You would think if smolts were being killed in numbers large enough to make a difference this would show up on the rivers where smolt to adult ratios are actually measured and yet, to the best of my knowledge there has not been any downward trend in recent years (if at all). The only data I have seen was from the Frome and (5 years ago) it showed the highest ever adult ratios since monitoring began. Surely if smolts were being lost in numbers this would show up?
End of the Line
Nope, not the Wilbury's, but Salmon. Interesting thoughts by Attenborough and some positive words from Fergal Sharkey, but 20 yrs?, they haven't got that long!. My own belief is we won't be fishing for migratory fish next year with rod and line. So low are returning numbers. Migratory fish are being netted to extinction on the high Sea's it's that simples. Yes there are other problems -water quality being a big one- but these are a part of a cumulative effect rather than a sole cause. I feel the line is being drawn in the sand as we speak. So get your rod hours in now because I believe we won't have the opportunity next year. The cessation of rod n line Salmon angling will lessen a lot of the problems that this and highly likely a new Government just dosen't want to face or heaven forbid indeed act on.
Thinking about it, the Salmons only real hope is that returning numbers get so low it's financially unsound to target them through netting, however that won't protect them from being harvested on a by catch basis.
Stop the high seas's netting, get those trawlers into dock right now and returning numbers will rise overnight, I guarantee it!. All the other issues pale a long way behind this one.
Ironic don't you all think, the Salmon farms will all be sat on a nice little earner on the back of this!.
Pedro.
Thinking about it, the Salmons only real hope is that returning numbers get so low it's financially unsound to target them through netting, however that won't protect them from being harvested on a by catch basis.
Stop the high seas's netting, get those trawlers into dock right now and returning numbers will rise overnight, I guarantee it!. All the other issues pale a long way behind this one.
Ironic don't you all think, the Salmon farms will all be sat on a nice little earner on the back of this!.
Pedro.
121 - 140 of 162 Posts
Smolt survival at sea is a major issue. I just watched utube video on sand eel fishing, the by catch was huge. Loads of different species in the nets with the sand eels. A few hundred smolts in amongst 350 tonnes of mackerel or sand eels would not be noticed. Thats why they use DNA, it’s quicker and easier. But DNA can not tell you what age of salmon it was. Do smolts run straight to Greenland or do they grow on in costal water before they go? Is it the same for small smolts or bigger smolts? Also how far out to sea do the 1lb grilse get. Not far is my guess. The thing is we do not really know enough and need more info on smolts once they leave the estuary. They get eaten in the river and go missing at sea that is truly all we know.
While I don't doubt that by catch accounts for some smolts it cannot explain the instant increase in runs seen (in some areas) during and directly after the 2020 lockdown.
Andy
Andy
My point is that they always have. Historically where measured smolts out to adults back have always been in the 3 to 9% range.Smolt survival at sea is a major issue. I just watched utube video on sand eel fishing, the by catch was huge. Loads of different species in the nets with the sand eels. A few hundred smolts in amongst 350 tonnes of mackerel or sand eels would not be noticed. Thats why they use DNA, it’s quicker and easier. But DNA can not tell you what age of salmon it was. Do smolts run straight to Greenland or do they grow on in costal water before they go? Is it the same for small smolts or bigger smolts? Also how far out to sea do the 1lb grilse get. Not far is my guess. The thing is we do not really know enough and need more info on smolts once they leave the estuary. They get eaten in the river and go missing at sea that is truly all we know.
I assume when you talk about smolt counting and returning adults, that you are talking about the Frome in Dorset?My point is that they always have. Historically where measured smolts out to adults back have always been in the 3 to 9% range.
And when you talk of abundance, you talk of an area almost 600 miles away and the closest any UK or Irish salmon is to the feeding grounds? An area with no smolt counting or indeed any way to count returning adults.
While I have no reason to doubt that smolts leaving to adults returning has always been between 3 and 9% on the Frome, I don't think that this can be applied to whole of the rest of the UK and Ireland.
Would it be possible to provide a link to the Frome smolt/adult counts so I can compare them even with counter figures here?
Just to get some idea in ways of a comparison.
EDIT: I've found some Fishery reports for the Frome with the data displayed as graphs. That should give me something to look at later. 🙂
I was thinking more about the Maine meta that MXFisher posted on here some time ago. The Frome hasn't been measuring that long.I assume when you talk about smolt counting and returning adults, that you are talking about the Frome in Dorset?
And when you talk of abundance, you talk of an area almost 600 miles away and the closest any UK or Irish salmon is to the feeding grounds? An area with no smolt counting or indeed any way to count returning adults.
