Blowing your hourn: In a press release, which has received widespread coverage including in the general media, Mowi Scotland have publicised the findings of an environmental study at their farm in Loch Hourn. This includes a video which can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogvtaYSOkcI, which shows a wide range of marine life rather than the desolate wasteland as critics claim.
Mowi said that ‘when claims were made that our farm was harming the loch, we investigated, and the results are clear; salmon farming in Loch Hourn is not damaging the marine ecosystem. In fact, it’s coexisting with it.’
Unfortunately, the media coverage failed to include any comment from those who have suggested that Loch Hourn has been left a wasteland as a consequence of salmon farming. In fact, like many other times when claims against the industry have been shown to be false, those criticising the industry remain silent. I believe that they don’t respond to such evidence because by ignoring it they can continue their ongoing crusade against the fish farming sector.
Mowi don’t highlight the origin of the claims, but I remember an article in the Ecologist magazine from January this year in which the Friends of Loch Hourn, part of the Coastal Communities Network, spelled out their concerns. (https://theecologist.org/2025/jan/03/underwater-paradise-lost).
In the article, they say that wild fish numbers and marine biodiversity has plummeted over the last few decades. Former fisherman Peter Carr said that ‘we have got a problem out there.’ He added that ‘it looks beautiful out there but what is happening underneath? Some of us have seen it firsthand.’ Yet through the magic of video, we can all see what is happening for ourselves and it doesn’t look like the picture suggested by Mr Carr.
The real problem is that groups like Friends of Loch Hourn are simply a NIMBY group who don’t want any commercial activity in their locality. They blame salmon farming for anything and everything but like most critics, they prefer to speak out to journalists but avoid speaking to those who are able to counter their claims in person.
This is a problem that has beset the salmon farming industry for years. The critics like Friends of Loch Hourn have developed a narrative that portrays salmon farming as an environmental disaster even though salmon farms are rigorously monitored and highly regulated.
Two other stories re-enforce this point. The first is that it has been announced that SEPA have offered up to £650,000 in funding for the development of non-grab methods to assess the environmental impact of salmon farming in areas where the seabed is rocky or there is a protected marine habitat.
The video accompanying the announcement specifically mentions that such analysis affects local community groups because they want to be confident that any salmon farm is not impacting the environment. Perhaps, these groups and SEPA should look to Loch Hourn and see for themselves the reality. It looks like SEPA are responding too quickly to the demand of these groups, rather than looking at the evidence from over forty years of farming experience. It seems that SEPA are also slow to learn because they also say that any new methodology should be sufficiently robust to stand up in court if challenged. They have clearly forgotten that the Sea Lice Risk Framework is the consequence of misleading claims from community groups and other organisations. SEPA were far too quick to launch their framework without listening to industry evidence and as a result now face the prospect of legal challenge from the industry. This is what happens when only one viewpoint is heard.
The second point to highlight this idea of promoting just one side of the argument was evident from a webinar held by Healthy Bays Network in Eastern Canada. This webinar was titled Global Lessons for Local Struggles against Open Net Pen Finfish Aquaculture. Speakers includes Rune Jensen of Salmon Camera in Norway, Catalina Cendoya from the Global Salmon Farming Resistance in South America, Peter George representing Neighbours of Fish Farming in Tasmania and Alexandra Morton from Raincoast Research in BC. The webinar can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da_Tao0jeCw
I understand that some critics have genuine concerns about the impacts of salmon farming there is nothing to be gained by such one-sided discussions. We already know that removing salmon farms such as that in Loch Ewe is not a magic panacea to remedy all the claims and certainly the removal of the farm has not rejuvenated the local wild fish populations as the anglers said it would. What is needed is a proper open discussion about these claimed issues rather than the false claims and misinformation which now seem so entrenched in the established narrative. Sadly, this is unlikely to change when the critics are so unwilling to even listen, as illustrated later in this issue of reLAKSation.
Wild salmon conservation: Last week, the Sottish Government rather surprisingly sent out an email advising of the proposed river gradings for 2026. I say rather surprisingly because it is still some months yet until the end of 2025 season and we have no idea what the status of the fisheries is for this year. The word is that the season could be the worst ever on record so how an assessment can be made for 2026 is a real mystery. It might be expected that if stocks are at an all time low, then increased restrictions might be imposed on angling. However, the conservation measures for 2026 propose an overall improvement in the fishing, which surely cannot be right. The reason for the improvement is simply because the conservation measures are based on the 2024 catch not the most recent one. Yet, in 2024, catches saw a slight improvement on 2023, which was the previous all time low. Looking at the overall trends, any right-minded thinker would know that the improvements in 2024 were not a change in direction for salmon stocks but simply part of the recurring annual variation. The overall trend, which has been apparent since the 1970s is very much in a downwards direction and is still heading towards local extinction. Anyone who thinks otherwise is burying their head well and truly in the sand.
