River Wear 2020

greenlaner2009

Well-known member
Messages
612
Reaction score
294
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.
I fished in the mid to late 80s, There were more seatrout about but very few salmon, So if its only the seatrout that are declining why all the screams for CCR when there is still a viable net fishery off our coastline, a net fishery I would not like to see closed, migratory fish are a harvestable resource. Not an anglers folly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOD

reedwarbler

Active member
Messages
225
Reaction score
132
I fished in the mid to late 80s, There were more seatrout about but very few salmon, So if its only the seatrout that are declining why all the screams for CCR when there is still a viable net fishery off our coastline, a net fishery I would not like to see closed, migratory fish are a harvestable resource. Not an anglers folly.
where have i said i want c& r ? I am replying to your post stating that the old timers on the river are full of shite, (which i feel is really offensive) the wear imo has always been predominately a sea trout river with salmon.
 

Sperlash

Active member
Messages
147
Reaction score
166
If for argument's sake salmon are now on par with sea trout in terms of numbers and the salmon are now protected how on gods earth can an inshore fishery be a sustainable concern if the numbers of sea trout returning to spawn is now in the 3000 /4000 max???.I know of one boat catching this many fish themselves in a month in recent years
If the nets arent removed completely I can personally see the rivers collapsing.
Also what no one has identified is that a great part of the increase in numbers from 1960s to 1990s was largely down to 2 things.Firstly water quality improvement and secondly a rolling bank stability maintenance policy ,This indirectly supporting habitat improvement due to river beds not filling with undermined bank gravel and also allowing massive growth of weed beds , directly increasing favourable conditions for a boom in invertebrate life .The demise in any of this remedial work has removed all gravel stability and directly resulted in spawning area destruction and pretty much a total loss of any weed bed formations in the mid to upper reaches.
It would be wonderful if somene has,and could post up pictures of then and now showing pictures of the gas works pool in Stanhope to show the forum members the utter devastation being caused to these key breeding areas
 

greenlaner2009

Well-known member
Messages
612
Reaction score
294
If for argument's sake salmon are now on par with sea trout in terms of numbers and the salmon are now protected how on gods earth can an inshore fishery be a sustainable concern if the numbers of sea trout returning to spawn is now in the 3000 /4000 max???.I know of one boat catching this many fish themselves in a month in recent years
If the nets arent removed completely I can personally see the rivers collapsing.
Also what no one has identified is that a great part of the increase in numbers from 1960s to 1990s was largely down to 2 things.Firstly water quality improvement and secondly a rolling bank stability maintenance policy ,This indirectly supporting habitat improvement due to river beds not filling with undermined bank gravel and also allowing massive growth of weed beds , directly increasing favourable conditions for a boom in invertebrate life .The demise in any of this remedial work has removed all gravel stability and directly resulted in spawning area destruction and pretty much a total loss of any weed bed formations in the mid to upper reaches.
It would be wonderful if somene has,and could post up pictures of then and now showing pictures of the gas works pool in Stanhope to show the forum members the utter devastation being caused to these key breeding areas
Your trying to cloud the water with your 3000/4000 number that is a number for the wear the netsmen take fish destined for every river from the tweed to the humber. These mixed stock fisheries should be closed and netting stations should be in the tidal area of each individual river so quotas can be managed on a river by river basis. Some protection could be offered to the sea trout by allowing a certain amount of salmon to be taken instead. With regard to your valid point about bankside maintenance the onus for this lies with the land owners this is their private property they should bear the cost of maintenance not the tax payer.
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,794
Reaction score
1,446
If for argument's sake salmon are now on par with sea trout in terms of numbers and the salmon are now protected how on gods earth can an inshore fishery be a sustainable concern if the numbers of sea trout returning to spawn is now in the 3000 /4000 max???.I know of one boat catching this many fish themselves in a month in recent years
If the nets arent removed completely I can personally see the rivers collapsing.
Also what no one has identified is that a great part of the increase in numbers from 1960s to 1990s was largely down to 2 things.Firstly water quality improvement and secondly a rolling bank stability maintenance policy ,This indirectly supporting habitat improvement due to river beds not filling with undermined bank gravel and also allowing massive growth of weed beds , directly increasing favourable conditions for a boom in invertebrate life .The demise in any of this remedial work has removed all gravel stability and directly resulted in spawning area destruction and pretty much a total loss of any weed bed formations in the mid to upper reaches.
It would be wonderful if somene has,and could post up pictures of then and now showing pictures of the gas works pool in Stanhope to show the forum members the utter devastation being caused to these key breeding areas
Do you mean the sewage works stretch with banks and pools made entirely of gabbions?
No thanks. I prefer how it is now TBH.

