Anglers condemn cash deal with fish farmers

Published on Sunday 27 November 2011 00:27

SCOTLAND’S largest angling organisation has been accused of selling its green principles down the river after it emerged it has taken money from a corporate fish farming firm.

SCOTLAND’S largest angling organisation has been accused of selling its green principles down the river after it emerged it has taken money from a corporate fish farming firm.

The Scottish Anglers National Association (SANA) has confirmed it has agreed a sponsorship deal, thought to be worth £12,000, with the Scottish Salmon Company (SSC).

The revelation has sparked outrage among members and has prompted one angling club, and a former SANA president, to resign from the Scottish Government-recognised body.

Many anglers claim industrial fish farming is having a devastating impact on wild salmon populations and that pesticides used by firms are polluting Scotland’s sea lochs.

SANA’s own website confirms its Migratory Fish Committee is committed to “campaigning against certain activities of the Scotland’s west coast marine salmon farming industry in the belief that these are endangering wild migratory stocks and the environment.”

However, this did not prevent trustees of the national governing body for game angling from agreeing a three-year sponsorship deal, understood to be worth a total of £12,000, with SSC for SANA’s International Youth Fly Fishing Team.

Bruce Sandison, the angling author, journalist and environmental campaigner, claimed the decision to accept the money was shameful.

He said: “SANA is the government-appointed representative body of game angling in Scotland where our West Highlands and Islands wild salmon and sea trout populations are being driven remorselessly to extinction by diseases and pollution from fish farms.

“What hope do those of us striving to end this nightmare have when those who should be on our side join the enemy? Shame on you SANA.”

David MacDonald, who acted as president of SANA for three years in the 1990s, revealed his disquiet over the deal has convinced him to reluctantly sever his long-standing ties with the organisation.

He said: “In my day it was always very, very difficult to make the books balance.

“However, as cash-strapped as we were, we would never have thought of approaching the Scottish salmon producers, or any individual fish farm, for finance because we recognised the damage they were doing. We should be guardians of our wildlife and, above all, we should be protecting our indigenous wild fish.”

The secretary of Stonehaven and District Angling Association felt his concern was shared by many other anglers.

He said: “We discussed this at committee level at our club and came to the conclusion that we could no longer support SANA. We withdrew our corporate membership and I have withdrawn my individual membership.”

The veteran angler stressed he would rejoin if the deal with SSC was terminated and an appropriate alternative sponsor could be found.

Perthshire-based Fly Fishing & Fly Tying magazine, claimed the issue was generating considerable controversy.

Assistant editor Stuart Letford said: “Is it really appropriate that the national governing body for game angling in Scotland accepts support from an industry which is actually damaging fishing in Scotland?

“Communities up and down the country are rejecting these polluters, most recently in Islay where the community there forced SSC to withdraw its plans for a fish farm at two sites. We think the SANA board should hang its collective head in shame.”

However, SANA president David Ogg insisted the sponsorship deal with SSC was solely to help meet the costs of the youth fly fishing team and there were no strings attached. He said: “I am content to defend the position while still recognising that in an ideal world this would not be a favoured source of sponsorship.

“I would challenge those who are unhappy with the SSC providing sponsorship to come up with an alternative with which we would all be more comfortable.

“There can be no question of buying influence here and SANA will continue to campaign unfettered as our environmental committees see fit.

“I understand how this may be seen as a conflict of interests, but I disagree wholeheartedly that it is so.”

Ogg acknowledged the issue had generated “strong feelings” and confirmed it would be discussed at the association’s AGM in March.

He added: “I could not look a parent of a member of the youth team in the eye were the SANA board to direct that this sponsorship is declined.”

Farmed salmon is Scotland’s single-largest food export and last year the industry was worth £540 million. Production has increased from 14 tonnes in 1971 to 154,000 tonnes in 2010. The industry employs about 1,800 people directly and another 6,200 in related industries.

SSC, which is registered as being based in Jersey and is listed on the Norwegian stock exchange, describes itself as the “leading independent producer of Scottish salmon”.

Stewart McLelland, the chief operating officer, said: “I am shocked that there is opposition to young fishermen being given the chance to compete.

“The funding we provide to the team supports them in the many costs associated with being part of the Scottish team. It is sad that out of something positive, an unnecessary negative angle becomes the focus.”

He added: “The Scottish Salmon Company has award-winning levels of environmental stewardship and we are continuously monitoring our sites to ensure we are protecting the environment.”

Comments

There are 7 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

7

Calmac

Monday, November 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Kincraig. Thank you for googling however I've been to Chile and have seen the issues for myself. Just because it is reported in an article doesn't mean it is correct. Have you considered the possibility that the Government have been unable to bring salmon farms to account is because there is nothing to account for. As I pointed out in my original comment, the angling lobby blame salmon farming because it is the easy option rather than look at their own shortcomings. The more that the lobby repeat this view about salmon farming the more it has become the truth which sadly is not the case. I say sadly because if the Fishery Boards worked together then most Scottish rivers could have healthy salmon populations (as long as climate change doesn't have an effect on migration routes but if it does we know whose fault it will be - salmon farms). I'm happy to continue this debate but I am not sure that this is the right forum to do so.

