"
Ninety-one percent loss - in a river the size of the Ness - in April/early May! It all makes good headlines, and will no doubt serve to keep the big corporate sponsors of the project happy by continuing to keep the attention of both the public and salmon anglers well away from their activities. Nevertheless, you do have to wonder what level of loss will persuade somebody to seriously question the methods that are being used?
One prominent feature of the Lost Surgically Tagged Smolt Project is that it has never been referred to as a scientific or science-based endeavour. Indeed, to my knowledge there has been no public mention of the existence a scientific (oversight) committee or, if such a body exists, details of its membership. This may be a simple oversight. However, to date, both the blizzard of press releases and the highly controlled and restricted presentations related to the project have been led by a collection of characters with apparently little or no background in live fish handling, surgery or tagging - or so-called 'suspect frameworks'.
In what seems to be a desperate attempt to get things back on track, a recent press release in a local Scottish newspaper attempted to defend the Project on the basis that the tags were only the size of a Paracetamol tablet. What could be more harmless than just one paracetamol (albeit jammed into the body cavity) - even if you are only a 13 cm long fish that is desperately trying to get down to sea? The problem is that a number of photos that have leaked out suggest the use of a tag that is rather larger than anything available over the counter of your average High Street chemist. Perhaps they meant an equine version of the tablet - or even a particularly poorly designed suppository?
The article went on to state that the tags do no harm. However, the basis this rather critical assertion is not currently known, as there was no reference to a supporting source of data and information - even from the tag manufactures themselves. The potential impacts of field surgery on smolts were not mentioned. "
and
"
Given the shockingly poor rates of survival of surgically tagged smolts, I do wonder if there should be an Option 2 - to sponsor wild smolts to be left alone and NOT tagged in this way?
It would probably be hundreds of pounds cheaper per fish, and they would then at least have a theoretical
3-5% chance of surviving to adulthood and returning to our rivers.
Failing that, I offer the following selection of new 'names':
• Sponsored (to almost certain premature death).
• I'm stuffed - literally! No photos or videos of the tags, surgery procedures - or their results, please.
• Imagine having something the size of a small bathroom peddle bin jammed into your chest cavity - in a layby - by somebody who is not a qualified surgeon.
• Disinfected is not the same as Sterile
• Post-surgery infections can debilitate and lead to death
• Implanted foreign objects can debilitate and lead to death
• I can't tell you (literally) how much my guts hurt
• What's Florence Nightingale's phone number?
• Acoustic tag shedding: do I have a large infected hole in my abdomen?
• Help me - call a vet! "
As far as I know, no attempt was made to keep control groups of smolts to see how many died because of tagging. Instead, an expert on modelling has been employed to crunch the numbers and baffle us with "science". The first two quotes were from, I think, a learned chap not in the loop. Or maybe that should be Loop (but thats a different subject!".