|
Post by David1982 on Jul 29, 2010 7:09:05 GMT
banned due to the amount getting chapped.
|
|
|
Post by laxdale on Jul 29, 2010 7:09:17 GMT
Aye Martin, you dont need to worry about the Tay being compared to the Dee now. Like I said somewhere else, this move is going to be counter produtive in terms of promoting conservation on the likes of the Dochart and Loch Tay. Do as I say, not as I do appears to be the rule? I enjoyed my days on the Tay this year but I wont be back.
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Jul 29, 2010 7:13:17 GMT
banned due to the amount getting chapped. Can understand that David. But why? was is to preserve them or ?
|
|
|
Post by David1982 on Jul 29, 2010 7:25:41 GMT
banned due to the amount getting chapped. Can understand that David. But why? why is to preserve them or ? i think it was probably down to preserving them. After the netts came off the next big fish killer was the shrimp. i personally know of one beat that fish nothing else but the shrimp in the summer. 100+ could be landed for a couple of weeks fishing all fish killed to.
|
|
|
Post by skippy on Jul 29, 2010 15:56:30 GMT
Iv not got any great experience fishing the tay for salmon but i did nail my very first fish their and it was on the shrimp.Now it seems to me that this is a finacial decision and will bring cash into those beats that choose to allow this method of fishing which also means the local rural community will benifit also.Being a 'Towny' from Glasgow correct me if im wrong but isnt this a good thing ? Its my veiw that any legal move to bring cash into the rural communitys on Tayside should be applauded.Is the objections based on some sort of sporting ethics ? i just cant get my head round why people are against an attempt to regenerate an area and assett which may in the long term benifit all concerned. Skippy
|
|
|
Post by stinger on Jul 29, 2010 16:31:01 GMT
Iv not got any great experience fishing the tay for salmon but i did nail my very first fish their and it was on the shrimp.Now it seems to me that this is a finacial decision and will bring cash into those beats that choose to allow this method of fishing which also means the local rural community will benifit also.Being a 'Towny' from Glasgow correct me if im wrong but isnt this a good thing ? Its my veiw that any legal move to bring cash into the rural communitys on Tayside should be applauded.Is the objections based on some sort of sporting ethics ? i just cant get my head round why people are against an attempt to regenerate an area and assett which may in the long term benifit all concerned. Skippy Skippy, IMHO, rural Perthshire is not in desperate need of a cash injection and certainly not in need of regeneration! We all know what the problem is no matter how it's dressed up.
|
|
|
Post by cargillion on Jul 29, 2010 17:19:56 GMT
What is the problem Billy?
|
|
|
Post by David1982 on Jul 29, 2010 17:45:05 GMT
its dragging the river back in to the stone age. we've managed for the last 10 year without it.
|
|
|
Post by stinger on Jul 29, 2010 17:46:13 GMT
A lack of main river fish. The counters may indicate that the numbers are static but runs have changed. I personally feel that the way forward is to tackle the problem head on and deal with the root cause, not to reintroduce methods (which were removed for good reason, fishmongering) to boost falling catches. I have no confidence that this reintroduction can be regulated. The tay never managed that with the worm. A good friend and fellow fisher was astounded when he breakfasted at Ballathie last september to observe Range Rovers with worm bags on the wing mirrors. Getting back to the point, I agree that fish tend to shoot through the lower beats early on which can be to the advantage of the middle beats. However, you get your crack at the late summer and autumn stuff of which the vast majority will not reach the middle beats until after the seasons end. When the Dee, and I am loathed to make a comparrison as it puts up backs, introduced catch and release and fly only they lost a lot of anglers. Look at now. Okay, not back to it's former glory but a damn site better than the Tay. Thats why I now have a spring week there instead of the Tay.
|
|
|
Post by laxdale on Jul 29, 2010 17:54:21 GMT
Which 4 beats did not sign up to this "experiment"? One beat has sold a few extra tickets, so that must make it ok??
|
|
|
Post by stinger on Jul 30, 2010 17:06:06 GMT
Martin as you say the big money beats are 'greeting' because it is these beats who pay 85% yes 85% of the boards income. Personally I dont see what difference it makes how a salmon is caught if it is returned to swim upstream and if an angler has that sport from that fish then it is a win win situation. I can see this is going to be contensious and dont want to get drawn in to the rights and wrongs discussions as this I feel would be a conflict of interests as a ghillie, board member, chairman of TGA so I would encourage debate but I will abstain. Dave Dave, just been reading over the posts again. If this "experiment" is deemed to be successful will it be back for good? Will the same rules apply in that all fish will have to be returned in future years?
|
|
|
Post by guidduglucy on Jul 30, 2010 18:32:23 GMT
I would of thought if there is a lack of fish the last thing that should be done is to reintroduce the Shrimp! Madness
|
|
|
Post by love2fish on Jul 31, 2010 20:20:09 GMT
dont see what all the fuss isabout its onlt a tiral and all fish to be returned . the tay is a big river and it wouldnt spoil the pools and they might not get the condtions for it anyway you never know this could be a good thing for the river long term
|
|
|
Post by goosander on Jul 31, 2010 20:22:29 GMT
The only reason for bringing it back is to put more money into the boards pockets. Can not see how this will help the river. It is generaly aggreed that the seals/cormorants/goosanders are damaging the future stocks of fish and we are going to need publics help to bring any changes about. Bringing back methods that were banned when there were more fish about and extending the season so anglers can catch more fish would appear to non fishers that the good of the salmon does not realy matter, so why get rid of seals etc, It would make more sence if the board took a long hard look at what they want to do and got round the table to disscus this with others whos jobs depend on the fish. Open up and let others know what you are doing and then we would all join in to help and leave a river/s for our grandchildren. Bob
|
|
|
Post by madkeen on Jul 31, 2010 20:26:11 GMT
The only reason for bringing it back is to put more money into the boards pockets. Can not see how this will help the river. It is generaly aggreed that the seals/cormorants/goosanders are damaging the future stocks of fish and we are going to need publics help to bring any changes about. Bringing back methods that were banned when there were more fish about and extending the season so anglers can catch more fish would appear to non fishers that the good of the salmon does not realy matter, so why get rid of seals etc, It would make more sence if the board took a long hard look at what they want to do and got round the table to disscus this with others whos jobs depend on the fish. Open up and let others know what you are doing and then we would all join in to help and leave a river/s for our grandchildren. Bob Couldn't agree more Bob.
|
|