The close season gives everyone time to reflect on the past and look forward to the new season.

Much of the talk here on Speyside is cantering around the whether we should or shouldn’t stock with late Parr and Smolts.   Following the publication of an article in Novembers T&S, a meeting was called by the River Spey Anglers Association [RSAA].   On the agenda, was – Canoeing/Rafting, Catch and Release [C&R], Stocking and the roll of the RSAA?   The meeting was attended by paddling representatives as well as interested fishing groups.   Also in attendance was Chairman of the Spey Fishery Board [SFB], Mr Alan Williams.   In what was sometimes a fairly heated meeting, RSAA members, much to the displeasure of many there, did not in fact present their case for Smolt Releasing.

Initial discussions focused on Canoeing and Rafting.   The general opinion was, paddling activity was on the increase particularly in the Knockando area, a fact confirmed by Knockando Ghillie, Mr Sandy Smith, who felt his beat was being virtually destroyed [in a fishing context] by the daily presence of both canoes and rafts.   It was noted that rafting clients were not made aware of the “outdoor access code”, whilst generally; canoeing clients are briefed on their responsibility.   With regard to descending the river Sandy felt there should be more dialogue between different paddling groups, however this was seen by many of the paddling groups present, as not being practical.   Paddling representatives agreed that this part of the river was most heavily used and were sympathetic towards people fishing here.   Questions were also raised on potential harm to Juvenile fish from constant paddling activity in this particular area.   It was felt this could be quantified only by scientific research and that anecdotal evidence of a lack of juvenile fish was not enough.   I have long held the view that over disturbance will have a negative effect on both adult and juvenile fish.   Surely a proper experiment should be carried out to, one way or another, finally put this one to bed.   I also believe this should be funded by paddlers themselves, as at the moment they put little or nothing back into the river. I fear we will wait some time for this!!

The question of Catch and Release also raised some points. Whilst the general view was positive, the view from beats at the lower end of the river was, it has not worked.   C&R was insignificant because at one time nets took many more fish.   Mr Williams felt it hadn’t had enough time and only after around 7 years would we begin to see the benefits.   Arndilly Ghillie, Mr Tony Green, disagreed; pointing out that the extra 21 million eggs in the system completely justified the board’s position on C&R.   He also felt the board should be doing more to protect salmon, both juvenile and adult, from predators, a view echoed by almost everyone present. 

Mr Williams outlined the board’s policy on stocking, which in itself sparked a lively debate.   With regard to stocking with Smolts he cited three main reasons why the board were dubious. 
Firstly - He cited the cost as being a major factor, explaining that 100,000 Smolts would cost a minimum of 100K, possibly 200k, to put to sea.   Such a proposal would require two extra employees, an addition which at the moment could not be justified. 

Secondly – He explained that nearly all scientific opinion is against stocking in any form, and even more opposed to this done with Smolts, as this could “concentrate the gene pool”.

Thirdly – He pointed out that any experiments of this nature which had been done in the UK proved to be “unsuccessful” but accepted, when prompted from the floor, that in Iceland, things were different.   This, he felt, was because Iceland was much closer to the feeding grounds of salmon and that “Our fish have further to swim”!

The economic argument against Smolts was led by Mr Williams.   The floor was told of the great cost and lack of resources due a short-fall in “other income”, i.e. grant aid for various projects. The board’s primary income during 09 was £450,000.   “Other income” added a further £60,000.   

He added – Stocking with Smolts has been tried in Scotland, the results of which proved to be, “at best”, very poor!

He referred to a couple of trials, one on the River Carron [Wester Ross], where 6000 smolts were released for a return to the rods of 24 fish.   The other took place on the River Oykel with 5000 smolts, no actual figures, other than the result was poor, were given to this.

The above trial, small by nature, represents a 0.4% return to rods, which would also suggest Icelandic rivers do have a greater return rate.   This in turn would seem to validate the statement “Our fish have further to swim”, which indeed they have. It must also be remembered, any fish returning are potential spawners and not all will be caught with rod and line. 

Figures from Iceland show this figure to be between 0.5 and 2% return to rods.   It must be remembered, although these numbers are very low, this is highly profitable, otherwise it would not be done, particularly given Iceland’s present economic woes.  Last years catch on East and West Ranga, which relies 100% on hatchery reared smolts, was 21,000 fish.   It has also to be said, these have migrated to the ocean and returned in exactly the same fashion as our own.

Another interesting fact from Iceland is – Greater numbers of smolts released seem to bring a slightly higher percentage return [safety in numbers]!?   However, it may be that huge quantities of fish in the river attract more anglers!? And, consequently, more pressure on the stock. 

These fishing’s are expensive. Many people consider this as a direct result of very expensive smolt releasing, but looking more closely, it would seem the short [three month fishing season] may also play a significant part in this. It would seem that all fishing in Iceland, even “non hatchery”, is relatively expensive. 

Smolt releasing has transformed the Ranga from a river which produced no more than 40 fish annually over a 50 year period, to, the season following the first smolt release, 1600, peaking at an amazing 21,000 fish last year.   No matter what one’s view, a great success story for salmon during these times of decline!  

