Fishing The Fly Scotland

Index => Main Discussion Area => Topic started by: Duncan McRae on 19/11/2008 at 23:01

Title: Seatrout numbers
Post by: Duncan McRae on 19/11/2008 at 23:01
Hi Folks

I can safely say that 2008 is by far my worst year for seatrout.I put in a real effort on both Don and Ythan for little reward.
The beat totals that i've seen so far have been very bad to say the least.

Was anyone lucky enough to have a good seatrout year?

Does anyone have a theory as to why seatrout numbers appear to be in rapid decline?

I feel very sad as to me, the seatrout is the real king of fish.

Duncan

Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: Mike Barrio on 19/11/2008 at 23:32
Hi Duncan

Yes, the sea trout is my favourite fish locally too :wink

Perhaps it might be an idea for the fishery boards to make them C&R only for a few years. This will not solve the problem ..... but it certainly wouldn't do any harm :?

Best wishes
Mike
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: Hamish Young on 20/11/2008 at 06:47
Perhaps it might be an idea for the fishery boards to make them C&R only for a few years.

Watch this space  :wink
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: Cameron deBoth on 20/11/2008 at 07:45
Watch this space  :wink

Hamish to the rescue  :z16
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: Jim Eddie on 20/11/2008 at 17:58
Difficult one , easy answer on the West Coast , Sea lice from the Salmon farms. Lack of Sand Eels due to over fishing is a possibility , but I'm not really sure about that , the shoals of sand eels off Peterhead this summer were the most numerous for years.

Catch and realease won't really solve the problem , if the problem is at sea, its sad to see the decline of such a magnificent game fish. Most of the costal nets have now gone so thats not the answer either. My great uncle was a netsman on the South Esk at Montrose basin, in the sixties , they took 30,000 Sea- Trout a year.

 :z18

Jim       
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: Barry Robertson on 20/11/2008 at 18:37
The south esk had a poor show this year also with the sea trout, as years go by its almost as if they are becoming extinct  :cry
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: sightbob on 20/11/2008 at 18:58
my theory is that the rivers nowadays contain so much foodstuff (possibly due to nitrates increasing weed growth) for the brown trout they simply don't have to go to sea to eat.
i only caught two sea trout from the deveron both around three pound, pretty poor
 :z15
brian
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: goosander on 20/11/2008 at 19:55
Have only caught 6% of the seatrout i was adverageing up to the last three years. To me this is very sad as the seatrout is a more worthy quarry than the salmon. Finnock were a pest not that many years ago and yet it is three years since i got one small finnock.
People say that sandells are scarce but if the cod etc are scarce then there should be plenty of them out there.
The river Earn beat that i fish is almost empty of fish [Browns/Grayling/Seatrout/Salmon]. Because of the shortage of the first two this would sugest that there are problems in the river as after all the salmon spend the first two to three years in the river.
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: Alex Thain on 20/11/2008 at 22:52
as to the coment about no sand eels and no cod; the north sea is awash with cod but they are north due to climate change[global warming call it what you wish ]   the sea temperature has changed pushing fish north into colder water .  there definatley has been a big decline in seatrout catches but its not down to over fishing of sandeels,rather a change of there normal location due to water temperature in my humble opinion having been a trawlerman for 37 years     
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: acercon3 on 21/11/2008 at 12:55
For those of us who saw the seatrout fishing in it's heyday it is indeed a sad state of affairs.
I rather suspect that the decline is due to a combination of circumstances most of which are mentioned by earlier contributors to the thread.
In so far as we know the seatrout spends most of it's time in relatively close proximity to it's native river and by default close the the coastline. Given that there are large populations of predatory seals almost everywhere along our coastline I have no doubt that the seatrout's habit of staying relatively close to the coastline would be another , significant contributary factor to it's decline.
Many times I have seen the colony of seals which hang out on the north bank of the Ythan mouth and wondered how any fish could enter the estuary.
Back in the seatrout's heyday it was no coincidence that any seal that raised it's head above water level in the salmon netsmans domain usually ended up on the seabed with a bullet in its head.
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: salar35 on 11/12/2008 at 22:41
Catch and realease won't really solve the problem , if the problem is at sea,

If the problem's at sea, then catch and release may not solve the problem, but it's rather more positive than the sole alternative......a hen seatrout wrapped in tinfoil and simmering in the oven  :shock ain't going to add any juveniles to the rivers. At least C&R will allow those seatrout which are staggering back from the sea, to procreate. And perhaps provide sufficient offspring to be around when the problem does resolve itself. Incidentally, we're noting a drop in the average size of our own seatrout......up until a couple of years ago anything under three pounds was a rarity, but now the opposite is becoming the case. All deeply worrying, even taking into account the cyclical nature of seatrout abundance. In accordance with the precautionary principle being sensibly applied in the Dee Conservation Code for 2009, we are recommending 100% C&R UFN on our own wee rivers.


Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: Bigtrout on 16/12/2008 at 14:02
Back in the seatrout's heyday it was no coincidence that any seal that raised it's head above water level in the salmon netsmans domain usually ended up on the seabed with a bullet in its head.

Poor old seals, otters,  fish eating birds …. and so  the list goes on. Always easy targets. Seal numbers are in decline.

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=249

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/call-for-shooting-ban-as-seal-numbers-plummet-by-a-third-411675.html

Over fishing perhaps? What about industrial fishing to support  the fish farming so beloved of Scottish politicians?  Not in our back-yard? The cause of  these problems is seldom as straightforward  as some would like it to be. Best surely  to stop and think, pause and draw breath before drawing a bead.  Our  representatives    from Edinburgh are in Europe right now trying to scupper fishery conservation measures, all  for  the sake of a few votes!  Where do you think sea trout are on their list of priorities?
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: salar35 on 30/12/2008 at 21:34
From Bigtrout : Seal numbers are in decline

Hhhmm, taken a look down Catterline way recently? It's difficult to see bare rock for live sealmeat, and what proportion of shore-hugging marine seatrout :cry they take, is anyone's guess. And a quiet wander up any NE river at this time of year, will reveal how many goosanders and cormorants are enjoying an undisturbed lunch of salmonid parr.

But since we ordinary anglers can't do much about over-predation, at least we can help our seatrout by showing restraint in how we impact upon them.
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: ugie fisher on 01/01/2009 at 21:15
The 150 seals at the mouth of the ythan didn't help us any this year. I fish the eastury and the seals were chasing fish on to the bank one day i was there in the summer. Also there was no shoals of herring fry or sand eels this year which is very worrying
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: acercon3 on 02/01/2009 at 12:32
I make no apology for my narrow minded view on seals as I have a penchant for catching migatory fish.

There is no doubt in my mind that back in 'the good old days' when population control was partially in the hand of the salmon netsman there was a balance between the predator population and the fish.
Since the disappearance of many netting stations due to buyouts this balance has been lost. I believe that it is still possible for certain bodies to legally shoot seals but the red tape etc that needs to be negotiated in order to do so is not worth the hassle as numbers permitted to be shot are minimal to say the least and would have no effect.

The seal population has increased dramatically in recent decades.  It would be simplistic to attribute the  fall in the numbers of returning migratory fish ( particularly seatrout) to the increased predation by seals but it must surely have a significant impact.

We as anglers do our bit by indulging in catch and release,our various river boards run hatcheries,restocking programmes and improve habitat. To this end I cannot help but wonder who the main beneficiaries of these programmes may be but suspect that a large portion of this good work is undone along our coastline.

Having checked BIGTROUT 's links I also cannot help wondering if the demise of the common seal is in part due to it's own success after all it does not really have to look over it's shoulder to often , we do not seem to see many Orcas hanging around these airts!

On the subject of industrial fishing( lack of sandeel) I think that everyone agrees that it is an equation that does not balance, basically a disaster . Quite why this industry was allowed to take root I do not know but unfortunately the organisations that run this industry are powerful and carry clout , marry that to the man in the streets desire for cheap protein and profit hungry mega retailers and you can see that this problem is here to stay.
Although industrial fishing takes the brunt of the blame for many problems I also suspect that there are other angles to the problem of sandeel shortages.To my knowledge the Danish Industrial fleet ( the main perpetrators) do not operate regularly close to our coast although there is an area off Arbroath where they fish.I also believe that no industrial fishing takes place off our West Coast . This begs the question where are our coastal populations of sandeel ? Perhaps the answer partially lies in the effects of climate change .
Title: Re: Seatrout numbers
Post by: Hamish Young on 03/01/2009 at 10:57
Perhaps it might be an idea for the fishery boards to make them C&R only for a few years. This will not solve the problem ..... but it certainly wouldn't do any harm :?

At the last Don District Salmon Fishery Board AGM is was unanimously agreed that there should be compulsory C&R for Sea Trout until further notice, hopefully this will go some way to aiding in the recovery of these fish on the Don.
In time, a Trust biologist will undoubtedly look further into the Sea Trout dilemma - in time.

Hamish  :z3