4 October 2015 News/Editorial
That there is scar tissue from the kill licencing debate is undeniable, just as there is huge gratitude to those other rivers (notably the Spey and the Tay, and others) and to so many anglers who supported the stance taken by the Tweed throughout.
Chairman Douglas Dobie and chief executive Nick Yonge and the whole Tweed team should be congratulated for their huge investment in time and expertise in putting forward, and scientifically supporting, the arguments.
The result is the right one, and the Government and the Minister, Dr Aileen McLeod, should be thanked for coming up with both a much more workable and proportionate solution.
Whether rivers have been categorised correctly might be a concern? Those in Category 3 (ie can kill nothing) unjustly (as they might, perhaps with good reason, consider) will not be happy. One hopes there will be some sort of appeal system for such cases?
The basic principle is this; if you are concerned as to the conservation status of your salmon stocks, quotas are not the answer, you should be killing nothing at all.
If, on the other hand, your stock conservation limits are fine, then there is nothing wrong with rods killing what is, even if they killed everything they catch, in the summer and autumn, no more than 10% of the stock, so inefficient, as a way of catching salmon, is rod fishing anyway.
As rods habitually now return up to 80% of what is caught, the actual kill rate by rods is well under 5%, a biologically insignificant figure (so I am told by our most eminent biologist).
The discipline of having to monitor and prove your conservation levels annually, by assessing rod catches and rigorous investigation of juvenile populations over the whole catchment, is a good one and one which the Tweed has been doing for many decades already.
The scar tissue here (and no doubt with those elsewhere who disagreed with us) will take some time to fully heal.
How was it that the ASFB, S&TA and AST came out in favour of kill licencing in direct contradiction of what many of the rivers thought?
They are our friends, we are all on the same side and yet, it seemed, they rushed to welcome the kill licencing for rods proposals.
Not only that, some of us came under constant pressure, both specific and implied, not to rock the boat, to tow the line, we were told we were being selfish. “it’s all right for the Tweed, you have no nets” they said, conveniently ignoring (a) that we bought our own nets off at our own (vast) expense and (b) that via the Northumbrian drift and T&J net fishery Tweed still suffers from interceptory netting more than any other individual river.
What upset us most was the prospect of complete loss of local control; our friends were willing to give away (never was the phrase “being sold down the river” more appropriate) our ability to decide our own destiny and subject us to the indignities of applying for quotas and consequent carcass tagging, when there is no evidence we, and many other rivers,have done anything other than an exemplary job in preserving our stocks thus far.
They did it because they wanted to get rid of interceptory netting, as we all do and quite correctly, but to do so while offering us up as sacrificial lambs, for no conservation purpose, was profoundly wrong.
How could it ever have been logical or right for the Tweed to have quotas and tagging on conservation grounds, when in some years the Tweed alone catches as many salmon as every salmon river in England and Wales together, over 70 of them, when none of our friends were suggesting any one of these 70 rivers needed quotas and tagging on conservation grounds?
What it does all bring into sharp focus is the original Andrew Thin Wild Fisheries Report. Whilst many parts of it are unobjectionable, others are both provocative and ill-informed, and hopefully Government and civil servants are now looking at it with a degree of caution.
The salmon fishing industry is not resistant to change; things can always be done better and change should and must be welcomed, but it should build on the good things and retain them.
The trouble with ThIn is that (a) he never really talked to the main rivers (he met them and told them what he was going to do, which does not constitute talking with them or listening to what they had to say) and, crucially, (b) his Report abolishes a whole system and seeks to start again from scratch, at a time when most of us believe that Scottish salmon river management has never been better or more professionally run.
Looking around the body of the kirk at the last ASFB meeting I attended, there was, contrary to what might have been the case 40, maybe even 20, years ago, scarcely a Duke, Lord, General, Admiral or indeed any proper toff to be seen (not that I have anything against any of the aforementioned), but a lot of professional river managers and scientists supported by some owners, mainly businessmen and others who had been preeminent in other fields.
It was an impressive gathering.
They would welcome change, but good change, evolution, not the revolution which is what Thin proposes.
Maybe in the next round, far more important than kill licencing, where the future of Scottish salmon river management is at stake, both:
(a) decision makers in Government will talk collaboratively with the rivers first (because Thin never did) not just stick to his Report , and:
(b) we can re-unite with our friends in the ASFB, S&TA and AST in a common cause, and they will listen to what the rivers are saying?
Maybe.
our twitter feed