Here is a copy of a statement from The Abercorn Angling Club
QuoteIt has been officially announced that with immediate effect the taking of Salmon is no longer allowed.
This has been implemented within the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries act Scotland 2003 and therefore means that if caught with any Salmon that have been taken from the river you would be charged with a criminal offence which could lead to you having a criminal record.
This decision has been made for us by the Scottish Government in the name of conservation.
This will be in place for a minimum of five years unless we as a catchment area can show that we met the numbers required to move away from the Category 3.
Knew it was coming but what will this mean to membership indeed how are any of you guys effected. Don't know who in the Scottish Government came came up with this tosh. Just to let you know the Gryffe has only in the last 10 yars or so "came back" as a migratory river. The committee saw it & encourage anglers whilst by law recording catches but return fish & many do. The river in summer is stuffed with Salmon Parr so much so it makes it difficult to entice the bigger Brownies as the Parr hit the fly as soon as it alights on the water. A few Salmon are indeed taken & these anglers that like to take a fish or two will simply not renew their memberships leaving what could be a big shortfall in clubs revenue. We may have to dispense with a river watcher & in so doing the poacher will undoubtedly return to reap their rewards after all the years of good work possibly down the drain.
Tight Lines
The whole of the Clyde is in this boat. Came from the EU and is not to be confused with the wild fisheries reform.
There are going to big changes on all our rivers coming in the short to medium term.
A fishing rod will soon have the same status as a television.
It depends on the river category. For example the North Esk is stuffed with fish and taking a fish or two there is OK. I do find it a bit sad when anglers start talking about boycotting rivers because they are not allowed to kill fish if they are that desperate for a fish go to the local fishmonger.
By the looks of the map in this PDF the whole of the west is in the same situation.
Page 23 and 27 down.
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00486109.pdf (http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0048/00486109.pdf)
Most of my fishing is for Salmon, I've been a member of the Perth & district club and taken season tickets on the Forth and Teith in the past, the changes won't make a blind bit of difference to me as I go after them to catch not kill (do take the odd one now and again though) but I wouldn't be giving up my ticket just because I couldn't kill them. As a matter of fact I'm looking for a club to join out in the east that has some fishing so if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be happy to hear from them.
Hoolet.
Let's be honest here, some clubs, syndicates and individual anglers don't put in accurate returns because the systems punishes them for doing so. Put in higher returns and you will be hammered. Even returned fish are paid for. This is nuts and inevitably means that the returns these categories are based on are flawed to start with.
Of course they are, I put my objection into the fisheries review at the time......did everyone else?
Hoolet.
False alarm, apparently. The Paisley club seem to be in their own wee bubble and have only just noticed what had gone out to consultation!
It's a lot less complicated just being a loch fisher and catching 7 inch trout that no one gives a damn about. :lol:
I like fishing in Lilliput as much as in Brobdingnagian Fred, just have to leave the double gander at home!
Hoolet
I've got to say I think a lot of the reforms that are coming are good.
We'll end up with those that love fish and fishing. That's got to be good. Let's face it the management of wild fisheries have been a disaster over the past 50yrs. Self interest has dominated the management meanwhile stocks have plummeted.
That view is a tad naive.
Scottish salmon stocks have held up well relative to England, Ireland and Norway.
The cost to fish can only go up as management is going to shift from the private to public sector.
Nothing will change regarding the management of trout except the cost of fishing for them.
etc
But
The SG caved in and has agreed to allow the Tweed management to remain as is. This was a major climbdown and hopefully the first of many.
The WFR was supposed to be about a move towards more professional fisheries management, but, as can be seen by the shambles that is the methodology behind the CLs, science has nothing to do with it. It is nothing more than a power grab by the SG and their partners in crime, MSS.
I received my Lomond permit last week complete with 3 tags.
I think it used to be 5 I dont need them.
Two of my customers (older people) are raging at the changes and might not renew their Leven tickets. :roll:
The llaia really have their work cut trying to change these guys attitude to C+R.
I understand there will be no kill on The Bervie, it's only Ian that catches salmon there anyway, so it makes no odds to me. :lol:
Salmon stocks have plummeted...that's a fact. The current fisheries set up favours those that have a decent salmon run and does not look at the catchment or indeed environmental factors. The dsfb system has failed and its a complete mush mash. Anything will be better.
