Salmon Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
9,903 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It has come to my attention via a lengthy telephone conversation last night, that creditable sources confirmed that Stirling Council are now actively looking to offload these fishings, which, in this time of extreme austerity have become a huge burden on the ratepayer. There has been no official announcement, but I am led to believe it is somewhere in the pipeline and external, somewhat unnoficial meetings have already taken place between a governing body and one interested party to formulate some sort of rescue plan.The very last thing the river needs if for the Stirling fishings to fall into a free for all category, that would be bad news for the whole system.
With the hugely unlikely scenario that a private syndicate would take the fishings on, as they would require the S.A.S. to bailliff their asset, it clearly falls to those anglers with the river at heart to devise a Business Plan and negotiate with both Stirling Council and the F.D.S.F.B. a 5 year plan that would clearly need to be underpinned with external support and internal concessions for it to be a viable proposition, as, in it's present form, running a deficit of some £200k a year to the Council, clearly is not.
Therefore, moving on, I have been approached to be involved in a Steering Group which will be charged with devising and managing the Business case on behalf of the anglers. The River Forth Anglers Association remains in place and that is the obvious vehicle to host this proposed initiative which would encompass both the Stirling and Callander fishings. Rod N Line, our own Harry Shaw, is the principle mover and shaker who contacted me last night and, since that call I have already I have already engaged the services of my good friend and Professional adviser, D.J. on here, Davy Jones. None of the 3 of us is in any way interested in taking up official posts as we do need younger people to actually administer and drive an agreed plan should this come to fruition but will be happy to take part in all negotiations and meetings through to final engagement in a legal leasing situation. I understand that Jim Harkins is also involved.
So, therefore, you have the very skeletal bones of a body that clearly needs to add meat to give confidence in the 1st instance, so I invite all your responses, via open post or private message so that we can gauge opinions. Any of you who have any differences with any of the names mentioned should put these aside and instead think and contribute to a process that will ensure the fishings remain in the hands of the local anglers for the foreseeable future as all 3 names initially are committed to stand aside after any agreement is made, although always available for consultation.
Please get in touch, it does seem inevitable that it is only a matter of time that some sort of announcement will be made and it is best to get the ball rolling now.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,903 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I was hearing about this the other day.
Have you any idea how the fishery has such a large deficit?
A fully salaried and paid labour environment, Fishery Manager, bailliff and maintenance staff probably
accounts for £100-120k. On top of that, N.I. and pension costs, another £30-40k?
Then vehicle purchase / hire, tax, insurance, fuel, maintenance racking up another £20-30k?
Bank clearance and maintenance, tools, fuel, P.P.E. safety courses another lump of cash?
Ticket printing, ticketing distribution and commissions?
F.D.S.F.B. levy of £45k p.a.
All just off the top of my head without access to the books.
There will be more charges I'm sure for Council Admin etc. it all mounts up very quickly.
Less what income there is from permit sales, last I heard somewhere around £30k?
Which was all good and well when money sloshed about in the reserve coffers but with those halcyon days now well gone, reality and accountability has kicked in.
The ironic thing is, as I heard last night, that the Council are looking to close, restrict or remove vital services in the latest round of cuts throughout the district saving a few £000 here and there but are to make the King's Coronation a fully paid holiday for all staff with a cost to the ratepayer of some £450k?
Priorities, eh?????
 

· Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
It all adds up fairly quickly.
And alot of what you have stated seems like a waste of money;

Bailiffs, I haven't seen one in a few years now.

Management, 1 tag for callander only and ban on wormings has seen poaching increase ten fold and I'm guessing permit sales to decrease?

Tbf they do keep on top of bank maintenance. Would this still be the council's responsibility? As callander is council paths etc. I'm not so sure about the forth?

Also, I'm not going to pretend I know how the levies work. But 45k p.a seems pretty high (circa £200 per fish) when compared to what I've read and been told about from other rivers.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,903 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Agreed. Remember costs are all assumptions and nobody would know for sure until they had access to the books which might reveal costs being allocated although not directly associated with the river?
However, the one cost I do know is factual for sure is the F.D.S.F.B. levy. It's an eye watering charge for no return, not even sight of the Board Bailliff? Some tough talking to be done there given the fact that in 2012 a total of 1351 salmon and grilse were caught by rod and line plummeting to somewhere north of 100 last season and yet, during that time, levies have risen pretty much annually to the figure it is now? Does that make sense to you?
That levy remains a legally binding cost to the council whatever they decide to do, either close or let. It will never go away.
That is why any agreement would have to take account of concessions by the Council and the Board in order for any plan to be viable?
However, I feel like I'm spouting hot air into the atmosphere here, you are the only person that has replied on the subject.
So, for all out there, use it or lose it.
We need people to show interest or you will be left with a dead duck floating over the Trap.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
I couldn't tell you what the board bailiff looks like and I have fished the river on and off since 2010. He made it to the carpark once last year as far as I'm aware. I also know for a fact he was contacted by quite a few members regarding the poaching going on and nothing was done.

I haven't actually been down the river yet this year, but have spoken to a few other members that have shown some interest in what is happening (that aren't members on here) Unfortunately none of the guys I know have much experience with this sort of thing.

