Salmon Rod Catch Statistics 2011 Scotland England and Wales

cb

Fish&Fly
Staff member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
1,594
Location
Cumbria
Here are the stats from 100 salmon river systems in Scotland, England and Wales during 2011. Click on column headers to sort the table.

Pos.|River |Country |2011 Rod Catch
01|Tweed |Scotland |16,682*
02|Tay |Scotland |9,516*
03|Dee |Scotland |8,687*
04|Spey |Scotland |8,607*
05|Tyne |England |5,630
06|Kyle of Sutherland |Scotland |3,840*
07|North Esk |Scotland |2,853*
08|Deveron |Scotland |2,710*
09|Forth |Scotland |2,566
10|Thurso |Scotland |2,542
11|Naver |Scotland |2,365
12|Findhorn |Scotland |2,335
13|Helmsdale |Scotland |2,153
14|Wear |England |1,613
15|Nith |Scotland |1,610
16|Don |Scotland |1,442
17|Annan |Scotland |1,385
18|Conon |Scotland |1,216
19|Beauly |Scotland |1,131
20|Wick |Scotland |1,114
21|Eden |England |1,109
22|Lune |England |1,095
23|Ribble |England |1,059
24|Ness |Scotland |1,033
25|Border Esk |Scotland |1,023
26|Derwent |England |956
27|Halladale |Scotland |954
28|South Esk |Scotland |892
29|Wye |Wales |876
30|Stinchar |Scotland |793
31|Dee |Wales |777
32|Coquet |England |757
33|Doon |Scotland |708
34|Usk |Wales |707
35|Clyde |Scotland |706
36|Nairn |Scotland |653
37|Lochy |Scotland |646
38|Awe |Scotland |620
39|Brora |Scotland |602
40|Ayr |Scotland |600
41|Alness |Scotland |593
42|Teifi |Wales |577
43|Tywi |Wales |561
44|Exe |England |529
45|Grimersta (Hebrides) |Scotland |518
46|Cree/Fleet |Scotland |461
47|Creed |Scotland |446
48|Girvan |Scotland |445
49|Urr |Scotland |419
50|Ehen |England |395
51|Grudie |Scotland |392
52|Irvine |Scotland |387
53|Kent |England |384
54|Severn |Wales |331
55|Ewe |Scotland |325
56|Gruinard |Scotland |314
57|Forss |Scotland |312
58|Ythan |Scotland |300
59|Carron-kishorn |Scotland |288
60|Camel |England |283
61|Laxford |Scotland |265
62|Taw |England |260
63|Garynahine (Hebrides) |Scotland |258
64|Ammuinsuidhe (Hebrides) |Scotland |253
65|Snizort |Scotland |252
66|Inver |Scotland |233
67|Tamar |England |232
68|Barvas (Hebrides) |Scotland |228
69|Itchen |England |226
70|Hope |Scotland |222
71|Dyfi |Wales |186
72|Test |England |186
73|Kirkaig |Scotland |184
74|Conwy |Wales |147
75|Irt |England |130
76|Lyn |England |129
77|Esk (Yorks.) |England |128
78|Fowey |England |126
79|Avon (Hants.) |England |121
80|Leven |England |120
81|Fhorsa (Hebrides) |Scotland |111
82|Tawe |Wales |109
83|Taf |Wales |103
84|Taff |Wales |102
85|Mawddach |Wales |92
86|Tees |England |92
87|Teign |England |92
88|Dart |England |88
89|Frome |England |86
90|Duddon |England |85
91|Ogwen |Wales |84
92|Neath |Wales |77
93|E+W.Cleddau |Wales |75
94|Aln |England |71
95|Esk (Cumbrian) |England |60
96|Lossie |Scotland |59
97|Calder |England |57
98|Torridge |England |56
99|Clwyd |Wales |54
100|Lynher |England |53

Scottish Data taken from : http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/Publications/stats/SalmonSeaTroutCatches/
(Except where * - adjusted from River board assessment for 2011)

England & Wales: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Rod_CR_Summary_2011.pdf
 
Last edited:

3lbgrayling

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
32,300
Location
Central Scotland
A good few rivers missing ???,unless they are using a whole river system Ie :- Clyde. Is this the total for the river Clyde(706) or should we add in, Leven, Kelvin, Black Cart, White cart. Avon,Gryffe.
I would doubt they are included in the total. ???
This is not a very acccurate list as far as I can see.

Jim
 
Last edited:

ibm59

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
2,318
Tells you nothing really.
Utterly pointless figures without further information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACW

cb

Fish&Fly
Staff member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
1,594
Location
Cumbria
Tells you nothing really.
Utterly pointless figures without further information.

It tells you how many salmon were caught on each river system during 2011. The winning lottery numbers are extra ;)

Jim, I think it is the whole Clyde system - these are from official stats (unless I've miss-typed of course). I dare say there may be some under reporting ..... :rolleyes:
 

ibm59

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
2,318
It tells you how many salmon were caught on each river system during 2011.

