[SJF]

Oh, and just in case you all get me wrong. My philosophical view is that releasing all fish leaves us very open to just "playing with fish" sort of "fish torturing" - very hard to defend on a moral standpoint.

To catch a fish to eat puts you on much more defendable philosophical ground. Unfortunately we are are arguing with Politicians and Conservation Biologists - not Philosophers.

 

[peterchilton]

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."

quoted from fixedspools post

This shows more than anything just out of touch the so called experts are with what is actually happening, and why are they out of touch? Well thats because people who have a vested interest are whispering in their ears and diverting them from the truth.

 

[seeking]

Have followed this issue very closely and feel saddened it was raised in the way it was.

Basically, the C&R defence mounted by the OP is about 10 years out of date, and unfortunately disproven by long-term evidence. Still, never let the truth... and all that.

So, there's two rivers with immediately adjacent catchments in places that discharge into the N Sea close to each other (hence you wouldn't expect "all at sea" to apply differently).

Up to 2018, one had nigh-100% C&R for over 2 decades. The other had in-river netting that killed 200% more fish than the rod catch. According to the EA and NRW and their lickspittles, one would have been a "star performer" and the other wouldn't.

Sadly for them, they are wrong... The netted river has a flat-lining counter count, the other, well we all know what happened there...

C&R on salmon is neither needed, nor has it any species benefit.

The evidence from the EA pre-16th June CCR experiment (permanent!) since 1999 is the same - PLACEBO.

However, I realise that there are those who encourage serial fish-worrying and therefore try and support CCR legislation.

There are fools in all walks of life.

PS - to the OP, please do not bother replying to this or (try to) start some trollish war, it's not worth the effort, and I won't rise again. There's plenty of stuff on here to read about, to educate yourself from your (IMO) blinkered and ignorant view, if you're interested. And there's been plenty of other posters over the years come and go from here with your MO.

All IMHO and could be wrong of course

Back to the important point that the OP seemed to divert from using some form of hissy-fit.

I found this particularly interesting and shows the effort Courtneyfish and others went to try and stop the inexorable jack-boot of State intervention and demonisation of about the only people who really care about the (ever declining) state of their rivers:

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.

More power to your elbow. Well done for taking the effort. Others sat by and watched the train crash.

The EA/NRW/MSS stuck it in, and the SCS twisted the knife... Now, game angling really is fe cked. Participation is off a cliff, and no one will really care as the rivers become more sewer-like day by day and incapable of supporting the biota they once did.

As an optimist I live in hope that the SCS and AT get their lobbying right and the EA/NRW/ScotGov change tack.

As a realist, I reckon I'm in cloud cuckoo land...

Sad.

 

[SJF]

"trollish war" planks out of ones own eye first...

 

[steved]

quoted from fixedspools post

This shows more than anything just out of touch the so called experts are with what is actually happening, and why are they out of touch? Well thats because people who have a vested interest are whispering in their ears and diverting them from the truth.

And what have we heard from WUF not a word , last fish reported 10th July, bloom been on since early July, water temp this morning at Redbrook via the WUF gauge 18.93, the temp at Llanstephan 17.42, the river is a mess , season total to date 244 , could this season be the one where they have to suck it up and admit there's a huge problem and change their mindset, i doubt it they are in too deep, there are to many egos at stake to admit its not working , NRW listen to them obviously so its WUF that need to man up step up to the plate and tell NRW its not the anglers fault, if there werent anglers reporting how it actually is nobody would be the wiser, we care more about the salmon than anyone, Joe Bloggs wouldnt know a salmon from a pike in all honesty, its a mess and the only people that can do anything about it are the authorities who need to sit back and take a long hard look at themselves admit it aint working and change the plan

 

[golantman]

Well said steved

 

[Guest]

It's got to the point where the people spending so many of my tax dollars are so out of touch with the root causes in the decline of salmon and sea trout abundance (disregarding any arguments about if there is a decline) that there should be a public inquiry into how they are spending my money.
Costs of the inquiry alone are £360k, so it's likely to be touching a million in E&W to push through changes with no evidence base for efficacy and seem to be based purely on ideology.

It's a total waste of money which could be better spent on far more effective measures addressing the root causes.

