Unfortunately our river looks like it has been lost to people with other agendas, a "playground for intellects". One such person, when trying to answer the smolt question put up the usual genetic smokescreen by likening the salmon to the White Rhino, I ask you, what an analogy! Somehow I don't think the White Rhino is quite as adaptable as the Salmon, if an Eskimo went to live in the Caribbean, it wouldn't take him long to find a taste for rum and bananas. 

My simple answer to this particular problem is - when fertilising the eggs in the hatchery, cover the hen with ten and not one male fish, as this will ensure future chance of brothers and sisters breeding with one another is minimised. But if we were to believe everything we hear from our scientific friends, each particular burn is full of brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins anyway. Who knows, it may not be too long before their fins evolve into arms and they start playing the Banjo.

The bottom line is, initially they tried to cover up the facts regarding this type of stocking by telling us, that it was a waste of time, a 0.1% return is all you could expect, and it was not cost effective. By saying this they contradict themselves, what genetic impact would this figure have on the wild stock? Why are they so worried about Smolts? I will answer this simplistically; they know that stocking with Smolts will have a big impact on the "fishery". 

The Simplistic View

The Atlantic salmon is one of the most researched creatures on god's planet and after all the years of research, all the archives of information, the salmon is almost commercially extinct. This being the case, how can any person realistically say that science has helped the Atlantic salmon? Undoubtedly science has helped us understand more about the king of fish, but realistically has done nothing to help it. All that anglers and politicians ever seem to hear from the growing army of experts is Might, Maybe, Possibly and could, is it any wonder we are all sceptical. 

At this great creature's time of need, what are we doing with all the knowledge gained? Probably pontificating over the next new theory presented at the 199th salmon symposium.  This must rank as one of sciences greatest failings, a perfect example of how not to tackle a problem. Throwing money at a problem seldom solves it; the answers are in the main simple. Salmon numbers have always fluctuated; with or without science we will still have the same run of salmon next year and for the foreseeable future. No more or no less. Given too much time and money, scientists will identify problems in infinite proportions; in the scientific world, this is genetic! As each research project ends, another two begin, and so it will go on, fiddling around for years with lots of theory and little end product.

Nero, when watching his city burn, also fiddled around, but the people of Rome Soon realised, putting water on the flames was better than fiddling!

However, not all fishery scientists can be likened to this historical character, some have a genuine interest in the enhancement of wild salmon stocks and know the important role they have in giving sound "fisheries" advice to government. Armed with this sound advice, all we now need are politicians with the will to make strong decisions that will enable salmon to migrate to and from their spawning grounds, without interception in any shape or form by man. 

To sum it all up, we don't need any more information, all we need is a government with the political will to put in place the measures we know, and have known for years will help. Will we get this? Probably not!

Salmon Eggs [size]
Figures sent by Mr Fitzherbert of the Black Castle Hatchery, river Boyne, Navan, Co, Meath, 21ST Feb 1929

In 194 Salmon, stripped for the hatchery, the average number of eggs per pound of fish was 640. Fish up to 12lbs, weight yielded more ova per pound than those over that weight, but the ova were smaller. The details for three typical Salmon were given: No 1, 6lbs weight, total yield 4536 ova i.e. 756 per pound of fish; No 2, 10lbs weight 6232 ova i.e. 623 ova per pound of fish; No 3, 16lbs weight, 8280 ova, i.e. 517 ova per pound of fish. 

Should ovum from only large hen fish be used for the purpose of hatcheries? Breeding from nearly related parents frequently causes deterioration amongst mammals. Reasoning from analogy, [if similar to mammals] should we suppose the infusion of fresh blood would improve fish? The growth of the mother fish controls the size of the ovum, i.e. the amount of food supplied to the developing embryo and Alvin; and this, in its turn, controls growth rate, at any rate for many years. The size of the ovum is a character, which, in a certain sense, is transferred from mother to offspring.