While I have no reason to doubt that smolts leaving to adults returning has always been between 3 and 9% on the Frome, I don't think that this can be applied to whole of the rest of the UK and Ireland.
Would it be possible to provide a link to the Frome smolt/adult counts so I can compare them even with counter figures here?
Just to get some idea in ways of a comparison.
EDIT: I've found some Fishery reports for the Frome with the data displayed as graphs. That should give me something to look at later. 🙂
The point is where its meadured particularly but the consistency over time. The year on year variation is huge and I suspect there are big regional differences but what Id like to compare would be a data set from 1980 to 2010 and the data set from 2010 to the present ftom the same points. For example a river, or ideally several, where all the emigrating smolts are counted out and at the same point the returning adults are counted in. Its not straightforward due to different sea feeding ages but it would tell you pretty clearly what is happening both in the river and outside it.
The river Bush would probably be the only other river with that data. The Bush Salmon station counts both smolts and adults at the same location on the river. I think they have done since the 1970s.I was thinking more about the Maine meta that MXFisher posted on here some time ago. The Frome hasn't been measuring that long.
The point is where its meadured particularly but the consistency over time. The year on year variation is huge and I suspect there are big regional differences but what Id like to compare would be a data set from 1980 to 2010 and the data set from 2010 to the present ftom the same points. For example a river, or ideally several, where all the emigrating smolts are counted out and at the same point the returning adults are counted in. Its not straightforward due to different sea feeding ages but it would tell you pretty clearly what is happening both in the river and outside it.
The Bush is only a single river though. The numbers running the Bush would be a mere fraction of those that entered the Foyle and Bann systems.
The river Bush would probably be the only other river with that data. The Bush Salmon station counts both smolts and adults at the same location on the river. I think they have done since the 1970s.
The Bush is only a single river though. The numbers running the Bush would be a mere fraction of those that entered the Foyle and Bann systems.
The bush interesting but I only have data up to 2014. You dont have any more recent data do you?
Unfortunately I don't and trying to get information out of them is like trying to get get a functioning government in Northern Ireland! 🤦♂️The bush interesting but I only have data up to 2014. You dont have any more recent data do you?
Indeed!Unfortunately I don't and trying to get information out of them is like trying to get get a functioning government in Northern Ireland! 🤦♂️
The problem is also that there is such a huge year on year variation and I suspect massive variations between rivers too.
What interests me is the overnight disappearance of pretty much the entire Scottish Autumn run with absolutely no warning or signs. In fact the Tweed saw absolutely huge Autumn runs in 2010, 11 and 12. 2013 was a very dry year but when the rain came the November run was phenomenal. Then in 2014 there were no fresh Autumn fish at all. There haven't been since either. The spring run hasnt changed a lot, maybe a bit weaker and later and the summer run is maybe a bit stronger. I am yet to hear a rational explanation for this.
Just to clarify for everyone's benefit. The study Loxie references was commissioned by the US Department of Fisheries and conducted by the University of Maine in the 1980s. It looked at all the anadromous species under DAFS' remit, including Atlantic Salmon. It was a synoptic study, that is to say, a study of all existing academic research work of the previous 30 years, carried out anywhere, which was relevant to the subject. Thus, in the case of Atlantic salmon, the sources included Scottish, English, Irish (including the Bush work), French, Norwegian, Swedish, Canadian and US long-term research programmes.I was thinking more about the Maine meta that MXFisher posted on here some time ago. The Frome hasn't been measuring that long.
The most important factor contained was that historically, across the entire Atlantic region, the smolt to adult return rate had been consistently low for decades, even while in-river adult populations were high. Excluding Baltic salmon, the average was under 6%, within a range 3 - 7%. Given this huge weight of evidence it was reasonable to state that the Bush 30% figure (itself containing various estimated inputs) was a statistical outlier and open to question. Similarly, the then Prince of Wales' statement about historic returns being 25% and more, was clearly badly wrong.
This data remains the greatest weakness in the "all at sea" argument. While losses at sea are regrettable, I would suggest that the key objective is to maximise the smolt output of rivers. To that end it is more productive to look at reducing the egg to smolt loss rate, often around 98% in failing rivers, owing to the immense gearing delivered by success, and the fact that we can observe and influence the environment at close range.
OK, so I've had a look at the Frome data.
Theres no exact figures but I took a smolt count of a nice round 15,000. Now, a return rate of between 3% and 9% gives a range of 450 to 1350 which fits in nicely with the adult return rates on the river.
Now, the much maligned Bush data.
On their data, the year 1989 was estimated to have a return rate to the Irish coast of over 30%. I can hear the scoffing already.
