news/editorial

26 July 2015 News/Editorial

PART 1

I had hoped for a break from all this salmon kill licensing business.

Both you and I are tired of it, but the Government is pushing ahead, and fast, to implement a kill licensing scheme, quotas, carcass tagging and all for the 2016 season.

The Tweed has been saying for some months now that this should not apply here, because we have no (Scottish) netting, we kill nothing before 30th June and less than 5% of the summer/autumn population after 1st July.

Nobody has disputed these facts and figures. In addition, nobody believes that the Tweed has anything other than an huge harvestable surplus of late running salmon, and nobody (who knows what they are talking about) has begun to assert that, at current levels, what we kill damages our stocks.

So why then does the Government want to inflict this on us when nobody thinks it is necessary for the Tweed (I cannot speak for other rivers, but the same may well be true for many of them as well)?

Because we are part of Scotland and the Government wants to show that it is controlling the killing of salmon in Scotland, even on rivers where there is no evidence that it is, or ever has been, harmful.

This is curious because the Government is, we are told, in trouble with Europe, in danger of being fined, for continuing to allow mixed stock netting offshore. As the recent announcement appears to put an end to mixed stock netting, it is even stranger that the Government is continuing with kill licensing for rods.

For those who want to ask some of the many unanswered questions about how licensing, quotas and tagging will work following the Government’s further details last week, I give, in PART 2 of this below, a copy of what the Government has said and, after that, what many of us see as the most important concerns and questions with what is proposed.

But what I want to say here, in this first part, is that this is a sad day, maybe the beginning of the end of rivers autonomously running themselves in Scotland. Those of us who have been defending vociferously what we do, have all along realised that we have been fighting for our independence, and control by Government via kill licensing on rods (and the proprietors who own the fishing rights) is just the first stage in that fight.

Bu because it is the first proposal involving direct central control, it is therefore the most significant one in completely removing decision making away from local people, where it has always been up to now, to the centre.

There are those who justify the ceding of control in this case because it is connected to the demise of mixed stock netting, but in my view they miss the point.

They are guilty of allowing a short term gain (and anyway mixed stock netting was never going to last long, such was the international outcry against it) to persuade them to cede control of our local rivers for evermore, because, rest assured, we will never get it back.

Those in the leading Scottish salmon bodies who have trumpeted the Scottish system as being so much better than the English Environment Agency centralised control, are the same people who are now presiding over the demise of that very system, and their enthusiasm for the proposed, and ridiculously flawed, kill licensing, quotas and tagging system for rods, against which, between them, they raised not one word of protest, indeed fell over themselves with enthusiasm for it, is the first step in what appears to be an inexorable process…….unless we can stop it.

Andrew Marr in his appearance at the Borders Book Festival was concerned that the SNP Government, being so powerful in Scotland, need not listen to any opposition and could pretty much do whatever it liked. He drew applause from his audience when he went on to say that it was the mark of any good democratic system that Governments, whatever the extent of their power on paper, listen to reasoned opposition and do not simply railroad policies through without regard to anyone, or anything, else.

I see no sign of that happening here; despite nobody coming up with a single logical conservation reason for imposing kill licensing etc on Tweed rods and proprietors, the Government has not listened and is pressing on regardless.

The next phases of losing control to the centre will be, in no particular order:

1. The money (the old levy or assessment) will go straight from proprietors, by some form of business rate or tax raised centrally, to Government, and some will come back to the river of origin, but by no means all. Government will decide.

2. The new bodies running rivers will need to be approved in what they do, and propose to do in the future, by a Government central unit, having to gain something called “approved body status”, failing which they will be unable to run the rivers. Government will decide.

3. The make-up of the new management bodies will be prescribed, having model constitutions, with the only known fact so far being that proprietors will definitely be in the minority. Government will decide.

Effectively, every basic form of autonomy will have been lost, control of money, control of what you do and control of who is in charge.

And the first one to go, before all that, and starting for the 2016 season, no more than 6 months away, is control of what rivers can and cannot kill, despite there being no evidence of any kind that anglers, proprietors and Boards have been anything other than exemplary in reducing netting and the numbers of salmon the rods themselves kill.

It is a sad day, and sadder still that those leaders of our independent Scottish salmon management bodies, who should be defending our precious autonomy, have sold it ….. all for a few nets.

They will not accept that, indeed, they will be shocked and treat me as a traitor and leper for saying it, so obsessed are they by the comparatively short term issues with mixed stock netting, but history might judge them very differently, and those of us who have devoted so much of our lives to effective and evidence based local management, think we have been sold .…...down the river.

As the concerns and questions in PART 2 below will show, the proposed system of licensing, tagging and quotas will achieve nothing for salmon conservation, is not based on any reliable science, and removes the spirit of self determination, self control and voluntarism which has been such a feature of how proprietors (to say nothing of the vast sums they have spent over the years in removing the nets and saving the salmon the nets would have killed) and anglers have behaved in recent years.

It is a slap in the face to them and what they have achieved, as if they are no longer to be trusted….but above all….

it is immensely sad.

It may be the beginning of the end of the local, self determining and purely evidence based delivery of fisheries management, of which we on the Tweed, and many other well managed Scottish rivers, are so proud of.

If the Government is successful, nothing will ever be quite the same (or as good) again, and it is all monstrously unjustified.

PART 2

Last week the Scottish Government announced the following in relation to salmon kill licensing, quotas and tagging:

BAN THE KILLING OF WILD SALMON EXCEPT UNDER LICENCE AND ACCOMPANYING CARCASS TAGGING SCHEME

1. In terms of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to The Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006 (the 2006 Order) notice is hereby given that the Scottish Ministers propose to make an order under article 54 of the Act to introduce a licensing system for the killing of wild salmon in Scotland and a prohibition on the taking of salmon outwith inland waters within the Tweed District . This follows the 12 week public consultation seeking views on a ban on the killing of wild salmon except under licence together with an accompanying carcass tagging scheme and the potential for restrictions on the use of baits and lures. The general effect of this proposal will be: a. to prohibit the taking of Atlantic salmon outwith inland waters b. to prohibit the killing of salmon in Scotland without a licence

2. The licences will limit the number of fish which may be taken by the licence holder in a specified area. The Scottish Ministers will have the power to amend, suspend or revoke a licence and applicants, or licence holders, will have the right to challenge decisions made by the Scottish Ministers.

3. Under article 54(7) of the 2006 Order it is an offence to act in contravention of the regulations or to fail to take any action required to comply with a requirement of the regulations. If a person is found guilty of such an offence they will be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

4. Salmon continue to face many pressures in the marine and freshwater environment and the latest Marine Scotland Science stock status report for 2014 shows a decline in stocks over the last few years www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/04/6918/downloads. The proposed licensing system will provide a new mechanism for the Scottish Ministers to control the killing of wild salmon ensuring that where harvesting of stocks takes place it is sustainable.

5. It is envisaged that applications will be assessed using the best available information on the number of returning salmon over a five year period. Assessments will be made on the basis of fishery districts with special considerations to be taken into account for special areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive (“SACs”). If the estimated number of returning salmon is greater than that required to meet the conservation objective there is a harvestable surplus and a licence may be issued. Any harvestable surplus will be allocated between fisheries within a district/SAC in line with their respective catches considered over a five year period. This will be subject to review.

6. The regulations will be reviewed alongside the progression of emerging recommendations from the wild fisheries reform programme. 1 The Tweed District is defined in article 2 of the Scotland Act 1998 (River Tweed) Order 2006.

7. The licensing regime will be accompanied by a carcass tagging scheme to aid enforcement of any kill licence granted. The carcass tagging scheme will require that any salmon taken must have an individually numbered tag affixed to the carcass.

8. During the 12 week consultation we also sought views on the restriction of certain baits and lures to aid the safe release of any salmon caught by rod and line. It is clear from our consultation that there is a wide range of views on the use of baits and lures, good practice guides and the existing voluntary restrictions on their use. We intend to consider further before looking to progress any future any future legislation

9. In parallel, Marine Scotland launched a week long online discussion forum today on the detail of the kill licence regime, including the application process, context and parameters; and accompanying carcass tagging scheme and further views on the use of baits and lures.

Details of how to participate can be accessed on the Marine Scotland website: www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Salmon-TroutCoarse/fishreform/licence

10.Representations or objections in respect of the proposed conservation regulations should be submitted by 19 August 2015 using the contact details below. Representations shall include, where relevant, details of any financial implications particularly related to loss of income.

