Context: The fishing website Tweedbeats has said that if anyone were now to place a very large bet on 2025 being the worst salmon fishing season on record, they would be unlikely to lose. The website says that many will blame the hot weather and lack of rain but that they should also remember 2003 which was one of the driest autumns ever, yet catches on the Tweed were stellar.
Tweedbeats says that before 2025, 2023 was the worst ever year for salmon catches. They say that to have one bad year is unfortunate but to have two of the worst ever within three years is beginning to sound like a trend.
The Tweedbeats website is written by author and proprietor Andrew Douglas Hume. Some of his writings (but not all) make a great deal of sense. He appears to be well informed, yet to suggest that a trend is now beginning to appear is really worrying. This is because the trend showing what is happening to wild salmon catches has been apparent for many years, but has been blatantly ignored. Sadly, Marine Directorate scientists have been complicit in hiding the truth by issuing an annual graph that displays no resemblance to actual salmon catches. This is because they have separated rod and net catches into two different data sets, even though the salmon come from the same stock. Until a decade ago, the impression was very much that rod catches were increasing and hence stocks were healthy. Unfortunately, this was far from the truth.
As I have written many times salmon catches have been in decline since the early 1970s and continue to be so. The latest poor catches are just an extension of what had already been happening for several decades.
The truth has also been hidden by a conservation policy that is totally unrealistic, with fishing allowed in rivers with depleted stocks. Anglers are allowed to fish such rivers as long as the fish are returned, Yet, years of evidence from the River Dee shows that catch and release does not work. Catch and release levels are at the highest they have ever been since 1994 when released fish were first recorded on the Scottish Government statistics database, yet as Tweedbeats has highlighted, this year’s catch is likely to be the worst on record – (there is an interesting perspective on catch & release from Norway, which I will discuss in the following commentary). Meanwhile, both in Norway and Scotland, salmon farming remains the main scapegoat for declining stocks even though there is not a shred of evidence to support this claim.
There’s the catch: Intrafish has published a commentary from the Norwegian Sea Salmon Fishermen’s Association (NSF) who have called for a ban on catch and release salmon fishing saying that such cruelty has no place in Norway. What is most interesting about their view is that they refer to a recent Project Note (568) issued by the Norwegian Institute of Nature Research (NINA). This states that up to 17% of wild salmon die as a result of the stress they are exposed to whilst being played by anglers after they have been hooked. If this figure is applied to the Statistics Norway data for caught and released fish since 2009, when it was first recorded, then approximately 55,000 wild salmon that had been released, will have died soon after. In addition, the stress and damage inflicted on the fish negatively affects their ability to spawn. NINA are one of the major research institutions in Norway and some of their researchers are also part of the Scientific Council for Salmon Management (VRL).
According to the NSF, VRL have long believed that spawning stock targets have been maintained in 95% of Norwegian rivers. This is due to restrictions on fishing both at sea and in rivers, which have compensated for lower numbers of returning fish. However, VRL now indicate that the spawning target was met in 57% of rivers in 2024 whilst at the same time, catch and release accounted for a third of the river catch. NSF believe that the increase in catch and release together with a higher mortality has a serious impact on stocks.
What makes NSF’s view on catch and release interesting is their interpretation of the vested interests that drive catch and release in Norwegian angling. However, their narrative also has real relevance to the Scottish sector too.
NSF says that it is Norwegian Salmon Rivers who promote the need for catch and release, especially amongst the authorities and scientists, and it is worrying that the authorities so easily accept the views of this organisation without questioning their vested interests. Norwegian Salmon Rivers manage the majority of large salmon rivers in Norway and according to NSF, whilst they present themselves as an organisation that works for the good of salmon, the reality is that their main priority is to ensure anglers can continue to fish for salmon in Norwegian rivers. As in Scotland, it seems that the priority is not to protect the fish but the fisheries instead.
According to NSF, every year river managers are invited by the Norwegian Environment Agency to consult on any changes to the fishing regulations. The Norwegian Environment Agency then appears to go to great lengths to accommodate any of the suggestions put forward to ensure that angling can continue regardless of the state of the stock. For example, catch and release is being used as a crutch to override the poor condition of wild salmon stocks.
NSF argue that fishing should only take place if there is judged to be a harvestable surplus and that fishing must end when the quota is taken. Meanwhile, other rivers should remain closed to fishing, although some rivers whilst closed to salmon fishing remain open to fishing for trout. Do the salmon in these rivers know that they should not approach the hook and if they do then do anglers report the catch?
NSF also point out that even setting a daily quota can be damaging to stock because if anglers are limited to a catch of just one salmon, then small salmon could be returned in anticipation of catching a much larger fish.
NSF call for a more critical and independent analysis of the fishing regulation instead of relying on those who have a vested interest.
