I have finally managed to obtain a second-hand copy of "The Law of Game, Salmon, and Freshwater Fishing in Scotland" by Stanley Scott Robinson, published in 1990.
Amongst much else it details the limits of estuary for the major rivers, and defines "trout".
Ask away, if the answer is in the book I'll let you know.
Let's start with that - what are the limits of estuary for the major rivers?
Quote from: guest on February 28, 2013, 03:41:43 PM
Published 1990?
We have had a whole new bill since then have we not?
Yep, and this is the book that made the argument for the provisions of the new bill.
Don Estuary
"A portion of a circle of 400 yards radius to be drawn from a centre placed mid-channel in the river where it joins the sea at low water of equinoctial spring tides, and continued shorewards by tangents to the circle drawn to the nearest points of the shore of the respective sides of the river at high water mark, also of the equinoctial spring tides."
Quote from: Inchlaggan on February 28, 2013, 03:52:32 PM
"A portion of a circle of 400 yards radius to be drawn from a centre placed mid-channel in the river where it joins the sea at low water of equinoctial spring tides, and continued shorewards by tangents to the circle drawn to the nearest points of the shore of the respective sides of the river at high water mark, also of the equinoctial spring tides."
What happens if I arrive and find I have forgotten to put my protractor in my fishing bag? Would this be a mitigating circumstance? :lol:
Nope, jile!
Quote from: guest on February 28, 2013, 05:00:00 PM
Would you have room in your vest for a 400m tape measure? :?
I already carry one. I've told you before that I measure my fish. :lol:
Getting back on tropic - it sounds like a useful book to have, the laws were not changed drastically as I remember it.
It is indeed, I've only been through the freshwater fishing section but it confirms a number of things I've been told before, debunks a few myths, and holds a few surprises.
Were the provisions of civil law to become enacted in criminal law a lot of us would be deep in the brown stuff.
I don't doubt it. One can already see the problems the blatant abuse of POs has caused on some waters such as certain beats on the Don where it appears to have been used to exclude ordinary anglers in order to sell fishing to syndicates. We must be constantly on our guard against reactionary "improvements" in the law becoming the norm justified by the antics of a ned-like minority. If we don't we will only have ourselves to blame.
The difficulty is that the law does do much to protect this precious resource, but relies upon the riparian owners taking civil action (at their own expense and without recompense) to bring the law to effect.
The reverse is also true, challenging, say, the apparent abuse of a PO by riparian owners is tilting at windmills.
However, there are some statutory (criminal) offences that could do with enforcement "The use of more than one rod, for example the use of rods secured by rods or forked sticks, is illegal."
Quote from: Inchlaggan on February 28, 2013, 06:06:26 PM
the apparent abuse of a PO by riparian owners is tilting at windmills.
I can assure you it most certainly is not. It is very real and ever present. The Tay almost had its PO rescinded because of such abuses in the past, but getting that sorted relied on anglers creating merry hell. In Aberdeenshire anglers won't tackle it for their own reasons who knows why? You can speculate of course: self interest - cozy arrangements - apathy - reluctance to rock boats - could not care less - a preoccupation with stockie bashing? It could be any or none of those. There may be many reasons, other reasons, but whatever it does not get sorted. Hence my assertion that if we don't remain on our guard we will only have ourselves to blame if we lose what we have. In my opinion anglers are their own worst enemy. Too few are willing to get off their fat, lazy, apathetic arses and do something about anything. But perhaps I just have a low opinion of us! :lol:
Quote from: Inchlaggan on February 28, 2013, 06:06:26 PM
The difficulty is that the law does do much to protect this precious resource, but relies upon the riparian owners taking civil action (at their own expense and without recompense) to bring the law to effect.
The reverse is also true, challenging, say, the apparent abuse of a PO by riparian owners is tilting at windmills.
However, there are some statutory (criminal) offences that could do with enforcement "The use of more than one rod, for example the use of rods secured by rods or forked sticks, is illegal."
