The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Research Report: The Economic Impact of Game and Coarse Angling in Scotland

4 The Survey of Owners and the Fisheries Database

4.1 Introduction

The Owners' Survey is of pivotal importance and had the following objectives:

• To provide estimates of angler days for each of the specified combinations of regions and fishery types; and

• For each of the combinations, to provide estimates of the proportion of anglers who are respectively local, visitors from within Scotland and non-Scottish visitors.

The aspiration was to obtain data from every freshwater fishery in Scotland, be it an expensive salmon beat on the Spey, a commercially run rainbow trout fishery in the North East or a small coarse fishing pond in Dumfries and Galloway. Consequently, the survey of owners did not involve any explicit sampling process. Also, where possible the intention was to use, amend or update previous studies. As discussed in Section 2, in the case of salmon and sea trout in the Borders, extensive work had been undertaken by Deloitte and Touche and in the Western Isles on game fishing by FRM. These studies were utilised as appropriate.

4.2 The Inventory of Fisheries

The first task was to establish a comprehensive inventory of all fisheries by principal type (salmon & sea trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, coarse fisheries). This inventory was broken down into the seven geographical regions and was compiled from a variety of secondary sources (general and specific angling guides to Scotland, specialist Web sites, etc.). There are many secondary sources that provide descriptive information about Scotland's freshwater fisheries. The most comprehensive and reliable source was Sandison (1997); this is an important and extensive outline of Scotland freshwater fisheries. Other publications and information from angling web sites were similarly useful. ⁹

Using a combination of survey instruments the consultants sought to contact every one of the proprietors or groups of proprietors in the compendium. In practice, it is not possible to generate data from every fishery. Reasons for this include:

• Fisheries might have been overlooked in inventory construction;

• No contact details were available;

• Available contact details were inaccurate;

• Contact could not be established, either by phone, mail or personal visit; and

• Contact was established but there was a refusal to respond.

There is therefore a general problem of scaling for non-response. For rainbow trout, brown trout and coarse fisheries, there is no obvious scaling factor. For these fisheries, the inventory of fisheries is a necessary condition for judging the coverage of the data generation exercise and thus to provide a basis for scaling observations.

In the case of salmon and sea trout angling, scaling is less of a problem. There is systematic collection of catch statistics, and if one can estimate the relationship between angler effort (days) and catch, there is a basis for scaling observations for non-response. Moreover, in the case of salmon fisheries, some District Salmon Fishery Boards assisted with the dissemination of questionnaires or provided contact details for river catchments. Given this, and the existence of a scaling factor for salmon and sea trout, the inventory was restricted to brown trout, rainbow trout and coarse fishing.

At some locations, anglers fish for a number of species. An example is Loch Lomond, which has salmon & sea trout, brown trout and & coarse fishing. In these cases, the Loch was entered under each species heading as a separate entry. Excluding all salmon and sea trout fisheries (and coarse and brown trout, that occur on riverine salmon and sea trout fisheries) the database had a total of 2,830 entries. Contact details were unavailable for 188 of these, most of which were brown trout fisheries in the Highlands.

Some organisations provided contact details or mailed postal questionnaires on our behalf. In other instances, owners were contacted via telephone or personal visit. In others, local knowledge was used to provide the required information on angler days and origins. Generally a pragmatic approach to data collection was adopted. The approach adopted for each species, including the coverage and scaling processes, is discussed in the following sections.

4.3 Salmon and Sea Trout Fisheries

The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards (ASFB) offered to write to every District Salmon Fishery Board (DSFB) asking them if they had available or would be able to collect data on the number of angler days. All of the Boards responding to this request were willing to help with the collection of data. Those not responding were contacted by the consultants and all agreed to assist. The process of estimating angler days (and origins) varied between Boards. There were 9 basic approaches. A formal owner questionnaire was used in approaches (1), (2), (3), (4), (7).

1) The agent of the Board (clerk, chair, river manager) provided a return as if the river were one fishery. Where there are relatively few proprietors, the agent was able to phone around and assemble a return. In some cases, the agent undertook an assessment of beats/rods and occupancy levels to establish an estimate of angler days and origins.

• Luce, Fleet, Dee (Kirkcudbright), Ugie, Ythan, Lossie, Beauly, Brora, Helmsdale, Halladale, Naver and Borgie, Kinloch, Arran, Eachaig

2) Boards provided the study team with names and addresses of proprietors and we mailed questionnaires tailored to the District.

• Bladnoch, Cree, Girvan, Doon, Stinchar, Findhorn, Deveron, Kyle of Sutherland, Ewe, Gruinard

3) Boards mailed questionnaire (with the replies being returned directly to Glasgow).