The decision to categorise areas in terms of being able to harvest stocks is not related to the wfr. Also the cost and ownership of fishing is not being tampered with. The review is about a catchment wide management system to promote and safeguard the fishery, something dsfb's don't do. It is time to professionalise it...whilst there a a lot of do gooders it's a job that requires a bit more of a structured approach instead of the hobby it is for most chairman.
Laxadale,
Where has it been said the tweed will be exempt. I'd be interested in knowing anything about this. The problem with salmon as a national resource is that those areas we have polluted and exploited get no benefit from public funding to improve fishings.
If the tweed is excluded that's a huge hole in the potential finances.
The "hands off" announcement with regard to the Tweed Commissioners was made by Dr Ailleen Macleod last December.
The idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul was dropped some time before that.
I have been told, in confidence, quite a lot of what is going on in the background, and my conclusion is that the raft of proposed changes are nothing more than a power struggle between, on the one hand, SG and MSS, and on the other, Boards and Trusts.
If anglers want to pay more for their fishing, have more regulation and not see one extra fish in any river, then the WFR and proposed Cls are well worth supporting.
Where it the River Gryffe anyway? It sounds Welsh.
It's also been announced the tweed won't be exempt. Tweed commissioners can stay tweed commissioners but the tweed will have some form of Fishery Management Organisation. There is a lot of double speak and those in organisations that are deemed to have there ear to the ground don't in fact really know what's happening. One thing is clear is that no one knows how the funding is going to work. One thing is clear though , it's going to be centralised.
I'd rather that than have the dsfb's run it.
QuoteWhere it the River Gryffe anyway?
New Zealand Fred, all the good rivers & big fish are in New Zealand. :roll:
Excellent, because I'm certainly not going to Wales. :D Is it North Island or South Island? I must put it on the "to do" list for my 2017 NZ trip.
Quote from: bibio1 on January 12, 2016, 12:42:48 AM
We'll end up with those that love fish and fishing. That's got to be good.
In theory it would be good Paul, but most clubs are struggling to get members even now when the fishmongers are joining. Our own wee club has two decent rivers and we struggle to get 2 dozen members. We have to chap and sell kindling, organize other fund raisers just pay the bills. Most of us are old bastards and as we become infirmed or die off as will inevitably happen it's likely the club will struggle to survive at all.
Here it is-
http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/local-headlines/fight-to-keep-river-tweed-management-local-is-won-1-3966608 (http://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/local-headlines/fight-to-keep-river-tweed-management-local-is-won-1-3966608)
Unless "the minister" is speaking with an even more forked tongue than usual, this is a huge climb down which can only have a knock on effect on the forthcoming WFR consultation.
The Dr is "opening" the Tay salmon fishing season this week, so I suspect we shall find out which way the wind is blowing then.
One thing is certain......those whop currently have a vested interest in maintaining fish and fishings are going to be replaced in the decision making process by faceless mandarins and their lackeys who are only answerable to their political masters.
My volunteer effort to help my local fisheries will stop the moment local control is lost.....and I am not alone in saying that.
Quote from: Laxdale on January 12, 2016, 02:39:37 PM
My volunteer effort to help my local fisheries will stop the moment local control is lost.....and I am not alone in saying that.
I have heard others say exactly the same.
It's easy to knock DSFBs and yes like all organizations they do have their issues. But the majority of board members tend not to be Evil Rich English Absentee Toffs but rather ordinarily guys like Eric and Tom who give their time freely.
I'm glad I'm just a humble trout fisherman, but it will only be a matter of time before the eye of The Dark Lord Of Holyrood turns its gaze on us.
Quote from: admin on January 12, 2016, 02:48:48 PM
I have heard others say exactly the same.
It's easy to knock DSFBs and yes like all organizations they do have their issues. But the majority of board members tend not to be Evil Rich English Absentee Toffs but rather ordinarily guys like Eric and Tom who give their time freely.
I'm glad I'm just a humble trout fisherman, but it will only be a matter of time before the eye of The Dark Lord Of Holyrood turns its gaze on us.
Agreed but it disadvantages those that don't have dsfb's. Those that don't do not get a penny in public money to support their efforts. It's an unfair sytem and not fit for purpose. All districts will have a Local Organisation.
I didn't see the above article but the statements from the minister is shocking. The tweed should be included. They were able to do so for the border esk.
Draft legislation is due out soon so we will see. Thanks for the article . Very useful.
Fisheries Trusts were partly set up to access public money that Boards can not get at. The only income the Boards get is the levy, paid for by the fishery owners. And a lot of that goes sideways to the local trusts.