Does that mean almost all pike anglers in this country are fishing illegally.?
Quote from: fergie on February 28, 2013, 08:12:00 PM
Does that mean almost all pike anglers in this country are fishing illegally.?
As I read it, yes.
I'm not so sure. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure rod rests and using more than 1 rod were made legal when the legislation was changed in the early 2000s for coarse fishing. I remember at the time wondering if that was wise as it would give the multi-rod gangs at places like Loch Earn a get out. I have nothing against coarse fishing or fishers, but this kind of fishing has no tradition in Scotland and fish like roach etc are appearing in places they were unknown not that long ago. Pike are also almost certainly being moved around by anglers. Might the two things be related?
Quote from: Inchlaggan on February 28, 2013, 03:52:32 PM
Don Estuary
"A portion of a circle of 400 yards radius to be drawn from a centre placed mid-channel in the river where it joins the sea at low water of equinoctial spring tides, and continued shorewards by tangents to the circle drawn to the nearest points of the shore of the respective sides of the river at high water mark, also of the equinoctial spring tides."
I used to regularly fish the Don estuary as a youngster for flatties ledgering with earthworms. Definetely within the estuary limit, as defined above, and lots of other people did and still do. Watched regularly by bailiffs and never any problem so does that estuary limit only apply to salmon/seatrout fishing? If I caught a salmon or seatrout while ledgering for flatties do I break the law if I return it unharmed? If I went back there this year SWFFing for estuary bass with a clouser minnow, catch a salmon by accident and return it unharmed to the water do I break the law?
Quote from: Part-time on February 28, 2013, 10:19:10 PM
I used to regularly fish the Don estuary as a youngster for flatties ledgering with earthworms. Definetely within the estuary limit, as defined above, and lots of other people did and still do. Watched regularly by bailiffs and never any problem so does that estuary limit only apply to salmon/seatrout fishing? If I caught a salmon or seatrout while ledgering for flatties do I break the law if I return it unharmed? If I went back there this year SWFFing for estuary bass with a clouser minnow, catch a salmon by accident and return it unharmed to the water do I break the law?
I'm sure Ken will correct me if I'm wrong, but since the middle of last decade it's illegal to "fish for" sea trout within a kilometer of the mean high tide mark without a permit. If you caught one ledgering and put it back no problem. It's been illegal to fish for Salmon without a permit, or rights for generations now. The bailiffs take no action, because your sea fishing and very unlikely to catch a Salmon on a lugworm, you could perhaps catch a sea trout mind, but it tends to be the salmon their keen to keep an eye on.
Depending who the estuary belongs to depends on fishing rights. Crown Estate owned shore and estuary can be fished legally for any fish with a swim bladder within certain tidal limits, except Salmon, there are restrictions on the right of way for fishing and navigation in the CE owned tidal reach, as all right of way and access users must give way to legal Salmon fishing and it's associated activities. The 200X?, can't remember the year, "salmon and sea trout act" is in direct conflict with these "rights"on crown estate tidal zones, as far as fishing for sea trout is concerned.
On the east coast you'd be hard pushed to claim a sea trout as a "legal" trout as defined by crown estate "rights" to fish for all fish with a swim bladder, including trout, such as slob trout, but in crown estate waters it's up to the procurators fiscal to prove a trout a "sea" trout under the salmon & sea trout act. A little fuzzier on the west coast with the propensity of slobs, unless the act was amended, it all comes down to classification of what constitutes a "sea" trout. Me, I fish for just "trout" :roll: as I figure it's safer that way, but then I try not to get caught :8)
Quote from: Buanán on March 01, 2013, 04:03:01 PM
Me, I fish for just "trout" :roll: as I figure it's safer that way, but then I try not to get caught :8)
I follow a similar approach but err even more on the side of caution and only fish for saltwater species :8)
Had a trawl through the more recent legislation, Fred was correct, so a correction must be made on number of rods-
3A Fishing by rod and line.
