keirstream
Forum Member
Respect Ma Authorita!!!
Posts: 586
|
Post by keirstream on Dec 12, 2009 11:37:17 GMT
Have followed this thread with interest. What with steadily (last season alarmingly so) declining runs their is always a threat that 100% catch and release could be imposed. This is a perfect opportunity to talk about my favourite C&R subject river the Dee. The lunatics are not just running the asylum here they are also clamouring for lets year after year. Picture the scenario-a river with hardly any catches to talk about after years of rape ,pillage, extreme netting and general mismanagement. Nobody taking lets. Solution is 3 hatcheries in place, total C&R, habitat improvements and a general management hands on approach which impressed the angling fraternity to such an extent that people bought into it, supported the concept , took lets and hoped for better times. These times came with the result that it is now impossible to get a let anywhere approaching prime time. Alright boys-heres your reward for sticking with us. We are closing all the hatcheries because the river is now self sustainable , in fact there is so many fish returning we will carry out experiments to extend the season. All good news and well done to all concerned. Its great to see a plan come together and work. What about the rods? Everyone contributed to this plan by exercising restraint over the years. Now that the hatcheries have closed and we might be extending the season, can I take a fish for my week as a wee reward? Who are you kidding Pal. You keep on paying your money and putting everything back. Thanks for nothing. As you can see I will remain opposed to 100% C&R because it is just not right and cannot be justified in a Field Sport context. Next step will be all the shooters out there only indulging in clay shoots and so on. Doesnt make any sense to me and I do question my status as a sane person just now as I have actually added to my lets on the Dee next season. So there you have my answer. I would continue to fish through 100% C&R but that doesnt mean I will ever agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by macd on Dec 12, 2009 14:24:49 GMT
Welcome to the forum Tom.
C&R was originally intended for spring fish and it is still possible to kill a dee fish in the summer on some lower beats- its a voluntary code after all. So its neither enforced, nor 100% c&r. But what degree, if any, of c&r is reasonable?
Im not a great fan of C&R- I am uneasy about it for the same reasons you mention and have increasing symapthy with the view that rods should be entitled to take a fish home from the dee. I just dont know what to propose as a working alternative.
There will be more an more pressure on the dee beat owners in this respect, from dee fishers like yourself- especially if the catches improve year on year. Presuambly there must be a fig. whereby the annual return and survery work support a harvest of fish.
Now, for the tricky bit. What do you think would be a reasonable regime- on the Dee and anywhere else for that matter?
Being opposed to 100% C&R is only half the story; surely responsible opposition carries with it a duty to suggest a better way of doing things.
Where would you start? I know you have suggested one fish for your week, but its not all weekly lets and what about the day rods etc
Ross
|
|
keirstream
Forum Member
Respect Ma Authorita!!!
Posts: 586
|
Post by keirstream on Dec 12, 2009 18:21:22 GMT
Ross, You know probably much better than me the state of health of the Dee. There will be specific fish you will wish to conserve and others that would tolerate a measured amount of exploitation. For example, I would defend any river boards right to maintain 100% C&R for all spring fish to the end of June, and my logic there is that springers are running later(notwithstanding the very healthy February Dee run) From July onwards allow people the option of 1 fish retained per day probably from a specific weight range, cocks only. I would also probably want to conserve grilse as they are under pressure also. Anglers on weekly lets allowed say 3 for their week. This is tough on the spring fishers (my lets are all in that period) but we have to be realistic and look to the future. I am only making suggestions here but it really is about time anglers were offered something back. As pointed out before , closing hatcheries and not giving anglers back something for their efforts over the years is just not acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Flamethrower on Dec 12, 2009 22:02:40 GMT
Hmm ok so we need to protect springers and put all hens back aswell as the grilse being a bit scarce also not many cock fish about sounds like we should stick to c&r ;D
|
|
|
Post by olsonreels on Dec 13, 2009 8:02:00 GMT
Coming from a steelhead fly angler (and part-time atlantic salmon), from the states, point of view...
Releasing fish because of the previous generations greed and lack of foresight is an unfortunate sign of the times.
As I am also a big game archery hunter I would love nothing more than to be able to have my angling days start with anticipation and end with dinner. From wild stock. Not the fake, plastic, hatchery stock so common in the states. Wild stock because it shows the habitat is well enough to allow for these small sacrifices. Predation is not a bad thing.
Releasing fish out of habit, or desire is one thing. Can be commendable. Having to do so through law, based on emotional (if not 'religious fervor') reasons, is insane. Biological reasons? That I can agree with.
Unfortunately the situation with wild steelhead (in their native range in the states) is in dire straights. There are only a handful of rivers deemed 'healthy' enough to sustain a very limited kill fishery. Truthfully they aren't healthy enough and politics seems to be the driving factor behind the laws allowing a kill fishery. Before long this handful of streams too will collapse. In these remaining rivers the cause for collapse will be entirely due to commercial, tribal, and sport kill. While the PNW has little to do with Scotland at least both regions suffer from very similar problems facing anadromous gamefish.
H&R fishing is a blood sport. No matter how careful we are some fish are going to perish from our sporting efforts. However H&R has been proven as a means to allow recreational fishing without putting too much additional pressure on fish populations. In some cases even H&R is still too much pressure.
There has to be a strong middle ground where exploitation is kept in check through biological reason and not emotional. Nor political or financial.
I am planning an upcoming extended (month long) salmon (fly) fishing holiday in Scotland for 2011. I fished Tay a few days 12 years back. In comparing the average catch on Spey, Dee, and Tweed from the early 90's they have, almost to a beat, improved or are at least stable. Some have come back from the brink. Recent 5 year compared to the early 90's 5 year. I believe some serious restrictions on rod kill were enacted between the two time periods. While H&R may have everything, or nothing, to do with the situation it certainly seems to not be hurting.
Tay, OTOH, is on its knees. Even a few years back, when catches did improve, they barely made it to a poor year in the early 90's. The 'springer' run appears to be about half, or less, of what it was 15 - 20 years ago. Which was already in the tank, so to speak. Maybe rod effort is down far enough on Tay to magnify the decline. Maybe not. However, even as bad as it seems, I would prefer to fish the Tay for a springer on the fly. While wading. Knowing full well I have small odds of connecting. Very small odds indeed. Even though the 'big fish river' status of the Tay is probably long gone the alluring temptation, and challenge, of her waters is too much to resist. Big risk (of complete blanking) with big reward.
I apologise for 'preaching to the choir' or being 'master of the obvious' ;D ;D ;D .
There are so many obstacles in the way of anadromous fish recovery. Too many diverse habitats spread out over thousands and thousands of miles. Too many polticians pockets to line. Too much corporate influence. Too many mouths to feed. If it makes sense to allow fishing but limit the kill to incidental mortality so be it. This option can at least buy some time for real conservation measures/habitat improvements to take place. Hopefully to return to a time where we get our cake and eat it too. While H&R may not be everybody's vision of ideal, myself included, it also isn't the end of the world.
|
|
|
Post by macd on Dec 13, 2009 9:40:55 GMT
welcome to the forum,
this topic is highly emotive- so thanks for a measured contribution.
|
|