Fiona Hepburn Marine Scotland Salmon and Recreational Fisheries Team Area 1B North Victoria Quay Edinburgh EH6 6QQ Email: salmonandrecreationalfisheries@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

From this you will see that we have until 19th August to object to these proposals; in addition there is a 7 day online forum, to which you are encouraged to contribute, at http://ideas.scotland.gov.uk/fishing-for-wild-salmon-in-scotland/?sort_order=latest. You will be able to see there the sorts of issues already raised, and please note that there are now only 3 or 4 days left of the original 7.

The questions and concerns, to which thus far there have been no answers, are these (and in no particular order):

1. What will be the cost of the licence application?

2. What will be the cost of each tag and will it vary depending on number?

3. Will there be any refund for unused tags?

4. What happens if tags are lost?

5. Does the tag have to be attached to the salmon as soon as it is killed, or can it be carried back to the hut and tagged later eg at lunchtime or at the end of the day’s fishing?

6. Will there have to be a register kept by the beat owner of who has had what tags, whether they have been used or not and which particular salmon any tag has been attached to; will there be an annual return system to be completed by owners with respect to the tags with which they were originally issued?

7. If applications for licences and quotas for (say) 2016 have to be submitted by proprietors by 31st December 2015, presumably to be followed some months later by decisions as to licence and quota numbers, by then almost all Tweed salmon fishing for 2016 will have been let without those taking the fishing having any knowledge of (a) whether they can kill anything or not, (b) if so, how many and (c) what it will cost them: is this not ridiculous and will it not inevitably adversely affect the commercial success of lettings?

8. How can you sensibly issue a quota based on past information without any knowledge of the strength or otherwise of the following year’s salmon runs? In a bad year anglers, having paid for their tags, will make sure they kill enough to cover their tags, whereas the evidence of 2014 is that, in the absence of tags, anglers automatically vary/moderate their behaviour, depending on their assessment of the numbers of salmon in the river. Is not killing too many in a bad year exactly what conservation measures are supposed not to do?

9. It is said that quotas will be issued to beats depending on assessment of a river’s “harvestable surplus”. As the absolute prerequisite for assessing “harvestable surplus” is accurate knowledge of numbers of adult salmon entering a river, and as in almost no rivers are such figures known, “harvestable surplus” figures must, by definition, be based on estimation and educated guesswork? Is this a sensible basis to be issuing licences and quotas?

10. Why is licensing being imposed on rivers such as the Tweed where there is no conservation purpose in so doing? If there is a conservation purpose for the Tweed, what is it and what evidence is there to support that?

11. How can tags be divided up amongst individual anglers when there could be up to 30 different anglers in any one week on one beat alone? How will this work on club/association waters where there are numerous anglers fishing without any centralised control from a proprietor or head gillie? Who is expected to pay for the obvious administrative burden on beats and associations?

12. If quotas per beat are to be based on both “harvestable surplus” and previous average kills, will this not mean that quotas will inevitably decline (because in a good year when in the past you would have killed more than the average, beats will now be restricted to the average)? What is the conservation justification for this?

13. At present, there is a sensible bias in the salmon that are killed by rods, against killing large hen fish, and in favour of killing mainly male small salmon or grilse. Tags do not distinguish between types of salmon that can be killed. Will tags which have been paid for not lead to more precious female salmon being killed eg “I have paid for my tags and I will kill the first fish I catch regardless of what it is”? Is this not the opposite of conservation, which is supposed to be the whole point of these measures?

14. How can the Government justify criminalising those who kill a salmon on Tweed, without a tag, when there is no evidence that killing that salmon is harmful to stocks? Is this a good use of the criminal law in Scotland, and how will it be policed when those supposed to implement it fundamentally disagree with it?

15. At present, it is illegal to kill a salmon in Scotland before 31st March. Will tags to kill salmon be effective for any salmon caught after that date, in which case tags (which will have been paid for) could be used to kill spring salmon after 1st April and there is nothing any river could do to stop this, after all the Government would have issued the tag, so it must be ok?

I am sure you can think of many more questions, the above is just something to be going on with.

I am not expecting the Government to send me any answers.