If I look at my data for just the Foyle for 1989, I see a netting figure of around 80,000 salmon. The counter on the river Mourne counted around 10,000 and the counter on the Faughan around 9,000. So, not far off 100,000 salmon between the nets and just two rivers. There were no counters on the rivers Roe or Finn at that time. As well as a few other smaller rivers that produced salmon.
So rounding the numbers I have to a nice round 100,000, if only 3% to 9% ever returned it would have taken more than a million to three million smolts just to cover the numbers above.
If we use 30% as a return rate, the numbers of smolts that would be required to leave would have been around 300,000.
3% of 300,000 is 6,000 which isn't far off what our counters combined are counting today.
1989 wasn't even an outstanding year on the Foyle. In the mid 1990s the Mourne counted around 20,000 and the Faughan around 13,000.
Again this is only the Foyle. The Bann system further along the coast also had colossal numbers with tonnes of salmon lifted daily at the salmon traps on the river Bann itself, never mind the individual coastal rivers like the river Bush.
The more I read the more depressed I get. Northern Ireland was up there with the best salmon numbers in the world. If the troubles hadn't happened, we really could, and perhaps should, have been one of the prime salmon fishing destinations for anglers.
Perhaps the Bush data is an outlier based purely on the fact that we were getting far more salmon than anywhere else?
I don't know. The single percentage figures just don't seem to correlate with the numbers netted alone. Never mind fish counters after that. It's all a bit bewildering.
Theres no exact figures but I took a smolt count of a nice round 15,000. Now, a return rate of between 3% and 9% gives a range of 450 to 1350 which fits in nicely with the adult return rates on the river.
Now, the much maligned Bush data.
On their data, the year 1989 was estimated to have a return rate to the Irish coast of over 30%. I can hear the scoffing already.
If I look at my data for just the Foyle for 1989, I see a netting figure of around 80,000 salmon. The counter on the river Mourne counted around 10,000 and the counter on the Faughan around 9,000. So, not far off 100,000 salmon between the nets and just two rivers. There were no counters on the rivers Roe or Finn at that time. As well as a few other smaller rivers that produced salmon.
So rounding the numbers I have to a nice round 100,000, if only 3% to 9% ever returned it would have taken more than a million to three million smolts just to cover the numbers above.
If we use 30% as a return rate, the numbers of smolts that would be required to leave would have been around 300,000.
3% of 300,000 is 6,000 which isn't far off what our counters combined are counting today.
1989 wasn't even an outstanding year on the Foyle. In the mid 1990s the Mourne counted around 20,000 and the Faughan around 13,000.
Again this is only the Foyle. The Bann system further along the coast also had colossal numbers with tonnes of salmon lifted daily at the salmon traps on the river Bann itself, never mind the individual coastal rivers like the river Bush.
The more I read the more depressed I get. Northern Ireland was up there with the best salmon numbers in the world. If the troubles hadn't happened, we really could, and perhaps should, have been one of the prime salmon fishing destinations for anglers.
Perhaps the Bush data is an outlier based purely on the fact that we were getting far more salmon than anywhere else?
I don't know. The single percentage figures just don't seem to correlate with the numbers netted alone. Never mind fish counters after that. It's all a bit bewildering.
I know that some do not want to hear it said and especially to be said by some guy from Alaska but ................. When stocks get low and the fishing population along the natal rivers continue to bonk their catch each and every one of the bonkers have a hand in the problem. Here we have complete closure of the King Salmon fishing throughout south central Alaska and many closures in western AK. as well. But yesterday I saw several river boats being hauled toward my nearest river launch. Fishing closed but boats launching?
Some of the people here will not stop taking fish ever. And the most prized King Salmon is a hen because those same persons will gut it and then brine the eggs to be used for bait when the Pacific Silver Salmon arrive in late July. Those Pacific Silvers are right on the line also, one more below escapement count and that species will be closed also'
There are however plenty of Chum Salmon which begs the question of another post on this discussion. Why are the silvers dwindling but the Chum population seems to remain somewhat resilient?
Chum or Dog Salmon do not taste good. Perhaps if caught in the salt and then smoked or broiled with plenty of seasoning but once in the natal rivers they turn quickly and taste awful. So, back to the bonking of the remaining / surviving low stocks of the King and Silver Salmons. They are taken while the chum are played with so anglers can boast or wax poetic about "the fight" they got from the chums. And about that ....................
I once had a client who every time he had a good silver or chum hooked would play the fish in but when I was there with the net if the fish pulled even a little he would let it escape seemingly on purpose. After perhaps the third or fourth time he had allowed a fish to go back to mid river and then repeat the whole "battle" I ask him why he was making my work harder and he said ......................... "I really enjoy the fight".
That fellow was an upper level management type from a big company. Myself on the other hand was at the time a fishing guide with a history of Steel Worker - Commercial Fisherman and many years in the construction trades. I have been in plenty of fights and feeling some poor creature that is in a state of shock struggle against the unknown force of a rod and line is not a fight. I offered to take him to a rough place called The Knik Bar. The bar is an out of the way place with a clientele made up by some very rough looking types. I told the fellow that if he enjoyed a fight so much we would go to the bar and I'd kick open the door and begin howling insults at the drinkers at the bar and pool table. At this point I said, you'll get all the fight you want so from now on when I tell you a fish is ready for the net just allow me to do my job.
I did not receive any sort of gratuity after that trip.
Seriously though once we begin counting our salmon or sea trout / steelhead by the hundreds or a mere thousand or 2 per fishery it's time to stop killing the survivors whilst placing any blame for poor returns on every possible cause except the one we took home. Every fish is precious at such a critical point in history and as anglers we are either part of the solution or part of the problem.
Some of the people here will not stop taking fish ever. And the most prized King Salmon is a hen because those same persons will gut it and then brine the eggs to be used for bait when the Pacific Silver Salmon arrive in late July. Those Pacific Silvers are right on the line also, one more below escapement count and that species will be closed also'
There are however plenty of Chum Salmon which begs the question of another post on this discussion. Why are the silvers dwindling but the Chum population seems to remain somewhat resilient?
Chum or Dog Salmon do not taste good. Perhaps if caught in the salt and then smoked or broiled with plenty of seasoning but once in the natal rivers they turn quickly and taste awful. So, back to the bonking of the remaining / surviving low stocks of the King and Silver Salmons. They are taken while the chum are played with so anglers can boast or wax poetic about "the fight" they got from the chums. And about that ....................
I once had a client who every time he had a good silver or chum hooked would play the fish in but when I was there with the net if the fish pulled even a little he would let it escape seemingly on purpose. After perhaps the third or fourth time he had allowed a fish to go back to mid river and then repeat the whole "battle" I ask him why he was making my work harder and he said ......................... "I really enjoy the fight".
That fellow was an upper level management type from a big company. Myself on the other hand was at the time a fishing guide with a history of Steel Worker - Commercial Fisherman and many years in the construction trades. I have been in plenty of fights and feeling some poor creature that is in a state of shock struggle against the unknown force of a rod and line is not a fight. I offered to take him to a rough place called The Knik Bar. The bar is an out of the way place with a clientele made up by some very rough looking types. I told the fellow that if he enjoyed a fight so much we would go to the bar and I'd kick open the door and begin howling insults at the drinkers at the bar and pool table. At this point I said, you'll get all the fight you want so from now on when I tell you a fish is ready for the net just allow me to do my job.
I did not receive any sort of gratuity after that trip.
Seriously though once we begin counting our salmon or sea trout / steelhead by the hundreds or a mere thousand or 2 per fishery it's time to stop killing the survivors whilst placing any blame for poor returns on every possible cause except the one we took home. Every fish is precious at such a critical point in history and as anglers we are either part of the solution or part of the problem.
OK, so I've had a look at the Frome data.
Theres no exact figures but I took a smolt count of a nice round 15,000. Now, a return rate of between 3% and 9% gives a range of 450 to 1350 which fits in nicely with the adult return rates on the river.
Now, the much maligned Bush data.
On their data, the year 1989 was estimated to have a return rate to the Irish coast of over 30%. I can hear the scoffing already.
If I look at my data for just the Foyle for 1989, I see a netting figure of around 80,000 salmon. The counter on the river Mourne counted around 10,000 and the counter on the Faughan around 9,000. So, not far off 100,000 salmon between the nets and just two rivers. There were no counters on the rivers Roe or Finn at that time. As well as a few other smaller rivers that produced salmon.
So rounding the numbers I have to a nice round 100,000, if only 3% to 9% ever returned it would have taken more than a million to three million smolts just to cover the numbers above.
If we use 30% as a return rate, the numbers of smolts that would be required to leave would have been around 300,000.
3% of 300,000 is 6,000 which isn't far off what our counters combined are counting today.
1989 wasn't even an outstanding year on the Foyle. In the mid 1990s the Mourne counted around 20,000 and the Faughan around 13,000.
Again this is only the Foyle. The Bann system further along the coast also had colossal numbers with tonnes of salmon lifted daily at the salmon traps on the river Bann itself, never mind the individual coastal rivers like the river Bush.
