Anglers urged to put salmon back for the future

No one in this country is so hungry that they need to kill ANY fish they catch. So get them unharmed back into the water. If you need to eat salmon the go and buy farmed fish. All you are doing is killing your own sport if you chose not to.

Mick

I Agree with Mick we dont need to kill the fish why not have a blanket catch and release policy,say for a set period of 2,3,4 years.
Some people possibly take fish because of the ridiculous price's charged across the country to fly fish on rivers.If C/R was instigated everywhere and the prices reasonable people would be less likely to take the fish.

"If C/R was instigated everywhere and the prices reasonable people would be less likely to take the fish."

sorry - don't agree. Lower prices means more punters on the rivers, and more punters means more chance of fish going walkabout. We dont even have a system which can enforce the requirement to buy a rod licence, let alone check that mandatory C&R is being adhered to.

There will always be people who will take fish irrespective of how much it costs to fish or the rules in place, and with total disregard to the ultimate effects on the fishing, and the salmon itself.

yes well said Mick, salmon are not limitless, they are finite

Why can't we eat the occasional salmon?

I'm not a salmon angler, althought I did once catch a large salmon while piking. I thought new EA rules were introduced recently in which anglers had to return the first few fish caught early in the season, but late season salmon could be taken and eaten. If the rules are proposed by the EA, then surely it's OK to eat salmon as long as you don't break the rules.

To me, forcing anglers to return all salmon is excessive. It's just like coarse anglers getting all hot and bothered when anglers take the occasional coarse fish to eat. Fish are nutritious and can be good to eat if you cook them carefully.

North Sea Cod and tuna(especially in the Med) are among the many sea fish species where stocks have fallen to crisis level. Why not kick up a fuss about these species, which I'm sure are more endangered ?

Are salmon anglers guilty of speciesism ?

they make good cormorant bait's!

It's just like coarse anglers getting all hot and bothered when anglers take the occasional coarse fish to eat. Fish are nutritious and can be good to eat if you cook them carefully.


I agree with Mick, in this day and age no fish need be killed for the pot especially coarse fish, who is starving nowadays?

One mans dinner is another mans sport, go to tescos, stop being selfish, put the bloody fish back!

Keith2

by your own admission, you are 'not a salmon angler'. However, if you were,you might be a little more clued-up as to why the indiscriminate or uncontrolled taking of salmon from UK rivers is a contentious issue with those of us who are.

Some rivers have a reasonable rod-caught return of fish each season, the greater majority do not. The taking of fish from the 'poor return' rivers is not going to help the species survive and thrive in these locations. Therefore it is not helpful for anglers to fish these rivers with the purposeful intention of removing what they catch. If anglers want to eat their own rod-caught salmon, then at least fish rivers which hold a level of fish which can sustain removal - and there's not many of those left in the UK today! Either that, or do what Mick suggests, and go to Tesco's.

As for your comment about cod and tuna, I thought that a 'fuss' was already being made, particularly via the requests for limits on commercial fishing quotas.

There are all sorts of reasons why returning salmon might not be such a good idea. I have caught a few fresh run salmon in my life, all of which were killed. They are not the easiest fish to return to the water and I'll bet a portion of the fish returned these days do not survive.

The members of the salmon family are not like carp, tench or bream. When hooked, they often fight themselves to near death!

The great salmon and seatrout angler: Hugh Falkus, thought that the idea of returning a fresh run salmon to the water was unethical.

Kelts yes!

we really should try to wipe them out from our waters though, nature oesn't want them there that's why they went extinct ihn the first place. and salmon runs on waters tend to get the waters bought up by toffs with too much money and no sense, this then mysteriously makes them into flufflinger only waters.

The answer for the salmon is to stop the offshore and estuary netting of these fish that prevents them ascending the rivers to spawn.

It's not so long ago that salmon ran the Scottish and many English rivers in profusion. In fact there was a time when salmon were considered to be the food of the poor and the peasant. I remember trout fishing the River Annan many years ago and seeing a large number of salmon in a pool there. I'm not kidding, there could have been a hundred of them. And of course one of them grabbed my fly but on light trout tackle it soon broke away.

So if there are no salmon in the Scottish rivers, what are you going to put there Carrott? Most of these rivers are not particularly rich and salmon do not rely on the food in these rivers for sustainance.

The answer is positive salmon conservation to the point where the old law of supply and demand takes over and salmon become so common, they are available to ordinary people.

Yet there are stretches of rivers in Scotland, Ireland and even Northern England where you can get a bit of salmon fishing at a moderate fee.

Stop the offshore and estuary netting is what I say!

Atlantic salmon have almost disappeared from the rivers of the west coast of Scotland, and one cause of this is the very thing Mick H is advocating, the farming of salmon. These farms have "allegedly" damaged the local marine environment to such and extent as to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for wild fish to get into and out of the rivers.
The waste products, from the farms, that enter into the water( waste food, growth hormones, pesticides, etc) have caused an explosion in the numbers of sea lice, which damage both the older salmon returning to spawn and the young fish on their way to the sea( no one knows how many young fish die in this way, but it must be quite a high percentage).
The second reason for their scarcity is, as Ron says, the commercial netting of the returning salmon both at sea and in estuaries. This could now have a lesser effect as Ireland is phasing out netting completely( either by "buying out" or not renewing commercial licenses)and also some of the local authorities in Scotland and north of England are trying to do the same.

I have done very little salmon fishing in my life, but enough to appreciate just what a superb species they are. There is nothing like the thrill of a decent sized salmon tail walking at the end of your line, and there is nothing like the sight of a fresh run salmon - blue, silver and beautiful on the bank at the end of a breathtaking scrap.