 

[fixedspool]

And what have we heard from WUF not a word , last fish reported 10th July, bloom been on since early July, water temp this morning at Redbrook via the WUF gauge 18.93, the temp at Llanstephan 17.42, the river is a mess , season total to date 244 , could this season be the one where they have to suck it up and admit there's a huge problem and change their mindset, i doubt it they are in too deep, there are to many egos at stake to admit its not working , NRW listen to them obviously so its WUF that need to man up step up to the plate and tell NRW its not the anglers fault, if there werent anglers reporting how it actually is nobody would be the wiser, we care more about the salmon than anyone, Joe Bloggs wouldnt know a salmon from a pike in all honesty, its a mess and the only people that can do anything about it are the authorities who need to sit back and take a long hard look at themselves admit it aint working and change the plan

Absolutely right Steve but your asking for a few firsts here.
1. For them to actually engage with anglers in any meaningful way.,
2.To show some evidence- any evidence, that the money they have spent and the projects they have done have been effective.
3 If they think they have it publish it.
4.Try and show for once it's the anglers they are at least giving a thought too and not their own agenda's, monetary and otherwise.
5. If they can't then at least show enough humility to say sorry we got it wrong..Lets get together to sort this out.
6.The whole ethos of WUF has been driven by one personality and his sidekick.Let them now stand aside and lets have a new approach by properly qualified individuals.
7. Show us the input they had into this recent NRW enquiry without any prevarication.
8. Even do the simple thing and answer someone who rings their office with an equiry.

That's enough for starters but wouldn't hold my breath on any of them. One is too arrogant to contemplate it, the other cannot yet be his own man in my opinion. But hey, what do I know -only had twenty years trying to do some of the above only to be called a 'Toxxer" and worse, together with anyone who might disagree with then in any respect.

 

[Morse]

My grateful thanks. to all those who have given their time, energy and often cash to preserve and protect the fishing I have enjoyed over the years.

I am now approaching my last cast and I fear that many more of the beat owners will restrict salmon fishing on their waters to the coarse fishing close season, if indeed there will still be such a thing, and the salmon angler will be no more on the Wye.

Sorry for the pessimism.

Morse

 

[reservoirrobert]

Can't help wondering what a smart legal guy representing the anglers views might have done on this eg,
What does the NRW feel is the percentage survival rate of returned salmon ? , the truth is no-one does ,
If C & R is the answer to the problem what has around 20 years of pre 16th June C & R done for the salmon ? ,
Given that their proposals were being questioned what was their Plan B ? ,
And it seems to me that the body ( NRW ) who is responsible for maintaining our rivers has managed to get a situation in place where they do nothing , just sit back and see what happens , great responsibility.
I did remember that last year we were walking along the Dyssini estuary near Towyn when two lads went out Bass fishing on kayaks , an NRW vehicle turned up and someone got out with binoculars and looked for all the world as if they were monitoring the Bass fishers , could be wrong .
Also an interesting thing on the South Esk , when the coastal nets at Usan were removed I thought it would make a massive difference to the river , they were supposed to be taking several thousand fish ( I think about 5,000 ) , it didn't seem to make any difference at all. When we were there last year a pod of dolphins were in the river mouth most of the time , could it be a case of if the nets don't take them , then in low water something else will, I don't know as much as I should about the South Esk so if some of this point is wrong please correct me.

 

[peterchilton]

The Usan coastal nets may well be a mixed (river) fishery like the ones close to the Tyne.

 

[Courtneyfish]

If C & R is the answer to the problem what has around 20 years of pre 16th June C & R done for the salmon ?

I was present at the NRW Board Meeting at Canolfan Cae Cymro on 9th July 2015 when the Principal Fisheries Officer outlined his team's "Preferred Option" for the management of migratory fish stocks in Wales which, with only minor changes, are now the Byelaws which will be implemented in January 2020.
During the ensuing discussion by board members Professor Lynda Warren stated that she had been a member of the working group which was responsible for the introduction of the national spring salmon measures and that these had done nothing to address declining stocks and therefore how was more of the same going to result in anything different.
The Principal Fisheries Officer's response "We don't know how much worse it might have been" (The significant words being "we don't know".
As he closed the discussion the then chairman, Professor Peter Matthews, stated that he hoped that "NRW could achieve its aims without the need for statutory legislation".

NRW may profess that it "aims to deliver widespread and positive partnership working" but seems to have forgotten that a partnership is a 2 way process usually requiring concessions from both parties and instead has chosen to ride roughshod over those of us who had an excellent working relationship with their predecessors, Environment Agency Wales.

Incidentally the text below is taken from the Board Paper presented at the July 2015 meeting - make your own judgements.
External Communications and stakeholder engagement
Risks
34. Criticism of the approach to the consultation.
35. Concerns about the impact of the decision on angling in Wales.
38. Potential need to re-direct or increase fisheries enforcement resources to enforce any new regulation.
41. There has been some dis-content following the consultation and implementation of actions following the review of hatcheries and stocking in Wales. This is because of a perception of pre-determination.
42. There is also significant concern amongst some stakeholders about our commitment to fisheries management and enforcement, as indicated by submissions to the WG scrutiny process.
43. We will prepare a fisheries communications plan to seek to engage stakeholders in deciding the management options necessary to address the decline in stocks of salmon and some sea trout at the same time seeking to address wider fisheries concerns."

