Wild Salmon: A recent edition of the wild salmon blog Speyonline.com highlighted that the salmon fishing this year has seen the number of fish caught from the River Dee number as few as 150 by July. By the same date, the number caught from the Upper River Spey is less than 200 fish. Former Ghillie, Ian Gordon who writes the blog say that if someone had told him forty years ago that these were the numbers of fish being caught in 2025, he would have thought they were mad.
Yet, confirmation of the poor catches can be found on another blog – Tweedbeats, written by river proprietor Andrew Douglas Home. Earlier in July, he reported that the Scottish catch for 2025 does not look good. He cites the example of the River Thurso in the far north for which 73 salmon had been caught compared to the ten-year average of 578 fish. Mr Douglas Home says many will blame the weather, but he said that by May most rivers have had sufficient water for fish to run. In a subsequent blog, he writes that the River Tay has such a flow not to be affected by the weather and if anything, it has too much water. Yet, despite such inconsistencies, Mr Douglas Home suggests that 2025 is heading towards an even lower catch than the previous all-time low of 2023. Referring to the River Dee, he says that if you had told previous generations that the total catch by the end of July was just 250-300 fish, they would have scoffed. He added that it may be too soon to ring the alarm bells and that some still believe that that all the talk of ‘decline’ and ‘endangered species’ is overblown. Yet he suggests that if the fishing does not improve, even they might have to concede that something is badly amiss.
The reality is that there is something badly amiss and there has been for years but there has been a great reluctance to acknowledge that something is wrong other than to lay all the blame on the door of the salmon farming industry. It only takes a look at the August issue of Trout and Salmon magazine to see an example of such blame. The fishing report about the River Spey is written by fishing guide Malcolm Newbould who writes that he does not believe that the poor season is all down to low water but rather there are not the numbers of fish that there ought to be, ‘The east coast rivers seem to be mirroring what happened on the west coast a few decades ago when the salmon farming industry moved in there, First the sea trout stocks plummet followed by the salmon numbers. I see the same pattern here on the east coast since the salmon farming numbers increased in Orkney and Shetland.: the North Sea is now being polluted with sea lice eggs, and this is having a detrimental effect on smolt survival; It is about time the Fishery Boards and FMS got on the case before it is to late.’ Mr Newbould references Wild Fish’s story about their sea lice modelling study which suggests that sea lice are now impacting wild salmon along the east coast. This is surprising because just over fifteen years ago, Wild Fish were claiming east coast catches were booming exactly because of the absence of salmon farms. This was despite the presence of the same farms in Orkney and Shetland then as now.
What is clear is that whilst the wild fish sector continues to focus on salmon farming, wild salmon are looking less likely to have any future in Scotland.
Before I discuss the future of salmon in Scotland, I was interested to read a similar message in both the blogs I have highlighted. Ian Gordon writes that a significant hurdle to salmon’s recovery is the Scottish Government’s apparent animosity towards the salmon fishing sector. This is driven by prejudices towards landowners and fishery boards who are often made up of wealthy individuals frequently from England who the Scottish Government sees as an easy target.
Andrew Douglas Home writes there is a need to push salmon’s plight up the political agenda. The SNP Government may not be the greatest fans of those who own most of Scotland’s salmon rivers but if disaster is to be avoided, much more needs to be done. He adds that only Governments can do anything about the marine environment.
Both these are interesting perceptions but from my perspective and despite the claims otherwise, the Scottish Government appears to favour the wild salmon sector over the salmon farming industry. After all, it is the Scottish Government who have introduced the pointless and useless Sea Lice Risk Framework aimed at protecting wild salmon whilst allowing anglers to continue catching and killing wild fish from some rivers adjacent to salmon farms
However, I believe that we are all mistaken. The problem is not with Government and the politician per se but with the Marine Directorate and specifically with their scientists who provide advice to the Government. In my opinion, they have pandered to the demands of the wild fish sector for far too long both by giving priority to fishing over the fish and by diverting attention away from these issues onto the salmon farming industry. This is not surprising given that historically those working at the Pitlochry laboratory were also keen anglers. Consequently, there has always been a close working relationship between the scientists and the wild fish sector, which continues to this day. This is apparent locally and internationally, through the involvement with NASCO, an organisation that also has focused their attention on salmon farming rather than angling.
