The Scottish Government

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Section 3: Resolution of conflicts between different angling sectors wishing to access the same resource at the same time

• It is entirely possible that a particular stretch of water may contain salmon, trout, grayling, and several coarse fish species. Occasions can arise when anglers from these different sectors may wish to fish at the same time. There have also been occasions when the owners of the salmon fishing rights have discouraged, or even prevented, non-salmon anglers from fishing to avoid "disturbing" the salmon there, or prevented other anglers from fishing during the annual close time for salmon to avoid disturbing spawning fish. As a result of salmon fishing rights being held separately from any land, it is often the case that the owner of the salmon fishing rights and the riparian owner are different people. The issue is further complicated by the fact that salmon fishing rights include the lesser right of trout fishing. Thus, it is possible that the salmon fishery owner, or his tenant, and the riparian owner, or his tenant, may seek access to the same water at the same time to fish for trout. There have also been instances where there has been discord between salmon fishery owners and other water users, such as canoeists or rafters, wishing to use the same stretch of water at the same time.
• The law as it stands has been described by Stanley Scott Robinson in his book "The Law of Game, Salmon and Freshwater Fishing in Scotland". In that book, Scott Robinson states that: "Where the right to trout and salmon fishing in the same waters are held by different persons, the right of trout fishing must be exercised in a manner which will not interfere with or injure the superior right of salmon fishing (this was held in cases such as Mackenzie v Rose (1830) and Lord Somerville v Smith (1859)). If the proprietor of the trout fishing exercises his right in an illegal fashion or makes a pretence of fishing for trout when he intends to catch salmon, or intentionally disturbs the salmon, interdict may be obtained against him. A similar restraint applies to the holder of the right of salmon fishing (held in Forbes v Earl of Kintore (1826)).
• It is not immediately clear how the primary legislation can be amended to resolve this. It could, however, be possible to develop appropriate Codes of Practice within management areas to allow for resource sharing. This, however, will require the appropriate management bodies to develop the Codes, and ensure that they are adhered to.

Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]