• Report Unsuitable

6

Kincraig

Monday, November 28, 2011 at 04:11 PM

OK, Calmac, I'll do some googling for you. http:www.sciencedaily.comreleases201006100622112558.htm http:en.wikipedia.orgwikiAquaculture_of_salmon#Issues http:www.thefishsite.comfishnews10761chilean-salmon-farms-halved http:www.upi.comScience_News20100817Disease-decimates-salmon-farms-in-ChileUPI-73471282080634 Those are just the top hits when I googled "Chile salmon farms" - the search criteria was at all contentious and yet what comes up shows the extent of disease (the real reason that the farms faced economic ruin) and pollution in Chilean salmon farms. Why have "the angling lobby" hired a lawyer? To bring salmon farms to account, something that our government seem unable or unwilling to do. As I have said, salmon farms are an important part of the Scottish rural economy BUT they can be cleaned up. Closed containment farming (where the water coming out of salmon cages is filtered to remove uneaten food, parasites and other polutants) is the only sure way that the environment can be protected. You can also argue about release rates as much as you want; on some rivers it's over 90%, on some it's less than 70%, but the fact remains that the majority of fish are released by anglers for the good of the species. Of course fishermen want to catch more fish, but they also care about the environment that they are fishing in. If it was not for anglers then on some rivers there would be NO salmon and on many others there would be far less.

• Report Unsuitable

5

Calmac

Monday, November 28, 2011 at 08:57 AM

Kincraig, I think that you'll find that the figures from the proprietors indicate that catch and release rates are about 70% and not 80. You can argue all you like about how responsible anglers are to the environment but the simple fact is that 350,000 salmon potential breeding salmon have been removed from Scottish waters and this must be detrimental to stock recovery. No take fisheries are not the answer as work from Canada suggests that whilst catch and release does not kill the fish after return, it can affect the development of eggs and sperm. What happened in Chile was not an ecological disaster but rather an economic one. As I said the story of sea lice is highly overstated. It was interesting that the recent BBC Investigating Scotland programme said that the fish the supposedly caught in Loch Maree had a high lice infestation but the fish was not shown to camera. You are right there is a heap of material about sea lice if you google sea lice but if you sift out the true scientific work from all the hearsay, there is not much to substantiate your claims. Jerry Manders - you'll probably find that fishmeal inclusion in fish feed is much less than 50% and reducing. A lot still goes to pig and poultry farms and even more to cat food. In Australia, cats eat more fish than humans. None of these animals eat fish in the wild, fish like salmon do. It is there natural diet. There would soon be an outcry if the fish were fed 100% vegetarian diets as this is not natural. Organisations such as the MCS recommend wild salmon from Alaska instead. These fish are actually farmed during the early part of their lives and then are released to feed out at sea ... on wild fish doing so much less efficiently than by farming. Unfortunately, from time to time fish do get sick and treatment is required but this happens in any farming system. A great deal of pesticide,pollution etc detected at sea actually originates from agricultural run off and forestry but they are detached from the marine environment and therefore not immediately recognised as being to blame. By comparison, salmon farming is too often seen as the scapegoat for everything and anything. The fact is that the link between salmon farming and issues with the wild salmon populations is not proven. This is why the anglers lobby are spending £150,000 on the services of an environmental lawyer as it is hoped that he will be able to prove a link. Just think how many young anglers could have been encouraged and sponsored with this sort of money?

• Report Unsuitable

4

jerrymanders

Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 08:55 PM

#2 Calmac At least 50% of all fish food is made from fish so I'm afraid your pathetic argument doesn't stand up. Check out conversion factors. Add in the parasitesdiseaseschemical treatments associated with farms and that further erodes your assertions. If you work for a PR company then it's a massive fail; if you are acting on your own initiative then it's back to school.

• Report Unsuitable

3

Kincraig

Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 06:43 PM

Calmac, who are the custodians of the rivers if it is not the fishermen? On most rivers at least 80% of the fish are returned in order to protect breeding stock. Who spots and report most pollution events? Who removes timber blockages so that migratory fish can make it upstream to spawn? Who campaigns for unsuitable blockages such as dams and weirs to be removed so that the fish can get upstream? Who makes sure that the spawning gravels are free from silt? In every instance it's anglers. Of course anglers want to catch fish but you'll find that anglers generally want to protect the species and protect the environment too. Salmon farms are killing fish - almost all scientists who are not associated with fish farms agree with that statement now. Try researching what has happened in Chile with salmon farms - an ecological disaster. In Scotland wild salmon and sea trout passing salmon farms are infested with sea lice and literally eaten alive. There is plenty evidence to show that salmon farms are responsible for harming salmonid stocks - just try googling for a few minutes and there's a heap of material. Fish farms are important to the rural economy in Scotland but there is a lot that many can do to clean up their business.

• Report Unsuitable

2

Calmac

Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 09:35 AM

David MacDonald, former president of SANA says that 'we should be protecting our indigenous wild fish' Perhaps he could explain what how catching and killing over 350,000 wild salmon since 2001 protects wild stocks. The only reason why the angling organisations want to protect wild stocks is so that their members can catch them. If every angler repeats the manta that salmon farms are responsible for killing wild salmon very single day then inevitably people will start to believe it. The fact is that there is little evidence to show that salmon farming has a negative effect on wild salmon populations. Its just easier for anglers to blame salmon farming than accept that by killing 350,000 plus salmon, they are more likely to be decimating wild fish stocks.

• Report Unsuitable

1

antiparasite

Sunday, November 27, 2011 at 02:22 AM

Use trees and other vegatation as a barrier to limit the poison running off fields...

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.