River Gryffe, no Salmon killed for the next five years

[Wildfisher]

Excellent, because I'm certainly not  going to Wales.      Is it North Island or South Island?   I must put it on the "to do"  list for my 2017 NZ trip.

[Wildfisher]

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.

[Laxdale]

Here it is-

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.

[Wildfisher]

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.

[bibio1]

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.

[Laxdale]

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.

[bibio1]

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.

[bibio1]

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.

[Wildfisher]

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.   :

[bibio1]

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.