In the first Bitter&Twisted Guest Ticket spot for ages Euan McGrandle gives his considered view of the countrywide failure of C&R, in particular with the forced return of fresh silver salmon, and the refusal of the Angling Press to even consider and discuss the cause.

Foreword by Euan

I actually wrote this article over a year ago in the vain attempt to at least get a conversation started on the merits or otherwise of releasing silver fish straight from the sea. I have approached both Richard Baker from Trout and Salmon magazine and Mark Bowler from Fly fishing and Fly tying magazine, and although both initially engaged with me, didn’t want to put the question in print.

The article is controversial, I’ve no doubt about that, and a good many people will read it and dismiss it as rubbish…… but is it?

The article highlights the dangers of just listening to certain individuals stating their opinion in the knowledge that nobody will question them, and in many occasions if questions are asked they are ignored or even retribution initiated against the person asking.

Please read this with an open mind and after reading ask yourself the question. Is a salmon or sea trout fresh from the sea able to reproduce after being caught and released?

I’ve researched for a long time and cannot see anywhere that a fish which has been released has gone on to successfully spawn. If there is actual evidence of this – somebody please share where it is as I cannot find it.

I’m certain the fishery scientists and those politicians employing them will claim “of course C&R works” however rather than just taking this statement at face value as someone’s opinion, can they actually “PROVE” that it works – as in fact a true scientist should do..

All I have researched has strengthened my opinion that C&R of silver salmon and sea trout does no good whatsoever and potentially is one of the major causes of the current predicament wild salmon find themselves in.

Euan McGrandle July 2025

How Effective is Releasing silver Salmon & Sea Trout?

 

As I fruitlessly continued to search for some scientific studies regarding the efficacy of Catch & Release for migratory fish, I again was left wondering about our fishery scientists and exactly what they deem to be beneficial research.

We have now been approximately two decades where the release of salmon was first recommended, then expected and finally made compulsory by law. Surely at least one scientist in that time would have deemed it necessary to actually assess whether or not C&R actually has a positive or detrimental effect on the survival of wild salmon and sea trout.

Apparently not…

Let’s move away from the subject briefly and consider the relatively recent “Follow the Science” rhetoric applied to the handling of Covid 19.

At the very beginning of the outbreak, information was sparse but then came the differences of opinion with some respected “expert” scientists claiming that only those vulnerable need to be protected and different respected “expert” scientists saying that everyone in the population needed to be protected, as it was the most deadly virus since the Spanish Flu.

Well, we all know what happened… Politicians deflected responsibility to certain “expert”  advisors, any scientists who spoke against lockdown measures were marginalised, ostracised and essentially cancelled and the only narrative allowed was that of making Covid the disaster certain people demanded. The media daily spread fear, and lockdown duly came.

Not to labour a point we are all too familiar with, subsequent inquiries have shown that for the overwhelming majority of the population the Covid virus was no worse than a bad cold (just as those scientists who spoke against lockdown stated), and the cost of lockdown will be a long time to pay back – possibly not even in my lifetime.

What has all this to do with C&R? On the face of it not a lot, however it highlights the dangers of blindly “Following the Science” without actual proof of effectiveness.

So – back to the release of migratory fish, and since it has been passed as law in Scotland, let us consider the spring salmon.

Despite extensive research, I have not been able to read one paper, anywhere in the world, where a spring salmon is caught by rod & line, the fish subsequently released to spend the summer in fresh water and to go on and successfully spawn.

This is quite a statement!

Of all the thousands, or tens of thousands of spring salmon which must have been released, there is not one of these fish which has been shown to have gone on to successfully spawn. Or if there is, then the paper must be extremely difficult to find.

What is very easy to find are numerous peer reviewed papers detailing the effect of stress on salmonids and its impact on fertility. This point has been raised numerous times previously and always the same dismissal of that fact occurs, but not one shred of evidence is offered which disproves or even contradicts that stress negatively impacts salmonid fertility.