"This is a difficult issue because of the radical nature of the measures proposed, and it will be unpopular."

"We do not consider that angling or netting in our coastal waters is the cause of the decline in salmon stocks, however restraint here is required to increase the spawning stocks whilst habitat repair and improvements works, following the principle of natural resource management, proceed."

"Further restrictions on fishing will be unpopular with most and we need a strategy to deal with this."

 

[Guest]

"We do not consider that angling or netting in our coastal waters is the cause of the decline in salmon stocks, however restraint here is required to increase the spawning stocks whilst habitat repair and improvements works, following the principle of natural resource management, proceed."
[/I]

I asked the EA for an update regarding progress on their 5 year plan, with contingency plans for if they are not expected to meet expected targets at the end. Well, I actually asked three times and still no answer.

I would really like to know what their plans are for "natural resource management" what their targets are, how much it is costing, how they will measure success and what they intend to do about it if they get to the end of the period and their targets were not met i.e. they have wasted my tax dollars.

 

[Guest]

On the Wear, the EA took over a year to build a new fish pass on the side of an existing fish pass. They didn't install a counter so they have no way of knowing if the fish pass will be successful in increasing abundance of any migratory fish.
So they spent a lot of money to build something with no way of knowing if the pass makes it better or worse. They even left 130 dumpy bags in the river, still being found and removed over two years after they were washed away from the works in a flood.

You really couldn't make it up. The incompetence beggars belief.

 

[peterchilton]

We have a Salmon action plan on the Wye, it was written in 2003

from the last LFG minutes - 6.
Wye Salmon Association Update.
GM asked if the Salmon Action plan had been updated.
CB stated is goes back to 1996. It has now been superceded by other documents but remains the underlying driver for what the EA needs to do. It was last updated in 2003.

and NRW used the Wye as a positive example - its unbelievable

 

[rightangle]

Building a fish pass and not installing a counter could well be deliberate. They possibly didn't want a counter. if there was a counter you or I could tell if the scheme was a success or not and that would never do. A bit like the Wye. Endless claims of success made with precious little to back them up. As we have seen perfectly illustrated in the recent NRW report, what ever it is if you tell it enough times it becomes the truth. I think George Orwell once said something similar

 

[Guest]

Isn’t that the mantra that WUF have subscribed to all these years!!!! Will they still claim success this year too I wonder?

 

[Guest]

Building a fish pass and not installing a counter could well be deliberate. They possibly didn't want a counter. if there was a counter you or I could tell if the scheme was a success or not and that would never do. A bit like the Wye. Endless claims of success made with precious little to back them up. As we have seen perfectly illustrated in the recent NRW report, what ever it is if you tell it enough times it becomes the truth. I think George Orwell once said something similar

That is perfectly fine with their own money, not mine. There should be a minimum level of accountability where tax dollars are concerned and they fall short every time.

There are some good schemes out there, opening up tribs and counting redds is one such but far too often they seem to be vanity projects so they can be seen to be "doing something". Like the new fish pass at Hexham which is in the wrong place and the fish continue to take the main wier with no problem, like they have done since it was built. Or the bridge footings works at Wolsingham where the EA guy told me they'd be installing a fish pass but instead they ran out of money, dumped their rubble in the side of the river and off they went. They could spend far less on opening up tribs for miles of good spawning, or enforcing buffer zones to improve the existing spawning.

 

[fixedspool]

That is perfectly fine with their own money, not mine. There should be a minimum level of accountability where tax dollars are concerned and they fall short every time.

There are some good schemes out there, opening up tribs and counting redds is one such but far too often they seem to be vanity projects so they can be seen to be "doing something". Like the new fish pass at Hexham which is in the wrong place and the fish continue to take the main wier with no problem, like they have done since it was built. Or the bridge footings works at Wolsingham where the EA guy told me they'd be installing a fish pass but instead they ran out of money, dumped their rubble in the side of the river and off they went. They could spend far less on opening up tribs for miles of good spawning, or enforcing buffer zones to improve the existing spawning.

Well we have had plenty of opening up tribs, habitat work, fencing, or river gardening as someone calls it. Plenty of fish passes , buffer zones and so on. Like your term 'Vanity projects' guess we have had plenty of those too. River trust does most of ours and have done for two decades. Will do ANY projects for which there is a grant helping to keep the ship afloat, helpful or not. Result -judge for yourself!!!

 

[Guest]

Well it took some time but better late than never -if it actually happens;

From WUF
Our sensors are showing that water temperatures in the upper and lower Wye are now above 20 degrees. While air temperatures are forecast to be at more “normal” levels after today, we recommend people do not book salmon fishing until the water temperatures drop. We will monitor the situation closely and may recommend a cessation of all types of fishing on both rivers should conditions not improve.