My own view is that science has to be behind any decisions we take on protecting our stocks of wild fish. Assuming the hatcheries are using harvested, eggs and are fed with water from the river where the parr will be released then I can’t see why they wouldn’t have some success. However, I have not read up on the science and so can’t say a lot more than that.

I do however support the Dee Trust fully because I think they are trying as hard as possible with the right sort of focus and generating science that could be applied to other rivers as well.

 

Sorry Iain but they are fiddling while the river burns
It is like WUF looking to do a 3 year study of Wye pollution.
The problem is here and now. If all these bodies keep prevaricating there will be no salmon anglers left.

 

Thanks for reply.

Okay thats not many who have thoughts about this (they will share) ……..but this just underline what I personally think…Nobody (locally) wants to stand up and fight for River Dee.
As the situation is right now…it seems that the river will turn out to be an academic experiment for biologists who have their income secured and opposite we have ghillies, staff (cleaning, letting), Hotels etc etc…who will see their financial bacis for existence torn away.
Hopefully not…but I am very worried….

Take a look at the article “The future of the Scottish Springer” by John Veith - in the mag. Chasing Silver issue 1/2022.

Fingers crossed for River Dee…..

 

Nobody (locally) wants to stand up and fight for River Dee.
As the situation is right now…it seems that the river will turn out to be an academic experiment for biologists who have their income secured and opposite we have ghillies, staff (cleaning, letting), Hotels etc etc…who will see their financial bacis for existence torn away.
Hopefully not…but I am very worried….

That's not strictly true just because there has been little response to your thread. I know quite a few local people on Deeside who have been very vocal on the various social media platforms. They have not just spouted off without substance. They've been lobbying their MPs, MSPs, River Boards and media outlets highlighting the current plight of wild salmon and asking questions.
This decline hasn't just happened overnight or this season though. The Dee, and many other rivers have seen steady declines in rod catches for the past 8-10 years. I do feel however, that unless the Scottish Government and their associated agencies acknowledge that the wild scottish salmon is in serious trouble then I cannot seeing things changing any time soon. Those on the 'ground' such as ghillies and anglers are seeing seals and goosanders decimate salmon from fry to adults in front of their eyes every day of the season and out with that too. Their voices have essentially been ignored as there's 'no science' to back up these claims. It's time that those with the science degrees ask the people have been seeing it get progressively worse year on year what their views are.

 

Henrik,
there were quite a number of critics who opposed what was going on with the Dee way back before the ridiculously and narrow minded season extension was approved simply to line the pockets of the more affluent Middle proprietors. A disgraceful result of that decision was the extension also being applied by default to the Feuch.
100% C & R was the ubiquitous answer to everything, the panacea that would cure all ills.
Critics of both policies, including the much vilified Seeking, had abuse hurled at them by the Dee Mafia, to the extent that we all mostly stopped funding the runaway train and voted with our feet. We moved on and let them all gloat in their perceived victory.
They have fecked the river that I used to love fishing.
It's a crying shame, I fear it is beyond redemption. To have any chance the extension needs scrapped.
What's the chances of that happening???

 

The Feugh, or any other tributary for that matter were never included in the October extension.

 

The reason for the extension was to give the very bottom beats a bit more sport as they have never caught many early fish and until 1980 had no backend fish either. There was a good run of fresh fish right up to the last day of the season (30th September) every year from 1980 until the trial extension started in 2008. There were very few ran past Banchory, so the upstream limit of the extension should have been around Crathes castle. Unfortunately the backend fish have vanished since 2012.

 

That was the crux of the matter sealicer, green eyed monsters further upriver looking for the wads of cash that came readily from overseas clients. They were notorious for being highly organised into shift work groups, hotbedding the pools around Ballogie and Carlogie. Photos appeared on here showing kippered fish being claimed as fresh run were bad and bad enough, but the relentless harrassment of these fish undoubtedly caused stress related problems that possibly amongst other predation problems, had a bearing on the collapse of future runs? Huge catches were claimed on those beats at that time, it was nothing short of carnage.
The Dee was a wonderful Spring and Summer river with a huge reputation. It wasn't like other rivers and Association waters where maybe the only chance of sport was late in the season and lightly fished in any case. It was hammered relentlessly and it's reputation suffered hugely.
It's a crying shame the way this gem has been ruthlessly exploited over the past 10 years. All for the sake of a few extra bucks.