Certainly, it seems that what is happening in Norway is a mirror of the wild sector in Scotland. I have previously identified some major weaknesses in the assessment of salmon stock in Scotland. Fisheries Management Scotland perform a similar role to Norwegian Salmon Rivers and they appear to have a very close relationship with the scientists at the Marine Directorate. As I have pointed out, catch and release is doing nothing to stem the decline of wild salmon in Scotland, yet even the conservation grading for next year continues to allow fishing in rivers with extremely poor stocks of salmon. The River Dee, a Grade One river which has implemented catch and release for about twenty years, continues to decline at an alarming rate. Last month only 220 salmon were recorded for River Dee rods compared to 773 in the same month last year. So far, some 500 fish have been recorded in the river compared to around 1,700 fish last year. How the River Dee can continue to be classified as a Grade One river is a total mystery but how the grading system is applied to Scottish rivers is also a mystery. What is clear, is that whatever status is accorded to Scottish salmon stocks, the business of fishing is allowed to continue as normal.
NSF also says that it is a mystery how Norwegian Salmon Rivers has gained such influence. In Scotland, it is not such a mystery. Many scientists came to the sector because they were primarily anglers first. This is why the scientific view promoted by the Marine Directorate reflects the views of anglers, especially in relation to salmon farming.
The data and evidence is clear, wild salmon are heading towards extinction. It is time the authorities took action rather than succumb to the demands of the angling sector that angling must take priority. The time has come for a new discussion about the future of wild salmon that is not restricted to those who have a vested interest. Interestingly, I am led to believe that when discussions about the Wild Salmon Strategy were initiated, representatives for the wild fish sector objected to the inclusion of someone from the salmon farming sector in the working group.
It’s not us: Norwegian Salmon Rivers have responded to the criticism of them by the Sea Salmon Fishermen’s Association (NSF) by saying that they don’t know why they are attacking us when everyone knows it is the salmon farmers that are to blame for the decline in wild salmon stocks.
At the same time, Norwegian Salmon Rivers have struck back at NSF saying that it is hard to understand why they are claiming anglers are damaging stocks when they also fish for salmon but from mixed stock fisheries. This means that they are potentially catching fish that would return to a river that might be assessed as being of poor stock and therefore unfishable. Norwegian Salmon Rivers say that NASCO have set strong guidelines on mixed stock fishing however as NASCO are only interested in protecting the rights of anglers, NASCO’s endorsement is hardly impartial.
Norwegian Salmon Rivers says that their right to fish rivers is enshrined in law in the Salmon & Inland Fisheries Act, however this right is meaningless if there are no fish left to catch.
The organisation says that catch and release is not new as fish below a minimum size have always been returned. They also point out that NINA estimate the typical mortality of 7% and it only rises to 17% when the fish is injured and no rivers allow for the return of injured fish as they must be killed.
Norwegian Salmon Rivers suggest that if NSF are so concerned about the state of wild salmon stocks, then perhaps, they should stop fishing for them.
However, Norwegian Salmon Rivers prefers to divert attention from anyone catching, returning or killing wild salmon by focusing attention on salmon farming. They say that according to researchers, sea lice are the biggest single threat,
They say that to put this into perspective, in 2024, 33% of 45,000 salmon were released back into Norwegian rivers (why they don’t quote the official figure of 14,768 released salmon is unclear). They say that 7% of these amount to 3,150 fish that might have died after releasing due to stress etc. By comparison, they say that the Institute of Marine Research have calculated that sea lice alone killed 32% of the migrating smolt from the Orkla that same year, which corresponds to the potential loss of up to 5,000 adult salmon if they survived to return.
This all sounds very impressive, but this comparison is riddled with flaws. Firstly, the link to IMR referencing the calculation is to a document titled: ‘Modelled Impact of Salmon Lice on Wild Salmon Fish in 2024’. This clearly shows that the calculation is one based on a model rather than actually hard evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that 32% of the migrating smolts from the Orkla have died from sea lice infestation. It is simply a hypothetical number based on some flawed science. This is just another example of where models have taken over from real evidence in sea lice science.
Norwegian Salmon Rivers say that the 32% loss of smolts equates to about 5,000 salmon if they survive to return. The problem is that most smolts do not survive irrespective of the presence of salmon farming or not. Currently about 1-3% of smolts survive to adult hood which means that the 5,000 salmon is likely to realistically number about 150. This has nothing to do with salmon farming and everything to do with the sectors failure to investigate why salmon stocks everywhere are in decline.
It is this sort of narrative which illustrates why the subject of sea lice requires urgent discussion, but why the scientific community and the wild fish sector are so reluctant to participate.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that Norwegian Salmon Rivers end their commentary by saying that ‘if we are to save wild salmon, production methods in framing must be transformed into sustainable solutions. They therefore encourage the sea fishermen to join them in signing their petition against salmon farming which 21 Norwegian and 11 international NGOs (including the Rivers Trust and the Atlantic Salmon Trust from the UK) as well as 30 mayors and over 17,000 individuals have already done so. Strangely, they don’t say that if they are to save wild salmon, they should stop killing wild salmon for sport, such as the 30,442 that were killed last year.