Another strange edict from WUF below which includes the reasons for the Wye decline?, Congratulations to NRW for stopping the hatchery programme.
Surprised that the months total was a 'high' as it was!
Hope for some rain to continue catching pregnant fish.
Reared fish seldom return -unless they do it of course.
Really can't stand much more of this bu=====t If I had a rope strong enough in my garage I would be tempted to go and hang myself.
At the bottom of the report is a post from a forum which sums up some of this admirably.
The Wye and Usk Foundation
WUF Salmon Fishing Report
Above and below: Autumn salmon from the Usk.
Salmon struggling to ascend Dayhouse weir on the Lugg last winter
September was a record month for rivers in the south and south east of Wales: it produced the lowest rainfall ever recorded. Following on from a series of dry months, it was no surprise to see gauges everywhere at their lowest for many years. Fishing effort has been very low and rewards scant. We know of fish taken on the Usk at Llangibby, Swan Meadow, Llanover and Chain Bridge while on the Wye, September catches have ranged from Glanwye (4), Nyth and Tyrcelyn (3), Eardisley (1), Wyesham (4), Redbrook (1), Cadora Backs (5), Cadora (3), Upper Bigsweir (1), to Bigsweir (28).
Notable successes included on the 16th, eighty-nine year old former ghillie George Johnson hooking two fish in fifteen minutes at Cadora, losing the first before landing a clean 14 pounder. Also, Charles Tricks at the Nyth catching two salmon in two days on his trout rod, the second one at 20lbs.
Bigsweir's catch included one or two silver fish and many were taken as the tide receded. While a dismal total for a river the size of the Wye, we were pleasantly surprised that the total was as high as 52. The combination of continuous low water and little effort invariably results in low catches.
The NRW board have approved their hatchery policy which will see the focus of salmon management shift further towards a sustainable and holistic approach and away from artificial rearing. Fish currently held will be released and there will be no future catch ups. The subject has been well talked about with highly charged and polarised views on the subject. Our position is that the tagging and releasing of fish in both Wye and Usk have shown quite clearly that reared fish seldom return.
Hatchery supporters tend to forget two important points: every fish taken for stripping is a net loss to wild production and that rearing never makes good that loss. This particularly applies when there is no surplus of fish as we have on most of our rivers today.
Secondly, the catastrophic decline on the Wye was caused by specific issues such as barriers to migration, sheep dip poisoning, acid rain and habitat degradation -none of which would be rectified by stocking.
As in August, the dry weather and low flows provides an opportunity to complete our fish pass programme. Having finished several on the upper Wye we will be shifting our efforts to the English side of the Wye catchment. Work should start soon on a substantial pass at Dayhouse, Kingsland. This is the last significant barrier in the Lugg with no means of assisting salmon passage and although some fish get over in certain flows, many are left to spawn in the rather less productive lower river.
There is some rain forecast in early October and there may be a chance to wet a line in the remainder days of the season, especially in the Usk which clears first. For many reasons, let's hope it comes soon!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was interested to read this in the WUF October newsletter, apparently they know what caused the crash in the Wye salmon, it was:
"..... the catastrophic decline on the Wye was caused by specific issues such as barriers to migration, sheep dip poisoning, acid rain and habitat degradation -none of which would be rectified by stocking"
I'm delighted that at last someone has the categoric answer, I'm just intrigued that this information has only just come to light, it can't have been known any earlier as the WUF were actively stocking or supporting stocking until just a couple of years ago when apparently that would not have rectified the problem, rectifying the problem of course being the "raison d'etre" of the WUF.
I'm also somewhat confused over how any of the four reasons given would create a "crash" in population when one would expect a much more gradual effect.
Barriers to migration: were any thrown up post 1990? The salmon population seemed to cope perfectly well with the spawning available prior to the crash and in fact I think it is well accepted that a great deal of spawning took place in the main stem where there are no barriers to migration at all. I accept that opening new streams to the returning fish may help reinstate the salmon, despite any fish using them by definition being genetically deficient, but I'd need a lot of convincing that existing barriers in any way contributed to the crash.
Sheep dip poisoning: Surely this is something that has an effect over time, unless there were fairly simultaneous catastrophic events on a number of major spawning tribs in the early 1990s. Were there any?
Acid rain: Pretty much the same scenario as for sheep dip but less likely to have a single catastrophic event unless there were significant acid flushes in the early 1990s. Were there any?
Habitat degradation: again something that builds over time, I'd be interested to know how this had a hand in a crash rather than a gradual decline.
