It would be useful to repeat this survey to gain enough information to tell us the picture on our river. It would be helpful if the chosen fishermen had digital cameras giving time and date. We would then be able to compare colour, and condition with normal fishing record data. All special requirements such as taking of scales, recording fishing effort, where the survey work was to be done etc. should be specified. The Board would need to know that all are agreeable before approaching the Minister.
My personal thoughts are these. The fish are very logical with run timings influenced by such things as genetics, water, food, global warming and seasonal temperatures but not by our Gregorian calendar. In the run up to government decisions on future river management, it is advisable to be seen managing with science in a methodical, logical fashion. To be seen otherwise weakens our “protection” against community buy outs. I am looking for anything which helps the Board in its effort to get a fish pass at Glen Beag. Beat records may show a dip in catches post the early 1960s. I would like to hear from proprietors who have records going back some considerable time. Who can help? I would particularly like to hear from Rory, Hamish and Fiona. Have we the best angling season to achieve our Objective of building up stocks especially Springers?
Impossible to say without more data. I am in favour of debating what’s best for present times when we have more and reliable information. I have asked Jonathan Mason to try and locate the old Ross family netting records. It seems the decision to bring forward the season a month, was based on good angling and netting experience in the second half of February (The season in Calderwoods day ((1909)) opened on Feb 11th.) ( The nets supplied spawners to the private McNicol hatchery. Ronny Ross tells me the McNicols could have as many as they liked.)
Iain and I would like to look at all available records and build a computerized data base of stock abundance and decline, before more records get lost or forgotten. We hope this will assist future management decision making. The Season should be, and be seen to be, a powerful management tool setting the compromise between commercial exploitation on the one hand and achievement of our Carron stock enhancement Objective of “more fish, especially more Springers” on the other.
At present Nicky’s figures show that no commercial exploitation case can be made in favour of fishing in January. Looked at the other way about, if our season to-day began on Feb 11th there is no way we could possibly make a case to bring it forward a month to Jan 11th. All we are doing is catching the one or two genetically vital spawners (invariably hens), on which we hope to be dependent for re-colonising Glen Beag and perhaps Glasha redds. The other thing we may be doing in catching kelts is upsetting our best bet of large fish in the future. If there is no commercial justification surely conservation should be the rule.
What is the “correct” closing date for our season. ? No idea. I think we should see what picture the proposed survey throws up and then choose an appropriate closing date or dates. I say dates for I believe it quite possible that we may find sufficient fish running in after September 30th to prima facie warrant considering closure some time in October. But, we may also find that fresh run fish only run part way up the river. Below that point, we may conclude that additional fishing would be OK because
i) Fresh fish are running in.
ii) Early run spawners have moved on up river.
Above that point we may be able to discern the opposite and decide it would be inadvisable to increase the commercial/exploitation pressure on semi stale early run spawners, by then approaching their up-river redds. The Spey survey work is aimed at discovering if:
a) Quantities of salmon are entering the Spey after the end of their current season September 30th.
b) If so, how big are these quantities and what are their characteristics?
c) Where and when do they spawn?
This is precisely the sort of stuff we need to know before we can make logical managements decisions on dates. The preliminary result I have heard for Spey in 2004 is that of the 156 salmon and grilse caught, 30% were fresh-run. I have not heard how either river got on in the 2005 survey.
At Nicky’s request, Iain is talking to both Spey and Tay biologists to learn of their findings. These are big rivers with no doubt plenty of up-river redds for early run spawners. We are a small river with apparently very few accessible redd areas up around the 1000ft asl mark. We have no idea whether the fish that used to run in in Jan/Feb now run in in March or whether that very early sub species has largely died out, perhaps in large measure due to the negative effect of Glen Beag.
Two quotes spring to mind which encapsulate my thinking about all this. In one, Mr. Holmes says “It is a capital mistake to theorise before you have data” The other by Crichton is “Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice”. So what l am urging proprietors to do is collect together and collate old records and get some new data, have the expert sum it up for us and then have an interesting debate.
We are facing a time when the Scottish Executive is minded to sweep away fishery boards in favour of a more centralized government run management by bureaucrats. Costs will go up as freely given time will be replaced by salaries. Proprietors will not be running the assets they buy. Bureaucrats will not necessarily be in post long as they seek preferment and will not be accountable to proprietors should their management cause the asset value to drop.
In the run up to decision time on change we want to be seen doing the correct things logically and scientifically. Then we can press for adoption of the option whereby the Trust continues to manage our assets, in like manner. The Carron has made something of the running in the Kyle area over the last few years. We were about the first to really get into Catch & Release big time, a decade ago. Of all rivers, we are best placed to show that C&R works. If we Return spawners we find good numbers of juveniles above Glencalvie and if we do not, there are few up there. We were the first to decide that we could do without annual regular stocking. There appears no downside and I hear the Cassley is going to follow suit.
