Third page.

Some more letters.  This one below seems to me to be inaccurate in some respects regarding the Painscastle hatchery, at least according to the hatchery landlord at the time some of us looked into what went on there, and also information from him this evening. But what do I know?

From: Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith [mailto:stephen@wyeuskfoundation.org]
Sent: 15 October 2014 21:49
To: David Revill; 'Timmis'
Cc: Seth Johnson-Marshall; patrickdarling@btconnect.com; stuartsmith@wyesalmon.com; 'Nichola Odey'; Dai Watkins
Subject: RE: Open letter to Mike Timmis

David

Although below not directly addressed to me, I witnessed an earlier reincarnation of the hatchery debate and I don’t think it is quite as simple as you believe. Just after the formation of the NRA in the early ‘90s they took stock of the hatchery situation and without any consultation, closed the (then) Wye hatchery.

A paper had been published comparing the return rates of clipped caught up wild smolts and hatchery reared smolts. c7.2% of the Wye wild smolts returned; 0% of the reared smolts returned. However, the hatchery ban then did not exclude the operation of a private hatchery.

Then as with SNR, keen and motivated individuals set about setting up a hatchery scheme in the Forest. In some years fry were produced, in others there were significant deaths of adults and juveniles.  I put up some of the cash needed and when I got the first significant EU funding built another hatchery so that the Forest one could be closed with some dignity.

Our small scale operation was not the first choice but Cynrig was not available until 2008ish. We left when the landlord tried to up the rent to unreasonable levels – the same landlord’s family who did an identical manoeuvre to the SNR project at the Llanigon brook site. It was both heavily criticised for perceived failure but later, in the face of impending hatchery closure, praised as a success (see various fora). The fallout from that was of a similar order of disappointment as you may be feeling now

Many of us hoped that the SNR project would settle the issue of whether reared fish returned in better quantities than wild and so we gave it qualified support from WUF as the issue could then be settled one way or another. In WUF’s view this was the main value of the project.

However, NRW decided to look into the whole issue, unprompted by WSFOA or WUF and concluded that hatcheries were not good value, nor successful and not without risk. The subsequent consultation did not add any new conclusive evidence. Unlike in the ‘90s they did not leave the door open for private hatcheries this time.

SNR were given warnings well in advance that it was technically possible for the then EAW (later NRW) to close any hatchery operation and I appreciate how embarrassing it must be to have collected funding on a promise, but that is not WSFOA’s fault.

Nothing WSFOA said would have made any difference as the outcome was not based on numbers complaining, nor their rhetoric but on reliable scientific evidence. As in the 90s, there were efforts made at conciliation following the outcome, as for many, the river was more important than hatchery programme itself.

Whatever happens, we will endeavour to do our best for the river and hope that the real issue – poor sea survival will recover enough for you and the next generation to see some decent salmon numbers again

Yours sincerely

Stephen

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

To: 'Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith'; 'Timmis'
Cc: 'Seth Johnson-Marshall'; 'patrickdarling@btconnect.com'; 'stuartsmith@wyesalmon.com'; 'Nichola Odey'; 'Dai Watkins'
Subject: RE: Open letter to Mike Timmis

Stephen,

As you address this to me, I would respond as follows:-

1.       The board of WSFOA agreed to support SNR unanimously. That included yourself as a director of the Board. WUF as you say also supported SNR. However, as soon as NRW published their consultation of hatcheries, you personally and unilaterally came out in support of closure as did WUF. This despite you being a board member of WSFOA, and agreeing to support it with your fellow board members. Remarkably, you saw no conflict of interest in your position. If you wish to refute this, I am happy to refer to our email correspondence, where I even suggested you and WUF at least stay neutral on the issue.

2.       None of what you write below, answers the point that the board of WSFOA did not act in the interests of the majority of its members. This is why I resigned. My position became untenable – as for that matter did every other board members.

3.       None of what you say addresses the fact that 3 WUF employees (of which 1 is a Riparian owner) know who the WSFOA membership is, but only the Chairman of WSFOA is allowed to know who the membership are. You also appear to include past and present members to exaggerate your membership. This is why I am leaving WSFOA. I have no desire to belong to secret society.

WSFOA is no longer there to represent Salmon fisheries owners. It is simply there to fund WUF.

David