Consequently, the salmon farming sector published a significant amount of data as requested by the Salmon Interaction Working Group in their report published in May 2020. By comparison, the provision of data by the wild fish sector remains firmly in the Dark Ages. There is ongoing discussion about the perilous state of salmon stocks yet, these are estimated from the catch data and yet at the beginning of August in 2025, we have no idea how many salmon and sea trout have been caught from Scottish rivers. Under current procedure, we will not know the numbers until they are published in May 2026, some ten months away and by which time, anglers will have been fishing for nearly eight months into the next season.
The Salmon Interactions Working Group report included the following:
3.1 The SIWG recommends that the system for collection and reporting of catch data should be reviewed;
3.2 The SIWG recommends that Scottish Ministers invest in the appropriate infrastructure to collect and report catch and associated data, which maintains, as far as possible, the continuity of data since 1952, whilst allowing catch data to be reported in as close to real time as possible;
Five years on, the fishing booking website ‘Fish Pal’ publishes salmon and sea trout catches from 18 rivers although this data is not comprehensive. Where is the real time catch data to be published by the Scottish Government that was recommended by the SIWG report. The answer is nowhere.
Following the publication of the SIWG report, the Marine Directorate did announce they had commissioned a company to develop a system for real time reporting but after a few months, details of the work were removed from the Scottish Government website and the issue of such real time reporting has never been raised again. Why this commission was never seen through to completion can only be the subject of conjecture. Any reference to this work has been removed from the Scottish Government website so it is not possible to understand why this work was not seen through to completion. I cannot believe in this modern time; such a system of real time reporting could not be developed, even if it was on a weekly basis. My own view is that the work was halted because the wild fish sector privately refused to cooperate. The reason is very simple and is nothing new.
River proprietors generally have been very reluctant to have real time reporting just because it provides anglers with the knowledge of where and when salmon are being caught. Imagine if you as angler had booked a week’s fishing at over £1000 and then became aware that your booked beat had been barren of fish for some weeks, but a river elsewhere was providing good fishing. The temptation would be to cancel your weeks’ booking and seek alternative fishing elsewhere, However, you were ignorant of the lack of fish, then the proprietor would still get his £1000 and you have an almost zero chance of catching a fish. Publishing real time data could be disastrous for proprietors whose beats were devoid of fish. This is just a typical example of protecting the fishing not the fish. If I am wrong, perhaps the Marine Directorate would explain why real time reporting has never been implemented. Instead, Scotland is left with an archaic system whereby the Marine Directorate send out a couple of thousand forms to proprietors and wait for them to be completed and returned. It is not surprising it takes so long for the official catch data to be reported. Yet, this catch data is important in helping decide the future impact of wild salmon and the interactions they have.
Although the number of fish caught and killed for sport is small, the Marine Directorate has so far refused to call for mandatory catch and release. This is because the anglers’ representatives have said that the message it gives is too Draconian. They say that most anglers are now responsible and returning all the fish they catch. Last year, 1,106 salmon were killed which is 1,106 less salmon that could have bred and helped regenerate the stock. A further 796 sea trout were also killed. Why these fish could not have been saved is another example for protecting the fishing over the fish. The Marine Directorate held a consultation on wild fish including the question whether catch and release should be made mandatory. A few replies said not so the Marine Directorate caved into their demands and fish can still be caught and killed from Scottish rivers today. By comparison, I am reminded of the two consultations held by SEPA about the Sea Lice Risk Framework in which any questions about the validity of the Framework were simply ignored.
In some other salmon fishing countries, the regulators do not believe catch and release is sufficient protection for wild fish stocks and they have taken protection a stage further by closing threatened rivers to angling. Even though some rivers no longer have any catch worth recording, they remain open to fishing with mandatory catch and release. Why rivers closures are not on the agenda is presumably the continued pressure from the wild salmon sector on Marine Directorate scientists to keep all rivers open to fishing, so protecting the interests of the proprietors over the fish.
It should be remembered that it was only a few years ago that Marine Directorate scientists proposed changing the reporting system of salmon and sea trout catches by merging some of the 109-fishing districting so that the number would be reduced to about fifty. This would have brought an end to monitoring such districts as Loch Ewe which was to be merged with two adjacent districts. I took this matter to the Information Commissioner and managed to reverse the decision, so we still have 109 districts today. The reason given to the Commissioner for this change was that there were so few salmon being caught that it might be possible to calculate the income of many of the proprietors. Yet again, the Marine Directorate was more interested in protecting the interests of the river proprietors than the fish. Despite being deeply involved in this case, I am still unclear how incomes could be calculated from an annual catch, especially when most districts have multiple river systems.