(1)For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be treated as fishing for or taking fish by rod and line in the circumstances set out in subsection (2), (3) or (4) only if the condition specified in the relevant subsection is met. .
(2)Where a person— .
(a)is fishing for or taking salmonids, and .
(b)is not doing so from a boat, .
the condition is that the person uses a single rod and line and that the rod is being held by the person.
(3)Where a person— .
(a)is fishing for or taking freshwater fish other than salmonids, and .
(b)is not doing so from a boat, .
the condition is that the person uses no more than 4 rods for that purpose at any one time.
(4)Where a person— .
(a)is fishing for or taking fish, and .
(b)is doing so from a boat, .
the condition is that no more than 4 rods are used on the boat for that purpose at any one time.
(5)In this section, "salmonids" means all fish of the family Salmonidae.". .
I have not yet found Buanan's "sea trout 1Km" rule, but a sea trout is Salmo trutta in the sea or estuary, local names - slob and bull for example- make no difference.
You missed this.
"6
Fishing for salmon without right or permission
(1)
Any person who without legal right, or without written permission from a person having such right, fishes for or takes salmon in any waters, including any part of the sea within 1.5 kilometres of mean low water springs, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
"salmon" means all fish of the species Salmo salar and migratory fish of the species Salmo trutta and commonly known as salmon and sea trout respectively or any part of any such fish;"
""trout" means non-migratory trout of the species Salmo trutta living in fresh water or in estuaries;" This would include Slob Trout which live in the brackish water in the estuary limits but don't go to sea or farther along the coast and into salt water.
Thanks.
So much to learn.
Quote from: fishtales on March 02, 2013, 01:13:23 PM
You missed this.
"6
Fishing for salmon without right or permission
(1)
Any person who without legal right, or without written permission from a person having such right, fishes for or takes salmon in any waters, including any part of the sea within 1.5 kilometres of mean low water springs, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
"salmon" means all fish of the species Salmo salar and migratory fish of the species Salmo trutta and commonly known as salmon and sea trout respectively or any part of any such fish;"
""trout" means non-migratory trout of the species Salmo trutta living in fresh water or in estuaries;" This would include Slob Trout which live in the brackish water in the estuary limits but don't go to sea or farther along the coast and into salt water.
^^^^^ Thats my niche right there, or as I'd say if i was ever challenged, which I haven't been in 30 years fishing my favorite spot, "thats a trout, if you say it's a sea trout, you prove it".
Ken, does your book mention the rights bestowed to subjects of the crown regarding crown estate tidal reaches in scotland, there's rights of navigation, rights to fish except for salmon (and the under the radar of the salmon and sea trout act, sea trout, if it can be proven, a few years back I heard from our local estate manager that the only two court cases he'd heard of concerning supposed sea trout under the S&S act, failed to prove that the offending fish were sea trout ) also rights to conduct business on the shore, collect shell fish and sea weed etc, all activities give way to salmon fishing activity as they have right of way, unless there's a danger to life and limb.
The crown controls 50% of the Scottish coast, 25% is in dispute between the crown and private interests, 25% is in private hands, areas such as the Clyde estuary are a good example of how individuals gained control of tidal areas, the clyde looks to have been seeded to the lords of Lenox in the 11th century on the collapse of the northern Welsh Kingdom of Strathclyde (Ancient Cumbria, only the Northern bit is in modern scotland, but it's the southern part, modern cumbria, that recycled and reused the old name for the modern region, taken from the old kingdom that is thought to have run, at it's most extensive, from westmoorland in the south to just shy of Crianlarich, the main seat being Dumbarton Rock until the 9th century and latter to Govan it's thought this kingdom survived until as late as 1070), basically to keep these powerful regional magnates on side while the regions was absorbed into Scotland, letting them retain their traditional rights enjoyed under the old kingdom.
Wullie, As I read it (or the limitations of the scope of the book) the Crown's rights are described only in respect of migratory fish and extend from burn to territorial limits. They do not affect other aspects of use of the waters. The case of Wills' Trs v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School in 1976 established the right of navigation on the Spey. Knockando Estate owned the banks and the alveus (channel)of the river plus the salmon fishing rights (ultimately from the Crown) and wished that the canoeists be banned. It went all the way to the House of Lords and Knockando lost. Disturbingly though the finding was that "if there was a public right to navigation, evidence as to damage to or disturbance of the fish was irrelevant". Worrying, as the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 extends the navigation rights to practically all Scottish waters.
On your other point, it should now be fairly simple to distinguish between Salmo salar and Salmo trutta by means of DNA and contend that a Salmo trutta caught in anything other than freshwater is a sea trout.
Quote from: Inchlaggan on March 02, 2013, 04:24:35 PM
Wullie, As I read it (or the limitations of the scope of the book) the Crown's rights are described only in respect of migratory fish and extend from burn to territorial limits. They do not affect other aspects of use of the waters. The case of Wills' Trs v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School in 1976 established the right of navigation on the Spey. Knockando Estate owned the banks and the alveus (channel)of the river plus the salmon fishing rights (ultimately from the Crown) and wished that the canoeists be banned. It went all the way to the House of Lords and Knockando lost. Disturbingly though the finding was that "if there was a public right to navigation, evidence as to damage to or disturbance of the fish was irrelevant". Worrying, as the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 extends the navigation rights to practically all Scottish waters.
On your other point, it should now be fairly simple to distinguish between Salmo salar and Salmo trutta by means of DNA and contend that a Salmo trutta caught in anything other than freshwater is a sea trout.
There's no discernible difference between the various incarnations of salmo trutta that can prove a trout a sea trout or not, prosecution has been attempted and it seems a salmo trutta is a salmo trutta regardless of where it plies it's trade, DNA hasn't solved it, judging by the failure of the P'sF offices to secure a prosecution.
Crown Estate foreshore, the tidal zone between mean low and mean high tides, as far into rivers and loch as the tide travels, the crown is the owner and with that goes standing ancient rights bestowed on the subjects of the crown by royal decree, which are still standing as far as I'm aware, one of which is the right to fish for all fish with swim bladders, excluding Salmon, but including "trout", but since the act of either 2004 or 2006, excluding "sea" trout, as far as I understand it and this is where I'm fishing for further enlightenment.
It's a complicated area, I think it's the recent salmon and sea trout act that sets the limit for sea trout in the sea as being illegal with in a Kilometer from the shore, but it's different if the shore belongs to the crown and the tidal reach of the shore includes a salt/fresh interface, because "trout" aren't covered by the act, therefore the kilometer doesn't count, because that zone isn't the sea. You'd need to go beyond mean low into the sea proper to fall foul of the act, as you'd actually be fishing in the sea rather on the shore.
I don't really care, as nobody bothers me really, what with my wee flee thrashing around on the shore in flowing fresh and standing water pools. Knowing all the keepers helps with fishing in the actual sea, keepers being keepers are usually as keen as we are when it comes to fishing and are aways interested in how your getting on, if anything I find the local keeper quite an encouraging influence.
The only problem I can foresee is with the only keeper I don't know, who's now in place just inland above the crown shore of my favorite place, he's seen me fishing in my spot but hasn't approached, no doubt the lads on the estate would have put him in the picture regarding who I am and that I had an understanding with his predecessor, whereby the predecessor wasn't interested provided I stayed between the agreed boundaries and fished with a single fly and fly line only, and since that accommodation I haven't fished the river proper, even though it's the traditional thing to do, perhaps thats why the new guy's stayed away from me, as the estate guys are perfectly aware who's chancing their arms on the river. Truth is I want to have a word and see if I can't reach an accommodation/understanding with him, renew my unneeded permission, just to maintain the peace and tranquility of the glen. He's not from here though, he's a foreigner from over the hill in Loch Carron and so, not to be trusted as he doesn't live in the community, which is likely why he got the job. No leverage as there's no stake in the locality. I just don't want to approach and end up in conflict with him, especially having behaved myself on the river this past 20 years. I was thinking of asking the stockman and former neighbour, to ask me up for a cast on the river, by way of getting close enough to pop the question whilst I'm actually on his water with semi official sanction.
