Salmon Fishing Forum banner
21 - 40 of 97 Posts
Thanks for the good luck message Morse - really very kind of you and very much appreciated. Just to be clear though, I was not trying to seek personal sympathy. I was trying to point out that not all anglers are physically equal and surely the elderly and disabled deserve some consideration.

Phil
 
I've always enjoyed your contributions SJF, but I think you are completely wrong here. As has been pointed out not everyone is in the position of being able to fish abroad. I can't say I would feel particularly good about myself fishing under compulsory c+r regulations anywhere. How do you think Welsh clubs are going to survive? Come on, compulsory c+r and no worm fishing for Salmon - in West Wales! The only people rubbing their hands at this are the poachers and the canoeing fraternity. Of course very soon our rivers will become vast 'classless' adventure playgrounds - which we all know is exactly what the boyos at the Welsh Assembly would like.

I'm sorry to say we as anglers have only ourselves to blame for reaching this sorry state of affairs. When this insidious American nonsense of c+r started to rear it's ugly head in the 90's, the silent majority of anglers did nothing to stop what can only be described as a born again vociferous minority to wreck the sport. These zealots should have been told to clear off and take up tournament field casting, as field sports were obviously not for them. Since 2000 I've seen several examples, from young boys to old men, desperately stammering away their desire to take perhaps a first Salmon or maybe their first fish in several seasons. The relief I've seen on these poor devils faces when I've said they've done absolutely nothing wrong and that they should enjoy their fish rather than calling them the worst person in the world. I've walked away quite upset and very angry from these situations. Even the time limit NRW puts on these byelaws is fundamentally dishonest. Does anyone honestly think there is a cats chance in hell of them being reversed in 10 yrs time? Why not just make them permanent and save the farce of any so called future 'consultation'. We all know that once the authorities take something away in this country it is gone forever. Is there anyone out there who honestly believes that the legitimate rod and line angler can seriously damage a Salmon river?

C+R has now even been put on bass anglers. Try standing overlooking the vast expanse of the Atlantic from a 250ft high cliff, holding your little 9ft spinning rod to get it brought home to you the utter stupidity and futility of this nonsense. Personally it all leaves me feeling that my best days in gamefishing are now behind me and these days, especially with very poor health, I am losing (if not already lost) my passion for the sport. Something that I never thought I would say.
Great post Waddington, i nearly used your user name when i joined in 2007. There are not many Waddingtons about but all the ones I've met are in to Salmon fishing.... Weird...

All tbe best

Clint Waddington
 
These new by laws confirm the dire state of migratory fish stocks in Welsh rivers. It's a situation that has been coming for years. They won't achieve their objective it's too late for that but they are a necessary evil.
It won't affect most anglers because there's nothing to catch!
Morphfly
 
Thanks for your post.

An excellent illustration of why creeping "fascism" is putting reasonable folk off fishing for salmon.

IMHO of course.[/

Seen it on numerous occasions with bass - most disagreed with returning all bass but when the law was introduced requiring it, some anglers turned into the most vociferous catch and release police. They are more determined to report other anglers breaking the rules than anyone else - strange times we live in
 
When I was sent a copy of the ruling by a friend I read the statement from the Welsh Government but only had a quick look at the planning inspectors report as it was quite a tome.
I've just had a quick look through it and what comes across is that without specialist legal advice a lot of the objectors have been made to look foolish. I know several of the objectors , not well , but enough to know they are decent , honest people.
It would appear they have given their evidence or objection and then been asked questions like have you read through the report on such and such dated 2005 , which I would imagine hardly any of us have , the inspector then appears to put it that they are refusing to accept the scientific advice given by NRW.
Objections have even been termed as cynicism , all in all it looks like a lot of the objectors have been portrayed as unknowledgable and are giving purely anecdotal evidence without any scientific information.
I would sadly say they completely wasted their time and the barristers employed to cross examine them were there to do just that , I was told the cost of NRW's barristers was £360k
I give thanks to the people who objected , but on reading the report I am even more disillusioned with the way things are done in this country , stitch up is the only way I could put it.
 