And nothing else.

Anyone foolish enough to base any future fishing on those figures alone would deserve everything coming their way.
 

st7

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
664
Agreed but it gives you an idea of how many fish run the river. Obviously local knowledge of individual beats is always better than general number fish caught on the whole river...
 

ibm59

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
2,318
It tells you how many salmon were caught on each river system during 2011.

But not how many rod / days were required to achieve those reported catches.
 

cb

Fish&Fly
Staff member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
1,594
Location
Cumbria
But not how many rod / days were required to achieve those reported catches.

It's not just that - there are so many factors at play.

Experience of fishermen
What methods are allowed
Season length
River heights / rainfall / snow melt
Atmospheric pressure
Run of fish - timings
etc
etc

This is a complex scenario and if anyone can add qualifying data then great.

I can add catch trends lines over time so you can at least see if a river is improving like the Thurso and the Dee (though a sneaky season extension has added a few :) or remaining relatively steady like the Tay and Spey.

All in all we have to start with the numbers that are readily accessible and they do tell part of the story.
 

st7

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
664
Exactly, for each individual river it gives a good idea as to how good the run of fish was. Usually the number of people fishing the same river doesn't vary too much (unless you have terrible weather for extended periods of time or something) so it is useful to monitor the runs over several years on the same river...
 

stealth_fox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
8,825
Location
Mid Wales
Very good Colin and I'm sure that if anyone else is keen on further details they are fairly easy to find, just a little bit of effort involved.
 

john10001

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
493
Location
G-ds Own Country
They'd have seven times the number of catches on the Y'than if they did something about these fxxx3rs!

P1030271b.jpg


P1030309b.jpg


P1030310b.jpg


P1030264b.jpg


P1030317b.jpg

They're like **** U-boats lined up waiting to pick off our quarry.
 

sewinbasher

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
11,825
Location
North East Wales
Exactly, for each individual river it gives a good idea as to how good the run of fish was. Usually the number of people fishing the same river doesn't vary too much (unless you have terrible weather for extended periods of time or something) so it is useful to monitor the runs over several years on the same river...

I think this is the main point. The individual river numbers need to be viewed in the context of all the points made by Colin plus a consideration of both the size of the catchment and how much of the river has any significant angling activity.

We all know that for England and Wales these numbers are purely a reflection of the returns submitted by those anglers who have bought a rod licence. No poached fish are recorded and many anglers understate or overstate their catches for various reasons. Until very recently the Wye catch was the number reported by the riparian owners not the EA licence returns and I know for a fact that some tenants substantially under-reported to avoid rent increases. On other rivers where the EA might be threatening sanctions like 100% C&R some anglers either report fish lost in play or even just contacted as "released" with some justification, or even invent fish simply to make it look as if the number of fish is improving and therefore avoid the impositions of sanctions.

The real value in the figures is that assuming that each year the individual over and under reporting is fairly consistent, it is a good indicator of trends and really not very much more. I have kept the numbers for about 30 rivers in which I have an interest since 1980 and these are very revealing in terms of trends as individual good and bad years tend to get evened out.
 
Last edited:

fredaevans

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
22,373
Location
White City, Oregon, USA.
They'd have seven times the number of catches on the Y'than if they did something about these fxxx3rs!

P1030271b.jpg


P1030309b.jpg


P1030310b.jpg


P1030264b.jpg


P1030317b.jpg

They're like **** U-boats lined up waiting to pick off our quarry.

Looks like the mouth of the Russian River in Northern California. Before a fish can get buy there has to be a huge storm to blow out the river.

---------- Post added at 10:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------

It tells you how many fish were actually reported as caught, and therefore levied to the relevant fishieries board/agency.
The actual numbers will be a lot higher for each river.
let you guys work out why.
regards
bert

Small hand in the air there Bert.

In the PNW you purchase what's called a 'punchcard' (20 fish) with your fishing license (for steelhead/salmon) and if you keep a fish you mark down the date/river/type of fish. This gets turned in at the end of the year. If you retain more than 20 you have to go buy another card.

But if I'm reading the above correctly you get a license and then pay an additional fee if you retain a fish?

Fred
 

aenoon

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
13,635
Location
Linlithgow, Scotland and anywhere i can wet a line
But if I'm reading the above correctly you get a license and then pay an additional fee if you retain a fish?

Fred

Nope Fred.
In this country, you buy a permit to fish for a day/week/year (season), you then either fill in your catch return form,(killed and kept, or released, is still a fish "caught") and return it to the fishing club/association/river owner/landowner,(often well after season has closed!), or log it in the catches diary on the relevant fishery, who then report the catches to the relevant river board!
Indeed many of the rivers in the report, will have had most of the caught numbers returned to the river.
you can mebbes see the obvious flaws!
regards
bert
 
Last edited:
Top