We can point to 40 years of government awarded compensation for water extraction and demonstrate that that compensation stocking above Glencalvie has been a total waste of money. We have put the spotlight on Glen Beag and got the Board to carry out a scientific survey which concludes that there would be significant benefit to the river if a fish pass was fitted. What we are able to show at Glen Beag is that, in fishery management terms, the government made a mistake by omitting a fish pass and so far as we are aware have shown no interest in remedial action. That does not augur well for future management by government from a remote location. There is no element here of wishing to rub government’s nose in the mud. What we want to do is to improve the management of the valuable fish resource and to do that we need to gather relevant information and draw attention to our findings.
We have responded to Alistair Stephens and Colin Carnies advice concerning the importance of the habitat. An audit of land usage has been compiled by SNH. Each proprietor has planted trees or reduced grazing levels. There has been considerable Caledonian “re-afforestation” in the headwaters. Now that holding pools can no longer be made in the river, we have appreciated the value of tree roots and dappled shade to hold fish on a beat. Our best protection against community buy out, or remote government management, is to be able to show that we are managing the fishery well, using the best available science, in a logical manner. If we continually collect data and monitor our actions we are always in the best position to manage correctly.
What has changed since the season was advanced in 1916?
a) The Objective
b) The quantities of fish running the river
c) Our knowledge. It appears necessary to allow spawners the ability to use the altitude length of
the river in order to sustain an output of smolts likely to return to the river in the early months of the year.
d) Carron has been dammed at Glen Beag and there appear to be no similar high altitude redds in
use, or any we have yet found, anywhere else in the system.
e) Our knowledge of Glencalvie Falls has developed. It appears that if early run fish are allowed
to get to the base, then spawning pairs do manage to ascend. It is likely that the more of the
“right stuff” we allow to get there, the more get over
f) The EU Water Directive has arrived. It is essential that the Board get permission from SEPA to
inspect Glencalvie Falls and remove any downstream moving debris that may at anytime
prevent fish passage.
g) International scientific opinion. ICES currently advise that the decline in early running fish stocks
has been so severe over the last few years that counter measures should include a complete ban
on killing anything before mid June.
In the run up to decision time on change we want to be seen doing the correct things logically and scientifically. Then we can press for adoption of the option whereby the Trust continues to manage our assets, in like manner. The Carron has made something of the running in the Kyle area over the last few years. We were about the first to really get into Catch & Release big time, a decade ago. Of all rivers, we are best placed to show that C&R works. If we Return spawners we find good numbers of juveniles above Glencalvie and if we do not, there are few up there. We were the first to decide that we could do without annual regular stocking. There appears no downside and I hear the Cassley is going to follow suit.
We can point to 40 years of government awarded compensation for water extraction and demonstrate that that compensation stocking above Glencalvie has been a total waste of money. We have put the spotlight on Glen Beag and got the Board to carry out a scientific survey which concludes that there would be significant benefit to the river if a fish pass was fitted. What we are able to show at Glen Beag is that, in fishery management terms, the government made a mistake by omitting a fish pass and so far as we are aware have shown no interest in remedial action. That does not augur well for future management by government from a remote location. There is no element here of wishing to rub government’s nose in the mud. What we want to do is to improve the management of the valuable fish resource and to do that we need to gather relevant information and draw attention to our findings.
We have responded to Alistair Stephens and Colin Carnies advice concerning the importance of the habitat. An audit of land usage has been compiled by SNH. Each proprietor has planted trees or reduced grazing levels. There has been considerable Caledonian “re-afforestation” in the headwaters. Now that holding pools can no longer be made in the river, we have appreciated the value of tree roots and dappled shade to hold fish on a beat. Our best protection against community buy out, or remote government management, is to be able to show that we are managing the fishery well, using the best available science, in a logical manner. If we continually collect data and monitor our actions we are always in the best position to manage correctly.
What has changed since the season was advanced in 1916?
a) The Objective
b) The quantities of fish running the river
c) Our knowledge. It appears necessary to allow spawners the ability to use the altitude length of
the river in order to sustain an output of smolts likely to return to the river in the early months of the year.
d) Carron has been dammed at Glen Beag and there appear to be no similar high altitude redds in
use, or any we have yet found, anywhere else in the system.
e) Our knowledge of Glencalvie Falls has developed. It appears that if early run fish are allowed
to get to the base, then spawning pairs do manage to ascend. It is likely that the more of the
“right stuff” we allow to get there, the more get over
f) The EU Water Directive has arrived. It is essential that the Board get permission from SEPA to
inspect Glencalvie Falls and remove any downstream moving debris that may at anytime
prevent fish passage.
g) International scientific opinion. ICES currently advise that the decline in early running fish stocks
has been so severe over the last few years that counter measures should include a complete ban
on killing anything before mid June.