news/editorial

22 February 2015 News/Editorial

Dear Reader,

PLEASE take a few minutes to study carefully what follows. You may not have always agreed with what is written here, but put that aside, if you will, because nothing written here before has been this important.

This week I return to the same subject, the proposed licensing and tagging of killed rod caught salmon, and specifically to two of the answers given by Andrew Thin, head of the Review Panel, in front of the Parliamentary Committee last week examining his proposals in the Wild Fisheries Review, published last October.

It is my contention that the answers given by Andrew Thin are both dangerously uninformed and simplistic, and that this is symptomatic of the rushed and ill-informed nature of the whole Review.

THE SCENE: MSPs on the Committee on Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment, and Participants including Andrew Thin, Michelle Francis and Jane Hope of the Wild Fisheries Review Panel.

ACTUAL PROCESS as reported

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP “Where is the evidence that rod fishing contributes to the decline in salmon stocks? I am not convinced that that evidence exists, and your report suggests that it does not.”

Answer by Andrew Thin “On the last point, in most years, rods kill more fish than nets do. It is important to be clear about that. A significant number of fish are killed on rivers by rods”

Then later on.

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP “What evidence do you have that rod catching is partly responsible for the decline in salmon stocks?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: ”In dry years, the situation is different but, in most years, simple statistics show that more fish are killed by rods than by nets. That suggests that rods are A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR.”

Ok, so pretty much the same excellent question asked twice by Alex Fergusson, and twice the same answer given by Andrew Thin….basically, that rods kill more salmon than nets, ergo rods are “A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR”… in relation to the question asked, contributory to and partly responsible for “the decline in salmon stocks”.

NOW….. let us (hypothetically, of course) continue that exchange but assuming Alex Fergusson is armed with some more detail (which as a Committee member he could not be expected to be on such a specialised subject).

HYPOTHETICAL FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP: “ Do you know how many nets will be operating on the Tweed system in 2015?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “ Err….no”

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP: “ Are you aware that, between 1987 and 2015, the Tweed Commission and the rod interests on the Tweed have spent over £2 million in buying out all the 40 nets on the Tweed, specifically to protect their salmon stocks from being killed in unsustainable numbers, so that there are now virtually no nets left?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “Err….no”.

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP: “ Did you know that the Tweed rods for many years now have voluntarily exercised 100% catch and release for salmon caught before 1st July, and after July have killed no more than one third of what they catch?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “Err...yes, I think I did know that”.

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP:” Are you aware that, according to Tweed Foundation research over many years on tagged and released salmon in the late summer and autumn, the rods on average catch less than 1 in 20 salmon coming in to the river?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “ Err….no I didn’t know that.”

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP: ”Let me be clear; you are saying that the Tweed rods are “ A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR” in the decline of salmon stocks, based on the following facts:

(a) because the rods have killed/ will kill more than the nets, when of course they will, even if comparatively few, both because there are now NO NETS (and no nets can kill nothing) and the rods have spent their own £2 million buying them out to stop nets killing any salmon at all?, and

(b) despite the rods having exercised 100% catch and release before 1st July for many years now, and after 1st July killing about 1 in 60 (one third of 1 in 20 caught) or well under 5%. This means that over 95% of salmon coming in both before and after 1st July survive…

are you seriously saying that rod fishing ..”IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR”...in the decline of salmon stocks on the Tweed?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “Errr…… errr…..”

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP: “It is your stated intention, is it not, that all rivers should move towards full 100% catch and release of salmon by the rods because rods killing salmon is unsustainable; you say “ the sustainable surplus is only modest”; do you have any evidence that the Tweed salmon stocks cannot comfortably, and without harm, happily sustain the current low percentage of fish killed by rods? Have you asked the Tweed scientists for an assessment of their salmon stocks?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “ Err...I don’t have any detailed evidence on Tweed salmon stocks with me”

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP: “On that basis, ie killing no salmon, as in desirable 100% catch and release for the rods, because as you say “the sustainable surplus is only modest”, to be consistent, why are you not recommending banning of all netting activities on the same basis, because the nets kill every salmon they catch?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “ Errr…..”

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP: “Other rivers have also spent £millions of their own money buying out their nets, and you are aware that on rivers such as the Dee, the rods have not only bought out all their own river nets, but their rods, for many years now, have killed little or nothing of what they catch. If I were to tell you that almost everyone would accept that Tweed salmon stocks are stronger than those of the Dee, yet the Dee has killed nothing for years, how does that sit with your answer that rods killing salmon “IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR” in the decline of salmon stocks? Indeed, what evidence do you have of the extent, if any, of any Tweed salmon stocks decline?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “Errr…..”

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP: “We have established that “rods killing fish” on the Dee and the Tweed cannot be a factor in the decline, if any, in salmon stocks, have we not? Could you tell us therefore precisely on which rivers rods killing salmon is A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: ” I am sorry I don’t have that information”

Question by Alex Fergusson MSP: “ Can we take it, therefore, that the answer you gave (twice) in respect of my questions on whether there was any evidence that rods killing salmon was contributory to or responsible for the decline of salmon stocks, and you said rods killing salmon was A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR, that your answers ignored all of the relevant facts and were simplistic in the extreme? In fact, weren’t your answers wrong?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “ Err… well I wouldn’t go that far”.

Alex Fergusson MSP: “Well, of course you wouldn’t, would you?”

Answer by Andrew Thin: “Errrr……”

END OF HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

My conclusion, and I hope that of many others reading this, is that Andrew Thin’s Wild Fisheries Review is both inaccurate as to fact and politically driven in at least some of its conclusions, because they have no basis in fact.

Here on the Tweed, we have the undoubted FACTS that we are the most prolific river in the North Atlantic, there is no evidence our stocks are in decline (2014 like everywhere else was bad, but before that we 4 good years with 2010 delivering more salmon caught by rod and line than by any other river EVER in history, over 23,000 salmon), and river managers from other countries come to the Tweed to see how we do things, and learn.

YET, Andrew Thin wants to get rid of the River Tweed Commission after over 200 years, without giving any reasons.

I wonder on what incomplete knowledge and pre-ordained political conclusions that proposal is based?

I hope Andrew Thin is called back before the Committee to correct the answers he gave to Alex Fergusson’s questions.

LET US BE CLEAR…..

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER THAT KILLING ROD CAUGHT SALMON AT CURRENT LEVELS IS CONTRIBUTORY TO ANY DECLINE IN SALMON STOCKS.

I look forward to receiving Andrew Thin’s detailed rebuttal….. but I won’t hold my breath.

Has he any idea how much it offends those of us who have spent most of our adult lives trying to save our salmon and investing vast sums both annually in ongoing management and research, and in large one-off payments (eg to buy off nets to stop too many salmon being killed), to say nothing of the time freely given over a lifetime.......that he now says people like me, a rod who kills the occasional summer/autumn grilse to eat (it has long since been illegal for rods to sell them, whereas nets of course do), are SIGNIFICANTLY contributory to and responsible for salmon stock decline?

He might not care that I am offended, indeed I am sure he does not….but by God I will fight him and some of his proposals (abolishing the River Tweed Commission, the central levy and licensing the killing of rod caught fish, to name but 3) to the end.

I hope many others will join me.

Thank you, dear Reader.

NB

Here is the link to the full Committee transcript http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=9783&i=89702