For the sake of accuracy, parr were placed in the spring fed pond in October.SNR.
The fish fry were placed in a spring-fed pond in October
If paddlers observed and adhered to the water height restrictions already in place on the upper Wye that would be an improvement and it wouldnít cost a penny. Unfortunately many donít.The background to all of this is that a certain organisation wants more money for in-river 'improvements' (one of which happens to be setting up paddling 'agreements').
Are you certain about that? (Or was that just because there were no redds to disturb on your stretch) They could have paddled the upper reaches of the Irfon and you wouldnít have known a thing about it. Do you care about people paddling tiny little rivers and streams when salmon and trout are spawning? Canoe Wales obviously donít, or are they not really responsible paddlers? Have a good look at their guide and the descriptions of how to access even the smallest of streams, Iím sure youíll know some of them. The guide to one little stream ends with the line;Paddlers didn't disturb redds on the Builth stretch of the Irfon last year
And what salmon go up, paddlers come down - especially out of season!
Is that responsible paddling by environmentally aware people?
Andy, from personal observations it seems to be a 50/50 chance whether they return or not. Maybe it depends on how far they are driven from their chosen site, who knows. Those that do return are usually back within an hour.The salmon seem to respond to acoustic signals so a canoeist is unlikely to observe that they have disturbed the fish. Do they return once the canoe has gone? No one knows.
David, Iím surprised you didnít point out that the Tyne had a hatchery and was heavily stocked with hundreds of thousands of fry and parr (not the paltry amount WUF approve of) until the salmon numbers reached the point they were self sustaining.Good post.
When there are as many salmon in a river as there are in the Tyne, Iím sure the fish that are disturbed when spawning are quickly replaced by others. The salmon populations in Welsh rivers on the other hand, all seem to be in decline and need all the help they can get.
Around that time, the Tyne and Clyde estuaries (and many others) were described as ďchemical barriersĒ to migratory fish from 100 years or so of industrial pollution. Stocking seems to have helped in many cases.Its perhaps worth noting that many of the rivers showing marked positive growth were devoid of salmon as little as forty years ago - Tyne, Clyde etc.....
I disagree Robbo. Why shouldnít anglers also be prosecuted if they disturb spawning salmon? Anglers and paddlers can both face charges for disturbing nesting birds (http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/WBATL_tcm9-132998.pdf ) so why not spawning fish?The use of SAFA against canoeists will never be contemplated. It would have to be used against fishermen too for the same reason.
It is my intention, along with anglers from a number of rivers across Wales, to force this issue with the NRW and get the salmon the protection they need.
With the NRW desperately short of funds it seems they are passing ďauthorityĒ to the various rivers trusts, with WUF heading the way. Iíve just heard from someone who attended their meeting in Hereford last week. When asked what role WUF would be taking in their new partnership with NRW, S.M-S replied ďNRW are the regulatory body and we will be implementing their policiesĒ, (could he really mean influencing their policies?). He did hint there may come a time when they (WUF) could do no more for the Wye, so watch out for the formation of WRF, the Welsh Rivers Foundation. The S.M-S quest for domination continues as they are one of the few organisations with the necessary infrastructure already in place to take on the task. Iíd already heard about potential changes to the licensing system with rumours it was to be run on the lines of the WUF passport scheme and (though donít ask me how) they plan to include paddlers.