[Horsbrugh]

Having watched the Riverwoods film, I am afraid I can’t share your enthusiasm. In my opinion, it is full of inaccuracies and appears driven, primarily, by a re wilding agenda.

It starts by showing a Scottish highland valley, a river and no trees, it then implies that the salmon numbers are in trouble because of the lack of trees. The narrator then explains that the salmon are essential for the survival of the forest and the two are intrinsically linked. Certainly true in Alaska with their Pacific salmon but not here with Atlantics. The film then switched to an Alaskan wilderness and a river, red with pacific salmon. It implies that that could be the same here. Again the narrator emphasises the link between the salmon and the trees. They state that the salmon carcasses supply the essential nutrients required for the trees survival. Certainly true in Alaska, where all the salmon die after spawning. They seemed to have totally missed the point, that Atlantic salmon head back to sea after spawning and any that do die, mostly do so, many miles downstream from their spawning grounds.

Not surprisingly, there was also a big push for reintroducing beavers and lynx. Also, the implication was that the landscape has been created for grouse shooting and salmon were suffering as a result.

To me, the way the whole presentation came across, was that the re wilders were just using the status of Atlantic salmon as a means to try and promote their agenda.

I am certainly not opposed to the right trees being planted in the right areas. That could certainly help improve habitat for young fish, while also help mitigate rising water temperatures. However, they also seem to have missed the fact that the high numbers of salmon recorded in the past, occurred when these same areas, were actually devoid of trees then too.

Certainly worth a watch, it’s well made, but just remember to switch on the B… S…t filter. Sadly, the average urban dwelling viewer, will take it all as gospel and probably believe every word.

 

[Horsbrugh]

“Exactly. It is a bit of a shame that useful riparian planting often gets confused with larger scale landscape planting.”


Rather frustratingly, the only grants available for tree planting, at present, do not apply to small riparian planting. Instead, the grants are all for much larger scale projects, which often provides minimal benefit to the river. Riparian planting, that would provide maximum benefit, in the form of habitat and shading, primarily in the upper reaches, currently, are too small scale to benefit from the current grants. The trees themselves are relatively inexpensive, it’s the fencing that makes these small scale plantings so expensive.
Hopefully, the Scottish Gov. will acknowledge this oversight and amend the criteria, to allow smaller scale riparian planting to also benefit from grant funding.

 

[Horsbrugh]

Where did I say trees would not be beneficial in the upper catchment? I think you need to re read my post. Of course they would, or as long as they are the right trees, in the right areas, certainly not Sitka plantations. However planting peat moorland can cause more harm than good, especially regarding carbon sequestration.
The big difference between Atlantic and Pacific salmon dying, is that the Atlantic salmon that die, tend to do so many miles downstream of their spawning grounds up in the headwaters. Therefore, their carcasses would not provide any beneficial nitrification to trees planted there.
It was the fanciful notion, that the film implies, that the relationship between Pacific salmon and their Alaskan environment could be applied here for Atlantic salmon, if the upper reaches were turned into forest, that I disagree with.
I still maintain the main agenda was based on re wilding. The presentation I attended had stalls set up, promoting the concept, selling books and giving out literature on every aspect of re wilding, beavers, lynx etc.

 

[Horsbrugh]

I have no problem with a functional ecological landscape. It’s the “dressing up”of the proposal and the “unnecessary nonsense” that I object to.
I also think we have plenty evidence from Tay system, to show that beavers are bad news on the main stem of a river. It’s all well and good, pointing out the potential benefits they could bring to certain habits, up in the headwaters. But we all know what happens when they are released into a river system. Being rodents, they breed at an alarming rate and then move out of the headwaters, down into unsuitable habits, where they reek havoc and destruction. There are plenty photos already on this forum which demonstrate that fact.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Horsbrugh]

You must have went to the same one as me, was it you that made the point to the biologist about salmon dying in the upper reaches?