Aye, that's pretty much the route I follow. Get to know owners and keepers, ask permission (90% granted) and do not over-fish.
If science and the fiscal cannot (as proof) distinguish between brown trout and sea trout then nor can we. Yet the law (and we anglers) do make such a distinction.
For me, any trout I take in Quoich is brown (leaving out the ferox debate) and any trout I take in Hourn is sea- before I self-incriminate I was fly fishing for pollack and caught (and returned) the trout in question!
However, I would not rely upon the fiscal's past inability to define a sea trout as an open licence to fish.
And the swim bladder argument bu**ers up my mackerel fishing as well.
The law is, indeed, an ass.
Quote from: fishtales on March 02, 2013, 01:13:23 PM
(1)
Any person who without legal right, or without written permission from a person having such right, fishes for or takes salmon in any waters, including any part of the sea within 1.5 kilometres of mean low water springs, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
"salmon" means all fish of the species Salmo salar and migratory fish of the species Salmo trutta and commonly known as salmon and sea trout respectively or any part of any such fish;"
""trout" means non-migratory trout of the species Salmo trutta living in fresh water or in estuaries;" This would include Slob Trout which live in the brackish water in the estuary limits but don't go to sea or farther along the coast and into salt water.
Its really the
fishes for bit I'm curious about.
If you are fishing in an estuary or the 1.5km crown rights zone and you knock a salmon or seatrout (genetically identified as such :)) on the head you commit an offence no matter what species you fish for and what tackle you are using. If you catch a migratory and return it you commit no offence providing you weren't deliberately fishing for it but as far as I can see it would be very difficult for the law to prove you were deliberately ''fishing for''. In the example I gave earlier I mentioned fishing for bass/seafish with a clouser minnow, a recognised saltwater fly. if I catch a migratory and return it then no problem as its accidental but what if I were fishing with a recognised salmon/seatrout pattern, say a Silver Stoat - does that change of fly now make me deliberately ''fishing for'' migratories and guilty of committing an offence?
"fishes for" is phrased that way to cover all fishing methods beyond rod and line- net and coble, fixed nets etc.
This covers it I would have thought.
'61
Defences
(1)
Subsection (2) applies where in accordance with a provision mentioned in subsection (3) it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to prove a particular matter.
(2)
If the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.
(3)
The provisions in respect of which subsection (2) applies are sections 16, 19, 20 and 30 of this Act.'
If your defence is that you were fishing for other fish and not migratory fish and that you only have the other fish in your bag and not migratories then the prosecution have to prove the opposite. They can't prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that you were targeting migratory fish so they wouldn't prosecute.
This is the bit youy are looking for Andy
'33
Salmon fishing: regulations as to baits and lures
(1)
Without prejudice to section 38(5)(b) of this Act and subject to subsections (2) to (7) below, the Scottish Ministers may make regulations prohibiting the use of specified baits and lures for the purposes of the definition of "rod and line" in section 4(1) of this Act in the case of fishing for salmon.
(2)
The Scottish Ministers may make regulations under subsection (1) above only on an application to them made in accordance with subsection (5) below.
(3)
An application under subsection (2) above may be made by—
(a)
a district salmon fishery board; or
(b)
one or more such boards jointly,
and any reference in this section to an "applicant" shall be construed accordingly.
(4)
Regulations made in respect of an application under subsection (2) above shall be made only in respect of the district of the applicant.
(5)
An application under subsection (2) above shall be accompanied by the applicant's written proposals which shall state—
(a)
the baits and lures the use of which it is proposed should be prohibited;
(b)
the places to which and the times during which the proposed regulations should apply; and
(c)
the reasons for the proposals,
and the application and proposals mentioned in this subsection may be communicated and stored electronically.
