time.
3 people’s memories of the good old days, which may or may not be based on better records than they used to submit their catch returns and may or may not be seen through rose-tinted glasses.

Would anyone care to guess which of those is closest to indicating how many fish are in the river?

 

[cgaines10]

Back in the day, was there not a sea trout only licence, which might explain why reported sea trout numbers were better than reported salmon?

It seems to me that there are 3 versions of the story:
1 the counter that fish can easily bypass in decent running conditions so will always understate runs by an unknown amount.
2 catches reported by anglers who, accidentally or deliberately, tell an approximate version of what they’ve actually caught and the extent of that approximation has probably changed over time.
3 people’s memories of the good old days, which may or may not be based on better records than they used to submit their catch returns and may or may not be seen through rose-tinted glasses.

Would anyone care to guess which of those is closest to indicating how many fish are in the river?

#1 has the lowest error & no bias.

 

[seeking]

Back in the day, was there not a sea trout only licence, which might explain why reported sea trout numbers were better than reported salmon?

It seems to me that there are 3 versions of the story:
1 the counter that fish can easily bypass in decent running conditions so will always understate runs by an unknown amount.
2 catches reported by anglers who, accidentally or deliberately, tell an approximate version of what they’ve actually caught and the extent of that approximation has probably changed over time.
3 people’s memories of the good old days, which may or may not be based on better records than they used to submit their catch returns and may or may not be seen through rose-tinted glasses.

Would anyone care to guess which of those is closest to indicating how many fish are in the river?

None of the above are ideal or accurate. #2 being the best, providing it's corrected for rod effort, even then it's almost as problematic as the very-distant next best (#1). Especially so given C&R recaptures, ghost fish, and the fact that habeas corpus no longer applies (thank you EA )

But of course, you know all that well...

 

[reedwarbler]

A question for the old timers could you explain how if the 70s 80s and 90s where so good why is the catch data so poor.

So if i told you there were more salmon in the tees in the 80s would you not believe that as well?
The point i am trying to make is that imo there were better runs of fish all over the north east rivers then, than
there is now, how people can comment on what the rivers were like then, compared to now, when they never fished them,
beats me, you were not there you dont no! so if its not on your graphs and charts, all of us old timers are full of shite and telling lies.