Nets are a side issue. As is C&R. If the Wear is producing fewer sea trout for sport then it is due to either man's intervention on land (pesticides, siltation, drainage, plantations etc) or man's intervention at sea (no coincidence that the biggest consumer of sand eels is Denmark and that's where our sea trout migrate to and eat).
 

GOD

Active member
Messages
72
Reaction score
101
anyone ever been a member of finchale abbey? i was down yesterday to have a look, the run downstream looks great but almost impossible to fish it and the other bank is chester water
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,794
Reaction score
1,446
Yes. No night fishing so didn't join a 2nd year.
You describe it pretty well. I think if you catch the water just right it will fish well but you could say that for every mile of the Wear.
 

big albert

Member
Messages
63
Reaction score
31
Location
Tyneside
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
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.
I just watched the you tube video mate you can chunter on all you like Its real no fish they feed on fish eggs Im no biologist or expert on fly life im sure those Larvae when they merge from the river bed would be a target.
 

GOD

Active member
Messages
72
Reaction score
101
Yes. No night fishing so didn't join a 2nd year.
You describe it pretty well. I think if you catch the water just right it will fish well but you could say that for every mile of the Wear.
they just stuck another 25 quid on for next season aswell, no night fishing its a no for me
 

Sperlash

Active member
Messages
147
Reaction score
166
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.
Simple Really about 25% angler catch return reported..Look at historical catch data for the nets over these years over 160k salmon and sea trout in 1970 with 95k salmon alone Screenshot 2020-11-26 at 20.54.56.png
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,794
Reaction score
1,446
Simple Really about 25% angler catch return reported..Look at historical catch data for the nets over these years over 160k salmon and sea trout in 1970 with 95k salmon alone View attachment 53126
Are there any notes in that document about what happened prior to 1969? Was there a big increase in nets or a big increase in fish?
 

greenlaner2009

Well-known member
Messages
612
Reaction score
294
Are there any notes in that document about what happened prior to 1969? Was there a big increase in nets or a big increase in fish?
Would that be about the time they changed over to monofilament nets, which were said were twice as productive as the old style.
 

NEbody

Well-known member
Messages
1,490
Reaction score
260
Location
Northumberland
Are there any notes in that document about what happened prior to 1969? Was there a big increase in nets or a big increase in fish?

As Greenlaner says, it was about then that monofilament nets came in and there were no limits on how many licences could be issued. The net limitation orders started in response to the huge increase in net catches and were effectively the only control until the drift net buyout in 2003, which accelerated the reduction in netting effort. What’s notable about that is that rod catches of salmon increased after 2003 but rod catches of sea trout started to fall.
 

greenlaner2009

Well-known member
Messages
612
Reaction score
294
Simple Really about 25% angler catch return reported..Look at historical catch data for the nets over these years over 160k salmon and sea trout in 1970 with 95k salmon alone View attachment 53126
The tweed commission said 70 percent of the salmon caught in the north east coast net fisheries where destined for scotland, so the remainder shared out between all the other english rivers on the north coast would be a very small number for each river.
 

lax0341

Active member
Messages
814
Reaction score
79
Location
Leipzig/Germany
There a a lot of different problems which reduces the run of migratory fish into the rivers and back to the sea.
But don‘t underestimate the impact of the fast growing population of different kinds of predators !
How many fish eats a cormorant every day ? We know now from scientific research that this is around 500 gram per bird per day.
Every day. But how many fish eats a seal per day ? Every day... ?
If you don‘t start to control the amount of predators your rivers will be empty in a short time.
 