Yes, that was me and the biologist agreed with me. I am also sure he would also have agreed with me about beavers too, if we had had the time to discuss them.

 

[Horsbrugh]

I think its fair to say most salmon die after spawning, especially the males. We have all seen their decaying bodies being washed downstream after they have spawned. It might be easy to get nostalgic and think 'They have passed on their genes so they didnt die for nothing', but its not just their genes they are there to pass on. Their bodies contain important marine nutrients and as the bodies are washed away those nutrients are lost.
This is where trees come in. Trees fall in the river and the large woody debris that lies in the water snag these carcasses as they go by thus retaining the vital nutrients in the areas where the fish spawn. These nutrients help invertebrate numbers which are the food source for juvenile fish.
People may not like beavers (I understand why) but their activity on the bank by felling trees provides the instream large woody debris which is essential for the trapping of carcasses in spawning streams. These trees also help create a diverse range of instream habitat.

Never look at salmon in isolation, you have to take a holistic approach to the management of species and landscapes. Trees are vital to salmon and so many other creatures.

Again, in an Alaskan wilderness, where the salmon die very soon after spawning, that is all very relevant. Not quite the same here. Given that Atlantic salmons instinct is to attempt to return to sea, immediately after spawning, they tend to drop back downstream fairly quickly. So as a result, regardless of how many actually make it, very few actually die in the main spawning areas, in the upper reaches. On the main Scottish salmon rivers, there is no problem with lack of nutrients in the main river, or surrounding landscape. Yes, perhaps in the very upper reaches, any trees there would no doubt benefit from some additional nutrients but realistically, they are not going to receive any significant amount from any Atlantic salmon that die after spawning. Perhaps, if we had a large bear population pulling them off their spawning beds, then taking a dump in the forest after but we all know, that is just not going to happen. Woody debris is again certainly beneficial to habitat in the upper nursery areas but not so desirable or necessary, on the main stem of a prime salmon beat.

I am all for planting in areas where there would be obvious benefits, to habitat and shading, let's just not pretend we need to turn over half of Scotland back to how we perceive it to have been a thousand years ago to achieve the envisaged utopia.

 

[Horsbrugh]

I enjoyed it, and at least it brings a discussion to the table about other possible factors other than just salmon farms, seals, and cormorants etc. I agree there are many rivers in Russia and Alaska that have little woodland, but their water temperatures are surely lower than ours. I spoke to a ghillie on the Naver who was concerned about the water temperature of the river being very close to fatal. With global temperatures rising, I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to place a few native well placed trees in places to provide shade and insect life to feed juvenile fish.

Rising water temperatures, especially in the upper reaches, are obviously now a big cause for concern on many rivers. As you quite rightly state, the right trees, planted where they will provide shade and create habitat, would certainly be beneficial. Something that is already being looked at by many river boards. Unfortunately, that is not what the Riverwoods project appears to be about. It's primary objective appears to be about forest creation and rewinding.

While careful riparian planting would undoubtedly be beneficial in helping lower water temps, mass afforestation could possibly have a negative effect, when you take into account the amount of water that would be required by all the trees. The last thing we need in these shallow headwaters, is a reduction in water.

The main obstacle, given the many miles of fencing required, is that at present, there is no funding available for the smaller scale type of riparian planting that would provide this much needed shading. It's obviously much easier to heat or cool a smaller volume of water than a large one, therefore, it is planting alongside the headwaters and tributaries that would provide the most benefit. Unfortunately, the current grants are all geared towards much larger scale operations that help address the Scot. Governments carbon reduction targets and not the cooling of rivers. Hopefully, this oversight will be addressed, as to achieve the maximum benefit, it is these smaller scale plantings that are required asap.

 

[Horsbrugh]

I think people can nit pick about the programme and pick out segments they dont like, but I believe the overall message is a good one. I would like to hear alternative sustainable solutions to help the environment from those who fundamentally disagree with the film.