Given that it was their own money the boards were spending, it was mostly spent wisely.
Now it is going to be stolen and redistributed by an unnecessary new layer of wise men, who will ensure they get their cut before any redistribution of funds.
We, the anglers, and the levy payers, can only expect to pay more to keep the new masters in a job.
My mind says that if the SG are going to be interfering in fisheries, they should be helping the riparian owners (and clubs) repair the damage caused by recent floods. Aye, right...
Of course, the whole thing is just a sham given that Aquaculture was deliberately excluded from the WFR (shows it up for what it is), but that is a subject for another time and place.
Fred,
This isn't restricted to salmon. The local organisations will be responsible for the entire fishery, including sticklebacks. Also local clubs and individuals will have an input from what I can see. Fishery Management though should be run by professionals who have been trained in this but with local input. That's my view. I realise that most of the individuals on dsfb's are well intentioned but it's outdated. Do we really need a dsfb and trusts working seperately on the same catchment?
If this is structured properly then those catchments that don't have a dsfb will do better ,and let's face it , it's those areas that need the help.
Quote from: Laxdale on January 12, 2016, 03:11:30 PM
Fisheries Trusts were partly set up to access public money that Boards can not get at. The only income the Boards get is the levy, paid for by the fishery owners. And a lot of that goes sideways to the local trusts.
Given that it was their own money the boards were spending, it was mostly spent wisely.
Now it is going to be stolen and redistributed by an unnecessary new layer of wise men, who will ensure they get their cut before any redistribution of funds.
We, the anglers, and the levy payers, can only expect to pay more to keep the new masters in a job.
My mind says that if the SG are going to be interfering in fisheries, they should be helping the riparian owners (and clubs) repair the damage caused by recent floods. Aye, right...
Of course, the whole thing is just a sham given that Aquaculture was deliberately excluded from the WFR (shows it up for what it is), but that is a subject for another time and place.
I agree with you on most of this but the system is unfair to the catchments that don't have a dsfb. These catchments live had to mouth with absolutely no public support. Is that fair? No., so there had to be a more collective system of management and funding. Each dsfb looked after their own, meanwhile there was no overarching strategy.
Paul, you know as well as I do that trout fishing in Scotland does not need to be managed. It's perfectly OK the way it is. There are countless billions of trout, they are in absolutely no danger and the supply of trout fishing massively outstrips demand. There are trout now in places all over populated areas of Scotland where they had not been seen for centuries thanks to the closure of the filthy, polluting dinosaur industries in the 1980s.
The thought of these muppets in Edinburgh becoming involved in "managing" trout fishing fills me with a cold dread. The soviet-like centralizing agenda in Scotland so far has been an absolute disaster, just look at what has happened to the police. Better to keep "here today gone tomorrow" politicians of all parties who care about f**k all other than votes once every 5 years well out of fishing!
Leave them alone and the trout will still be there long after these idiots have been forgotten. :8)
I can see the logic of that but I also realise that without some form of public help rivers like the Clyde will cease to improve further. Salmon and trout populations have improved on the Clyde without any help but it could be that much better if public monies were available. At present virtually every river catchment in Scotland receives assistance except for the Clyde. What's being contemplated is not who owns or let's the fishing merely the management /promotion of the resourse and its environment.
It's important those two seperate things are looked upon seperately. My main gripe is why should the tweed be given a bucket load from the public purse and the Clyde gets SFA.
Quote from: Laxdale on January 12, 2016, 02:39:37 PM
Unless "the minister" is speaking with an even more forked tongue than usual
You should never trust a Mcleod, remember it was they who betrayed Montrose. :lol:
Interestingly, one of the things that is filling the LLAIA with dread is the prospect of a DSFB/FMO.
It should also worry any clubs on rivers outwith DSFBs
Why?
Precisely because they will lose control of the management of their rivers and running costs will go up.
With no improvement to the fishing.
Quote from: Laxdale on January 12, 2016, 05:16:37 PM
Interestingly, one of the things that is filling the LLAIA with dread is the prospect of a DSFB/FMO.
It should also worry any clubs on rivers outwith DSFBs
Why?
Precisely because they will lose control of the management of their rivers and running costs will go up.
With no improvement to the fishing.
On the contrary I think it'll be positive. That's why I'm so incensed at the tweed allegedly being excluded. If you exclude arguably the most productive wild fishery from the legislation what's the point in having it.it's going to be.like taxing every coffee shop in the high street except Costa or Starbucks. Fk....That's what they do already.