(6)
Regulations under subsection (1) above shall specify, subject to such exceptions as may be provided therein, all or any, or a combination of, the following—
(a)
baits and lures or classes of baits or lures, the use of which is prohibited;
(b)
times when the regulations apply;
(c)
areas to which the regulations apply.
(7)
Paragraphs 10 to 15 of schedule 1 to this Act shall apply to the making of regulations under subsection (1) above as they apply to the making of the orders or regulations mentioned in those paragraphs; and references to an applicant, and to an application, under paragraph 1 of that schedule shall be construed respectively as references to an applicant, and to an application, under subsection (2) above.'
Basically if they say fly only then you are breaking the law to fish any other method.
It works on three or more levels.
Nationally, Government legislates against such things as explosives, live vertebrates, poison, lights etc- criminal offences.
On a district level the Salmon Fisheries Boards can set their own rules- bye-laws- criminal offences.
Locally, associations or riparian owners can set their own rules. When you obtain the required permission to fish (whether you pay for it or not) you have entered into a contract. The contract may stipulate the methods that can and cannot be used, fail to stick to these conditions and you are in breach of contract and can be pursued in the civil courts.
EDIT Details from Fishtales as usual!
I should have said that is for migratory species only.
Fishing with bait or spinning on a fly only trout water is a civil offence and is between the offender and the permission giver, as Ken says, and you are not breaking any criminal law.
Not a criminal offence in either case.
When the angler comes to pay you to fish you can stipulate whatever rules (within the law) you want- say "fly only". Catch him spinning or worming and chuck him off the river and don't give him his money back. End of. You might want to take him to the civil court for damages. You could have asked for a deposit against his good conduct and that would be forfeit in the event of a breach of your rules.
And so on.
Each catchment has its own rules outwith the statutory ones and each beat also has a set of rules.
On the Tay and Earn No Prawn or Shrimp which is throughout.
Some beats No Worming.
Others Fly Only
All are governed by the salmon legislation if they have been passed by the Scottish Government and are against the law for each specified beat.
Quote from: fishtales on March 03, 2013, 01:12:20 PM
All are governed by the salmon legislation if they have been passed by the Scottish Government and are against the law for each specified beat.
Correct, but if the owner of the beat applies a further restriction of his own it is a civil matter.
Quote from: Inchlaggan on March 03, 2013, 01:37:13 PM
Correct, but if the owner of the beat applies a further restriction of his own it is a civil matter.
You had already covered that hence the reason I put in 'if passed by the Scottish Government' bit :)
Quote from: fishtales on March 03, 2013, 01:12:20 PM
Each catchment has its own rules outwith the statutory ones and each beat also has a set of rules.
On the Tay and Earn No Prawn or Shrimp which is throughout.
Some beats No Worming.
Others Fly Only
All are governed by the salmon legislation if they have been passed by the Scottish Government and are against the law for each specified beat.
Sandy,
Several (Lower?) beats on the Tay have allowed prawn over the past couple of seasons. Not sure if this is exclusively during the end of season extension that they have been experimenting with or if it goes on all season. All fish caught on the prawn have to be released though.
Generally I've found the law and fishing quite straight forward, it is all set out in the act that Sandy quotes from, however some folk keep regurgitating "old wifes tales" and rules from pre the latest bit of legislation (I'm not having a pop at you Ken) that muddy the water and can make life confusing. I know that on my association water that ignorance is wide spread and some of the simplest rules seem quite alien to how people want to fish :roll: It works both ways though, some of the landowners don't seem to know the rules either. They seem to think that in some way having the right to fish for trout and owning the land can stop them allowing access to the salmon fishing, not only that but it also gives them the right to fish for Salmon when they are held by the association. It can get quite costly having to get a solicitor in to explain the "law" to them :?
