Keep it in the family

Dear RTC,

I am a (very) minor Tweed proprietor. I have been an owner for thirty years and one of those who contributes to the £600,000.00 to which Ronald Johnson refers in his angry July response to Richard Vainer's June letter in Trout and Salmon.

I cannot remember a time when the atmosphere enveloping the Tweed was so unhappy. Everyone knows there are marine problems so why the unhappiness? Why are angry letters appearing in the press? Why are ordinary people like me so annoyed?

There are seven members of the Tweed ("inner circle") committee membership of which is by personal invitation from the Chairman. One is a fish farmer whose farm has been responsible for two escapes of rainbow trout into the Whiteadder. Two (Mr Johnson is one) are trout club representatives and the other four are owners of major Tweed beats charging circa £1,000.00 a person an autumn day.

The four salmon proprietors are, of course, a majority. Three of these four "salmon" proprietors are neighbours. One is the sister of a previous RTC Chairman (now Chairman of the Proprietors Association) and another the son of a former Chairman. The fourth is a local Duke whose family have been big wigs in the RTC since time began. Are the qualities required of (or right to be) a committee member inherited?

The RTC Chairman is also the Chairman of the Tweed Foundation and treasurer of the Proprietors Association. The RTC has a statutory duty to preserve the fish stocks. The Proprietors Association (which runs FishTweed) is set up to exploit the salmon. One might wonder how these three hats can be worn comfortably by one man. It does, however, begin to explain the root of the ill feeling which has erupted during his tenure.

I went to a RTC AGM for the first time in March 2010. Whatever Mr Johnson might claim it was obvious that the Tweed Commissioners are a comparatively impotent bunch. There was no election of proprietors. There were two vacancies. Both were filled by an announcement from the Chairman that they were to be taken by the next two proprietors on the waiting list. Three serial non attenders were forgiven after eulogies from the Chairman. Debate about the contentious spring fish policy was cut short for want of time – it took up less than five minutes.

The principal committee meets in private. Despite my ownership, a request for an AGM agenda and minutes was ignored. I went to the AGM blind. Umpteen letters requesting information addressed to the RTC, the Foundation, the Clerk to the RTC and to the Chairman have also been ignored. They will not answer questions ranging from their plans for genetic sampling to their intentions as to the horrendous agricultural abstraction now taking place - despite the fact the river is almost on its bones and full of phosphate induced weed.

The Chairman has now refused point blank to meet to discuss any of these issues with me. Our group agonised this year about a then unthought of decision, should we withhold our donation to the Foundation?

So Mr Johnson, why are there so many angry Tweed fishermen? First, rents are moving forever upward whilst spring and summer letting has collapsed. Second, you are incapable of engaging the fishermen and those who work on the river. Third, the Foundation seems to have lost its rudder. Beavers and fishing for the disabled seem to be more important than the cutting edge work that used to be your hallmark. Fourth, you cannot today expect any sympathy if a privately invited committee issues dictats without debate or engagement. Fifth, there are obvious conflicts of interest – only you cannot see that is so.

You therefore have yourselves to blame. It is time for independent, inclusive management. Management that could take radical decisions as to the length of the season, fishing methods, fishing in the tributaries for gravid autumn fish. An organisation that will pursue the genetic research now available – the key to modern management.

Yours faithfully,


Tweed Lover


Extensive research amongst Commissioners has revealed genetic material in common through many generations much of which can be traced to families occupying specific large habitats in the Tweed valley.

Further research as to the habits of these Commissioners is proving difficult as they are rarely seen outside their home ranges and are rather secretive.

We are, however, persisting albeit without European aid or acoustic tags.


Mr A. Douglas-Home,

4th February 2010

Dear Sir,

The Commission is made up of (at the moment) of forty-one Council appointees and thirty-eight proprietors.

The “Tweed Committee”, which wields the real power, is made up of your invitees.

Of that Committee of seven, four (the majority) are, to use your description “major proprietors”.

I do not know what you mean by “major proprietor”. Perhaps the owner of one of the leading beats, a beat which can command rents of between £500.00 and £1,000.00 per fisherman per day. Serious income from fishing.

I take it you would accept that a case of a river such as the Tweed on whose well being so many livelihoods and the pleasure of so many depend that decisions made by your “Tweed Committee” should be objective. Furthermore, it is paramount that they are seen to be objective. I take it you understand the concept of "seen to be objective".

An outsider looking in might wonder how decisions of your “Tweed Committee” can be "seen to be objective". Consider these two propositions:

1. membership of this prestigious Committee is within your gift. Three of the four or five “major proprietors” (your description) are neighbours despite the length of the river and the breadth of interests.

2. The majority have a major financial interest in the river. How can the committee be seen to be objective in those circumstances?

For example: it may be that the season should be shortened in the back end so that gravid fish are protected. Difficult decisions would have to be faced. The benefit would be that fish on the point of spawning would be protected but one burden would be the loss of income to the river's proprietors, more so to "major proprietors".

The English Environment Agency has its critics but one major plus is the fact it is truly independent and can make tough decisions without the accusation of not being seen to be independent.

Time to shake up the constitution of the “Tweed Committee”? Time to explain why you are still portraying the Tweed as one of the world's leading salmon rivers despite the collapse in numbers, quality and size? Time to explain why you are adamant you do not want a hatchery despite the fact the preliminary results of the first genetic surveys are not going to be announced until March?

Yours faithfully,