I agree with you fully Trev, salmon farming has most likely caused the demise of the Atlantic salmon in many of our rivers.

As regards "fly fishing" for salmon, it's not really fly fishing, as you are certainly not imitating any form of insect. And the truth is that there are far more salmon caught on lures, spoons, spinners and worms. I think most salmon anglers prefer to fly fish as in the right conditions, it is not only more interesting and enjoyable, it is more effective.

When salmon ascend a river to spawn, they do not feed like they did in the sea. They do not depend on what little food there might be in the river to sustain them. However if you drop the right lure, worm or fly close to a salmon, it will generally have a go at it.

In the sea, salmon eat krill, small pelagic fish, small crustacians and sandeels in vast quantity. There is no doubt that the overfishing for these animals for use in fish meal, and dare I say it - carp baits, has also been partly responsible for the demise of this wonderful fish.

Come on folks - there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking the occasional Salmon for the pot. In fact you could say that its ethically wrong not to! A wild salmon is just so much better eating than a farmed fish and the treatment of farmed salmon, the pollution caused by salmon farms and the over fishing of sand eels to make fish meal, make them an ethically dubious alterative.

Quite right Sean. Farmed salmon is completely unethical and I refuse point blank to buy it.

The hoovering up of sandeels and other sealife to make pellets to feed farmed salmon in cages is not right. If proper conservation measures were instituted and salmon ran the rivers in profusion, a modest harvest of those fish by anglers would cause no problems and in fact would do a lot of good.

Anglers, hoteliers, landowners and tourist operaters would have a strong vested economic interest in maintaining the runs of Atlantic salmon. A rod caught salmon would then be worth many more times than one caught by nets.

Or reared in one of those hideous cages!

"If proper conservation measures were instituted and salmon ran the rivers in profusion, a modest harvest of those fish by anglers would cause no problems..."

The key word there is 'profusion'. UK river stock of wild salmon is far from strong enough to sustain this idea at present, with only a few exceptions. The buying-out of netting rights was/is a major step in the conservation plan. Restocking by the EA is another, and the angler should also play his/her part by returning fish to the river whenever possible, and especially on rivers where the run of salmon is poor.

Keep these measures in place, and in time, the removal of 'one for the pot' won't be as big an issue as it is today.

So put them back.

I think many thinking, responsible anglers will return the majority of game fish they catch. Some of course do not...

A 'release at all costs' policy though, just isn't practical. The ethics of this are very much a matter of opinion and whatever anglers may think, we are in the minority, as regards casting votes in the democracy we live in.

Ron was right when he said that Salmon often fight close to their death. The same can apply to Trout in rivers, when you hook a big one, on unsuitably light tackle.

How can anyone justify returning a fish to the water, knowing that it's going to suffer a slow lingering death?

A responsible angler will return most of the fish he catches. He may take the odd one for the table; mostly when he judges that it won't survive the experience of being caught.

I don't believe it's sensible or practical to legislate on this.

'local' legislation is already in place on at least one river - maybe on others. The river I fish has one very restrictive rule in place; mandatory catch and release for half of the season, including fish that die on return to the water - if it dies, you let it float away. If you're found taking it home, or the bailiff finds it in your bassbag at the riverside, you'll be prosecuted.

I think the reasoning behind it is this is a last-ditch attempt to stop people taking fish away indiscriminately, and saying that 'sadly, it died when I tried to return it', when in fact it didn't - it was actually a blow on the head with a priest that caused it's demise. This river has seen such a massive decline in salmon numbers that I'm sure it's felt that rules like this are the only way forward if the salmon is to survive there.

Whilst I think that this particular rule is somewhat controversial, (if they die when attempting to return them, they should at least be recovered and handed in to the EA, perhaps) I am still prepared to let all my fish go because I stick to the rules, and I want to see the numbers of salmon increase as time goes forward. One taken here, one taken there, has a very detrimental impact on a river such as this. BTW, the EA, the local Angling Association and the riparian owners are also actively supporting the river with a restocking programme. The estuary nets were also bought out, and that's got to be good for the river.

If the river you fish has a good, sustainable head of salmon, then one for the pot is fine. Sadly, as I said previously, many UK rivers are definitely not in this position.

If you really must take a salmon home, then go and fish a river with sufficient stocks to allow it.

The reason I questioned the proposal that all salmon be returned afer capture is this:

The Environment Agency has a duty to protect fish stocks, especially trout and salmon. A few years ago the EA introduced a new rule, in which any salmon caught before June (I think it's June 16th) must be returned to the water. The EA has lots of highly competent scientific staff, and no doubt it did extensive research before applying the rule.

If the EA considers it is acceptable to take salmon after June, then I would have thought anglers would have a clear conscience in taking a salmon to eat.

Another thought - does good salmon fry production depend on having large numbers of mature salmon in the river ? Or does it depend on other factors such as water temperature and river flows, during the first year of salmon fry's life? I ask this because I've read fishery research papers indicating that good production of pike fry depends on warm dry summers and not on the presence of large numbers of mature females. For salmon fry growth, could weather factors be more important than salmon numbers.?

I know that there are problems in salmon rivers because of pollution from salmon farms. On the other hand, I'm sure I've read that netting of mature salmon off Greenland is no longer a problem. I believe also that all the east coast salmon netting licencees have been bought out. From accounts in the angling press the EA give a much higher priority to tackling salmon poaching, than poaching of coarse fish.

Are salmon stocks really declining as rapidly as some anglers suggest?