Sperlash

Active member
Messages
147
Reaction score
166
There a a lot of different problems which reduces the run of migratory fish into the rivers and back to the sea.
But don‘t underestimate the impact of the fast growing population of different kinds of predators !
How many fish eats a cormorant every day ? We know now from scientific research that this is around 500 gram per bird per day.
Every day. But how many fish eats a seal per day ? Every day... ?
If you don‘t start to control the amount of predators your rivers will be empty in a short time.
Interesting study on go fund me into the depletion of fish in the derwent.Think this could have massive relevance to usScreenshot 2020-11-26 at 23.28.44.png
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,794
Reaction score
1,446
The tweed commission said 70 percent of the salmon caught in the north east coast net fisheries where destined for scotland, so the remainder shared out between all the other english rivers on the north coast would be a very small number for each river.
Yes but also consider the total salmon run in North East England rivers is actually a surprisingly small number....
Tyne counter takes images and a guy sorts between salmon and sea trout. About 2/3 are sea trout.
So Tyne, about 10k in a bad year-15k salmon in a good year
Wear 3k-7k salmon
Tees estimated at a few thousand

So in a good year these days, maybe 25k salmon run north east England rivers.
If 70% of the salmon net catch do go to Scotland, that means in the 70's where there was roughly 50k salmon netted per year, 15k salmon were from North East rivers. Thats about 2/3 of my estimate of the total run today in a good year. Its a significant number.
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,794
Reaction score
1,446
I'd also say that a far greater proportion of the sea trout net catch would run north east England rivers. The salmon may end up in rivers anywhere up the east coast of Scotland. The big sea trout which the north east of England is famous for do not enter rivers much further north of the Tweed.
 

Grassy_Knollington

Well-known member
Messages
3,463
Reaction score
993
Yes but also consider the total salmon run in North East England rivers is actually a surprisingly small number....
Tyne counter takes images and a guy sorts between salmon and sea trout. About 2/3 are sea trout.
So Tyne, about 10k in a bad year-15k salmon in a good year
Wear 3k-7k salmon
Tees estimated at a few thousand

So in a good year these days, maybe 25k salmon run north east England rivers.
If 70% of the salmon net catch do go to Scotland, that means in the 70's where there was roughly 50k salmon netted per year, 15k salmon were from North East rivers. Thats about 2/3 of my estimate of the total run today in a good year. Its a significant number.

In the 70s the Scottish rivers were significantly more productive and the North East English rivers significantly less productive than today, i.e. the drift nets wouldn’t have been taking 15k fish out of the NE rivers in the 70s

Last study on the subject:

The Effects of the English North East Coast Drift Net Fishery on Scottish Salmon Catches - 1982
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,794
Reaction score
1,446
In the 70s the Scottish rivers were significantly more productive and the North East English rivers significantly less productive than today, i.e. the drift nets wouldn’t have been taking 15k fish out of the NE rivers in the 70s

Last study on the subject:

The Effects of the English North East Coast Drift Net Fishery on Scottish Salmon Catches - 1982
I wish there were these kinds of studies on the North East Sea trout. They're as special as any salmon IMHO.
Thanks for posting that.

Are there any more recent studies which indicate the percentage of the salmon lost to North east England rivers?
 

NEbody

Well-known member
Messages
1,490
Reaction score
260
Location
Northumberland
I wish there were these kinds of studies on the North East Sea trout. They're as special as any salmon IMHO.
Thanks for posting that.

Are there any more recent studies which indicate the percentage of the salmon lost to North east England rivers?

Not directly that I’m aware of but this is quite informative
 
Top