Salmon farmers promoting catch and release?

Messages
637
Reaction score
9
Just a little query on the motivations behind the salmon farming industries drive for a 100% catch and release policy on UK anglers? Why are they so keen for us to 'let them all go'?
I understand just now that it is in their interests blaming the demise of the salmon on the big bad angler chapping all the fish rather than the destruction of the whole west coasts ( possibly all rivers through smolt migration paths) salmon run through their filthy industry. Do they also possibly believe that if I can't chap a fish I'll substitute it with some of their cancerous produce?
But what gets me is if 100% c&r is introduced and what could realistically happen is that then there is no decernible rise in salmon abundance, what then? Would that not return the spotlight back on to the salmon farmers as to why the rivers aren't recovering?
Anyway I'm just interested in the motivations of the salmon farmers and I'm sure some of you will be able to enlighten me further.
I'm also fully aware of the many different pressures on the salmon and that is a different debate.
 

bassfly

Well-known member
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
140
Location
Cheshire
Just a little query on the motivations behind the salmon farming industries drive for a 100% catch and release policy on UK anglers? Why are they so keen for us to 'let them all go'?
I understand just now that it is in their interests blaming the demise of the salmon on the big bad angler chapping all the fish rather than the destruction of the whole west coasts ( possibly all rivers through smolt migration paths) salmon run through their filthy industry. Do they also possibly believe that if I can't chap a fish I'll substitute it with some of their cancerous produce?
But what gets me is if 100% c&r is introduced and what could realistically happen is that then there is no decernible rise in salmon abundance, what then? Would that not return the spotlight back on to the salmon farmers as to why the rivers aren't recovering?
Anyway I'm just interested in the motivations of the salmon farmers and I'm sure some of you will be able to enlighten me further.
I'm also fully aware of the many different pressures on the salmon and that is a different debate.
SURELY A DISTRACTION.
To hide their contribution to the loss of salmon and sea trout. What needs publicising is this link to what they are producing.
Norway's fjords flooded with escaped, diseased farmed fish -The Common Sense CanadianThe Common Sense Canadian
 
Messages
637
Reaction score
9
Yes Bassfly I see the distraction element but that's going to be very short sighted. Yes I read that thanks for highlighting. Very worrying.
 

kgm

Active member
Messages
6,729
Reaction score
5
Location
Cill Chainnigh
I would guess that if angling went 100% C&R then all netting would have to follow suit.

With zero wild fish on the market, that would leave only the genetically modified disease ridden muck that is farmed salmon for sale. Were this the case the farmers would be in a stronger position to control quantity, quality:rolleyes:, price, etc
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
3,927
Reaction score
28
Location
Yorkshire (were there a god it'd be god's own coun
http://www.salmonfishingforum.com/forums/thread68864.html

And lo, it appears it did come to pass...





Recently Tony Andrews posted this on here:


The best measure we have of whether rivers have sustainable stocks of wild Atlantic salmon is Conservation Levels (CLS). In England and Wales most rivers are, according to the Environment Agency, now below their CLS. We don't have CLS in Scotland: I understand this is because of the complexity of deciding which populations are healthy (above a notional CL) or fragile/ threatened (probably below their CL)

From a conservation viewpoint we really shouldn't be killing fish inrivers whose stock is below its CL, but from a socio-economic viewpoint there may be strong reasons for continuing to fish on a strictly C&R basis....TA


And elsewhere this month, this was posted:


[CallanderMcdowell] reLAKSation no 696 - fish and seafood views

Callender McDowall said:
Licence to kill: The Times newspaper reports that a new system to be
introduced by the Scottish Government is needed to preserve stocks of wild
fish. By next seasons, anglers will have to buy a licence if they wish to
kill any of the salmon they catch.

However, the Times says that the plans have angered some of the country's
anglers, many of whom already have to cope with some of the toughest
restrictions on salmon fishing anywhere in the world. A tight licensing
system will restrict anglers' ability even further to indulge in the age old
tradition of taking home a fish for the pot.

A representative of Lairg Angling Club in Sutherland told the Times that he
believed the voluntary system of catch and release was working well. He
would rather see the "Scottish Government clamp down on bad practices by
fish farms and the netters than hammering the poor bloody angler."

We, at Callander McDowell, can only wonder that if the voluntary system of
catch and release is working so well. The Salmon & Trout Association
recently stated that the Scottish rod catch was the lowest in over sixty
years and just 50% of the ten year average. Whether this is an example of
catch and release working well is unclear. 2013 wasn't a good year either.

The representative of Lairg Angling Club prefers that the Government clamp
down on salmon farms and netters than hammering the angler. This view is not
unexpected. It is much easier to blame others than look at your own actions.
Whereas the odd salmon taken by an individual angler doesn't seem of any
note, the combined rod catch usually well exceeds the total number of salmon
caught in the nets. If the salmon caught by netsmen is significantly
damaging wild stocks, then so must the rod catch? Just because the net
caught fish are caught at sea doesn't make any difference as all the salmon
caught whether at sea or in the river are returning to spawn. The Salmon &
Trout Association said that decisive action is required to significantly
reduce the number of fish killed particularly the most vulnerable stocks.
Clearly that must mean all salmon stocks especially as the highlighted
spring fish remain in the river throughout the year and are still vulnerable
to catching.

It is also expected that the angling sector blame the salmon farming
industry for any decline. Salmon farms are highly visible and are an easy
target to blame than other factors such as climate change and marine
mortality. However, whatever we say, the jury is still out in respect of
damage to wild salmon from fish farms. It is just a simple connection to
make. Salmon farms are present. Wild salmon are in decline. Therefore wild
salmon must be in decline due to the presence of salmon farms. We, at
Callander McDowell have been accused in the past of science data denial but
whilst we acknowledge that sea lice on salmon farms are a major problem for
salmon farms, the evidence that that they are responsible for the decline in
wild salmon is rather thin on the ground, especially as wild salmon are just
as much in decline where salmon farming is not to be found.