The more I read the more depressed I get. Northern Ireland was up there with the best salmon numbers in the world. If the troubles hadn't happened, we really could, and perhaps should, have been one of the prime salmon fishing destinations for anglers.
Perhaps the Bush data is an outlier based purely on the fact that we were getting far more salmon than anywhere else?
I don't know. The single percentage figures just don't seem to correlate with the numbers netted alone. Never mind fish counters after that. It's all a bit bewildering.
I think the netting figures are pretty misleading and muddy the waters. The bush 30% estimate is just an estimate, in my opinion a deeply flawed one based on estimates of exploitation later shown to be nonsense, and for only 1 year. In 2013, I think the actual counted, not estimated return was 12%, the year before it was 3%. The year on year variance is enormous.
The graph on the report I have is the estimated return to the Irish coast from 1987 to 2007 and the river Bush count from 1987 to 2014.I think the netting figures are pretty misleading and muddy the waters. The bush 30% estimate is just an estimate, in my opinion a deeply flawed one based on estimates of exploitation later shown to be nonsense, and for only 1 year. In 2013, I think the actual counted, not estimated return was 12%, the year before it was 3%. The year on year variance is enormous.
The line is up round 30% until 1997 where it starts to drop off.
1997 is also the start of the drop off in numbers netted on the Foyle.
I'm not saying the percentage was anywhere near 30% but the drop off in numbers in the bush data seems to correlate with the drop in numbers on the Foyle too.
Were the trawlers not allowed in certain areas in 2010 due to the Icelandic volcano fallout ?There could be another factor at play. I often wonder if genetic introgression from farmed escapees is producing less viable 'wild' fish?
Just one of the many thoughts that wander through my brain from time to time.
I can't get my head round the high seas fishing thing though. I do believe that 2020 was purely coincidental - but the fact that boats were tied up at the time just added fuel to the fire. For those that believe that 2020 runs were caused by the lack of trawlers, how would you explain the excellent runs in 2010 when trawlers weren't tied up?
I can't remember the exact details but I do recall at the time there was discussion that maybe that was partly or wholly why we had a good run that year.
Salmon
You’ll NEVER work them out
You’ll NEVER work them out
Yeah I was surprised to read that the Camel reports on Parr were above the norm which really surprised me. Imo the main reason is the warming of the climate and seas?You would think if smolts were being killed in numbers large enough to make a difference this would show up on the rivers where smolt to adult ratios are actually measured and yet, to the best of my knowledge there has not been any downward trend in recent years (if at all). The only data I have seen was from the Frome and (5 years ago) it showed the highest ever adult ratios since monitoring began. Surely if smolts were being lost in numbers this would show up?
Back when the weather resembled the seasons the fish were still there in spite of the Netting of fish destined for wherever around the Pharaoh isles and drift nets ect.
Salmon and sea in my opinion are supposed to be a fish that runs in large numbers
After following this thread from the start, can anyone enlighten me on a couple of points ?
What are the odds of a fishing vessel being boarded and fully inspected for an illegally caught species ? If the odds are low then it might be worth taking the risk ? The risk of being caught might be high for a boat registered in the UK or EU but what action could be taken against a Russian trawler ?
If the smolt to returning salmon ratio is only 3-7% then what is the point of tagging and tracking 100 smolts from a river that has a run of salmon in the tens of thousands ? Surely such a small sample could never give a realistic picture ?
Has tagging/tracking Kelts ever been tried ? Could this provide any useful information ?
Sent from my CPH2127 using Tapatalk
What are the odds of a fishing vessel being boarded and fully inspected for an illegally caught species ? If the odds are low then it might be worth taking the risk ? The risk of being caught might be high for a boat registered in the UK or EU but what action could be taken against a Russian trawler ?
If the smolt to returning salmon ratio is only 3-7% then what is the point of tagging and tracking 100 smolts from a river that has a run of salmon in the tens of thousands ? Surely such a small sample could never give a realistic picture ?
Has tagging/tracking Kelts ever been tried ? Could this provide any useful information ?
Sent from my CPH2127 using Tapatalk
An important factor that has not yet been discussed is that of temperature mis-match. For a smolt to transition successfully from fresh to salt water, the temperature differential needs to be less than 4 C. With climate change the risk of mismatch, positive or negative, is greatly increased.Yeah I was surprised to read that the Camel reports on Parr were above the norm which really surprised me. Imo the main reason is the warming of the climate and seas?
121 - 140 of 162 Posts
Salmon Fishing Forum
Salmon Fishing Forum - Discussion board dedicated to salmon fishing.
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