When I was sent a copy of the ruling by a friend I read the statement from the Welsh Government but only had a quick look at the planning inspectors report as it was quite a tome.
I've just had a quick look through it and what comes across is that without specialist legal advice a lot of the objectors have been made to look foolish. I know several of the objectors , not well , but enough to know they are decent , honest people.
It would appear they have given their evidence or objection and then been asked questions like have you read through the report on such and such dated 2005 , which I would imagine hardly any of us have , the inspector then appears to put it that they are refusing to accept the scientific advice given by NRW.
Objections have even been termed as cynicism , all in all it looks like a lot of the objectors have been portrayed as unknowledgable and are giving purely anecdotal evidence without any scientific information.
I would sadly say they completely wasted their time and the barristers employed to cross examine them were there to do just that , I was told the cost of NRW's barristers was £360k
I give thanks to the people who objected , but on reading the report I am even more disillusioned with the way things are done in this country , stitch up is the only way I could put it.
Whilst I am a reluctant internet forum poster I would like to add my thoughts. I attended the Byelaws Inquiry for 9 of the 13 days, representing both major angling clubs and the majority of riparian owners on the Afon Mawddach & Afon Wnion and clocking up in excess of 1200 miles in the process. In the meantime NRW and their legal team (up to 5 solicitors on any one day + their barrister and a junior member of his chambers) were provided with hotel accommodation and expenses as well as collecting their normal salaries for "doing their job" courtesy of our generosity in purchasing a fishing licence. This is of course normal process in such situations but I cannot help but be cynical when the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs uses one organisation which she is responsible for (Planning Inspectorate) to conduct independent scrutiny of another (NRW).
The actual cost of the Inquiry (excluding VAT) was £350,827.48 which included External solicitors costs of £196,972.61, Counsels fees of £63,005.65, Travel and accommodation £8,225.28, Venue hire £19,212.64 and Printing and copying £19,107.52. Counsel for NRW criticised us for not having legal representation ourselves as this had made things more difficult. His reasoning was that we had managed to raise £1,500 to fund independent scrutiny of the stock assessment methodology used by NRW/EA/CEFAS instead of using it for legal representation (about 1 day at his rate + expenses!). The Inspector concurs with this view in his report!
It was the view of everyone who gave evidence in opposition to NRW's proposals (including Mark Lloyd of the Angling Trust) that the experience was more akin to defending oneself on a murder charge in a crown court than giving evidence at an Inquiry. Observers who attended to show solidarity and support were genuinely shocked by what they witnessed (a big thank you if you were one of those supporters - it meant a lot to all of us that you took the time and trouble to attend). One of my colleagues was cross examined by the barrister for 3½ hours without a comfort break after counsel had successfully manoeuvred events to ensure that they could have the whole evening in the hotel to examine his evidence whilst my colleague spent 4 hours+ in the car travelling to and from the venue.
What we sought was a voluntary solution on a river by river basis. The picture across Wales is not one of universal decline. 8 of the Principal Salmon Rivers in Wales show a year on year improvement in the 3 years 2015 - 2017. 4 of those rivers have exceeded their Conservation Limit in each of the last 3 years with 3 rivers achieving more than 200% of their CL in 2017.
Despite returning the vast majority of my fish (and all of my salmon) on Welsh rivers these days I find it very difficult to make out much of a case for playing and returning a fish that is unable to replenish the resources that it has used to resist my actions until it re-enters saltwater the following year. However having "the option", although rarely exercising it, has enabled me to continue participating in something which I have loved since childhood. I do however resent being talked down to by those who are happy to make a significant contribution to global warming as they travel to far flung corners of our planet and then in some self-righteous way preach to the rest of us of their conservation credentials having returned all of their fish. Please, enjoy what you do but leave it at that……….
