Lets us hope that 2025 brings more joy for us Salmon Fishers
peterchilton
My enthusiasm is wearing very thin with everything I do for/on the River. So I want something of real significance to resurrect my Mojo.
I suppose it will be the same as the last few years floods through March and April 1-2 weeks of possible fishing and drought conditions algae bloom until the autumn when all the fishing will be done😟
WYE USK FOUNDATION
I wish to share my concerns about the effectiveness of WUF and its ongoing ability to deliver effectiveness and, performance and value with the work it currently carries out.
In December I wrote to WUF expressing my concerns about the proposed removal of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station to remove the acoustic fish deterrent that was a part of the original planning approval for the site, Hinkley are now submitting plans to remove the need for this deterrent and mitigate fish loss with the addition of new saltmarsh sites along the estuary. There have been a very significant number of objections to this removal from the vast majority of wildlife conservation trusts, local councils and numerous other environmental groups that oppose this removal.
“A Welsh Government report on the AFD cites evidence that removal of the AFD would capture at least 182 million fish per year, a significant proportion of which would be killed. Put simply, removing the AFD would cause critical levels of wildlife destruction”
These proposed saltmarshes will not have any benefit to salmon stocks as quite simply salmon are a migratory fish and don’t breed in saltmarshes.
I was surprised to see that WUF did not make any public representations to any organisation or public body on this proposed removal.
I therefore wrote to WUF asking what representations they had made and to who as I sought their opinion and input on this subject. After two weeks a reminder letter bought no reply, a third reminder was also ignored and finally a letter sent to the chair of the trustees asking why the matter was being ignored received a response of
“ WUF have been involved in the Hinkley Point discussions but I do not understand that any resolution / conclusion had been reached”
I do not believe this to be sufficient response but have been told that’s all I am going to get.
It is not in my opinion acceptable practice to simply ignore four incoming communications on a very important subject and to have to finally write to the chair of the trustees to get any reply, all be it a reply that told me nothing.
Surely the foundation, an organisation that receives more than a million pounds in grant aid each year should be able or willing to do better than this.
I also note that WUF have never registered any objection to any planning application for the numerous chicken farms within the boundaries of the river in either England or Wales, the latest applications include one to increase capacity to 320,000 birds at Shrewsbury within the Severn catchment area and a separate application for an additional 80,000 birds at Chepstow on the mouth of the Wye.
I fail to understand why WUF, with all its knowledge of phosphate pollution making a major contribution to the decline of the river, fail to raise any objection to these or any other planning applications that will most likely result in further pollution to our rivers.
I have previously expressed my concerns on their recently published accounts for December 2023. These included the following expenditure
Grants to farmers 98,922
Payments to contractors 84,971
Computer and IT expenditure 39,121
Payments to consultants 126,979
A loss on an investment wetland 18,619.
These numbers concern me.
To summarise I have to question the effectiveness of WUF as an organisation capable of delivery. Sadly they have presided over the dramatic decline of the salmon population, whilst there are many many factors that may be outside of their control, the continued perceived lack of action means that I am of the opinion that they continue absolutely fail to perform and deliver.
I have included this post on the Usk and Severn forums, as the foundation changed its remit via its articles of association to include the Severn Estuary.
I wish to share my concerns about the effectiveness of WUF and its ongoing ability to deliver effectiveness and, performance and value with the work it currently carries out.
In December I wrote to WUF expressing my concerns about the proposed removal of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station to remove the acoustic fish deterrent that was a part of the original planning approval for the site, Hinkley are now submitting plans to remove the need for this deterrent and mitigate fish loss with the addition of new saltmarsh sites along the estuary. There have been a very significant number of objections to this removal from the vast majority of wildlife conservation trusts, local councils and numerous other environmental groups that oppose this removal.
“A Welsh Government report on the AFD cites evidence that removal of the AFD would capture at least 182 million fish per year, a significant proportion of which would be killed. Put simply, removing the AFD would cause critical levels of wildlife destruction”
These proposed saltmarshes will not have any benefit to salmon stocks as quite simply salmon are a migratory fish and don’t breed in saltmarshes.