It must be stressed however, virtually no natural spawning takes place on this river, and so in adopting a large scale smolt release programme they had nothing to lose.   The above experiment also proved without any doubt, that the vast majority of fish are caught in the exact area form where they were released.   The fact they returned, not only their natal river, but to a specific position within that river has obvious implications for us, hence the large scale debate in this country and two differing views of most anglers and scientists.

Prior to smolt releasing like many here in the UK, this river was stocked with fed fry, the results of which were generally very poor and not thought worth pursuing. 

The paragraph above seems to confirm the scepticism of many people, including the scientific community, with regard to stocking.   This was reinforced at the meeting by Mr Walter Polsen [Biologist and Retired Teacher], who questioned the practicality, both method and geography with regard to the stocking policy of the SFB.   When pushed on this, Mr Williams conceded, predation of the small number of smolts being produced would, he thought, be terrible! 

For many years, Ghillies have questioned the policy of stocking the river above Spey Dam, its geographical position being up-stream of Loch Inch which is full of predators such as Pike.   Mr Williams also thought, fish which are not “genetically adapted” to this area would not have good rates of survival.

An interesting parallel is that of the Tyne, a river which beyond any doubt has benefited from hatchery fish being planted, not as fed fry, but much later in the season as Parr.   The methodology of Mr Peter Gray is recognised by most “Anglers” as being the correct way forward with regard to stocking in the UK.   “Cleaning up” the once polluted Tyne will also have had an impact, but the combination of a clean river along with thoughtful stocking policy has seen just what the environment agency can do when channelling their money in the correct areas. 

It is fairly obvious from the above, Parr planted late in the season, or Smolts the following spring, in real terms, will yield a far greater return of fish to the river.   Ironically, it would appear the success of projects seen on both the Tyne and Ranga that forms the basis for scepticism in the world of Fishery Science. 

Apprehension by Biologists over a trial smolt project, seems to be founded not on economics, as compared to the many projects, this would be small change, but on the impact of so many fish turning up in the river carrying similar genes, or, as described by Mr Williams and the view of the SFB, creating “A concentrated gene pool”.   Scientific advisers are growing in their belief that fish in our, as well as other river systems, reproductively are genetically distinct and that cross breeding could have serious implications wild native stock.   This is a very complex subject but one I will try and simplify for next months report. 

Staying on the theme of concentrated gene pools – The meeting was told that £130,000 is being raised privately for “Genetic Analysis Project” [GAP].   The aim of which is to determine how many distinct breeding populations exist within the river and tributaries.   Scientific Studies carried out elsewhere in the country strongly suggests, tributaries, sub tributaries and even smaller, have distinct families of fish which have adapted over thousands of years to that particular location.   Such research is very worth while and may prove invaluable as to answering many questions regarding the true biology of Spey salmon, including why specific populations in the river have all but disappeared.   If it is indeed the case that fish from specific areas, as suggested, breed only with their close kin, then rationally, a concentrated gene pool will be the natural result.   Although given that that in the animal world the opposite would seem to be the case, I remain somewhat sceptical. The research however, if properly carried out, will prove invaluable. 

This, along with the fact that late Parr and Smolt releasing is the only proven method of “stocking” which returns sufficient numbers of fish to our rivers, may just provide the breakthrough everyone has been looking for during what undoubtedly is a natural downturn.

A show of hands revealed 95% of people attending the meeting would favour a trial smolt releasing scheme.   65% felt the board needed a change in their stocking policy. 

I recently met with both Mr Williams and Mr Roger Knight [Director of the SFB] in order to clarify the exact position of the board with regard to this subject. 

Their position is – Whilst they do not, in the future, rule out a trial Smolt Project.  At the moment they are extremely uncomfortable with potentially taking fish from, or destined for, the top of the river and planting their progeny at the lower end of the river.  All the scientific advice they have suggests - Such a scheme could have a disastrous knock on effect on the natural stock of the river. Without “more evidence”, which should come via the GAP, they feel they cannot take the risk.   I feel the main issue here is – Given present stock levels, can we justify this risk? At this moment in time, the board think not, and ultimately, it is they who must come to the decision.

Others will and have pointed out that some parts of the river have been extremely poor and without intervention may cease to be viable fisheries.   The main question is – Have numbers of fish decreased so much as to warrant this??   One thing is sure – Fewer fish, at any time of the year equates to fewer anglers, the knock on effect of which is obvious to everyone involved.

There is no doubt that this season has seen a sharp decline in numbers of salmon returning to all rivers but the jury remains out on whether the time has come for more drastic action.  

Such decisions are not easy and cannot be taken without complete justification and although it’s easy for everyone not directly involved to make their own assumptions, Fishery Boards must be seen to be following scientific advice.   Their political structure is such that failure to do so would compromise their position, which in turn would leave, perish the thought, SNH running the river!   Personally, I would not give them, or their scientific advisors, the control to the TV, let alone our wonderful river!

The annual Ghillies Meeting held on the 3rd Dec also produced some interesting comments on the above. I will report on this in next month’s column.

Ian Gordon
Speycaster