• Forth, Ayr, Don, Aberdeenshire Dee, North Esk, South Esk, Spey, Nairn, Ness, Conon, Caithness, Broom, Carron, Lochaber, Skye, Awe, Loch Fyne, Laggan and Sorn.

4) Boards mailed questionnaire, collated responses and forwarded returns or a response to Glasgow Caledonian

• Annan, North and West

5) An elite structured interview was conducted

• Clyde and Leven

6) The study team obtained contact details and telephoned owners

• Nith, Urr

7) The fishery board mailed the questionnaires, collated the returns and scaled for non-response

• Tay

8) Secondary data from previous studies were updated and extended.

• Tweed

9) Secondary data from a previous study were re-worked to conform to our data requirements

• Western Isles

The Fisheries Research Service (FRS) obtains catch returns from proprietors in response to an annual questionnaire sent to proprietors under the provisions of Section 15 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 as amended by the Salmon Act 1986. In 2001, 1914 forms were sent, of which 96% were returned. FRS makes no attempt to correct for non-returns or gaps in the register of proprietors. The catch returns are collected on a confidential basis and the catches of individual fisheries are not revealed to the DSFBs.

One useful assumption is that the relationship between fishing effort (angler days) and catch is likely to be similar on different sections of the same river system. Provided a valid catch rate can be calculated for the salmon and sea trout fisheries that respond, then non-response can be scaled using the FRS statistics. Consequently, the total angler days as reported by proprietors, can be multiplied by the ratio of the river's total catch to the catch of the responding fisheries to give an estimate of total angler days. This procedure required collation and scaling of data according to the FRS statistical districts or grouping of districts.

In essence, survey data were collected and scaled to produce regional estimates for Dumfries and Galloway, Highland Region, North East and Central. Because of the enormous variability in the size of fishings, it would be totally incorrect to scale angler days on the basis of the percentage of owners not responding. In some catchments, 5% of the proprietors own 90% of the river. If only the 5% who control 90% of the rod days respond, a serious error would result if angler days were scaled on the basis of proprietorial non-response. On the other hand, if only the small ownerships respond angler days would be underestimated. In addition the surveys were not seeking information on owners; the aim was an enumeration of angler days. Given these considerations, the response rate is best measured as the percentage of the recorded catch captured by the data generation process rather than as a percentage of owners responding. On this basis the response rates were:

The response for the Central region was disappointing. Many of the responses were from owners reporting one or two fish. Despite significant assistance from the Forth District Fishery Board and the Boards covering the rivers in Ayrshire, the larger owners did not respond in sufficient numbers .

4.3.1 Orkney and Shetland

The FRS statistics report a negligible catch of salmon and a small sea trout catch. We scaled the sea trout catch using the catch rate for all Scotland. Later, on the advice of local anglers in the analysis this was subsumed within the wild (brown) trout totals.

4.3.2 Borders

As outlined in Section 2, Deloitte and Touche estimated there were 36,036 angler days by visitors staying overnight, and this was consistent with an analysis of the room stock in the area. Based on interviews with proprietors they estimated a further 5,400 salmon rod days would be taken by day fishers. This suggests a total of around 41,500 salmon and sea trout angler days.

In that study, a bottom up analysis of beats and occupancy levels conducted in cooperation with James Leeming, the main Tweed letting agent suggested 39,500 salmon and sea trout rod days in 1996. Fortunately Mr Leeming has maintained an extensive database on the Tweed beats he manages. Since 1996, for a variety of reasons there would appear to be a 10% increase in the number of anglers paying for fishing. Some of this is due to an increase in occupancy levels. There seems also to be a reduction of the amount of fishing being retained by owners for themselves and guests. This is a change in the type of angler and will produce an increase in the average expenditure per day on permits; but not necessarily an increase in angler days.

On the basis of this information it was estimated that in the Borders, salmon and sea trout angler days have increased to around 43,000 over the period. The Deloitte and Touche study did not provide details on the origins of anglers at the level required. Using postcodes supplied by the study team Mr Leeming, interrogated his database and provided a breakdown of anglers by origins

4.3.3 Western Isles

The initial intention was to use this study's estimates of angler days and origins; however, we found it difficult to reconcile the angler day estimates of this study. The Western Isles report however contained much valuable supplementary information which was utilised to provide estimates for the Western Isles (see the Technical Report for a full discussion)

4.4 Brown trout, coarse and pike fisheries on salmon rivers.

Estimation of angler days on riverine fisheries piggy-backed on the estimation of salmon angler days. Questionnaires were distributed to proprietors on the following river catchments Bladnoch, Cree, Girvan, Doon, Stinchar, Findhorn, Deveron, Kyle of Sutherland, Ewe, Gruinard Forth, Ayr, Don, Aberdeenshire Dee, North Esk, South Esk, Spey, Nairn, Ness, Conon, Caithness, Broom, Carron, Lochaber, Skye, Awe, Loch Fyne, Laggan and Sorn. These questionnaires included questions about the number of brown trout, pike, rainbow trout and coarse days. The proportion of the official catch of salmon captured in the responses provided a scaling factor for salmon days on each of these rivers. If the data generation process only counted, say, an estimated 50% of salmon and sea trout angler days it was hypothesised that angler days for the other species needed to be scaled in the same proportion .