In the south of Sweden the temperature is higher than in the north, and the summer longer; and the salmon parr in the rivers in the south of Sweden grow more rapidly and migrate at an earlier age than those of the north. To test the relative value of the various factors, a batch of ova from a southern river were hatched and the progeny reared in a northern hatchery under identical conditions with a batch from a northern river; and vice versa, a batch from a northern river were hatched and reared in a southern hatchery, under identical conditions with a batch from a southern river. In the northern hatchery no difference could be detected between the two batches; growth was comparatively slow and migration age late. In the southern hatchery also no difference could be detected between the two batches reared there; growth was comparatively fast, and the migration age early. 

Hence under similar conditions of feeding, the dominant factors are temperature of water, and length of summer. Variation in the amount of food affects growth, and high water temperature is bad for the health of fry, especially if combined with artificial feeding. It is difficult to understand why, in the same rivers in the same year, some fish grow more rapidly than others, when the food supply is presumably the same. The causes, probably are very complex, and start from the egg itself or the parent. Very young [perhaps also very old] feeble, or ill-conditioned, parents tend to produce small eggs, which give birth to small young, deficient in vigour. With a poor start in life, they have less energy to hunt food. Naturally their growth is slow. But even in first class hatcheries where an effort is made to breed from only the most promising parents, a great difference is found in the young fish. So different is their rate of growth that they must be graded out again and again in the course of one year, to prevent the larger ones devouring the smaller ones of the same age.

Under wild conditions the precise position of the redds may have an influence also. Suitable food may be less abundant in one part of the river than in another; and for some time after birth the tiny fish will not move very far from the place they were hatched. But, after all, such variations in growth rate, or in physical vigour, are not confined to fish. We find them in our own families, and we label them constitutional differences, or say, that son takes after his father, the other after his mother, or hint vaguely at pre-natal influences. On the Spey, we are told that most of the spring salmon are hen fish. I would second this because, more than 90% of fish we catch prior to June are hens. This in itself throws up a question - Were do the "genetically perfect" male spring salmon come from.

Spring Salmon & Politics 
I recently read that Protestants were better drivers than Catholics. That a French Scientist had proved this and it was now official. Jean-Pascal Aassailly, a psychologist has studied the matter by analyzing accident and concludes those of the reformed faith have more respect for the law while Catholics are more concerned about seeking forgiveness after flouting them. He was speaking after France introduced laws, which will lead to the automatic confiscation of driver's licenses if caught going more than 25 mph above the limit. Mr Assailly claimed the situation was due the "Catholic culture" of justifying personal irresponsibility at confession. He said: "Catholics can be absolved in confession; Protestants take responsibility. 

The above is an incredible statement, but it shows by hiding behind academic status, one can scientifically prove almost anything. 

Should we, or should we not, fish for salmon in the spring? This will be the big debate over the next few years. The Academics will put forward the argument for delaying the start of the salmon fishing season on the river Spey, on the grounds of, the lack of spring salmon and the need to protect them. Other people [whose livelihoods depend on the river being open] will argue that spring salmon catches have stayed much and such the same for the past 20 years. Salmon numbers at this time of year have undoubtedly decreased from the heady days of the 50s and 60s, but if angling were making a significant impact on this, what has been for twenty years a tiny stock component, why are there any left at all? Although being cautious [catch and release] cannot do any harm! 

Juvenile Stocks 
Juvenile stocks are at abundant levels - where? Not in the river, most ghillies say there are very few on their beats. Juvenile stocks are at abundant levels - how do we know this? How many per m2 is abundance? What was the base figure when juvenile surveys began?

A base figure, which is guessed, deems future data irrelevant. Rod and line catch statistics, are used as part of the river management, i.e. it would be fair to say that between 1952-1999 the average catch has stayed around 10,000. The same cannot be said about salmon parr catches. Once so plentiful, they were caught with annoying regularity in the summer months. Or is it just a case of remembering only the best years?
Why, when counting juveniles, are catch statistics, or ghillies observations, not used along side the scientific surveys. Most parr caught with rod and line would be at least 1+ and would not measure less than three inches. 

Could it be the long tailed flies that we are now fishing with, that are too large for the parr?
Maybe so, but this should not stop us seeing them rising for flies. Initial surveys carried out on the main stem of the river, seem to suggest that there are many more parr 1+ found in beats, which are still providing good sport. [2002]

Connect to Frames  |   Copyrights & Disclaimer  |  Sitemap