TROUT & SALMON

The voice of game-fishing since 1955

WHAT I AM ABOUT TO EXPRESS HAS troubled me for years, but when Anglian Water, owners of four key Midlands reservoirs, mandated catch-and-release for all stocked brown trout at the start of this season, my concerns intensified.

The crucial term here is “stocked”. These fisheries are stocked with infertile brown and rainbow trout solely for angling purposes. Since the reservoir opened in 1976, anglers have been able to keep fish for consumption, or more recently, release them if they choose. I suspect this sudden shift with brownies is driven by cost-cutting and greed. Farmed brown trout are pricier than rainbow trout, though I will admit they appear to survive better in Rutland than rainbows. However, since Rutland’s halcyon days, the owners have reduced the number of fish they stock by as much as 40%. While fishery budgets have dwindled and angler fees have risen annually, the company’s profits have soared.

My concern now is that with brown trout off the table, Anglian Water’s only card left (apart from wanting even more buck for less bang) is to impose mandatory catch-and-release for rainbow trout, too. This would be the end of Rutland Water as a trout fishery.

Since catch-and-release of wild fish is now encouraged, if not mandatory, put-and-take fisheries have become the last bastion for hunter-gatherers.

I understand that, if a wild fishery is not sustainable, or if a species is under threat, we must practise restraint, as we have been doing. But when the fisheries we rely on to alleviate pressure on wild fish go the same way, we are, in my opinion, risking reduced participation and economic damage to our