Salmon fishing - proposed river gradings for the 2026 season: consultation analysis

3. Consultation analysis

3.1 Respondents and their interests

There were 40 responses submitted to the consultation which consisted of 17 from individuals (43%) and 23 from organisations (57%). A range of organisations submitted responses to the consultation including eight District Salmon Fishery Boards, the River Tweed Commission, one river or fisheries trusts, five angling clubs or associations, four organisations with national membership such as Fisheries Management Scotland and four other businesses.

Less than half of respondents (43%) indicated that they had an interest in the river grading assessments for the whole of Scotland, although 45% of respondents expressed an interest in specific freshwater systems. More than 28 rivers, lochs and geographical regions across Scotland were indicated to be of interest to the respondents of this consultation.

3.2 Views of consultation respondents on the proposed river gradings

There was an even split between respondents who agreed with the proposed gradings for the 2026 salmon fishing season, those who neither agreed or disagreed and those who did not express a specific view for or against the gradings. The remaining third of respondents disagreed with the proposed gradings.

A total of 11 respondents (28%) indicated that they believed the proposed grade assigned to a specific stock was incorrect and should be changed. Of these responses the majority (8) felt that the conservation status should be downgraded from good to moderate or moderate to poor. One respondent felt the conservation status should be upgraded from poor to moderate while a further 2 did not specify either way. A fifth of respondents (20%) suggested a mandatory catch and release regime to cover all of Scotland, one of those that suggested this had also asked for a decrease in one or more river gradings. Some respondents (40%) raised concerns over the methodology used to calculate the conservation status of rivers. Under a third of respondents (28%) stated that they didn’t have any concerns on the data used with the remainder not answering the question.

Prominent issues raised included:

• data related concerns, such as respondents raising issues with historically incorrect data or the assessment method in general (35%); however it should be noted that 15% of respondents asked for better recording methods such as an electronic catch return system or more real-time reporting
• catch related concerns, such as respondents raising issues with experiencing lower catch rates and/or individuals not submitting their catch return forms on time or at all (30%)
• whether other sources of data such as National Electrofishing Programme for Scotland (NEPS) (juvenile assessments) and catch effort could be included in the assessment methodology in future years (18%)
• that recording rod effort on rivers is difficult to report on or that it should be considered in the assessment method (13%)
• requests for fish counter data to be used in addition to rod catch data in the assessment of river conservation statuses (10%)
• concern that the gradings do not accurately reflect the status of spring fish (10%)

Five responses provided additional substantive evidence that required further review.

3.3 Views expressed on impacts of the proposed gradings on respondents

Over a third (38%) of respondents expressed concerns that they or their business would be financially or otherwise impacted due to the proposed river gradings. This was felt by 30% of those that identified themselves as organisations and 29% of those who identified as individuals. Over a third (35%) of individuals indicated they would not experience any impacts compared to 30% of organisations that answered in the same way.

The impacts raised were broadly defined under two main themes, income related concerns (33%) and angler related concerns (28%). Prominent issues raised across these themes included that the proposed gradings would:

• result in reduced income for businesses directly or indirectly associated with angling (23%)
• have a wider economic impact on rural communities (20%)
• deter anglers from the sport and reduce tourism (18%)
• result in areas being seen as not attractive to anglers as there is a perceived poor chance of catching salmon (13%)

3.4 Views expressed on other actions to protect and restore wild salmon populations

Some (40%) of respondents expressed views urging for action to be focused on other pressures that they felt needed to be taken now in order to better protect salmon populations.

There were a number of pressures on wild salmon populations identified by Respondents. These have been ranked by the percentage of total respondents who mentioned that pressure:

• habitat degradation including issues associated with river barriers (20%)
• aquaculture activities (18%)
• predation of salmon by other species (18%)
• issues associated with the marine environment lifecycle stage of salmon (15%)
• preventing illegal fish poaching (13%)
• climate change (13%)

Furthermore, a number of actions were suggested by respondents to help protect and recover wild salmon populations. These are ranked by the percentage of the total respondents who mentioned these actions:

• taking an ecosystem wide approach to protect and preserve the wider environment (45%)
• stocking salmon into rivers, including some respondents who raised their concerns about such an approach being taken in some areas (15%)
• close rivers to angling for set periods of time through adjusting angling season times (8%)

Finally, respondents were asked what further information they would have liked us to provide so that they could make an informed response to the proposed river grading consultation. Under a third of respondents (30%) provided specific comments which included a small proportion of respondents (13%) not being able to find the supporting evidence provided as part of the consultation, 8% asking for clarification on the evidence provided and 10% asking for other specific pieces of information.