If I was compiling a list of factors, again not really pointing the finger at a cause for a crash but certainly impacting in a gradual decline, I might have pinpointed the major increase in abstraction for agriculture and public water supply and the consequent silting and chemical enrichment of the previously significant main stem spawning areas by agricultural run off. I would also include the very significant increase in pisciverous birds and the rapid expansion of certain non indigenous fish species as equally if not more likely to be the cause than any of the four mentioned by the WUF...... why were they omitted?
Just to remind everyone the Wye catch crashed in 1997 when it dropped below 1,000 (733) and stayed there for 10 years and still hasn't recovered to the 1996 number. In the time over which records were kept prior to 1997, only in 1995 (1049) was there a catch lower than in any year since 1997, the catch in 2008 was higher.
If you look at the trends there were clear signs of a gradual decline prior to 1997 and I accept completely that all of the factors above may have contributed to that but I need to be convinced that any were responsible for the 1997 crash and that being the case the WUF were wrong to make this statement.
One other point worth making is that whilst sustained low water certainly restricts the progress of fish into the middle and upper river, it is not really an impediment to fish getting into the beats below Monmouth and these beats are also well down on catch in 2014. Also the low water may not have impacted heavily on the catches in May and June, both traditionally very good if not the best months on the Wye, as they tend to bring the main 2SW run into the river.
To be fair, it would appear that salmon catches across the board, not just the Wye, are down in 2014 as they were in 2013. On the other hand sea trout catches on some Welsh rivers have been good, in some cases very good, despite low water.
"..... the catastrophic decline on the Wye was caused by specific issues such as barriers to migration, sheep dip poisoning, acid rain and habitat degradation -none of which would be rectified by stocking"
I'm delighted that at last someone has the categoric answer, I'm just intrigued that this information has only just come to light, it can't have been known any earlier as the WUF were actively stocking or supporting stocking until just a couple of years ago when apparently that would not have rectified the problem, rectifying the problem of course being the "raison d'etre" of the WUF.
I'm also somewhat confused over how any of the four reasons given would create a "crash" in population when one would expect a much more gradual effect.
Barriers to migration: were any thrown up post 1990? The salmon population seemed to cope perfectly well with the spawning available prior to the crash and in fact I think it is well accepted that a great deal of spawning took place in the main stem where there are no barriers to migration at all. I accept that opening new streams to the returning fish may help reinstate the salmon, despite any fish using them by definition being genetically deficient, but I'd need a lot of convincing that existing barriers in any way contributed to the crash.
Sheep dip poisoning: Surely this is something that has an effect over time, unless there were fairly simultaneous catastrophic events on a number of major spawning tribs in the early 1990s. Were there any?
Acid rain: Pretty much the same scenario as for sheep dip but less likely to have a single catastrophic event unless there were significant acid flushes in the early 1990s. Were there any?
Habitat degradation: again something that builds over time, I'd be interested to know how this had a hand in a crash rather than a gradual decline.
If I was compiling a list of factors, again not really pointing the finger at a cause for a crash but certainly impacting in a gradual decline, I might have pinpointed the major increase in abstraction for agriculture and public water supply and the consequent silting and chemical enrichment of the previously significant main stem spawning areas by agricultural run off. I would also include the very significant increase in pisciverous birds and the rapid expansion of certain non indigenous fish species as equally if not more likely to be the cause than any of the four mentioned by the WUF...... why were they omitted?
Just to remind everyone the Wye catch crashed in 1997 when it dropped below 1,000 (733) and stayed there for 10 years and still hasn't recovered to the 1996 number. In the time over which records were kept prior to 1997, only in 1995 (1049) was there a catch lower than in any year since 1997, the catch in 2008 was higher.
If you look at the trends there were clear signs of a gradual decline prior to 1997 and I accept completely that all of the factors above may have contributed to that but I need to be convinced that any were responsible for the 1997 crash and that being the case the WUF were wrong to make this statement.
One other point worth making is that whilst sustained low water certainly restricts the progress of fish into the middle and upper river, it is not really an impediment to fish getting into the beats below Monmouth and these beats are also well down on catch in 2014. Also the low water may not have impacted heavily on the catches in May and June, both traditionally very good if not the best months on the Wye, as they tend to bring the main 2SW run into the river.
To be fair, it would appear that salmon catches across the board, not just the Wye, are down in 2014 as they were in 2013. On the other hand sea trout catches on some Welsh rivers have been good, in some cases very good, despite low water.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.