The River Tees campaign, launched by Darlington angler/conservationist Don Taylor on behalf of a number of other concerned anglers/conservationists on the River Tees, began on July 14th, and has had wide coverage on TV, radio, and various newspapers.  The latest local headline reads:  SUPPORT FOR ANGLERS GROW IN ROW OVER RIVER’S FISH STOCKS. 

We strongly maintain it is in the interests of both coarse fishermen and game fishermen, and the general public, that certain issues are aired. 

Particularly the campaign believes that the Environment Agency's claims of many thousands of migratory fish running through to the spawning grounds are inordinately high. The Eighties and early Nineties saw small but improving runs of migratory fish -- the Spring run of salmon was highly encouraging, and some fine fish were caught.  (Note that a high percentage of these fish were not reported as rod-catches because the anglers were not game fishermen and had no salmon licences and/or they were long-distance visitors to the area and had no right to be fishing on the long productive stretch of free fishing below the Broken Scar dam which is supposed to be for Darlington ratepayers only.)  However, since the construction of the Tees Barrage in 1995, at which time the river ceased to be tidal, very few salmon and sea trout, if any, are being seen in the middle reaches. (The writer of this release, despite a huge amount of time spent fishing and watching, has not seen a salmon in the river in the 8 years since the Barrage was built.)  

True, substantial numbers of migratory fish arrive at the Tees Barrage that blocks the river's 80 yards width -- these trapped fish and the seals that accompany them have become an exciting local spectacle -- but the narrow fish-pass, only thirty inches wide, still remains unapproved after 8 years of operation and is clearly inadequate even though the Tees Barrage Act, as we understand it, calls for the free unhindered passage of fish. Just 163 salmon and 1,104 sea trout managed to use the pass in 2001; thus we believe the public is being misled by the Environment Agency offering the widely varying "estimates" of 2,000 to 4,000 salmon and 11,000 to 15,000 sea trout entering the river.  These "estimates", by the Barrage management's and the Environment Agency's own accounts, are calculated by assuming that only 10% of migratory fish use the fish-pass -- which tends to confirm there must be something radically wrong, since it seems the fish-pass is supposed to offer itself as the constant major route through the Barrage.  The other 90% of their "estimates" is derived from those fish said to be successfully progressing upstream via the boating-lock, the canoe-slalom, or by leaping the main gates.  These routes, however, are only available at sporadic times when the slalom and lock are in use or when river levels permit.  Consequently, it appears in effect that the Barrage management and the Environment Agency are acknowledging the fish-pass's poor design by saying it is these "occasional unanticipated and accidental routes" that are accounting for the vast bulk of their claims.    

To sum up, we are arguing that the Barrage is blocking the swift unhindered progress of migratory fish, and we fear that a significant percentage are not succeeding in entering the river at all.  In reply, the Environment Agency and the Barrage management insist that this year's runs of migratory fish are even bigger than last year. (Up to the end of July the actual count from the fish-pass was just 92 salmon and 168 sea trout.) 

Another interesting point is that in the years since the Barrage was built there appears to have been a reduction in the numbers of eels in the river -- there used to be millions.  Possibly a cause of any shortage is that elvers are having problems in negotiating the pass.  Certainly lampreys are no longer being seen in the river.  In the Eighties the March/April periods of each year saw great numbers coming in from sea and many thousands could be seen stuck to the stones in the middle reaches.        

All of the foregoing, of course, begs the question:  How did such a narrow ineffectual fish-pass ever come to be included in such a multi-million pound project?   

Additionally and seriously, and for reasons unknown, we also consider brown trout stocks within the middle reaches to be critically low. The upper reaches may still fish reasonably well.  The coarse fishing in the lower reaches may be okay.  In fact based on the coarse fishing results the river is about to be classified as “A+”, a rating that places it as one of the finest fishing rivers in the country.   Regrettably, though, this classification seems likely to present a false impression since, besides overlooking the salmon/sea-trout problems, it expressly ignores our contention that there is something radically wrong within the river’s prime middle reaches of Neasham to Gainford -- approx 20 miles. The days of rising trout are long gone -- even the ring of a single brown trout is a rarity -- this year very few fly-fishermen have caught even one takeable fish. In fact, the writer of this release, who has 48 years of experience of fishing the middle reaches, has arrived at suspecting that the brown trout stocks are now at an irrecoverable level. The food-chain is near enough non-existent -- the fly-life, that is.  

We think action is needed, and we repeat we contend it is in the interests of both game and coarse fisherman to have all truths made public.  Any argument that publicity will have detrimental consequences are illogical.  This particularly applies to migratory fish numbers where the ever increasing “estimates” are likely to effect fishery values if allowed to stand unchallenged.  In any case, the welfare of the river should be paramount. 

At all events, believing an independent inquiry is urgently needed, we have spent the past weeks making our case to all local councils, the Environment Agency at both local and national levels, all local MPs, and various other organizations, including the Atlantic Salmon Trust. Derek Foster, MP for Barnard Castle, has indicated he supports the campaign, but the responses from almost all other organizations has so far been either nil or of no help. We seem to be going round in circles. There appears to be a reluctance in many areas to challenge the Environment Agency's intransigent refusal to acknowledge the gravity of the situation, and especially irritating is how the Agency declines even to consider the firsthand experience of long-time anglers and conservationists on the river. We suspect there are those continuing to hope that given time the matter will either just go away or resolve itself.  Sadly it won't.  

We need all the assistance we can get. 

Release issued by Don Taylor. August 26th, 2002.