I am not convinced those involved in drawing up the conservation measures ever bother to look at the overall picture because it is now ten years since these measures were introduced in Scotland and clearly as we head towards the lowest catch on record, they are not working. What is it going to take for someone in authority to notice and take decisive action? The current view is that as long as anglers can continue to fish for salmon, then we should retain the status quo. If that is the case, then it doesn’t really matter if the calculation of the conservation measures is flawed because the message which they tell is simply ignored.
In addition to the mistaken idea that it is possible to predict the conservation status of rivers in 2026 using data from 2024, the whole system of conservation measures is flawed. This is because the Marine Directorate gave into the demands of anglers who claimed they were being unfairly treated when using a system based on the 109 fishery districts. When the system was first introduced a decade ago, many anglers complained that their bit of river had a better conservation status than their fishery district as a whole. In response, the Marine Directorate caved in, and the 109 official fishery districts turned into 173 different assessment areas, some of whose catchments were as small as 4000 m2 in size. Some of the smaller fishery districts on the west coast were subdivided into as many as ten different assessments areas yet others on the east coast, such as the Tweed continued to be assessed as one area, the size of which was 16,187,000m2. Unfortunately, Marine Directorate scientists treat each of the 173 assessment areas as a comparable unit. Thus for 2026, 32 areas were adjudged to be Grade one (good), 26 were Grade two (moderate) and 115 were ascribed the Grade 3 poor rating. Thus, in percentage terms:
| Grade 1 – Good | Grade 2 – Moderate | Grade 3 – Poor |
| 18.5% | 15.0% | 66.5% |
This would suggest that overall stocks have a poor conservation status with two thirds being poor yet these gradings are meaningless. This is because of the huge variations in the size of the assessment areas. For example 4,046 areas, the size of the smallest one can fit into the one single largest area.
The sizes of the catchments in the 173 assessment areas are:
54 are between 0 and 100,000m2 (27 of which are between 0 and 50,000m2)
87 are of a size 100,000 to one million m2
32 are over a million m2 in size
It is also worth noting that just 11.9% of the total assessment area for all of Scotland is in the area known as the West Coast Aquaculture Zone with 88.1% in areas where there are no fish farms.
When the gradings are recalculated based on size then the percentages are as shown in the following table.
| Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | |
| All of Scotland | 52.50% | 15.05% | 32.45% |
| East | 58.16% | 14.37% | 27.47% |
| West | 10.58% | 20.11% | 69.31% |
Based on actual area rather than some arbitrary boundaries, it can be seen that the Grade 3 rating has dropped from the 66.5% to 32.34% whilst the Grade 1 rating has increased from 18.5% to 52.5%. Together with the grade 2 rivers, it seems that 67.55% of Scottish rivers are in sufficiently healthy position that anglers can, subject to local rules, kill the fish they catch. This surely makes no sense at all when stocks are so low, but when it comes to wild salmon fishing in Scotland, nothing about conservation makes any sense.
For example, whilst the Scottish Government say that there are 173 assessment areas, the full list as documented on the Scottish Government website totals 220. The difference is because several areas on the full list are combined to produce 173. Why this is displayed this way with an extra 37 entries is a complete mystery.
According to the Scottish Government website the changes from 2025 are as follows:
Conservation status has improved for wild stocks compared to the previous year, including five stocks which no longer require mandatory catch and release. These are:
Dunbeath Water
Kinloch River
Loch Steisavat
River Clyde
River Morar
Conservation status has declined in four stocks compared to the previous year including two stocks which will become mandatory catch and release fisheries in 2026. These are:
Laxdale Lochs
River Etive
Why the Scottish Government do not bother to list the remaining five stocks that have changed is unclear but here is the full list with the detailed changes:
East coast
Dunbeath Water – upgraded to Moderate
Wick – downgraded to Moderate
West coast
Inver – upgraded to Good
Kanaird – upgraded to Good
Loch Roag – upgraded to Good
River Morar – upgraded to Moderate
River Steisavat – upgraded to Moderate
Clayburn Laxdale Lochs – downgraded to Poor
River Etive – downgraded to Poor
Snizort Hinnisdal – downgraded to Moderate
East West interface
River Clyde – upgraded to Moderate
Kinloch River upgraded to Moderate
The impression from these changes is that the west coast is showing increasing improvements despite the presence and operation of salmon farms in the locality. According to the list on the Scottish Government website, there are now 12 rivers or assessment areas along the West coast aquaculture zone that are classified as Grade 1 – Good and 17 that are classified as Grade 2 – Moderate. This means that these rivers are not subject to mandatory catch and release and can be exploited by anglers. It remains a puzzle as to why anglers are able to catch and kill salmon from rivers along Scotland’s west coast whilst the salmon faming industry is being subject the most draconian regulation in order to protect even just one wild salmon. It seems that there is one rule for one and a different rule for others. However as I have previously written, the Marine Directorate’s scientists clearly favour the wild salmon sector to the detriment of the salmon farming industry. This is why government scientists are so reluctant to engage in any discussion because they know that their approach does not stand up to scrutiny.