How does the levy compare to other beats on the river? And where does the levy money get spent? I'm guessing the council probably pay the highest levy on the system? And I can't see any improvements that have been made to help fishery or river as a whole.

Hopefully some other members of the forum that also have permits show a bit of interest soon.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Agreed. Remember costs are all assumptions and nobody would know for sure until they had access to the books which might reveal costs being allocated although not directly associated with the river?
However, the one cost I do know is factual for sure is the F.D.S.F.B. levy. It's an eye watering charge for no return, not even sight of the Board Bailliff? Some tough talking to be done there given the fact that in 2012 a total of 1351 salmon and grilse were caught by rod and line plummeting to somewhere north of 100 last season and yet, during that time, levies have risen pretty much annually to the figure it is now? Does that make sense to you?
That levy remains a legally binding cost to the council whatever they decide to do, either close or let. It will never go away.
That is why any agreement would have to take account of concessions by the Council and the Board in order for any plan to be viable?
However, I feel like I'm spouting hot air into the atmosphere here, you are the only person that has replied on the subject.
So, for all out there, use it or lose it.
We need people to show interest or you will be left with a dead duck floating over the Trap


(In 2012 1351 salmon and grilse were caught by rod n line). Best not do divulge my catches on here Tom.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
If the anglers from the forth and callander dont get involved and do something they will lose the fishing. They have thrown us a lifeline, it's up to the anglers to either take that lifeline and keep the fishing afloat or just let it sink into oblivion. It's ok 5 or 6 guys doing the spade work and setting this in motion, but they need to know that the fishers on both council beats are behind it. We are not asking for people to get involved as most people would just want to buy a ticket and fish. That's understandable, but we need to know if people are on the same page as us.
And if some do want to get involved then that's fantastic. There is a meeting taking place in late may where our pitch will be put to the council. We wont be at that meeting but we will be represented by someone who is in communication with the council on a regular basis. Therefore, if the fishings are to be taken over by the anglers then we need to put 5 year plan together and have it ready for said meeting at the end of may. We hope to have an open meeting for anglers probably about early April so it gives us time to put a plan together. We already have ideas that we would discuss at an open meeting. So come on guys if you still want the fishing to remain public you have to act asap.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
And just to reiterate what Tom said. If this is successful neither tom, Jim Harkin or myself will be involved in the running of the fishery.
This has to be done by elected people amongst the anglers. So time to get together. It would be a tragedy if the public lost the fishery.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
The council fishings pay the highest levy on the system. The council own the fishings at callander. The fishings from the mouth of the teith to roughly where ashers ice cream factory was. And from there down the fishings and the land are owned by the Cowan trust. Which used to be looked after by patrons of the Cowan trust. These patrons now adays must be councillors I think. Therefore the council looks after and pays a levy on the whole fishery. I believe that some of these fishings could be netting rites. So, all in all
£45,000 with absolutely nothing in return.
The reason the board bailiff doesn't come near is political. But if this project goes ahead he has guaranteed his support and will be seen on the river more often. I know a lot of people that fish are forum members but a lot aren't. With not a lot of anglers on the river at the moment I dont know how to get across to them. I'm not on Facebook or anything like that so any suggestions would be well appreciated. We don't have a great deal of time. If there are some out there that think we are acting on speculation. that think theres no way the council are giving up the fishings.
Believe me. They have already had a meeting and overwhelmingly voted to end the councils reign as fishery managers and they will cease to let the fishings at the end of this year. So if you want to keep fishing. Better do something about it and quick. There has been 2 people replied on here. That doesn't seem like a lot of support. So come on guys let's here a bit of input
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,050 Posts
I fully understand the pending situation but possibly only a handful of forth/teith fishers will be members of SFF , an email to permit holders may be a way of getting the message out , the Vendor fishing around the forth could possibly help as they will have season ticket holders email addresses?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,903 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I fully understand the pending situation but possibly only a handful of forth/teith fishers will be members of SFF , an email to permit holders may be a way of getting the message out , the Vendor fishing around the forth could possibly help as they will have season ticket holders email addresses?
Craig,
There is no way ticketing bodies can give personal information away, that is a breach of G.D.P.R. and just wouldn’t happen. The only way to get the message out is word of mouth. I have no idea how many are on here but judging by the response so far, not many? I already have messages of support from other associations offering assistance and myself, Harry and D. J. have plenty ideas to make a go it. As Harry says, we need a buy in from the anglers to make it happen. The big risk is that it fails due to apathy. As you know, none of the 3 of us fish the Forth so it really is time people stood up to be counted? We stand to gain nothing as a Steering Group either way. It’s the guys with tickets who stand to lose the most.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,903 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
If you or kierstream private message me on here, then I will certainly get involved. I also fish with a couple of non members.
How much use I will actually be is a different story
The best way to get involved just now is get the message out to as many people you know or meet on the river. What we need just now is knowing how many people would support an association by continuing to buy a ticket. That would give us the confidence to take our plan to the Council. There is not much time to build the required momentum. The time is now.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
9,903 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
How exactly will it work if its not took over? What happens then?
It wouldn't work basically.
The Council simply cannot afford the deficit so would quite possibly cease to operate it as a going concern, allowing
the water to become a free for all open to all sorts of abuse day and night.
That's the nightmare scenario.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top