This leads on to the current conservation system based on 173 fishing areas. These were initially the 109 fishery districts, but some anglers complained that some rivers were of a different conservation status to that of the district, so the Marine Directorate scientist gave into their complaints and expanded the number of areas covered with some districts divided into ten areas. Each of the 173 areas are treated as a distinct conservation area even though the sizes between each can be massive. This system is highly flawed and should be scrapped and can easily be achieved by making catch and release mandatory, yet once again, the Marine Directorate scientists have succumbed to the demands of the wild fish sector.
I have written previously about the Scottish Government’s wild salmon strategy which I have said ought to be called the wild fishing strategy because it is more about the fishing than the fish. I was interested to see Ian Gordon writes that the lack of proper science has seen the introduction of green issues such as tree planting, which is of course part of the wild salmon strategy. Ian adds that over the last twenty-five years, plans to save wild salmon do not appear to have put a single extra fish in the rivers.
The reality is that the writing has long been on the wall. The problems for salmon are out at sea but the message from the wild salmon sector is that this is far beyond their control and instead they should focus on issues that they can address. Top of the list has been salmon farming, even though it is clear that salmon farming is not what is causing the declines. Unfortunately, the wild fish sector continues to refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion to discuss why salmon are in decline. Fisheries Management Scotland have a fish farming committee. I recently approached then again offering to come and speak about sea lice. My offer was turned down yet again but even more interesting, their Interactions officer wrote to all the salmon farming companies to complain about me and that they would have no further interaction with me. This raises two points. Firstly, what has my offer to do with the salmon farming companies. I don’t represent them. This was a direct contact between myself and FMS and secondly, I would point out that I have no interaction with FMS since they have always refused to speak to me. What this was, was an attempt to vilify me so they could justify refusing to speak to me. In my opinion, if organisations like FMS were really interested in protecting wild salmon for the future, they should be interested in hearing from anyone and everyone who has a suggestion to make. I might have thought that the FMS fish farming committee would be interested in hearing about fish farming issues that might affect wild salmon but apparently not. However, as I have said, this is not about protecting wild salmon, but rather it is about protecting the wild salmon fisheries.
There’s the catch: The Scottish Wild Salmon Strategy was launched in January 2022 and one of the highlighted pressures was exploitation. The strategy stated that efforts had been made to reduce mortality but there was still the potential for mortality when anglers were releasing the fish they had caught. Three years on, Fisheries Management Scotland have just released new guidance on minimising mortality during catch and release. Whether any anglers take any note is questionable since similar advice has been issued previously with little effect as illustrated by the plethora of photos of anglers holding the salmon they caught. Even this week, the Spey Fishery Board, members of FMS, are still posting pictures of anglers who have ignored the advice https://riverspey.org/fishing-reports/week-commencing-21st-july-2025/. The new guidance is available at https://fms.scot/catchandrelease/
However, I was more interested in a new short video (9 minutes long) that urges anglers to help save Scotland’s wild salmon. What should have been a simple illustration of good catch and release practices has more of a political feel to it.
It begins:
“Anglers have long led the way in protecting one of nature’s greatest treasures – the wild Atlantic Salmon”.
Certainly, their approach to protecting wild salmon can be illustrated by the catch statistics that highlights that since records began, 3,660,684 wild salmon have been caught and killed by anglers to the end of 2024.
The video continues:
“Scotland has become a global leader in sustainable angling with catch and release rates exceeding 95%, a standard seen across the UK and this success is not just a win for conservation, it allows fisheries to continue to operate which in turns supports rural communities that rely on fishery tourism and contribute over £79 million to the Scottish economy each year”.
Catch and release rates may exceed 95% but there is not a shred of evidence that catch and release has stemmed the decline of wild salmon. As already discussed, it looks like 2025 may be the worst year for wild salmon ever. Catch and release was first recorded by the Scottish Government in the catch statistics in 1994 and the practice has never brought about any improvement in catches or stock since.
Of course, fishing has been a regular source of income for rural communities but coal, steel, car manufacture and ship building have also been important contributors to the Scottish economy, but these sectors have all fallen into decline and closures. If we want to protect wild salmon, then why should salmon angling be any different? We cannot continue fishing for this iconic species just because rural communities might suffer as a consequence.