I first attended the Gwynedd LFAG on behalf of my own club in November 2010 and since then have only missed one meeting. During that time my whole approach has been based on working in a meaningful partnership with firstly Environment Agency Wales and latterly NRW. At the outset this was successful and led to a good working relationship with both "on the ground staff" and more senior staff in the Bangor Office which delivered a number of successful projects within the Mawddach Catchment.
All of that changed with the creation of the single body on 1st April 2013 when those in charge of fisheries, aided and abetted by more senior staff, flexed their muscles and set about achieving their personal vision of what angling in Wales would look like in the future. We were immediately drawn into a fight over the closure of hatcheries which despite countless emails, letters, meetings etc was unsuccessful. Along with others I witnessed the NRW Board deliver the last rites on October 2nd 2014 following the Principal Fisheries Advisor's explanation of "emerging evidence of harm".
Before we had finished licking our wounds we found ourselves at the July 2015 Board Meeting when the Principal Fisheries Advisor made clear his intentions regarding the All Wales Byelaws. The rest is of course history but the meetings, emails etc of the hatchery/stocking debacle pale into insignificance compared with the space occupied on my hard drive by the more recent 4 years arm wrestle.
Forgive my somewhat jaundiced view but I am sadly disillusioned with most things connected with angling and am struggling to summon up much enthusiasm to pick up a fishing rod at the moment.
For what it is worth I sent the email below to Ruth Jenkins (line manager for the NRW Fisheries Team) earlier in the week. It won't achieve a damn thing but at least I've got it off my chest.
This morning I walked the dog along the forest roads on either side of the Upper Mawddach from Tyddyn Gwladys to Rhaeadr Mawddach in a moment of quiet reflection following yesterdays' publication of the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs' 'Written Statement: Outcome of the Local Inquiry on Natural Resources Wales' proposed 'All Wales Salmon and Sea Trout Byelaws'.
It will not surprise you that my mood was somewhat bleak as I reflected on the future of game angling on rivers that I have known for more than 50 years and the opportunity for a voluntary solution that has been dismissed out of hand in the relentless pursuit of a legislative solution.
That the Byelaws are underpinned by such unreliable data generated by those who have rarely or never visited the catchment only serves to exacerbate my frustrations
The NRW Tyddyn Gwladys car park was occupied by half a dozen gold panners' vehicles who ignore the 'no overnight parking' sign, safe in the knowledge that they'll never be challenged before beginning their daily panning activities uninterrupted. I have diligently logged detailed intelligence on the 'Report Line' as requested at our LFAG's but will leave it to the kayakers, white water tubers and wild water swimmers in future given their ever increasing numbers following the publication of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Ever since I have attended the Gwynedd LFAG on behalf of my club I have attempted to work in a meaningful partnership with NRW and their predecessors, Environment Agency Wales, and genuinely believe that in some small way it has led to generally positive outcomes on both the Afon Mawddach & Afon Wnion. Clearly partnership working, co-operation, empowerment and education, which have seen the voluntary return rate on the Mawddach & Wnion rise to an unprecedented 86.5% in 2017 (with a negligible contribution from the compulsory period), count for little in NRW's eyes
What makes the bitter pill even more difficult to swallow is that it follows on from a really positive Mawddach Alternative Mitigation meeting held in the NRW Offices in Dolgellau last Friday, followed by a site visit to the Afon Wen, which could have delivered further positive outcomes for the catchment. Sadly all of my optimism has now been extinguished by yesterday's announcement and I have little appetite to carry on, particularly as potential volunteers have now been alienated.
I will have a full and frank dialogue with my club's committee before finalising my position but at the moment my emotions are more than a little raw and I see little point in attending future LFAG's or other meetings with NRW. I am only sorry that my actions may will impact on those NRW Staff who I have worked alongside over the past few years and who are not responsible for the current sorry state of affairs. Nevertheless I feel that I have little choice other than to stand by my principles.
 