Another fact that is very easy to find information on is in the cortisol levels of both smolts migrating to sea and adult salmon returning to fresh water. In both cases this is the highest occurring naturally in any animal. Clearly nature has adapted migratory fish to cope with this, but not additional stress. How much stress is inflicted on a fish being hooked, played to the point of exhaustion, removed from the water for photographs and then released. I certainly don’t know, but nor it seems to those scientists who promote the release of spring salmon as being the correct thing to do.

The question has also been previously asked, as to how many released salmon survive for more than a day or so before dying, and of those which do actually make it  to the redds eventually, are any of them capable of actually producing fertile eggs or milt? Again, I don’t know the answer, nor it seems do any of the scientists we blindly listen to and assume they’re speaking the truth.

Let’s go back to Covid for a minute and reflect on the Christmas when we were banned from gatherings and when the rhetoric of fearmongering was at its most extreme. This was the very time some politicians decided to stick two fingers up at the rules and have parties (yes multiple parties and not just by the conservatives). Whilst this has sparked outrage amongst the population (rightly so in my opinion) the real question that seems to constantly be overlooked is WHY did these people think it was safe to have the party. Apparently they weren’t listening to the same narrative the media was inflicting on the remainder of the population, and in all likelihood knew that danger from Covid was negligible for healthy people. So – perhaps what scientists and politicians know isn’t necessarily what the general public is allowed to know.

Okay – back again to the effects of stress on spring salmon.

If I can find papers highlighting stress with a simple Google search, it’s inconceivable that intelligent fishery scientists haven’t also read these papers. Why then has there been absolutely no effort to try and quantify the effect of stress on salmon released, or indeed research how many released salmon actually make it to the redds (even assuming for a second that they are capable of reproducing)?

On speaking to acquaintances in the aquaculture industry, the broodstock sites treat the fish with kid gloves during the transition from salt to fresh water as it had been long established that any interference had a negative impact on egg survival. Nowadays even walking past the holding tanks during this time is frowned upon. Clearly the salmon during this transition is vulnerable to stress. By how much, I’ve no idea but undoubtedly it’s a known factor.

As with the papers on stress in salmonids, I find it unlikely that if I can easily find out this information, fishery scientists don’t know this. Could we be looking at a similar situation to the Partygate instances where the truth is known by scientists and politicians but we the public are  treated like mushrooms?

Being a scientist myself, I would have previously thought it inconceivable that similar minded people would perhaps not tell outright lies, but deliberately conceal the truth. This viewpoint was changed when I watched the Australian senate inquiring as to the effectiveness, or dangers associated with the Covid vaccines. Both Pfizer and on another occasion Moderna senior scientists were questioned, and whilst it is unlikely they lied to the senators, it was cringingly embarrassing to watch the clear avoidance of answering the actual questions which were being asked (sometimes the same question multiple times). So if respected scientists are prepared to avoid telling the truth about matters concerning human health, is it possible that scientists also conceal the truth about salmon if those paying salaries instruct them to do so?

Again, I don’t know but hopefully not.

In conclusion, although I’ve made some direct criticism of scientists, I would really like to be proven wrong and someone is able to show me a documented study of whether rod caught and released spring salmon successfully spawn or not. By successfully spawning, I don’t mean that they merely went through the act of spawning, but rather that the offspring survived in similar numbers to fish which hadn’t been hooked and released.

Merely going through the motions of mating is no different to a human who has had a vasectomy or hysterectomy. The act of mating in itself isn’t evidence of a successful spawning, rather it’s the amount of juvenile fish which hatch out.

Although what I have written on re-reading would appear that I am against all Catch and Release, this is not the case. Ever since the 1970’s, my father showed me how to safely return coloured salmon and sea trout, and I know of many instances where fish being obtained for hatcheries are caught by rod & line. I believe that any impact of stress at this advanced stage in development of eggs or milt would have been observed so in all likelihood so release of coloured salmon has a positive (or at least not a negative) effect. The same cannot be said for silver fish straight from the sea when the physiological change is occurring.