I don't think anyone would argue against planting native trees in upland areas next to rivers to improve habitat and shading. It's the turning whole areas of Scotland into forests and filling them with beavers, lynx and then no doubt bears and wolves that is a bit fanciful, far fetched and completely unnecessary for the benefit of Atlantic salmon. The nonsense about salmon being essential for the forest and the forest being essential for the salmon, just demonstrates the motives behind this have nothing to do with fishing and salmon.
Also, it was quite sad that they implied that heather moorland was a virtually sterile environment, with no acknowledgement of the vast range of species that flourish there, and only there, especially on well managed moorland.

 

[Horsbrugh]

historical anecdotes from pre industrial revolution mostly, when the uplands were treed, when the rivers weren't dammed etc. but also look at the much larger Russia runs which are in areas not subject to such deforestation.

i agree with the programme, to just blame the at sea factors is lazy.

There is a lot we can do to help the parr and smolts particularly with rising climate temps, and not only those but the eels, lamprey, shad and herring.

I don't think anyone would argue, or not see the potential benefit in riparian planting to provide shade and improve habitat. It is the misleading claim, that we need to provide a forrest, to improve salmon habitat and numbers, that most people don't agree with. As I said at the very beginning, this is not about salmon, it's all about re-wilding.

 

[Horsbrugh]

but riparian planting of trees are not going to prevent the flooding that wipes out eggs and displaces parr. Only forests will do that.

are there any salmon scientists actually against reforestation or saying it won't be positive ? - i don't see any.

The arguments against it seem to be more social, cultural and anecdotal.

I think there will be plenty 'salmon Scientists' concerned about the potential affects of mass afforestation in the headwaters. While riparian planting would undoubtedly help provide shading to counteract rising temps. Mass tree planting, could end up dramatically reducing the volume of water actually ending up in these headwaters. Therefore, totally negating any benefit provided by the riparian trees. The daily volume of water required by a forrest must be absolutely massive.
Tree planting in upland areas especially on peat moorland needs to be very strictly controlled and regulated.
I am currently working in a house in the upper Tweed valley. Over the past few days, I have been looking out the window onto a vast heather clad hillside. It is currently being ploughed and planted with spruce trees. This will provide absolutely no benefit to salmon and will not help mitigate flooding in any way, especially as it is being ploughed vertically up and down the hillside.

 

[Horsbrugh]

Trees release water through its leaves.

all the water they suck up, they release. Its called transpiration.

I absolutely agree that tree planting needs to be strictly controlled and regulated - which the programme made a point of.

the planting of non native conifers would be no help at all.

the problem we have here is that many folks either don't understand basic science or they are just opposed to it on principle.

its no coincidence that the programme featured national and local scientists, fishery owners and managers, and ghillies.
[/QUOTE

I wonder if you actually understand basic science? Because if you do, you should know that transpiration is when trees release water vapour through their leaves back into the atmosphere. That will not help or counter the loss of water that has been taken up by the trees that would have previously ended up in the river. Yes, it will end up falling as rain somewhere but unlikely back into the river that was deprived of the water in the first place.
I have actually discussed this film with a fishery scientist who is of the same opinion as myself on this subject.

 

[Horsbrugh]

You've never seen mist in the woods ? That comes from transpiration. Moisture also drops from leaves.

hence woods are moister.

Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about and especially after periods of heavy rain. However what I am concerned about is during very low summer levels, when any rainfall is usually very light and infrequent, In these conditions, every drop of rainwater is precious in the upper reaches. It's then that any rain taken up by a forest will certainly reduce the water that would have helped raise the levels in a drought stricken burn.
Native trees in the headwaters, great, I'm all for it. Total reforestation (if there ever was a forest there in the first place), not necessary for salmon, so let's not pretend it is. But if your end game is to turn the uplands of Scotland into some great national park populated with lynx, bears and beavers, then yes, absolutely essential.