OK, I know next to nothing about salmon fishing, but looking at this league table even I can see an obvious flaw - it seems to take no account of rod-days, so for that reason is it misleading?
For example - number 11 is the Don and 12 is the North Esk. Now like most I reckon the North Esk is a better salmon fishing prospect than the Don, but I know the Don and it is much more heavily fished than the Esk, so the figures are bound to be higher. Or to put it another way - stop fishing altogether on The Naver and it won't appear in the league at all.
What do you make of that table?
http://www.salmonatlas.com/salmon-statistics/rodcatches-scotland.html (http://www.salmonatlas.com/salmon-statistics/rodcatches-scotland.html)
These things are always flawed in some way or other, often very badly. There is no way to guarantee accurate returns, this depends on too many factors.
I know there are some good Scottish based salmon fishers on here, it would be interesting to see what they think.
That was an old table Fred.
This one is up to 2009
http://www.salmonatlas.com/salmon-statistics/scottish-salmon-catches.html (http://www.salmonatlas.com/salmon-statistics/scottish-salmon-catches.html)
These tables are probably based on the returns each owner has to make each year so the rateable value can be set. I'm sure they are very accurate as far as that goes :roll:
For a number of years I had the doubtful honour of compiling the returns for three rivers here. Terrible job, and I always knew the resulting tables were wrong. Nothing to be done about it. One is obliged to accept what people write on their returns, when they bother to do so at all, and if they lie there is nothing you can do about that either. There is no accurate way to do it.
You can get the newest available data here;
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/5826/1 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/5826/1)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00391722.pdf (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0039/00391722.pdf)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/5760/1 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/5760/1)
Quote from: fishtales on December 28, 2012, 09:40:59 AM
These tables are probably based on the returns each owner has to make each year so the rateable value can be set. I'm sure they are very accurate as far as that goes :roll:
That's another variable. I was told by a local fishery owner <name withheld> that one syndicated beat <name withheld> on a local river <name withheld> always put in low returns to keep the levy / rates down.
I think the top 4 are correct. The are heavily managed and the amount of personel on the river gives a good assessment on the rivers. Wheres the helmsdale? As for the rest well a complete lottery. The forth for instance is literaly a 200m stretch at the motorway that gets hammered and under reported. Quite a few rivers missing but in my view not a great source for dependable information.
Cheers
Paul
Quote from: admin on December 28, 2012, 09:48:20 AM
That's another variable. I was told by a local fishery owner <name withheld> that one syndicated beat <name withheld> on a local river <name withheld> always put in low returns to keep the levy / rates down.
I think this in particular is a big problem. I know a lot of our club members won't put in accurate return for this very reason. I've got mixed feelings about this - they say that an allownce is made for this but I fancy that the allownce is a lot lower that the real returns. Catch and release also bothers me for counting purposes, how many fish are twice caught. Earlier this year I put in a report on a salmon that I released. The same fish was caught the next morning by my fishing companion.
I know that on our river over half the salmon caught are caught between about 5 people - no exaggeration. I also know for a fact that these 5 people last year alone caught rather more that the total return for the river.
You could argue all day about judging rivers on catch returns, dont think any one denys that, its one piece of the puzzle and C&R does make a difference with fish being caught twice or more.
The Ness being one of the biggest systems was only 15th and after the past two seasons about to go off the bottom! Destroyed by hydro and dont think the Ness fishery board have done enough in the past. But with paying rods walking off the best beat Dochfour in the last two seasons maybe things might happen.
I suppose the most reliable way might be look at the number of rods allowed per day vs returns for a particular beat rather than the whole river. Even that can't take inaccurate returns and C+R into account though. I suppose however that purely from a fishing point of view the fact that with C+R a fish may be caught many times does not matter. Each time it will be counted as a separate fish. That fish might be greatly weakened and die, but C+R is really more about fishery management than conservation.
I wrote about this very thing on a Salmon forum I frequent, I had first hand experience on the Tay of a beat "cooking the books" and was savaged by the ghillie who did it. The returns need to be high on certain rivers to encourage the tourists in,this keeps the ghillies and keepers in a job. I understand it(the fish were actually caught, but not by the paying rods!),but it does make it difficult for someone like me who is an occasional visitor and would like to have a genuine chance of catching a fish.