We hear the oft quoted mantra of “Deid fish cannae spawn” and whilst I concede this fact to be true, it’s also true that a fish used as a food source rather than a plaything can’t cause any harm either. Anecdotally, every system which has introduced C&R has seen catches decline much faster than before it was implemented – especially the spring component of runs. In fact I have not been able to find one river where catches have even remained steady once compulsory C&R has been implemented.

I will happily retract anything written here and offer an unreserved apology to all concerned if such a study has indeed been carried out and documented, once I have a chance to read and review said document.

If such a study has not yet been conducted – why on earth not?

If this is the case is it not about time that a detailed study is done with some sense of urgency so that we can conclusively know if Catch & Release has a beneficial or detrimental effect on salmon survival whilst there are still wild salmon left to study. In my opinion there’s nothing that fishery scientists could do that would be of greater importance.

Euan McGrandle.

June 2024

 

In these days of global threats and overt belligerence by China, North Korea and others, who incidentally also all support Putin’s Russia in its continuing war with Ukraine, I’ve taken to looking more carefully at the origin of all items I buy. India has likewise failed to come out in full support of Ukraine, continuing to purchase cheap oil from Putin, failing to condemn the invasion of Ukrainian territory and refusing to impose, or support, trade sanctions. Included in those willing to turn a blind eye to Putin’s “special operation” in Ukraine are Vietnam, Bangladesh and South Africa with all of the culprits being either Asian, African or Arab countries. At the same time Britain and Europe, at whom Russia has clearly drawn future aim, continue to import billions of cheap manufactured goods from these exact sanction busting countries.

Many of these goods we could, and previously did, manufacture ourselves before being undercut by Asian/Indian “low wage/minimum safety standard” cultures. But everything has its price, and not only wages are lower, but so is material quality, manufacturing skill, workers welfare and the abandoning of traditional manufacturing processes in favour of cheaper and less robust methods.

This British publics inexplicable willingness to blindly accept a reduction in standards, as long as the product is cheaper, has decimated Britain’s own manufacturing industries and many of our once admired and most skilful makers of goods have ceased to exist, or semi-exist now in a precarious year to year form. They rely now on people still with some moral conscience being prepared to pay the necessary premium for goods that can last nearly for ever, can even then be repaired, and which are at the top of the range in their own particular fields. In particular, the once famous traditional Northampton shoe making trade has shrunk to a fraction of the size of even ten years ago, with very few heritage companies managing to survive through a succession of worker lay-offs, mergers and subsequent reduction in the quality of product.

I spent a depressing day recently in a large retail outlet killing time waiting for my car to be serviced and returned. It included an outlet for Pavers, a major shoe discount retailer which has a reputation for holding a vast range of shoes and boots at reasonable prices. Or so it appears to the uninitiated.

On entry the shop did sport a massive number of shoes for men, women and children. Rack after rack of, on the face of it, decent enough looking shoes. Especially if the only criteria you recognise is the price. I concentrated only on the men’s section, which was about a quarter of the size of the selection promoting women’s footwear.

I was primarily interested in only their better-quality offerings and wasn’t actually browsing with any intention to purchase. I was interested in examining the makers origin, the method of construction, the quality of materials used and the standard of finish. I didn’t by any means inspect all of the offerings on display, restricting my view only to boots and shoes that, at first glance, showed promise in standard of finish. I’m personally mostly drawn to traditional designs and so discounted anything that lacked a discernible separate heel stack. I’ve no time for the one piece “wedge” sole, the white man made “Christie” type sole, as I think it detracts from the overall look and is a seriously lazy way for any craftsman to finish a shoe or boot.

I examined around fifteen different boots on offer, judging them against the pair of 23 year old Hoggs of Fife “Rannoch” Scotch grain Zug leather boots I was wearing at the time. In effect the Rannochs are a top range pair of English made boots, expensive, top-quality boots no doubt, but by no means the most expensive, or best, available.

