Should Salmon be Stocked

I dispair everytime I read Anglers Mail and hear of how the River X has been stocked with salmon, or that a salmon has been caught in a river that has not seen them for 50 years!! I live in Scotland, and , as such, have access to some of the best salmon rivers in Scotland.....if I had the money!!!

I am really worried that rivers down south are being stocked with a *Cash crop* and that the general pleasure angler will be priced of these river by Salmon anglers in the future.

What is worse, is that a disproportionally high amount of EA money is being used to buy and stock these Salmon Parr, for the beneifit of a very minor amount of anglers. Mark my words, when u start to get asked to pay ?40 a day to fish a river, you too will see where I am comming from.

What do u guys think?

I wrote a piece on this for fishing.co.uk which examines the maths involved. You're right to raise the question. For example, did you know:

"......While the EA stocked 377,735 coarse fish during the 99/2000 financial year, it introduced 2,149,165 salmon during the same period. So while salmon anglers accounted for around a fortieth of licence sales and a fourteenth of its licence income, the EA stocked six times as many salmon as coarse fish last year...."

Chris...My point precisly. And when these rivers have a viable run of salmon, the coarse angler will be booted off infavour of Salmon anglers, Bait fishing will not be allowed, and ticket prices will soar!

In some other countries you have different prices of license depending on what you fish for. As they are getting more money pumped back for them should Salmon fishers also have to pay more ?

I would love to see someone like say the SACG on the case, if they have not already been there.

....better still how about the new Angling Alliance ?

Hate to make the point chaps but Salmon anglers do pay more for their licences!!
If memory serves me correctly it is in the order of ?56 or was it may have gone up now.
All the licence fees are set way to low and should be doubled with a significant percentage of the extra money going to the new NAA to set up a huge fighting fund to pay for prfessionals to run the thing instead of well meaning amateurs.
Just imagine the interest such a body would create and the influence that body would have with an income of around 10-20 million a year!!

I cannot agree with what you are suggesting, Alan.
Why should anglers be forced to pay for use of our waterways, whilst participants in other water sports do not. The revinue generated by licence sales must be huge now. Doubling this would be rubbing salt into the wound. The environment agency should be more accountable for how they allocate funds. You suggest twice the price but twice the staff, the paid profesionals. Have you thaught about people on a low income? I for one would like to see more for the money I allready pay. Why should we pay more, just to give some allready overpaid geezer a cushy new job? In twenty five years of fishing I have had my licence checked once. That was my one and only experience with a environment agency/water authority employee in any capacity. Hardly a big return for all the dosh I have forked out. So you will understand me, not appreciating sombody suggesting I pay more. In fact if anything I think I deserve a rebate.

Andrew Like you I have only ever had my licence checked a couple of times in 34 years of fishing and on both of those occasions I was salmon fishing!
However I have no objection to paying for my fishing the E.A. do an excellent job with the very limited resorces they currently have.
The other money I suggested should go to the N.A.A. this is a very diiferent body set up to represent all groups of anglers at government level.
The fact that we pay gives us a right to a say in what goes on in respect of our waterways sadly anglers would rather squabble amongst themselves than present a uninted front to government. However I am hoping along with many others that the new body will have that effect.
Angling needs to be professionaly promoted, well meaning amateurs however enthusiastic dont have the skills for that job.
We will need a fighting fund for dealing with the antis as like it or not they have nearly all declared war on us the major groups being the HSA CAA all backed up financialy by PETA who are prepared to pour millions into the fight against us we need to have a properly funded resource to sort that lot out.
Equally if contained within the additional funding that we pay is automatic membership of the NAA you would find that more anglers are liable to take ownership of the thing and become involved.
This already happens in Canada and attitudes are very different as a result poluters go in fear of the angling body over there such is the power they now wield.
I find it very sad that anglers who are prepared to spend vast ammounts of money on tackle, bait,club cards / day tickets, petroland the other expenses in running a car,clothing, food, and the myriad of other thngs that go to make up a day's fishing should moan about paying to support their sport.
Trotting out old adgages about those who aren't so well of doesn't work either as appropriate concessions can be put in place.
Equally arguments about those that already dont pay don't wash as these people are stealing from YOU! I belive that anyone caught without a licence once caught should be prosecuted and that the equipment they had at the scene should be automatically confiscated this includes the car the arrived in.
Make the effort to meet the EA staff on the ground and you will discover that they are not some geezer in a cushy job.
Have a look at their site when you have a minute and yo will get to see some of the work they do you may be supprised.
Quite honestly I think that ?40 per year is very little to protect both the riverside environment and the future of angling at the same time.
To do otherwise is selfiness in extremis

Alan...thanks for putting me right on the amount Salmon anglers pay...I did not know they pay more - should check my facts first eh!....Mind you I guess they dont pay 6 times the amount of coarse anglers.

I see where your coming from with your argument about upping the amount we pay and I am also increasingly seeing fishery controllers like RMC suggesting that we have to expect permit prices to rise as well so lots of extra money coming into the sport...it should be good?
Well I am not so sure...I think that if we did double, triple etc the amount we have to pay and licensees where REALLY checked regularly then I believe it would actually drive many people away from the sport or worse still stop new people coming into it...."WHAT! I have to pay THAT much just to go fishing?!"

Maybe your idea of a concession system could help.

Up here in Scotland, the rod licence is null and void. Money is set aside for the various fisheries boards for re-stocking salmon and trout etc. This money partly comes from the riparian owners of the rivers. For example, the Aberdeen and District Angling Club looks after many miles of the Aberdeenshire Don. It has its own bailifs who regularly patrol, its own keeper who tends the banks, looks after the water etc, and gives money to a hatchaery for restocking with Trout. Anglers indirectly pay for all of this via ticket prices, which stand at ?100 a year for 32 miles of salmon fishing and a loch for rainbows! That is VERY cheap indeed.

I say, get rid of the rod licence, get the clubs and owners to pay for there waters to be protected from pollution etc by paying a fee to the EA. I know anglers will eventully pay for it via slightly higher ticket prices....but at least those anglers that fish more, pay more, and ALL anglers get to pay something, because there would be no licence dodging, and visiting anglers from abroad/Scotland would also contirbute. It works here in Scotland...sooo..what do u think?