I was surprised to see that WUF did not make any public representations to any organisation or public body on this proposed removal.
I therefore wrote to WUF asking what representations they had made and to who as I sought their opinion and input on this subject. After two weeks a reminder letter bought no reply, a third reminder was also ignored and finally a letter sent to the chair of the trustees asking why the matter was being ignored received a response of
“ WUF have been involved in the Hinkley Point discussions but I do not understand that any resolution / conclusion had been reached”
I do not believe this to be sufficient response but have been told that’s all I am going to get.
It is not in my opinion acceptable practice to simply ignore four incoming communications on a very important subject and to have to finally write to the chair of the trustees to get any reply, all be it a reply that told me nothing.
Surely the foundation, an organisation that receives more than a million pounds in grant aid each year should be able or willing to do better than this.
I also note that WUF have never registered any objection to any planning application for the numerous chicken farms within the boundaries of the river in either England or Wales, the latest applications include one to increase capacity to 320,000 birds at Shrewsbury within the Severn catchment area and a separate application for an additional 80,000 birds at Chepstow on the mouth of the Wye.
I fail to understand why WUF, with all its knowledge of phosphate pollution making a major contribution to the decline of the river, fail to raise any objection to these or any other planning applications that will most likely result in further pollution to our rivers.
I have previously expressed my concerns on their recently published accounts for December 2023. These included the following expenditure
Grants to farmers 98,922
Payments to contractors 84,971
Computer and IT expenditure 39,121
Payments to consultants 126,979
A loss on an investment wetland 18,619.
These numbers concern me.
To summarise I have to question the effectiveness of WUF as an organisation capable of delivery. Sadly they have presided over the dramatic decline of the salmon population, whilst there are many many factors that may be outside of their control, the continued perceived lack of action means that I am of the opinion that they continue absolutely fail to perform and deliver.
I have included this post on the Usk and Severn forums, as the foundation changed its remit via its articles of association to include the Severn Estuary.
A lot of us have been saying the same thing for 20 years or more.
When SMS set up WUF they were a valid organisation and did a lot of good work.
Unfortunately, as most charities, the governance trustees were elected by the WUF management and were totally ineffectual or absent.
WUF became then totally focused on obtaining grants to fund the burgeoning salary bill as they built an empire.
They were greatly aided by the EU and the Water Framework Directive which paid for all the gardening they have undertaken.
With no EU grants on offer they now take whatever ever money they can from wherever they can such as NRW etc, who they are supposed to police, After paying their own multi £m wage bill they then pass it on to the polluters to behave and adhere to the law.
They are totally corrupt and have no effective accountability.
1988 the DECLARED ROD catch on the WYE, not including nets and poaching, was 6454
2024 the total rod catch was 188
When SMS set up WUF they were a valid organisation and did a lot of good work.
Unfortunately, as most charities, the governance trustees were elected by the WUF management and were totally ineffectual or absent.
WUF became then totally focused on obtaining grants to fund the burgeoning salary bill as they built an empire.
They were greatly aided by the EU and the Water Framework Directive which paid for all the gardening they have undertaken.
With no EU grants on offer they now take whatever ever money they can from wherever they can such as NRW etc, who they are supposed to police, After paying their own multi £m wage bill they then pass it on to the polluters to behave and adhere to the law.
They are totally corrupt and have no effective accountability.
1988 the DECLARED ROD catch on the WYE, not including nets and poaching, was 6454
2024 the total rod catch was 188
I look back on the famous? arguments between Geoff Franks and WUF management Simon Evans (in his many disguises) and SMS (rest in peace New Kid ). It seems that sadly Geoff was correct and to make it worse they are now not comparing to 1988 (god forbid ) but comparing to 2019 etc. The 5 year average is 316 and this years catch of 197 is 62% of that. Where are they? What are their plans? What are they doing? How are they and NRW/EA mitigating for climate change, the loss of the upper Elan for spawning, pollution? Communication skills - nil, positive effects on the river - nil. Whats going on?
