Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Wild Fishing Wales, How they spend 2,600,000

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,630

    Angry Wild Fishing Wales, How they spend 2,600,000

    Just thought it is interesting to see where some of our tax money is going!

    http://www.wildfishingwales.com/index.htm#page-1
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Worcestershire
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Yes, but it is heartening to see how many more salmon are entering the Wye, sometimes beating Scotland for size... Oh, wait, hang on, I though the anglers kept saying our canoes were making the populations decline?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    So that is another crazy argument blown out of the water....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Pointless thread. The wild salmon are only increasing on the Wye by a small margin, and that because the nets at the river mouth have been removed.
    The river is on "at risk" status for salmon (EA). It may remain so for the next ten years. All salmon caught must be returned.

    Also, I thought we'd looked at paddling on the Wye and decided collectively that there was no concrete evidence that padding actually damaged specific redds.
    Paddling has the potential to damage redds, which is why care should be taken. In the same breath I should mention that we also recognise that careless wading by anglers, driving 4x4 vehicles across shallow water, and floods also have the potential to damage redds. It is unfair to single out paddling as somehow more damaging.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    Pointless thread. The wild salmon are only increasing on the Wye by a small margin, and that because the nets at the river mouth have been removed.
    The river is on "at risk" status for salmon (EA). It may remain so for the next ten years. All salmon caught must be returned.
    All the reports show that fish numbers are down and yet large amounts of money are being spent on attracting more anglers, surely angling activity should be reduced until the fish stocks recover, not increased. The answer always seems to be catch & release as if this is doing the fish a favour I don't think they would see it that way, the stress must have an impact on the breeding success of salmon by being caught possibly several times on the way to the redds. I think it is wrong to spend this amount of tax payers money to increase angling when fish stocks are telling you to reduce activity for a while. Catch & Release has the potential to damage the breeding success of fish, give them a break to recover.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    I wouldn't argue with any of that.
    That Welsh Assembly, eh?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,630

    Default

    The trouble is that they are so far removed from reality, it is all about money as usual, to justify this expenditure they refer to the money spent by anglers which is obviously important to them as their job is to increase tourism. What they seem to forget is that they are dealing with living animals not objects, the welfare of the fish should be higher on the agenda than it is at the moment. The widespread use of catch & release will be the downfall of angling, once it is established in game fishing there will be no going back, this will give the antis even more ammunition next time they attack angling.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Catch and release for game fish is already well-established in the USA.
    We have to balance the work we do on the rivers (fighting pollution is one example) with fish welfare.

    I'm comfortable that the work I do on the Wye - managing one of the semi-natural release smolt ponds over the Autumn/Winter/Spring more than balances any damage I do to fish stocks. Paradoxically the EA want to stop introducing stocked young salmon in Wales.
    It hasn't escaped anyone's attention that the main proponents of this move are WUF, who believe that habitat restoration is the way forward - they of course will carry the work out. Coincidentally the EA provide the young salmon from their hatcheries - at least one of which is fully owned by the EA, and if sold off will make a few for building land..........

    Nothing wrong with habitat restoration BTW, as long as we know that it is actually restoration, but it's not going to bring the salmon back in any numbers anytime soon............

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,276

    Default

    From the research that has been done it would seem that maybe 1 in 10 caught and released fish fail to breed or may die.

    If you look on Game fishing websites you will find quite detailed advice on how to handle fish so that, as they say themselves, survival may approach 100%.

    What they are admitting in doing this is that their 'sport' actually damages fish.

    So when everything is perfect for the fishermen the only people doing the damage will be fishermen.

    It's a funny old world.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    From the research that has been done it would seem that maybe 1 in 10 caught and released fish fail to breed or may die.

    If you look on Game fishing websites you will find quite detailed advice on how to handle fish so that, as they say themselves, survival may approach 100%.

    What they are admitting in doing this is that their 'sport' actually damages fish.

    So when everything is perfect for the fishermen the only people doing the damage will be fishermen.

    It's a funny old world.
    It's a funny old points scoring game is what you mean, surely.

    How much damage to the environment does a canoe factory do then?
    Don't answer - just showing you that I can be childish too. I choose not to be (most of the time).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,969

    Default

    The question of whether fishing is a cruel or destructive sport is entirely irrelevant to the access debate. This a question to which there will never be agreement. It is simply a waste of time and a distraction to be discussing it here. If this is your concern, head for an animal rights forum.
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidh View Post
    It's a funny old points scoring game is what you mean, surely.
    Just illustrating the pointlessness of a whole lot of stuff that crops up from time to time in debates about access.

    Unfortunately one side or the other often majors on quite small and largely irrelevant details without getting to the main issue.

    Maybe that is a ploy to avoid addressing the real issues.

    I don't know.

    If both sides contemplated for a while on their impact of what they particularly like doing then maybe, just maybe, they could start to talk about the main point.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    Just illustrating the pointlessness of a whole lot of stuff that crops up from time to time in debates about access.

    Unfortunately one side or the other often majors on quite small and largely irrelevant details without getting to the main issue.

    Maybe that is a ploy to avoid addressing the real issues.

    I don't know.

    If both sides contemplated for a while on their impact of what they particularly like doing then maybe, just maybe, they could start to talk about the main point.
    I said this was a pointless thread in post 4..........

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    I said this was a pointless thread in post 4..........
    If pointless, why continue posting on it?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mid-Wales (River Wye)
    Posts
    1,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quicky View Post
    If pointless, why continue posting on it?
    I posted initially to put my point of view - but you are right, and I shall withdraw forthwith (should've stopped after 4).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •