Of all our freshwater fish, the salmon reigns supreme. Pound for pound it is gamer than any other fish and provides excellent sport for the angler. As a food it is incomparable. But for years the salmon has been a fish in decline.
In 1973 the total catch of Atlantic wild salmon was around 10,000 tonnes; by 1984 it was down to 5,400 tonnes. Thirty years ago the Torridge river in Devon had a rod catch of 883 fish a year. In 1985, that figure had fallen to fewer than 50.
It does not have to be that way. The success story of the River Thames, in which salmon can now thrive, shows what can be done. Salmon stocks can be maintained, even restored. But it takes sound and active management.
The government, which alone has responsibility for total fish stocks, has never lacked advice and well-considered reports on the salmon. The Hunter and Bledisloe reports of early 1960s researched the problems objectively. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued its own consultative document in 1981.
But comprehensive legislation was long overdue. The Salmon Bill, now before Parliament, should have been it.
As drafted, the bill:
Set up a scheme for licensing dealers in salmon, to help curb the traffic in illegally-caught fish.
Introduced a new offence, being in possession of illegally caught fish, which was also designed to combat the growing problem of poaching.
Provided for useful changes in the composition of the district salmon fishery boards which manage the fishery along the major salmon rivers.
But the bill contained a nonsense. The dealer licensing system was for Scotland only, suggesting that the fish caught and marketed in England and Wales do not deserve protection.
Wisely, however, the government sent the bill first to the House of Lords. The peers turned out to be a great store of accumulated fishing wisdom. So far, in 29 hours of debate on 157 amendments to the bill, the Lords have shown themselves effective representatives of the interests of anglers and fishing proprietors as well as commercial net operators. (One can reasonably assume that many of their lordships are expert with a fly and enjoy the occasional dish of smoked salmon). With their revisions, the bill has been transformed.
The licensing system, for example, has now been extended to England and Wales, although it is proposed that licences should be administered through the water authorities, which are shortly to be privatized. A new clause is intended to stop the suspect business of licensees sub-letting their privilege to others.
Next week this small but significant bill goes into committee in the House of Commons. There is much work to be done. For example, it does not do enough to restrict the drift-net fishery that operates off the Northumberland and Yorkshire coasts, taking an annual haul of salmon equivalent to the total catch in Scotland by rod and line. This is ironic because about 95 per cent of the fish caught in the North-East are on their way back to spawn in the rivers of Scotland's east coast where they originated. There is an added poignancy in that drift-net fishing was banned in Scotland more than 20 years ago.
The government has not yet formulated a comprehensive policy on the conservation of salmon stocks. It has committed itself to a review of stocks within three years, but this is to cover only the Northumbrian and Yorkshire Water Authority areas and the east of Scotland rivers. The survey will not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Overfishing will continue unabated. Symbolically, the word "conservation" does not appear anywhere in the bill as it now stands.
The UK, through the EEC, supports a body called Nasco, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, which next meets in June. Its members will hope to increase their individual quotas. What does Britain say? We shall be held up to the rest as a nation which still enjoys a rich harvest of salmon but is doing little or nothing to conserve them at a time when total stocks are threatened and restrictions are being placed on small countries such as Greenland.
The government insists that the Salmon Bill must cost little to implement, and preferably should cost nothing. The result will be a perpetuation of management by neglect, especially in Scotland. No extra money is being provided to combat poaching, which in some areas has become virtually a para-military activity.
Salmon fishing is a recreation that attracts tourists. It generates jobs. Yet this valuable asset is being treated in a piecemeal fashion, and so damaged. The Salmon Bill provides an opportunity to put the management of this self-renewing national resource on a sound basis. That is the task still facing Parliament.