I see Simon has got his name in there. I have never been aware of WUF campaigning for this 
www.bbc.co.uk
Farms' Natural Resources Wales sheep dip disposal ban for rivers
Welsh farmers banned from disposing of waste sheep dip on their land over river pollution fears
www.bbc.co.uk
Thinking of dusting down the Salmon fly rods for a go this coming season. Fished a few beats on the Wye and had a rod for several years on Bigsweir. Was looking at 'get more rods on the Wye' promoted by the WSA. Can any members recommend a one or two beats to try for the chance of a early fish. Ever hopeful!
Best bets for early season are the lower beats unless we get the usual floods. Not sure what this seasons beats are but Upper Bigsweir, Courtfield all the ones below Hereford are the most likely.
It is all about water levels, water levels and water levels. Unfortunately for the last few years these have been far from favourable for fishing for the big spring fish for which the river is famous. WSA issues (or use to) a booklet to new members entitled “How to catch a salmon on the Wye”, and it is well worth a read.
In a year of “normal” conditions, it is unlikely levels will be low enough at the start of the season for Upper Bigsweir. This beat normally comes into its own later in the year. Gwent Anglers is similar being only a mile or so above Monmouth, so needs lower levels. As for the rest, they are all famous early season beats. If we have sustained high water look to above Hereford, otherwise from Ross to Hereford.
Oh, and possession of a spinning rod (in addition to a fly rod) is also advisable.
In a year of “normal” conditions, it is unlikely levels will be low enough at the start of the season for Upper Bigsweir. This beat normally comes into its own later in the year. Gwent Anglers is similar being only a mile or so above Monmouth, so needs lower levels. As for the rest, they are all famous early season beats. If we have sustained high water look to above Hereford, otherwise from Ross to Hereford.
Oh, and possession of a spinning rod (in addition to a fly rod) is also advisable.
I have to disagree. Just look at the catches in March and April last year. During this early part of the season we had a long periods of high water and the big 3 sea winter fish ran straight through. It wasn’t until the 2 sea winter run got going that the lower river really kicked in.
March: Below Ross 0, Ross to Hereford 1, Hereford & above 1
April: Below Ross 4, Ross to Hereford 9, Hereford & above 20
May: Below Ross 6, Ross to Hereford 4, Hereford & above 3
June: Below Ross 50, Ross to Hereford 3, Hereford & above 7
But as I said it is all about the water levels. If we get low water early season then yes the lower river beats will benefit.
www.wyesalmon.com
March: Below Ross 0, Ross to Hereford 1, Hereford & above 1
April: Below Ross 4, Ross to Hereford 9, Hereford & above 20
May: Below Ross 6, Ross to Hereford 4, Hereford & above 3
June: Below Ross 50, Ross to Hereford 3, Hereford & above 7
But as I said it is all about the water levels. If we get low water early season then yes the lower river beats will benefit.
Information - The Wye Salmon Association
River Wye rod catch summary and historical data, local weather and river conditions information for the travelling angler.
www.wyesalmon.com
Reasonable water I would say Whitney Court, Low ish water Courtfield but take your spinning rods, Low cold water Upper Bigsweir. Ross is always worth a go see Courtfield. As Gary says, thses big fish that WUF say have run through on the high water, never seem to appear, maybe they are just guessing
I do not recommend braid on multipliers. In the thin diameters we use on fixed spool reels it tends to cut down into the coils underneath which can cause a jam. Also sorting a birds nest in ultra thin braid is not the easiest job in the world. Yes I know we shouldn’t get one. But it is so easy to catch something behind you as you accelerate into the forward cast and you have to be ultra quick clamping the spool with your thumb to avoid one. I’ve tried heavier 66 lbs Power Pro braid and that worked better. But I didn’t like the texture against my thumb, which I use to control the spool during the cast, so I have since gone back to heavy monofil.
I had the 60 odd lb powerpro on them last season always had mono before. I do like the feel of braid with the Devon as you feel every inch of the bottom (from the wye lead) and are directly in contact with the lure. But yes does still dig in when you are pulling out of a snag etc. not decided what to put on them this year
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