Coutneyfish ,thank you for doing what you did , after reading the report I can imagine the feelings of anyone who gave their time and effort , I would think that any right minded person who read some of that report and the obvious bias of it would feel for people such as yourself.
Thank you again.
 
Courtneyfish thanks for all the effort and time you and others have put in , it must be very difficult to sit there and watch at first hand idiots who clearly know **** all behave as they do in the interest of themselves
What to do next , obviously they want our money next year via a licence well they ain’t having mine
 
Courtneyfish,
Please accept my thanks for all your efforts on our behalf. I thought NRW were awful, but the behaviour you outline is just disgusting. It says a lot about the sort of thoroughly decent person you must be, that you are so restrained in your post. I don’t think I would have kept my temper! There is always money for lawyers it seems in this country.

Phil
 
Discussion starter · #33 · (Edited)
I do however resent being talked down to by those who are happy to make a significant contribution to global warming as they travel to far flung corners of our planet and then in some self-righteous way preach to the rest of us of their conservation credentials having returned all of their fish. Please, enjoy what you do but leave it at that……….
I do hope that isn't a dig at my original post in this bit. I mentioned those trips to point out that there are many places nowadays, even ones with good and sustainable stocks that require C&R and barbless hooks etc. Methods that are apparently "beyond the pale" for us to carry out with our beleaguered stocks.

I allready said that:

... I don't like the tone [of the report] and I agree there is much more needs doing regarding avian predation and farm slurry.
and
....I don't like being told what to do.

But in all - IT COULD BE WORSE.
so, though it was a mess of a report and there is much more that could and should be done which of these do you all really object to and why?

  1. A slot size for taking Sewin of between 23cm and 60 cm makes perfect sense. We all know the best eaters are 3 - 4 lb. We should not be taking fish over 6lb anyway, they are multiple spawners with the best genes.
  2. Compulsory return of all Salmon ? ( and cut the prevarication about the small percentage of bleeders that will die anyway - to reject all C&R )
  3. The news that the coracles are off in March and April. That will let a lot more of the best Twyi fish to get through
 
I do hope that isn't a dig at my original post in this bit. I mentioned those trips to point out that there are many places nowadays, even ones with good and sustainable stocks that require C&R and barbless hooks etc. Methods that are apparently "beyond the pale" for us to carry out with our beleaguered stocks.

I allready said that:

so, though it was a mess of a report and there is much more that could and should be done which of these do you all really object to and why?

  1. A slot size for taking Sewin of between 23cm and 60 cm makes perfect sense. We all know the best eaters are 3 - 4 lb. We should not be taking fish over 6lb anyway, they are multiple spawners with the best genes.
  2. Compulsory return of all Salmon ? ( and cut the prevarication about the small percentage of bleeders that will die anyway - to reject all C&R )
  3. The news that the coracles are off in March and April. That will let a lot more of the best Twyi fish to get through
Well for starters here is part of the report that is supposed to relate to the river Wye. It does no such thing. It is innacuiarte and ill informed like the rest of the report and the reasoning behind it is badly flawed. The restrictions will do very little to address the situation in wales including the Towy in my opinion. There are far more serious problems for its stocks of salmon and sea trout as you must know.

The inspector said;
640." I accept the possibility that the proposed byelaws measures may lead to a decline in angling activity from some anglers who elect not to fish if a C&R byelaw or other angling method restrictions are put in place. However, experience elsewhere indicates that any initial decline in angling activity is likely to be transient and quickly reversed e.g. the initial decline in angling activity on the river Wye after the introduction of C&R in 2012. Experience on the river Wye also indicates that promotion of fishing opportunities since the introduction of mandatory C&R has in some cases attracted a corresponding number of more conservation minded anglers to take their place as stock numbers improve. I acknowledge that stock improvements on the river Wye are also likely to be due in part to catchment restoration, and that it is one of the premier rivers in Wales for salmon fishing. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that stock and angling numbers have recovered on this river where similar restrictions are in place to those in the proposed byelaws, and there is no significant evidence to indicate that this could not occur elsewhere in the event the proposed byelaws come into force."
-----------------------------------------------
Personally I object to the compulsory catch and release-always have. There is no prevarication regarding returning fish,-many will die whether barbless hooks are used or not. C&R has not been shown to be effective anywhere and certainly not on the Wye.

As for the coracle situation it should not exist. It must be phased out. Its outdated and has no place these days whatsoever. Your heritage -yea right!

Whilst your suggestion that 3/4lb sewin make the best eating may be true why would the bigger fish have better genes? They were 3/4 pounders once and genes don't change with age do they, though the bigger fish have more eggs available for the redds obviously.
 