Norm
Norm
I thought the ban was part of the Protection Order on the Tay so anyone using it was breaking the law.
I was right.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/376/made (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/376/made)
I have heard just about every variation of the "old wives' tales" Norm mentions, from "all non-salmon fishing in Scotland is free to all" to "get that dog out of my loch or I will shoot it for disturbing my fish" (he lost his shotgun certificate over that one). The point in purchasing the book and starting this thread was to explore what is fact and what is myth. The assistance of forum members in clearing up matters is greatly appreciated. However, IMHO, the legislation is not straightforward or easily accessible (Andy is going to have to do a lot of work to plan his, legal, spin/ worm/ prawn trip of salmon rivers!).
Whilst the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003 does do much to clear up the confusion, a whole lot remains muddy- such as trout fishing being an inferior right to salmon fishing- "the right to trout fishing must be exercised in such a manner which will not interfere with or injure the superior right of salmon fishing" (Mackenzie v Rose 1830). Obscure, ridiculous, nearly 200 years old, but being currently cited in an attempt to restrict trout fishing on a loch I know of.
Ken
I take it he owns the salmon rights and is trying to stop the owners of the land exercising their right to fish it for trout?
Counter argument.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Salmon-Trout-Coarse/recreational/17519/8903 (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Salmon-Trout-Coarse/recreational/17519/8903)
'Salmon fishing rights are heritable titles, which may be held with or separate from the land, and carry with them the subsidiary right to fish for trout and other freshwater fish. This right must not be exercised in a way that will interfere with the rights of the riparian owner. Where the right is held separate from the land, the proprietor of the right has an implied right of access for the purpose of exercising his right to fish for salmon'
Which means he can't stop the riparian owner from fishing for trout or issuing permits for that purpose. The salmon rights owner may be able to restrict the number or times but I doubt it.
Sandy,
Yes. But, of course, it is more complicated than that!
New, sole, owner of the salmon rights for the whole loch, he also has trout rights for the loch. And thereby hangs the problem. It is that the 1830 case uses the word "trout" whereas the new legislation uses "freshwater fish" - meaning all fish other than salmon or sea trout. His problem is that the other riparian owners are giving permission (in vast numbers) for pike fishing - spinning, deadbaiting and fly fishing. The gear and tactics used are, to all intents, indistinguishable from salmon fishing (except in the attachment of a wire trace), and the fishing for pike can continue all year round. There is no doubt that the pike boys are catching salmon as a by-catch but, as yet, none have been found not returning them. So he has reverted to the 1830 case cited above. He does not intend to prohibit non-salmon/ sea trout fishing, only to limit it (there are no sea trout in the loch, and precious few salmon).
Thanks for the replies Ken & Sandy; looks like the situation is pretty much as I thought.
Quote from: fishtales on March 03, 2013, 04:25:12 PM
I was right.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/376/made (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/376/made)
Hi Sandy,
I'm not sure how it was circumvented but the shrimp / prawn has been fished on some of the lower beats of the Tay on an "experimental" basis in 2011 and 2012. Not sure when the "experiment" is due to finnish.
Norm
Reading through the Tay Foundation pages the trial was for extending the season there was nothing about the prawn/shrimp. There was mention of requesting a provisional license for it but there was nothing else about it there or on the Scottish Government website. The SG website only mentions the request for extending the season which was granted for three years. The Tay Foundation also say that there is no guarantee that the extension will stay after the trial and it will depend on the evaluation of the figures.
Hi Sandy,
I had a wee look round the net - a fair few comments about it on the Salmon Forum but I think this article gives the best background:-
http://salmon-fishing-scotland.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/salmon-fishing-scotland-bait-fishing.html (http://salmon-fishing-scotland.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/salmon-fishing-scotland-bait-fishing.html)
I suspect that the Scottish Government gave the ok to coincide with the season extension, which will mean that this will be the last season of experimenting with the prawn, no doubt there will be demands for it to be re-introduced for next season.
Norm