I no longer use the fish returns when making a decision because I do not trust them to be accurate.
Quote from: burnie on December 28, 2012, 11:17:36 AM
I wrote about this very thing on a Salmon forum I frequent, I had first hand experience on the Tay of a beat "cooking the books" and was savaged by the ghillie who did it. The returns need to be high on certain rivers to encourage the tourists in,this keeps the ghillies and keepers in a job. I understand it(the fish were actually caught, but not by the paying rods!),but it does make it difficult for someone like me who is an occasional visitor and would like to have a genuine chance of catching a fish.
I no longer use the fish returns when making a decision because I do not trust them to be accurate.
Most beats want to keep there catch returns up as you say and will invite local rods on when the lets are empty but now is this cooking the books or dishonest?
The fish are being caught on rod by what ever methods the beat allows.
Some beats enforce a strict nine to five fishing slot(worst time of the day for the most part)what they don't always tell you is the water was fished before you arrived and again after you were gone to keep the numbers up. So you pay to fish the beat all week and catch nothing, yet returns show that fish were caught,at a more suitable time to deceive a fish,perhaps on a method frowned upon in the day time.
Now that is not dishonest if the paying rod knows about it, I prefer a beat where you can fish for 24 hours(6 am to 6 am) so you can choose the time to fish and the time to have a sleep in the hut and feel you are getting value for your hard earned money.
Quote from: burnie on December 28, 2012, 11:45:33 AM
Some beats enforce a strict nine to five fishing slot(worst time of the day for the most part)what they don't always tell you is the water was fished before you arrived and again after you were gone to keep the numbers up. So you pay to fish the beat all week and catch nothing, yet returns show that fish were caught,at a more suitable time to deceive a fish,perhaps on a method frowned upon in the day time.
Your totally right ! I wouldnt be going back either !
Any decent beat/gillie whats to see the paying customer go home happy.
Quote from: admin on December 28, 2012, 09:48:20 AM
That's another variable. I was told by a local fishery owner <name withheld> that one syndicated beat <name withheld> on a local river <name withheld> always put in low returns to keep the levy / rates down.
Its a catch 22 situation with some of the beats. If they put in low returns their rates are low but visitors dont want to fish it because it looks as if the fishing is crap and visa versa.
I think you need to take these reports with a pinch of salt. I know a lot of the regulars on a certain river dont report their fish when its good in case everyman and his dog end up down on the banks.
Billy
Quote from: Roobarb on December 28, 2012, 01:41:35 PM
All of which goes t prove that local knowledge and timing is everything in salmon fishing. Rivers at the top of the league table often don't produce anymore fish per rod than those further down. And most telling of all accurate rod/catch data would almost certainly make most fishing unsellable.
I think that's true. Small rivers like the Helmsdale are just spate burns that get good runs in certain water levels at certain times of year. If the fish are in they will be in known holding areas that any duffer could cover. If someone dies and you are rich enough to get his prime-week rod AND are lucky enough with the weather before and during your week the fishing will in all probability be excellent. If just one thing goes wrong you will be wasting your time and your money.
Totally agree with Roobarb here. Timing is everything. I keep a very detailed diary and over the past 4 years I have averaged one salmon every 15 hours fishing on my local river. In addition I get one 3lb+ seatrout (or brownie) every 12 hours. So one decent fish approx every 7 hours. Most of my fishing is done when I have a good chance of a fish and when it is really on I reckon on at least 2 fish in a day.
Fishing off-peak so to speak is much less productive for better fish especially salmon they just seem to go into a coma and I usually fish then for the seatrout that behave like brownies - rising to dry flies and wee nymphs but the fish tend to be under 3lb, for some reason the better fish are more reluctant to behave like brownies.
For those selling fishing, big numbers suit best, adding value to the beat and the higher stipend is easily recouped.
I had a hotel guest out in the boat once and he took a good 10lb salmon. Putting it back, he asked if I would just put it down as a pike and booked for the same week next year.