Discussion starter · #35 ·
Personally I object to the compulsory catch and release-always have. There is no prevarication regarding returning fish,-many will die whether barbless hooks are used or not. C&R has not been shown to be effective anywhere and certainly not on the Wye.

As for the coracle situation it should not exist. It must be phased out. Its outdated and has no place these days whatsoever. Your heritage -yea right!

Whilst your suggestion that 3/4lb sewin make the best eating may be true why would the bigger fish have better genes? They were 3/4 pounders once and genes don't change with age do they, though the bigger fish have more eggs available for the redds obviously.
1. Catch and release does not have "many fish" dying, a few fish die - otherwise every coarse fishery would be swamped with dead fish. Dead barbel would be a common site - huge 40 lb carp would be lying (even more) bloated in the margins. Every c&R trout fishery would be running at a loss etc etc.

2. Because they are generally the multi season spawners, taking smaller fish does not exclude killing potential multi season spawners. Killing larger fish ensures it.

3. Totally agree, coracle fishermen are, well - lets just say I have not too much time for them.
 
Any percentage of dying fish would be too much for me personally , I have caught salmon & sea trout in the past that would certainly have died if returned , I can't imagine going out for a day's fishing catching a fish , returning it knowing it was highly likely to die and coming home feeling I'd had a good day , I would feel disgusted with myself.
I appreciate that if the fish was killed the net result would be the same and that there is a certain amount of illogical thinking , but to think that for me to get pleasure I have killed a fish for no purpose , I would have to say do I want to do this , that's just me I'm not asking anyone to agree.
Regarding C & R , I've fished a lot for both coarse and game fish , I have never returned a carp , tench , bream etc that gave me any concern whatsoever for their well being it's a different kind of fight , perch and pike can be a problem , barbel are a serious problem and need very careful handling ( I think it's because the fight is very salmon like) and I would imagine some anglers end up killing them to float away down the river because they are not handled properly.
When it comes to Salmon , Trout & Sea Trout , they seem to me the most at risk with C & R , I have seen some bad examples of lake trout dying on being returned , I am in a club that is pretty much C & R and a member of the public contacted the club as they had found a large number of dead trout in the corner of the lake , it was assumed by the club that most of these were as a result of C & R. I was at Grafham one day on the bank someone in a boat was catching fish after fish and releasing them , several came floating by belly up, I could go on and on.
With regard to fisheries that operate C & R have a look at the statistics , they still stock almost as many fish as ordinary fisheries , not as many but have a look at the numbers , I am a member of a Derbyshire club , most fish are returned but why do they keep stocking if they all survive.
Everyone must do as they see fit , I just can't imagine coming home and saying I've had a great day's fishing I caught a lovely salmon , it won't survive but it was great fun catching it.
I have loads of excellent fishing near me both coarse and game but I would say the local welsh anglers will be the one's who lose out most as I can't see many alternatives , and many were spinners and wormers not flyfishers.
I'm sorry to prevaricate I'll give it a rest now.
 
1. Catch and release does not have "many fish" dying, a few fish die - otherwise every coarse fishery would be swamped with dead fish. Dead barbel would be a common site - huge 40 lb carp would be lying (even more) bloated in the margins. Every c&R trout fishery would be running at a loss etc etc.

2. Because they are generally the multi season spawners, taking smaller fish does not exclude killing potential multi season spawners. Killing larger fish ensures it.

3. Totally agree, coracle fishermen are, well - lets just say I have not too much time for them.
Sorry but No.1 on your list makes no sense.

For instance catch and release for trout on reservoirs is fairly recent in terms of its past. How is it i wonder that reservoirs such as Grafham, Rutland, Draycote, Chew Valley, Blagdon etc. used to operate on a limit system with no catch and release. You caught your limit, often 8 fish and then you stopped. It was enough fish for anyone and they ran perfectly well, many still operate this system of put and take. Then came catch and release -imposed mainly for the anglers ego and now 30 or 40 trout a day is recorded from some. Does it do the fishing any good or does the angler feel he has had his money's worth I suggest it's the latter.Has the practice inflated costs -yes I think it has.