On the following rivers, the agent of the DSFB provided information on angling for non-salmon species: Luce, Fleet, Dee (Kirkcudbright), Ugie, Ythan, Lossie, Beauly, Brora, Helmsdale, Halladale, Naver and Borgie, Kinloch, and Arran. An elite interview was conducted for Clyde and Leven . For the Tay , the agent of the DSFB provided a scaled estimate. For the Western Isles, secondary data from the FRM study was re-worked. Trout and coarse fish information was also supplemented by estimates provided by angling clubs, associations, hotels and estates, particularly on the Tweed. Details of individual riverine fisheries from different sources were checked to eliminate double counting.

4.5 Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout and Coarse Fisheries

The database of fisheries was largely composed of brown trout, rainbow trout and coarse fisheries in still-waters, and rivers that do not support salmon and sea trout populations. There is no obvious factor with which to scale observations on angler days collected from proprietors for these waters, since they vary dramatically even within a local area. Thus, it was necessary to achieve as complete a census as possible As a result, the final database contained 2,830 entries or waters, with some form of contact for 2,642 of these. Within this list, it needs to be appreciated that an individual estate may own 30-60 named lochs, or an angling club may lease five lochs, whereas a commercial operator may just have a single "put and take" fishery. However the "put and take" may have 20 times more angler days than the estate with 60 lochs. Given this diversity it was necessary to use a variety of survey instruments to carry out the census.

4.5.1 Mixed Fishing

Some water bodies occur more than once in the database for example as both a rainbow trout and coarse fishery. These mixed fisheries present a difficulty, since some estimates of anglers days related to multiple forms of angling. It was also necessary to estimate the number of angler days for each type of fishing for mixed fisheries for which we had no observations. In both these circumstances the following rules of thumb were employed. These were based on the patterns observed from the replies received from owners:

• For angling club waters which hold Brown & Rainbow Trout, unless we knew otherwise, 60% of the days went to brown trout with the remaining 40% going to Rainbow trout days;

• For angling club waters with Browns, Rainbows & Coarse Fish, 50% of the days went to brown trout, 30% went to rainbows and 20% to coarse fish:

• For angling club waters with only Browns & Coarse, 80% was allocated to brown trout fishing, 20% to coarse:

• For commercial fisheries with all three species, 80% of days were allocated to rainbows, with 10% to browns and 10% to coarse:

• For commercial fisheries with Browns & Rainbows only, 80% was applied to rainbows, 20% to Browns: and

• For commercial fisheries which stocked only rainbows & Coarse, 85% of the days were applied to rainbows, with the remaining 15% applied to Coarse fishing .

The range of survey instruments employed to generate data across the various segments of brown trout, rainbow trout and coarse fisheries in the database is described below.

4.5.2 Angling Club Waters

There are approximately 400 or so angling clubs in Scotland, however many of these are travelling clubs which do not own or lease their own water. Clubs and associations owning or controlling waters were identified. If a club controlled one or two waters, club secretaries were telephoned normally in the evenings or at weekends. If they controlled a large number of waters, a questionnaire was mailed to club secretaries. If there was a non-response there was a followed up telephone enquiry. If that was unsuccessful, angler days were estimated based on number of angler days typically encountered for that the size and type of club water in the region.

4.5.3 Commercial Stillwater Trout Fisheries

Most of the 'commercial' put and take fisheries in Scotland are concentrated in the North East and Central Scotland, probably due to the population densities in these areas. Rainbow trout is not the only species of freshwater fish that some of these fisheries stock, with widespread reports of stocking blue trout, golden trout, brook trout and other species. However when questioned, most fisheries stated that Rainbows were predominant.

The parent association for these types of fisheries is the Association of Scottish Stillwater Fisheries (ASSF). The ASSF were very helpful and provided contact details of its 50 or so members and a postal questionnaire was forwarded. There are however many more not connected to this organisation. These other fisheries were contacted by telephone. Estimates were received from 108 of this type of fishery.

For known commercial fisheries who were unable to provide estimates or who were unable to be contacted, estimates were generated using the average number of days from our known sample of commercial fisheries in that particular region.

