The Secret Angler

The 2019 issue of Salmo Trutta, the annual magazine of the Wild Trout Trust, comes with a new design. One obvious difference is the change in paper, now not so glossy, similar to or the same as that used in Fallon’s Angler. Apart from fonts and other minor details, the two are rather alike, though there is no indication that Fallon had a hand in its design.

But layout and design are of little interest compared to the content. Some years ago, the editor at the time, John Williams, a most likeable man no longer with us, told me he wanted to make the magazine into a semi-academic journal. Since then it has carried these semi-popular science articles, though perhaps fewer than before (as far as I can remember). I think this is just as well because they are not very successful. They need to be written for the lay reader but often fall between journal paper and article, with graphs poorly explained and written in a dry style.

Even so I am interested in what the biologists have to say, enough so that I have attempted to contact a few in the past. Now I am not one to make the ridiculous criticisms of fishery biologists in the way of some ignoramuses — ‘What has the Environment Agency ever done for us?’ However, I haven’t found them very open to chatting with those outside their field. I remember the sniffiness of David Summers who was disparaging of non-biologists (and possibly a few fellow scientists too); I also had a less than fruitful encounter with Ron ‘never buy your own drink’ Campbell whose main interest seemed to be getting free labour without attribution. These are two of the worst examples but my wider experience suggests a general lack of interest in public engagement amongst fishery scientists. These days I don’t bother.

Another yearbook of this kind is Gamefisher, published by Salmon & Trout Conservation. This really is designed by Garrett Fallon. The editor is Tom Fort, which might be the reason the articles are better than Salmo Trutta’s. There are reports of science research inside but they are better aimed at the angler on the bank. There are good articles on politics, the environment and fishing, though as with Salmo Trutta, its pieces on worldwide fishing sit uneasily with the organisation’s environmental credentials. Overall Gamefisher is a better read, although Chouinard’s criticism of hydroelectric schemes in Salmo Trutta is excellent, and Myerscough’s article on remote sensing genuinely fascinating despite the frequent exclamation marks.

Finally it’s worth drawing attention to Tom Fort’s Gamefisher editorial, in which he makes a stoic effort at optimism at the tail of one of his worst seasons, and one of the worst ever for salmon fishing. I can’t say I am able to see many silver linings but one evening this year I did see an extraordinary flight of mayfly spinners. That’s my contribution to a brighter outlook.

Follow @secretangler

I’ve bought a copy of the latest issue of The Field. At this time of year there is a bit more fishing displacing the usual dominant hunting and shooting (and young women with no clothes, discretely photographed of course). What most attracted my attention are the two polemical articles by John Bailey, one in which he attacks fisheries scientists’ reluctance to stock and, in the second piece, lack of cormorant control.

It’s not for me to defend scientists, yet this is the age of raging and false information. John Bailey claims that, as a graduate, he was once on the side of science but now supports stocking against the advice of scientists. His reason is based on his travels ‘to all corners of the country’ during which he finds dying rivers everywhere. Bailey is a History graduate, not a scientist, hence perhaps his comment that scientists are getting richer. Most fish biologists are employed by public bodies, where pay increases have been restricted to 1% a year since 2008 — they are getting poorer. He avers that ‘authorities are betraying our rivers’, another bit of bluster uncomfortably reminiscent of the nonsense heard in the Brexit babble.

It’s true that salmon runs have fallen yet more in recent years. Coarse populations in rivers I fish are healthy but perhaps I have not travelled to farther enough corners. I often see frequent restockings of coarse fish to no great purpose: anglers still complain that the fishing was so much better in the past.

The question of salmon stocks is more interesting because they have undoubtedly declined. Scientists point out that stocking is futile except in special circumstances; rivers can only support so many fish and additions are just money down the river. Bailey quotes river keepers in support of his view that lack of fish is due to lack of stocking. In last year’s Gamefisher (annual magazine of Salmon & Trout Conservation, the old S&TA), Andrew Douglas-Home, a Tweed fishery owner, points out that natural stocks of salmon fry are very healthy. Adding hatchery fish would only increase mortality. He goes on to observe that salmon runs have always been cyclical. Whether this is enough to explain low numbers in all rivers is not always clear. A fisheries scientist I know well tells me that the main problem is at sea; for some reason the salmon are just not returning, and no one knows why. Global warming has been implicated, but there are plenty of anglers who don’t believe in that either.

The poor success rate of stock enhancement from hatcheries has been established for some time and Bailey offers no convincing argument to the contrary. He is vociferous too in his condemnation of cormorant management, dramatically claiming that small trout and salmon are ‘hoovered to extinction.’ Now I am not sure myself about the impact of cormorant predation, other than to note, as above, that the rivers I fish have healthy stocks, despite the appearance of cormorants on some of them. I might be convinced if Bailey were to offer some evidence. Like me, I suspect he has not read any research on the subject, which is not surprising as academic journals, apart from being hard work, are not readily available to the public.

His answer, the ‘Slovenian solution,’ is to require club members to put in 40 hours of anti-cormorant duty each season, armed with guns and whistles. In this country such an approach is neither practicable nor legal. I think there is not much doubt that cormorants can reduce fish populations in some circumstances, but Bailey overstates the case. My understanding is that cormorants do not invariably deplete stocks; it depends on the water concerned. Anglers are too ready to believe in simple reasons and answers to the perceived problems in fisheries, problems that may not even exist. John Bailey should be more circumspect.