news/editorial

8 March 2015 News/Editorial

Can we agree that the rod catch is a pretty good indicator of how many salmon get through to spawn (“spawning escapement” in the jargon)? Even more so now, of course, since we release over 75%, whereas pre 1990 most rods killed what they caught.

I know rod fishing effort has increased markedly since the 1950s to 1970s, but not so much since the 1980s and, of course, the overly effective methods used then (worms, prawns, shrimps etc) have been banned here since the late 1980s.

Tweed’s salmon rod catch for 2014 was 7,767, poor, you would say.

Do you remember those golden ages of Tweed salmon fishing, the 1950s to mid 1980s?

In only 7 of those 35 years did the rod catch exceed the 2014 catch.

In round figures, the 10 year annual averages of rod caught salmon in the decades since 1950 for the Tweed are these (bearing in mind of course that the rods here only catch somewhere around 5%-10% of the run) :

1950s 3,500

1960s 6,500

1970s 5,000

1980s 8,000

1990s 9,500

2000s 12,000

2010s 15,000 (including 2014’s total of 7,767)

Given the extraordinary netting/trapping/leistering/you-name-it predations of previous centuries, it may well be that Tweed now has higher numbers of salmon accessing more of the available spawning beds that at any time in the last 300-400 years.

If you listen to the reasons given, by both the Government and Andrew Thin, for imposing rod licences to kill, quotas and tagging, you would not be expecting to see such a dramatically improving trend as that clearly shown above.

There is no arguing with it. You would expect the opposite.

How inconvenient it must be for those who want to introduce rod quotas and tagging here, because things are so bad, to have to look at these “real figures”.

So let’s get this right.

Based on these figures (or maybe he never asked us?), Andrew Thin says:

1. that rods killing salmon is a significant factor in the decline (!) of Tweed’s salmon stocks, and

2. that because stocks are so diminished (!) we need to have rods applying (and paying God knows what) for quotas to kill the very small percentage of the run they now kill, and

3. that things are so bad that all rod fishing owners should be moving towards 100% catch and release (from the 77% released by Tweed rods in 2014)?

Not only that, but the River Tweed Commission is so rubbish at what it does that it should be abolished and replaced by some Fishery Management Organisation which will get its money by owners paying direct to Government….but, so bad a job has the RTC been doing, as evidenced by these figures, that not all of the money will come back to the Tweed FMO because some poor smaller rivers need it more than the Tweed.

Brilliant !

There is real anger down here on Tweedside, and do you wonder?

I am all too aware that many of these comments may seem aggressive and uncompromising, some would say smart-arse, not exactly designed to make friends with Government and civil servants, who are behind these proposals, and now seeking views under consultation.

Although I would not exactly compare what is proposed to an unwarranted assault on my family, these great rivers on which we live are a vital artery and cohesive link for the whole community, and their salmon the iconic species.

They command deep and lasting affection, we love them, so feelings run very high when the proven and time honoured way we look after them is threatened, for reasons, one can only assume, of political dogma, in the absence of any other factors that can withstand the slightest scrutiny.

I have yet to hear one single logical reason, other than political dogma, for what the Government proposes to inflict on the Tweed…..does anybody know one?

Tweed management is doing, and for at least four decades has done, a terrific job on this great river, investing vast sums annually in a highly professional management outfit, and the results show it.

But is anyone in Government interested either in reason and logic, or in what is best for the Tweed, or have they already decided what they are going to do..…...and would they rather nobody mentioned those most unfortunate “real figures”?

Ah well….. now there’s a question.

---0---

I am indebted to my correspondent Andrew Maund who kindly wrote as follows:

“The evidence is just not there to impose any further restrictions. It is almost certain that taken as a whole, if we assume a similar exploitation rate by rods, that numbers of spawning salmon in Scotland are higher now than at any time since records began.”

I have never sought to speak for any rivers other than the Tweed, because I do not know enough about them, and they are well able to speak for themselves, but I imagine (if you look at averages for the last 5 years and do not get too hung up on 2014) many would agree with Andrew Maund.

.