Of all the boots I inspected in Pavers NONE were manufactured in Britain, NOT ONE, and NONE I could find even originated from anywhere in Europe. The only manufacturers present were from India, China and Vietnam. So, there is the cause of the British shoe trade demise in a nutshell. While at first glance many of the offerings appeared to be traditionally made, with (ostensibly) stitched on soles, a welt of sorts, albeit a dummy, sometimes a discernible outsole stitching of sorts, and “kinda” leather uppers and rubber compound soles, the reality on close inspection was radically different. 

Not one of the boots I looked at closely were of a finish to match my own boots, not by a long way,  even though mine are far from new and have already been well worn. The leather uppers of most certainly gave the impression of being well finished. But the shine flattered to deceive and wouldn’t have lasted much above the first week. The quality of leather, for that’s what the label indicated the upper was, looked to be some kind of modified grain product without any of the suppleness, stretch and natural appearance of real top grade hide leather. No Pavers boot I saw was made of real scotch grained leather, my personal favourite, and all had what appeared to be a hard, shiny, flat/mat protective sprayed on surface finish. I was sorely tempted to try a pair on and deliberately clatter the toebox, or kick something hard, as I’m certain the damage would have been extensive and irreparable. 

Some efforts had been made, some of them ingenious, to give the impression of real stitched on outsoles, leather midsoles, and even of a leather internal lining. All on close inspection were clearly fake. Not one real Goodyear type welt was in evidence, storm or otherwise. Stitching was either fake or didn’t actually continue through the midsoles so was cosmetic only. The internal lining, where there was one, was either fake leather or cheap linen type fabric that wouldn’t have lasted a year. The outsole, the one providing grip and wear resistance, was all of some moulded man made plastic or PVC compound which lacked any kind of the sure grip that real rubber gives. They were shiny of finish, usually multicoloured and would be practically useless in any mud, ice or slippy surface. 

Lined up on a rack, beside hundreds of other boots of similar construction, it was hard to say (unless you had a good knowledge of what good shoes are) that the wares on offer were anything but well-made and desirable. But had I taken my boots off and put them beside the Sino/Asian offerings I’m certain not one in fifty customers wouldn’t have selected my boots to take away with them rather than a new foreign pair. 

It’s hard not to conclude that Pavers policy is to sell overpriced, poorly constructed, badly designed garbage which won’t last much over one or two winters. And that when they do fail, they hope you’ll go back to replace them without actually thinking there is a better, more environmental, more economical and less wasteful way that supports our own struggling industry rather than endless  cheap foreign import replacements.

I was actually embarrassed when the sales girl approached me and asked if I needed assistance. I really wanted to drag half a dozen pairs down and verbally demolish them for all the faults and reasons just described, but it wouldn’t make any difference. Nor would asking to speak to the manager, I’m sure. 

To be honest I’m glad I didn’t, because what was on offer in Pavers was shoe paradise compared to some other shoe retailers idea of what constitutes shoes and boots fit for sale to outlast a Scottish winter. 

I’ve no doubt most Scottish purchasers look at cost as one of their most important criteria before purchase, and to be honest the offerings from Pavers were probably from a third to a half of the cost of what you’d pay for a good pair of Northampton made boots, if you shopped around. But value for money is also worth considering, and none of the Pavers offerings could be repaired or in fact would be worth repairing anyway if damaged, or if the sole wore out. Subjected to the same use as my own boots have been, the Pavers offerings would be in bits in a year. My Hoggs “Rannoch” boots are 23 years old, are worn almost daily and are still nearly indistinguishable from new. They still have the original soles and the leather uppers are almost pristine, but I’ve had to replace the laces once or twice! How many pairs of Pavers would you go through in, say, the same time, and would the economics of buying one or two decent pairs right at the start not be a better option.

Not to mention that you’ll be supporting local businesses, not supporting unfriendly or even belligerent, aggressive, oppressive regimes who wouldn’t care if Russia decided their next “special operation” was to be annexing Scotland. Unlikely I know, but every little helps, and countries with no moral or ethical position on territorial aggression should be ostracised, sanctioned and forced to face up to the consequences of putting financial gain over moral responsibility for peaceful co-existence.