4.5.4 Coverage of Rainbow Trout Fisheries

Walker (2002) produced a list of 287 waters which were stocked with rainbow trout. Unfortunately, no further information was supplied, apart from the grid reference. Crucially, there were no contact details for possible estimates.

Combining the survey estimates from clubs, commercial operators and other sources, data were obtained on 223 of the 287 rainbow trout fisheries, giving coverage of 77%. The remainder are believed to be very minor fisheries with a minimal number of angler days.

4.5.5 Scottish Water Lochs & Reservoirs

Scottish Water (SW) own 60 lochs/reservoirs throughout Scotland with fishing run by SW on about 10 of these waters, the remainder being leased out to angling clubs. SW was very helpful in providing permit sales figures and contact details to obtain estimates from the tenants. It was not possible to contact all of the tenants concerned. Where a non-response was encountered, estimates were generated using the average number of days from our known sample of this type in that region.

4.5.6 Estate Waters

There is a great deal of brown trout fishing to be found on estates throughout Scotland, especially in the Highlands. Using the internet ¹⁰ and other sources, 48 estates with this type of fishing were identified and contact was attempted. In total, 25 estates with known brown trout fishing provided estimates, with the remainder (those unwilling to participate or those who were not contacted) being estimated on the basis of the number of angler days typically encountered for that the size and type of water in the region.

4.5.7 Hotel Waters

There are a number of hotels throughout Scotland who provide permit sales for various types of fishing (mainly brown trout). Some hotels are built around the theme of angling and cater specifically for anglers and there are others that simply sell permits. Again these hotels are mainly situated in the Highlands, with a couple in Dumfries & Galloway. Again, where it was impossible to obtain an estimate, the mean number of days for comparable hotels in that region was estimated.

4.5.8 Coarse Fisheries

Coarse fishing is the least regulated type of freshwater fishing in Scotland and is the most difficult to associate with identified suppliers. In the past many owners saw the coarse fish mainly as a predator which adversely affected salmon and trout stocks. In recent years however, attitudes towards coarse angling by the owners has changed and coarse angling in Scotland has become more commonplace. A recent addition has been Scotland first 'Coarse only' commercial fishery - Magiscroft in Condorrat.

In England and Wales, coarse fishing in rivers is not allowed between 15 March and 15 June, though there is no close time in still-waters and canals. No such rules apply in Scotland and as a result a number of coarse anglers from England come to Scotland to fish, particularly in Dumfries and Galloway.

The Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling (SFCA) was able to provide contacts for the coarse fisheries. As many of these waters are not actively managed, in many cases it proved necessary to rely on estimates from experienced coarse anglers as to the number of fishing days. Experts, mainly members of the Scottish Pike Anglers Alliance were very helpful in supplying these estimates for each of the regions.

4.5.9 Other Lochs & Reservoirs

Some fisheries simply do not fit neatly into any of the above categories. For these fisheries estimates were obtained through tackle shops, informed anglers or the persons supplying the fishing. Where estimates could not be obtained, figures were again scaled up using the average number of days in this category.

4.6 Coverage of Non Salmon Fisheries

In total 738 responses out of a possible 872 were received from our contact list. This provided estimates of angler days and origins for 1935 fisheries/waters of the 2830 entries in the database (68.4%). To clarify, some contact/responses provided group estimates of waters. This usually occurred when dealing with angling clubs and estates in particular (I.e. Assynt Angling Company supplied one group estimate for 152 waters). It was therefore also necessary for us to derive estimates for the remaining 134 owners covering the remaining 895 fisheries in the database who we were unable to contact. Again this was mainly angling clubs and individual estates. The breakdown of estimates by region and fishery type is given below.

4.7 The Fisheries Database

From the database, it is possible to aggregate individual estimates to provide estimates for Scotland as a whole, or for four fishing types, for seven regions, by 13 angler origins. For salmon and sea trout fisheries, estimates are available on a river-by-river basis. Other fisheries can be aggregated by Unitary Authority area or any other geographical boundary.

For example, from the database it is possible to provide estimates of the total number of angler days in a typical season on:

• All freshwater fisheries in Scotland;

• Each type of fishing in Scotland (eg coarse fisheries in Scotland);

• Each type of fishing by region (eg brown trout fisheries in the Borders);

• Each type of fishing by region by angler origins (eg salmon and sea trout fisheries in the Highlands by anglers from North America);

• Salmon and sea trout fisheries by river by angler origin (eg the River Tay by anglers from the South of England); and

• Non salmon and sea trout fisheries by Unitary Authority area by angler origin (eg rainbow trout fisheries in East Renfrewshire by anglers from the North of England).

In terms of reporting results, assurances of confidentiality were given to all respondents and results will only be reported such that individual fisheries will not be identified. In this study, results are reported at the level of the regions specified by the project remit.

« Previous | Contents | Next »