Yet overall, the greatest puzzle of all is that this year it is likely that wild salmon catches form across all of Scotland are likely to be one of the worst on record, yet Scottish Government conservation assessments for next year show that over two thirds of rivers are of sufficiently good conservation status that they can be exploited. How can this be?
Casting about: Two podcasts have come to my attention this week. The first is Ian Roberts’ podcast for North America Aquaculture magazine in which he spoke to Cory Peet, a long time assessor for sustainability. Cory has previously worked for Monterey Bay Aquarium and David Suzuki Organisation, both of whom have not been overly favourable to salmon aquaculture in the past. He told Ian that when it comes to questioning the impact of salmon farming, there are two groups of people. There are those who just say no and who are not interested in anything, for reasons best known to themselves, except the closure of all salmon farms and there are others who look for solutions.
Whilst Cory clearly states that he is only interested in solutions, I did feel some frustration that some of the solutions sought are based on a false narrative. However, it is better to have some dialogue than no dialogue.
The second podcast sees the return of celebrity Jim Murray MBE’s Lost Salmon podcast for a second series, of which two episodes are already available. The first episode was an interview with ‘celebrated nature writer’ Rob Macfarlane who discussed whether rivers should have rights enshrined in law and thus be able to take legal action against those who extract too much water, industrialise the river or cause pollution. What puzzled me is that whilst anglers like Jim Murray argue that rivers should be protected, there is not a word about those who exploit the river, by killing fish for sport or even damaging them by poor catch and release practice. It vey much seems that anglers seem to believe that their activities are totally acceptable but any other activity that might interfere with their sport should not only be vilified, but also prosecuted.
This second episode was an interview with Richard Davies, chairman of the Outer Hebrides Fishery Trust. Richard has taken an approach that dialogue with the salmon farming companies, who operate in the outer islands, must be preferred to unrealistic calls for their removal. He says that this must be a better way to save wild salmon than just saying no farming at all. Effectively Richard is an example of someone looking for solutions, as Cory Peet recommended.
By comparison, Jim Murray , who is also an ambassador for the Atlantic Salmon Trust, is definitely a man who says no. He is totally convinced that salmon farming has a major impact on wild salmon numbers and will not be persuaded otherwise. He begins his podcase by saying that ‘he truly believes and knows that salmon farms are polluting the environment and causing irrevocable damage to wild salmon stocks and that salmon farming companies have no interest in doing anything meaningful to help.’
The problem is that Jim Murray is so entrenched in the no camp that he has absolutely no idea whether farming companies are interested in protecting wild salmon or not. He is clearly unaware that many of those working in the sector were attracted to the sector by their interest in salmon through angling. He also seems unaware that the industry contributes significantly to safeguarding wild salmon through their Wild Fish Fund.
Interestingly, in this episode, Mr Murray tells Richard Davies that whilst the Hebrides is a stunning place there are salmon farms operating there, but as a conservationist and ambassador for the Atlantic Salmon Trust you (Mr Davies) nevertheless take a pragmatic approach and you converse with the aquaculture industry ‘because like me you believe there is no point just moaning and yelling into the abyss, we also have to try and work together to achieve our goals.’
However, Mr Murray has so far shown little in the way of trying to work together and spends the rest of this podcast, like other episodes before it, ‘moaning and yelling’ about salmon farming. He claims that you cannot trust anything that the industry does or says, for example he questions the validity of independent scientific research just because the industry provided the funding. He even repeats the claims about labelling, suggesting farmers applied to have the word farmed removed from packs of salmon in order to mislead consumers
It is a real puzzle why a public figure and an ambassador to the Atlantic Salmon Trust like Mr Murray would not be interested in hearing a different viewpoint or idea if it may help safeguard wild salmon. However, he prefers to dismiss any view from the industry side as misleading and manipulative.
I feel sorry for Mr Murray because he is clearly a man who just wants to say no. His solution to protect wild salmon is to get rid of salmon farming altogether. However, should this ever happen, he will be undoubtedly disappointed because wild salmon numbers will inevitably continue their downward fall even where there never have been any salmon farms.
Finally, I would be interested to hear what Mr Murray makes of the Loch Hourn video. I wouldn’t be surprised if he claimed it was filmed somewhere else.