Buy less. Choose well. Quality above quantity. Performance above cost. Take care of them, have them repaired by a reputable trained cobbler and help put retailers like Pavers out of business.

https://www.speyonline.com/post/please-no-more-arguments-hatcheries-work

Reading the above article in the link above should be avoided like the skitters by Malky McCormick and his brother KmacC. The contents might cause any right thinking “educated” man to question his lifetimes commitment to trashing the precious Lomond system.

It shouldn’t be read either by the “infamous five”, Raeburn, Bourhill, Sinclair, Bell and Elsweiler who collectively and over three decades have refused to countenance hatcheries and stocking under any circumstances and regardless of the failures of their own so called natural stocking CCR fiasco. It was them who dismantled and scattered the LLAIAs hatchery at Stockiemuir without discussion, approval or apparently, much in the way of forward thinking.

It should be likewise ignored by the “Twa owners”, Luss and Montrose estates, who for some unfathomable reason have watched passively while their assets on the Leven, Loch and Endrick have withered in front of their blinkered eyes due to their support of the above numpties. Self inflicted, self harming financial suicide of the most imbecilic kind with their slavish adherence to the LLFTs “stocking stinks” playbook. Their own intransigence and failures to take heed of countless “stocking works” indicators have doomed their once lucrative salmon fishing assets into the realms of worthless paper.

It definitely shouldn’t be read by the drastically reduced ranks of Lomond anglers who would then realise the chances missed, the lies told, the absolutely abysmal leadership displayed by the LLAIA Committee, the compounded failures which followed the single most disastrous decision in the history of the LLAIA. And that was to close the hatchery and stocking program in 2011 and rely exclusively to the power of prayer, the effects of intimidation and the miracle of “Natural Stocking”, achieved by anglers returning every salmon and sea trout they caught.

For thirty years hatchery and stocking have been treated like smallpox by fishery science, the Loch Lomond Forestry Trust, the owners management consortium, SCOTGOV, and in effect every other lazy, uneducated, sponge brained so called expert who’d rather endlessly count juveniles instead of adult salmon as a measure of policy success. They are the real culprits, the ones who are to blame for this. Their intransigence when faced with the failure of CCR, their refusal to countenance any kind of reappraisal, their decision to double down and impose ever more stringent CCR instead of less, their deliberate, malice aforethought, witch hunts of anyone they deemed to be undermining their authority by stating the obvious, their continuing refusal to acknowledge their failures and do the honourable thing.

The findings above and Ian Gordon’s damning appraisal of the damage done to all Scottish salmon rivers which failed to install hatcheries when the chance was there are as depressing to me as they are to him. Thirty years I’ve been advocating for hatcheries, matching and comparing the failures of natural stocking against the regular successes of stocking virtually everywhere it was tried.

Not so, say the scientists. Not a fair comparison. The counting wasn’t done by a qualified expert therefore the results, however impressive don’t count.

So, nothing will come of the work,of Bob Kindness and Dr Victoria Prichard of the UHI. Too many heads need to roll if there’s any kind of blanket admission that CCR was a crock of shit and resulted in two decades of lost opportunities. No government is going to admit they forced on anglers and river owners a policy so useless, so indescribably pointless while ignoring the evidence, advice and the actual demonstration of the efficacy of the hatcheries on the Tay, Garry, Cree, Spey, and all the others who listened to their own counsel, ignored doctrine from above, and refused to be browbeaten by scientists only out to maximise their own influence and personal financial circumstances.

Fishery science will now do as it always does. It’ll ignore Bob Kindness’s work, it’ll pick holes in the DNA work of the UHI and cast doubts on the findings. No one is going to take ownership of the CCR debacle. Too many big hitters have made good careers and big salaries out of CCR natural stocking for any of them to consider they got it so wrong.

It’s a national scandal, a disgrace and an object lesson in what happens when you allow diddies to get to the top despite all evidence of their unsuitability. None of those named above have the intellect required to stack shelves in Pound Shop on minimum wage. Why anyone ever thought giving them control of something as precious as the LLAIA is a mystery.

