Several people have asked to see replies to yesterdays letter to WSFOA by owner John Craddock.
I think in fairness and to see both sides the replies should be printed.
Some interesting reading below.


From Michael timmis.

Subject: Re: Open letter to Mike Timmis

Dear John,

I am very disappointed that my request for unity has been met by this response from you.

Hatcheries have been the issue which has divided the WSFOA on and off for the past 25 years.  While I have served on the Committee the subject has been debated at great length.  Your comment about the Association being  being slothful and moribund is grossly unfair to those who give up their time to serve on the Committee but I guess it is born of your frustration at the NRW decision.

You do applaud some of the work carried out by WUF.  It would be helpful to know which projects you do support and how you suggest that they are funded and whether you are prepared to make a contribution?

I have contributed the largest sum of any owner to the River Improvement Fund but I can assure you that I would certainly not have done so if I thought that there was “scant or very little accountability in return”.  On the contrary, WUF is an extremely well run organisation with a very competent Board Of Trustees who insist on high levels of governance and accountability. Again these people give their time freely and unselfishly because they care.

Yours sincerely,

Michael

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Patrick Darling

Dear John, I am sorry you think so little of us all.  When I crossed the Kalahari desert in Namibia I did it on a horse to avoid harming the ecology.  I agree with you that there is plenty of good practice to see in Namibia along with some very questionable activities.  I think Mikes letter was making the point that hatcheries are for the time being a dead issue.  While they were alive I supported them both financially and with my own physical efforts. Latterly by dredging my ponds here ready for the fry. This was done with the support of WUF.  For the whole 10 years of my chairmanship we did the best we were allowed and though well short of what some desired resulted in over 1,000,000 fry being stocked.  The debate as to wether that was enough or a good thing is on going.

I think it is now time to move on.  We face, as you point out, real problems of global warming and overpopulation and these are likely to worsen over the next 50 years.  We need our river to be in the best possible ecological condition to meet these challenges.  WSFOA and WUF have worked effectively doing just that.  We are making a difference within our catchment. In fact we are considered to be leaders in this field.  Our river is facing, along with the rest of the salmon rivers in the UK, a bad year this year.  Put in context; the Shin where I have just been fishing took 50% of their long term average (I think they went back 25 years but will need to confirm) and they are not untypical. Our average is poor already so we will not be so spectacularly low.  However I have had 2 fish at around 30lbs on my beat so all is not disaster.  This well illustrates your point about matters that are out of our hands.  You will I am sure have noticed that the coarse fishing has held up this year. That not being dependent on a sea migration.  It is much helped by the ecological work that has been done for the salmon.

If we look forwards I think we all agree that we need to worry about summer flows.  Best done by improving upland water holding capacity and challenging all abstraction and water release.  John Lawson leads effectively on this. He is paid by WUF funded by us.  WUF do the liming and damming of the uplands. Again our seed money their labour.

Then water quality is important.  The agricultural community is being visited by WUF and others on our behalf.  A combination of carrot and stick and encouraging and obliging them to mend their ways.

Then we need the spawning grounds to be in good order; and the nets off; and sheep dip kept out of the river; and erosion tackled.  All being addressed by WUF. No one else is doing it.  Many care but only one body is acting.  I for one am proud to have been and still being a small part in all that is being achieved and is still to play for.

And yes over the years I always pay my River Improvememt grant in full and believe that every penny has been used wisely for the benefit of the river; my benefit and yours.

Perhaps at some stage you would like to let us know which of the above you feel that WUF and WSFOA should have left unattended.  Maybe you could also let us know who would have done the work if we had not.

Finally I leave you with a thought.  You may find Stephen an abrasive ally.  Think what those he bulldozes into action on our behalf make of him.

Tight lines.

Patrick

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From David Reville

All,

I think the heart of this debate is simple. The majority of Wye owners, opposed the closure of hatcheries and the loss of the SNR project. This was clearly demonstrated to the board of WSFOA by the letter produced by WSA and endorsed by a significant number of Wye owners. I attach the letter for reference. What Wye owners cannot understand, is why the board who represents them, supported the closure of hatcheries? Many feel, the board of WSFOA supported the WUF stance, and not the owners who they represent.

The fact the John received this letter, also illustrates a second point. WSFOA appears to represent its membership as ‘past and present’ members, rather than those who have paid their annual subscription. However, no one really knows, as the only person in WSFOA privy to membership is the Chairman, and 3 WUF employees, Stephen, Seth and Peter Loughran.

This is why I resigned from the board, and will not be renewing my subscription next year.

David

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From Stuart Smith--

Excuse me for butting into this navel gazing [I was CC’s]. I might point out it’s not just unhappy owners either Mike. Read a few comments from your owners rods………

A Bigsweir Rod via email……………

‘Just read about hatcheries in todays report. Hatcheries have restored runs of salmon on the river Ure in Yorkshire which I fished at the weekend and the Carron in Scotland. It all make you feel sick. The Wye will never become a premier salmon river again!’

An email to RWGA…………

‘I fished the river for many years in the 80's and 90's but finally gave up due to it's sorry state.

Following a "rods on river" advert on the Wye Salmon Association website I returned in 2011 and again took a rod on my old beat, and followed the work of this organisation and others in restoring the salmon stocks.

Now I fear I will once again leave the river after the depressing reports that stocking is to stop. This together with very little action on some of the causes of the decline, an organisation, WUF, that has lost it's way, an owners association which seems to do nothing and the NRW gives me no reason to stay.

If I do not fish the Wye then in all probability I may no longer fish in England and Wales at all. If this is the case I will donate an amount equal to my salmon licence to the River Wye organisations that do care’.

A run on season rods…………..

‘Desperately poor season with no Wye fish to my rod. Not sure I can justify cost of next seasons ticket. Lots of other disappointed anglers, I know at least 6 rods not renewing next year’.

How many day tickets have WUF sold this year 4-5% maybe? Even our [WSA] ‘Rods on River’ scheme could only give away 15% of its free tickets compared with some 30% last year!

Stuart Smith

On behalf of Wye Salmon Association

See new post started!