As for comparing fish such as barbel and carp with salmon well frankly there is no comparison. Both live a totally different lifestyle and and have different requirements.
Coarse fish are, on the whole more robust than salmon and can stand a much wider variety of temperatures. Carp absolutely love hot weather and bask like sunbathers at the seaside. They are able to recover better from exertion and replenish energy with available food supplies and are tolerant of poor oxygen levels.. True, bad handling can still cause deaths but coarse fishermen are on the whole more careful, especially since keepnets are now less common, though still used in competitions.

C&R for salmon does cause deaths - been there, seen that, even had it happen to me several times. Often depends where the fish is hooked.

Classic example was a fish hooked on the fly, played to the bank, took it by the wrist of the tail while my friend released the double hook . Not taken out of the water . Turned the fish to face the current to release, it was still sprightly when I noticed blood flushing from its gills. The fish had been hooked in the tongue it seems. and on inspection blood was spurting from it. We nursed the fish for a good half an hour but it basically bleed to death. Had I released the fish it would no doubt have swum off okay with no one any the wiser. That, in my opinions happens pretty often. Well no, it's not an opinion actually it's a fact and if it's not happen to you yet then you haven't caught many.
If it happens to me again and the fish is not going to make it after all attempts to revive it have failed then it won't be going back.
If you can't do that then return the fish as soon as possible and have that warm feeling as it swims off but perhaps that little niggle in the back of you mind that it might not make it might just persist. Until the next one.

nb. I posted this before thprevious post by Reservoirobert appeared . I agree totally with it and itmirrors much of what I said and could have saved me the time. Good for him.
 
I totally disagree with compulsory C&R but I have released all the salmon that I have caught over the last two years by choice.
If this is forced upon us next season, why is there so many reasons why C&R cannot work in Wales when it is done and accepted in other parts of the UK?
 
I have read and believe that salmon taken from the water for more than 30secs may swim away, but are unlikely to produce fertile eggs.
Anglers may be close to the end of salmons journey to spawn but have a little impact on the decline.We can do nothing about losses at sea, but changes in farming which are producing so much slurry which cannot be sustainably disposed of is going into rivers and killing all life. Predatory sea birds have come inland to find food because man is taking the sea food. One cormorant I heard of shot on a local river contained over 170 small fish in its stomach.
I am now over 80 and have fished (now only fly) for salmon and sewin for 25years on association waters. Some years ago c&r was made law for salmon up to 16 June to conserve spring fish.Stocks have continued to decline,and the result has been that no one fishes before that date.
Last year I caught 2 Salmon the previous year one and I took them.
These silly new laws will I fear result in many anglers giving up, and clubs closing.
 
Discussion starter · #40 · (Edited)
https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/223326.pdf
The effect of catch‐and‐release angling at high water temperatures on behaviour and survival of Atlantic salmon Salmo salar during spawning migration

Catch and Release for Atlantic salmon - #CPRsavesfish

https://www.mattilsynet.no/fisk_og_...nskapskomiteen for mattrygghet (VKM): Risikovurdering av fang og slipp 2010.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.g...mpact_of_catch_and_release_angling_practices_on_survival_of_salmon_-_report.pdf

Or we can go on "how we feel about it" or our own experience of a few salmon a year. If all salmon are released, then more Salmon will survive to breed - fact.

I too have had a large bleeding salmon die on me ( after much trying to revive it ), and that was only a month ago. It was the first that has done that to me. It did not make me think that all the others I had released would have died, this salmon had a size 7 double throat hooked, just where the gills join and was bleeding heavily at the net - I tried for 30 mins to revive it until I accepted than it was not going to do anything more than go belly up with no gill pumping. What to do with such a fish is a separate HUGE issue. I actually support taking them out of the river - as if you release a fish bound to die, and it washes up lower down you will hear everyone saying "all released salmon die - look, here's one!!". However: This just gives licence to all who wish to break the rules to kill the fish and say they were bleeding I had to kill it. How about any fish that die on us have to be donated to an old folks home? I don't know as I say that is a HUGE and separate issue.
 
21 - 40 of 97 Posts