So, where is our new LLAIA hatchery going to be then? Who is going to design it, establish it’s working procedures and take control of it? Who on the committee has the knowledge, commitment and passion to force things through against all opposition? Well, there’s not one of the retards presently serving who I’d consider competent enough to be trusted with a blunt spade never mind a hatchery. And allowing any of the those responsible for the C&R débâcle to even set foot in the same county as the LLAIAs hatchery would be folly.

A new team of enthusiasts is needed to embark on this adventure, people with passion, experience, dedication and an obstinate streak to force through what’s needed in the face of all opposition.

The LLAIA bank balance is full of cash just sitting there doing nothing except pretending to be a sign of a well run association. But the LLAIAs strength has always been the quality of the fishing, not the size of the pile of cash in the bank. That cash needs to be converted into hatching trays, pumped, feeders, water supplies, buildings, manpower and hatching ova pronto.

This is so far beyond the capabilities and intentions of the present committee that, having already been the blocking dam to improvements for thirty years they need to remove themselves voluntarily, or failing that be removed forceably.

Until that happens the LLAIA will remain a salmon angling desert overseen by proven bad actors who are determined that the ship goes down with them.

https://news.stv.tv/north/wild-salmon-return-to-spawn-in-re-watered-river-after-egg-stocking-success

Another good news hatchery story, with the same names involved continuing to pop up mentioned in dispatches. Stocking and hatcheries don’t work, so says the LLAIA Committee, the LLFT and their retained fishery scientist hangers on.

And that might have been accepted, except for the evidence of well known projects like the above on the Garry that completely destroy all the LLAIAs reasons for refusing to make a start on the hatchery and stocking trail.

The LLAIA has been left floundering in the deadpool of missed opportunities. It’s stranded, locked into a failed strategy of CCR natural stocking, so called, and avoidance of the stigma of being seen to change horses after so publicly chaining themselves to the fallen horse at the last fence.

Pressure is mounting though. Not a month passes now without articles like the above appearing and trashing the old accepted wisdom of protecting genetics, not mixing DNA, letting nature get on with it and praying like Gandi for the miracle. There’s a shift a-coming, mark my words. and those who for years have been the insurmountable barriers to progress will soon feel the hot breath of revolution on their necks. They ignore the coming insurrection at their peril and I only hope that at some stage they are held to account for their previous inaction and dishonesty.

••••••••••••••••••••••••

Bitter&Twisted has been neglected somewhat recently with no new articles or comments for about a month. This was, and is, due to the sudden death of my father, at the grand old age of 89, on 18 February 2025 and my being occupied with arrangements for funerals, dealing with his affairs and all the other things necessary at this time. However, I think I’m past he worst now, and can return to giving B&T a bit more love. My father as an avid follower of B&T right to the end and often we discussed the articles and situations and my, admittedly, one sided view of things.

But he was a River Spey fisher, past Chairman of the Abernethy Angling Association, and had watched the similar destruction to Lomond on the Spey of the spectacular fishing which we both enjoyed in the ’80s and ’90s. His ashes are to be scattered on his beloved favourite stretch where we spent so many hours and days and nights.

He went from a prefab in Eddlewood, near Hamilton in 1935 to building his own house on a plot beside the River Spey, with spectacular views of the river and the Cairngorms, in 1998. Leaving school at 14 he went from a painter and decorator to National Service in Egypt and Cyprus in 1956 to a turner/grinder, to an IT specialist working for Honeywell Computers in the ’70s travelling and troubleshooting all around Europe. And he hadn’t an “O” level to his name but was still twice as smart as I’ll ever be! He fished and golfed to excess in his retirement and also had a collection of eight vintage motorbikes including a brand new Royal Enfield bought in 2022 at the age of 86. He could build anything, fix anything, or make anything from scratch and alwayshad an opinion about everything, right until the end. A life lived to the full.

Peter Lyons. 15 December 1935 – 18 February 2025