Well, went to the WUF Annual meeting last night.  All a bit rushed and frantic as though they wanted it over as soon as possible.  I will be brief.

First a presentation by John Lawson on the plan he has prepared  to reduce abstraction on both rivers.
I won't deal with the Usk one other than to say there seems better prospects for them with reduced pumping to Llandegfed reservoir though it seems to me if they want water for public use they will have to have it.
Some reduction in pumping across to the Usk from the big lower Wye abstraction.is good but it seems ALL agricultural irrigation is not in the mix at the moment.  Planned release from the Elan Valley will be used to maximise and prolong spates.  Just how big an effect this will have remains to be seen but as someone at the meeting pointed out present releases of compensation water never seem to have any affect on lower beats.  Mr Lawson made the point that catch patterns had declined a great deal on the upper and middle river compared to the lowest beats and although low flows are a factor the biggest reason is the lack of early running spring fish.  These were the fish that the middle and upper beats caught and were upstream above Builth on opening day most years. Winter and spring flows are usually substantial consequently the fish ran on through.  These early spring fish are no longer apparent in any numbers so the middle and upper beats require a very wet year as in 2012 and I mean very wet, to get any 2sw fish. Small summer spates never seem to have much affect and never did. Upper beats almost always suffered in the summer months though they did still pick up the odd springer. Usually a spate or two happened at the backend when a lot of coloured fish were then caught.
The lack of fish is more a problem these days and much of what he said we already knew. However he deserves our thanks for the huge amount of work he has obviously put in.

Simon Evans gave a presentation on the farm work.  Again a worthy cause no doubt but again just how much effect this may have in the short term is difficult to say farmers are notorious in putting a profit before a plan and its probably been hard going. However to bang on about improving the tiny Curle Brook is is like poking a pimple on an elephant.   There are bigger issues upriver that will make a difference but that one will surely not..  They should know Wye always ran brick red in spate and the Ithon a sickly grey and whilst you may hopefully reduce the silt load slightly you are never going to change that.

The presentation by Stephen Marsh Smith I thought was a bit pathetic.  We had a remix of years old slides, cherry picked bits of habitat work, an old slide from the Bidno showing improved fry and parr numbers (of course) and easement on a weir on the upper Lugg which he told us HAD IN FACT BEEN ACCESSIBLE BY SALMON  in suitable flows anyway.  Old slides of the improvement in fry and parr numbers on the Lugg and Arrow since their  restocking but of course no actual numbers at all and they will probably never be available.
He then hit us with the statement that we were producing more smolts than ever before and this was shown by the recent rod catches set against poor seas survival rates. (OPEN MOUTHED ASTONISHMENT).  He then quoted figures for this, and exploitation rates in the Wye with no evidence other than pure guesswork. Figures plucked from the air which, said often and sincerely enough, he may even have believed himself. I didn't .   The smolt run now bears no resemblence whatsoever to what it was years ago. There were several people in the room other than myself who could of told him so but typically they didn't. You cannot count main river Wye smolts its true so any figures he gave were mere speculation.  A smolt trap on the Lugg or Arrow or an even smaller tributary may have given some idea what these 'restored stream were capable of producing but that,'s not going to happen under this regime.   He did hint there may come a time when they can do no more -not in what's left of my lifetime it won't.

I did ask him the question as to what WUFs role would be in relation to the hinted at partnership with the new bankrupt NRW . He said words to the effect that "NRW are the regulatory body and we will be implementing their policies"  Which as I pointed out will send a chill through may peoples bones.
Just one small mention of 'why no hatchery' but other than that complacency seemed to be the order of the day.  Having said that much of the audience was made up of WuF staff, trustees, habitat workers and the like.  Anglers seemed to be thin on the ground but there again it takes some stamina to go to this meeting year after year listening to the same old stuff  with the same or similar result.  I find it depressingly sad.
Mrs Elizabeth Passey the Chairwoman had to leave early having laid down the law in the first part of the meeting as in the edict ' one question one answer only'..  As an 'high powered' business woman I was looking forward to asking her, "If you gave someone access to 14 million pounds, and a time span of 18 years to turn a project around and ended up with a third of what you first started with" what would you say to them.  I could't ask it so I didn't get my answer.  Next year perhaps.?

As for the owners meeting no doubt news will filter out.  On person described it as ,'bizarre.'



W&S  " With the lack of catching up this year,"

No change there then!!!!!!