 

As sealicer has stated the Dee extension was originally proposed to be from Park bridge downstream. At the time, when the bottom river proprietors were pushing for this, the middle Dee beats were totally opposed to extending the season.

It was then decided the recommendation would be from Banchory bridge downstream. I was as surprised as most when it was approved from the Aboyne bridge downstream, even more surprised when those middle Dee beats who opposed the extension then decided to let their beats.

Thats the problem with C&R, some anglers don’t really care about the welfare of the fish and happy to be kipper bashing when these fish in the middle river are well past their best and should have been left alone to get on with what nature intended from 1st October onwards.

I personally saw no issues with extending the season from Park bridge at the time, as there was a genuine late run of fish.

That run lasted maybe 3 or 4 years after the extension was officially granted. Given the lack of back end run nowadays, it’s probably best to return the close season to the 30th September.

 

I'm no scientist, but if the last Dee hatchery closed in 2006, it often takes up to 4 years for a fish to return and the Dee numbers have crashed since 2010 , is it not too much of a massive coincidence.?
I fished the Dee for nearly 30 years and have now sadly voted with my feet. I took spring days, a summer week and our club had a fortnight in September. But after 2011 the numbers of fish seen, far less caught has crashed.
I think the time for hatchery help should have come sooner.

 

In this quarter's Chasing Silver there is a good article by John Veitch on this topic. And of all things, this months' T&S has a letter from Ken Reid imploring the return of the Dee hatchery.

Regards

NHP

 

Only thing I would say is that salmon catches in Scotland generally have plummeted since 2010 and most rivers were not stocked.

If you plug in Salmon:Rods, All Salmon, All Scotland

You can also select the graphs for each river.

https://scotland.shinyapps.io/sg-salmon-sea-trout-catch/

 

Make a comparison to the rivers in Denmark and see the difference ! They stock their rivers heavily with native breed.

 

Yes
As example River Skjern - hatchery with own stock (River Skjern's own genetic bank) and on top of that (most important) - shooting licens for predetators like Comorants. If Seals were a huge problem - I am sure a licens to kill would be given !
Maybe one of the keypoints is that the State of Denmark have been involved from the start - when River Skjern were restorated/saved - and therefore it will not make any sense - if they did not help with shooting licens - when Comorants kill (too many) parr/salmon.

 

Who owns the River Skjern?

 

The danish state and some fishing clubs. A short stretch is private.

 

Riverwoods is a lot of nonsense, promoting rewilding. Rewilders do not like angling and they will do everything they can to stop the culls of both seals and FEBs. I regard those involved in fisheries management that can be seen in the film as the enemy within. They need gone.

 

Have you seen it Roag Fisher? Worth watching?

 

The trailer was enough.

 

It's interesting that Estates that make a profit pay taxes, those that make losses continue to provide local employment and are subsidised by the owners.
Further to that, regardless of whether they make a profit,they are required to pay levies to the Fishery Board who are able to raise their own particular level of levy cost on a whim.
Scotgov preside and legislate over this quite paradoxical situation in that whilst gleefully accepting taxes, requiring estates to fund Government quangos directly or indirectly, they continually hinder the ability of those estates to operate salmon fishings by allowing aquaculture to expand relentlessly, curtailing the management of predatory birds and mammals, re introducing beavers---------------------------------------------------
shall I go on?
The last thing Scotgov appear to want to do is actually help field sports and salmon fishing to survive and yet our tourist industry bodies are subsidised to the hilt????
No wonder I will never support this tinpot government given farcical policies like that?

 

This article written by the Dee trust looks like it is in response to the petition to save the Dee's Salmon by Ken Reid.
They have reiterated their stance against hatcheries, but fail to come up with answers or solutions to the plight of the Dee's Salmon , instead saying we should all stick together and fiddle to the same tune as long as it is their tune.
There are some on this forum who say that c&r makes no difference and a catch and kill policy would not have a negative impact on the stock of a river.
LETS SAY THEY ARE RIGHT, so therefore taking a few hundred fish for stripping and hatching in a hatchery would also not be a negative, and the positive would be that you are not killing the fish you use for stripping .