That is a very real danger but if you compare the tweed commissioners rolling in clover against those in the scabby burn with fk all you'll understand why reform is so attractive.
Police Scotland.
No-Police Scotland, more like!
Just the same as it will be no-bailiff Scotland IF the worst excesses of the WFR are implemented.
I may be wrong, but in areas where there is currently no Fisheries Board, no levy gets paid?
Once you get your FMO, you will have to pay for it!
Quote from: Roobarb on January 13, 2016, 12:21:45 AM
but that will never happen this side of a major reduction in the human population :shock:
Andy
that, Andy is the elephant in the room which I fear no-one will address before it's too late....
I was at the local club's AGM last night and there is an almost full-time warden paid for by RFDSFB who covers all of the Forth's twelve rivers..... :( :( That said, he is recruiting warden assistants who will be given training courses and have some legal standing. The local board is paid for by levies to the local clubs and owners.
The other elephant has been around for a long time !! Population control used to be a really important talking point but has sadly fallen by the wayside long since.
Ignoring the rights or wrongs of it for a moment I'd guess the Tweed exemption is also good for those who fish for trout on the river. If the S.G. did a Robin Hood job on their funds the lost revenue would have to be made up somehow and it is very likely that the trout fishing leases would be hiked as well as the salmon rents.
As far as population goes we in the west and in China have controlled our family sizes for a very long time now. My mother was one of 6 sisters and one brother. Many other cultures and religions still have huge families for their own reasons.
Quote from: Laxdale on January 13, 2016, 10:42:15 AM
No-Police Scotland, more like!
Just the same as it will be no-bailiff Scotland IF the worst excesses of the WFR are implemented.
I may be wrong, but in areas where there is currently no Fisheries Board, no levy gets paid?
Once you get your FMO, you will have to pay for it!
Yip, no public support at all is forthcoming. The work still needs to be done though.
The club of which i am a member voted to return all salmon for the next 5 years, i fish a tributary of the Forth but only for trout, what gets me is that the Forth system has imposed statutory catch and release because of unsustainable catches of salmon, yet the river Teith which is a tributary of the Forth is exempt!, why is the Teith exempt when every fish in it has to pass through the Forth to get there meaning the Forth should also be a sustainable fishery, or is it because the Teith is all private water and MONEY TALKS! hope you get my drift :?
It must be because the Teith returns suggest stocks are in a good enough state to allow some fish to be taken. Can't be anything else. It's not the owners who make these decisions it's the Scottish Government.
Quote from: admin on January 13, 2016, 09:08:26 PM
It must be because the Teith returns suggest stocks are in a good enough state to allow some fish to be taken. Can't be anything else. It's not the owners who make these decisions it's the Scottish Government.
the point i am trying to make is if the teith stocks are good enough then it stands to reason the forth stocks are good enough as the teith salmon have to go through the forth to reach the teith, meaning there are more fish in the forth than the teith, meaning the forth is more sustainable :?
Quote from: admin on January 13, 2016, 09:08:26 PM
It must be because the Teith returns suggest stocks are in a good enough state to allow some fish to be taken. Can't be anything else. It's not the owners who make these decisions it's the Scottish Government.
it stands to reason if stocks are good enough in the river Teith then they must be good enough in the river Forth :?
That's not necessarily true. Of course the Teith flows into the Forth and so do many other waters, but if some fish take is allowed then the stocks in the Teith part of the system must be considered healthy enough to stand some exploitation. When a fish is in The Teith it's obviously a Teith fish born and bred in that river, when the same fish is swimming past Stirling it could be gong anywhere, it might be a Forth fish where it seems the stocks are not considered to be healthy enough. The Teith system is very extensive and perhaps it just produces more fish? What else could it be?
We had a few presentations from FDRFB staff and the Marine Scotland Forth data set is for the last five years of returns for all twelve main rivers into the Forth. Out of all of the data the Teith/Forth/Allan group account for more than 90% of the total salmon catch (returned and kept) for the entire estuary. The Teith SAC catchment has the most healthy stats and has been given Cat1 status. Soon these Cat1s will be paying quite a charge I expect !!!
I am led to believe it is the SAC that has Cat 1 designation. Turns out that goes right to tidal waters..
The dafty board and MSS did not realise this, causing much amusement among some parties.
Last time I fished the Forth i seen more seals than fish. :?