A representative of the Ladykirk and Norham Angling Club in the Borders told
the Times that he appreciated the need to protect wild salmon stocks but saw
no reason to stop anglers killing fish if stocks were high. The problem is
that no angler really knows if stocks are high or not. There may be more
fish in the river from one week to the next or one month to the next but
that doesn't mean the overall stock is high. In fact, it is only the rod
catch that gives an indication of the stock and even this is not reliable.
Last year for example, the fishing was poor only because water levels meant
that fish couldn't enter the rivers. This translated into a low catch but it
doesn't mean that many other fish weren't swimming up and down the coast
line in large numbers. Yet, the representative form Ladykirk & Norham
Angling Club told the newspaper "that if the numbers in the river are there
then there doesn't seem to be any harm in taking them".

We, at Callander McDowell, don't think that there is any rush to introduce a
licencing scheme. Instead, we would prefer to see mandatory catch and
release for a trial period. Certainly, this cannot harm the stocks if they
are healthy and should help if they are not.

Anglers say that the current voluntary measures for catch and release result
in 80% of the catch being returned to the rivers whilst the remaining 20%
are killed. They argue that this shows how responsible they are to the
conservation of wild stocks yet in some recent years this means that over
20,000 fish have been killed when they could have been returned to the river
to spawn and generate new stock. Catch and release has only been prevalent
since the turn of the millennium. The percentage of fish returned has
steadily increased over the years but seems to have reached a peak, but
surely if anglers can return 80% of the fish they catch, why not return all?
Anglers fishing for other species would be horrified if anyone killed the
fish they caught instead of returning them. Why should salmon be any
different? No-one is suggesting that anglers cannot fish for salmon but just
that they should not kill them. Some rivers including the River Dee already
operate a mandatory catch and release policy. Why not all rivers if there is
so much concern about the state of stocks? As we have already stated surely
mandatory catch and release is the immediate solution not a licence to kill.
Worrying times, indeed.
 
Last edited:

gotoneon

New member
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
1
Location
stepps, Glasgow
Bet me to it KGM LOL!!!!!!!!!:D

The sad thing is the ONLY folk with a real concerning thought about wild salmon numbers are anglers and they are the ones getting all thye bad press from the netters (recall the netsmen saying "anglers kill blah blah" numbers of fish), and now the fish farmers. you couldnt make it up LOL!!!!
Unferkinbelievable:mad:

We anglers have (a wee bit like out shooting cousins), sat back, said we are nasty and its all our fault and everyone else has just charged in!!!!!!!!!
 
Messages
637
Reaction score
9
Well thank you seeking. I just hope that we are all aware of where this path of 100% c&r has the potential to end up. It ends with closure of rivers to angling. After no improvement in numbers the salmon farming industry starts lobbying for rivers to be closed to angling due to c&r mortality and stress leading to fish not spawning with an ever dwindling stock. Also when you have anglers, angling interest groups singing off the same hymn sheet as the salmon farming industry it's quite worrying. I'm fully aware that stocks are fragile or worse in some areas and 100% c&r in these rivers won't change anything.

I also know this has been debated here before but the fyne, Kinglass etc haven't been fished in years. I walk them regularly and can assure you there is no numbers of fish present. They suffer from hydro, forestry and numbers dropped before the fish farms. However they would have returned to some level where angling could be practiced if it was not for the presence of the farms. It's a dream of mine to fish and land a fish off the fyne or Kinglas. ( A fish is a salmon for those not from these parts)Unless the farms go totally or onshore, that'll never happen.
 

Loxie

Well-known member
Messages
10,314
Reaction score
393
I think it is more than just a distraction. There is a strong element of divide and rule. Also every time there is bad press from them over lice, escapes, etc they just trot out the usual cr*p about how if anglers really cared they would put them all back. Its a bit like the old saw about an interviewer asking a politician when he stopped beating his wife.
 

ibm59

Well-known member
Messages
12,790
Reaction score
706
Divide and conquer.
They've seen the writing on the walls for the netsmen , and it doesn't take much imagination as to where the Salmon Angling Taliban's searchlight will next be pointed.

Pity it'll be around 30 years too late.

The longer they can keep us squabbling amongst ourselves , the longer their profit driven , foreign , filthy , trade can continue unhindered.

A little Bird told me that Brian Rix wrote this script.
 
Last edited:

salmohunter

Member
Messages
140
Reaction score
0
100% c and r should be cheaper fishing. but we are expected to pay the same whether we release fish or keep them. its all about money not conservation.
 

Rennie

Well-known member
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
618
Location
Gods County
Lets remember one thing here,the general public see us the Angler as merely playing with the fish for our pleasure-whether we like that or not-the newsmen are in it for business which makes every thing ok as the general public likes to eat Salmon.The more the netsmen distract from the real issue the less flack they'll have to take,the louder their voice's and them being heard in the right place's means the more they'll be believed by the general public.Just think on,joe public(that includes us!) believes just what they are told by the media especially if they've no personal knowledge.
We the Angler needs a strong and constant(dare I say forceful?) media representation -papers,TV,magazines in order for our side of things to be seen.Most of us are just playing at fishing,the netsmen are in it for business which gives them a far tougher perspective and attitude towards getting what they want.In order for us to get what we we want we need to sack the complacency and get tough and selfish,sod them before they "sod" us!!.
You don't get any where in business by being nice!,Pedro.
 
Top