Not a very good idea...

Introducing a kill licence/tag will put prices up and this will matter most to those who have least - club fishermen and associations.  It is a regressive tax.  

It will increase the administration and enforcement burden on the people who run these (and other) volunteer organisations.  Not so great for community organisations.  

It will be make it less likely for youngsters to get into the sport.

80% of all rod caught salmon are already returned on a voluntary basis.  One must question exactly what impact the proposals will have on stocks.  There is no suggestion that the scheme will fund conservation work or fish counters.  There is no way of measuring the impact of this scheme on the Salmon stock.  

It seems the number of licences will be allocated on an almost totally arbitrary method of the 5 year average.  That average depends entirely upon "rod effort" i.e. how many people have fished a particular stretch.  Potentially, a highly productive but under-fished river would get an erroneously low allocation because the recorded "catch" from that river is artificially low.

Assuming the assessment of sustainable stocks is accurate (and who could doubt it will be?) then there's no reason why the licences would not be transferrable between anglers/associations within the same river catchment.  After all, if x number of licences are issued for a catchment, what difference does it make to the stocks who exercises the licence?  

If a kill licence/tag is bought but not used, there is a fish in the river that was expected to be killed and eaten but is still in the river.  That's a bonus over and above the sustainable level.  So unused tags should be traded in for refund at the end of the season.

Why the contribution is important

How about: "to improve the quality of law making in Scotland"?

by shpeil on July 27, 2015 at 11:43PM

Current Rating

Average score : 4.3
Based on : 3 votes


  • Posted by marinescotland2 July 28, 2015 at 16:57

    Thank you for your comments. We have noted the concerns around costs and the potential for this to be a disincentive to anglers balanced against the need to take some action to address concerns about existing stocks. I was interested in the observation that this might make it less likely for youngsters to get into the sport. That being the case, do you have any thoughts as to why so few are actively involved at this juncture?
  • Posted by scaredforsalmon July 29, 2015 at 11:49

    I take many youngsters and parents trout fishing but not so many salmon fishing, I think this is partly down to the costs involved, more expensive permits, more expensive gear, slightly more dangerous as in wading as opposed to bank fishing. But also much due to the accessibility, if a river is close to a town then youngsters can more easily access by themeselves otherwise they rely on an adult to get there. Also youngsters need some incentive to carry on fishing and if they fish all day without catching something or even seeing something to catch, they are less likely to want to do it again. Stocked trout waters are much more likely to keep their interest than salmon fishing.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas