When we protect the image, we forget the salmon.

They attack the messenger because the message makes people uncomfortable

Let me make something very clear.

I have never attacked sport anglers. I have never attacked biologists. I have never attacked associations, guides, volunteers, people on the ground, or anyone who gives their time, energy, and heart to Atlantic salmon, never.

What I am pointing at is not the individuals who love salmon. What I am pointing at is a system. A system that, in the face of a historic crisis, still seems unable to shift into emergency mode. A system that too often protects the culture of salmon fishing, the image, the folklore, the events, the habits, and the economy built around salmon before protecting the salmon itself in a clear, biological, and responsible way.

And when someone dares to say that out loud, some people act offended.

They attack the messenger. They try to put words in my mouth. They claim I am blaming sport fishing for the collapse of salmon. That is false. I have never said that sport fishing is the main cause of the decline.

I know very well that the major mortality is probably happening at sea. I know very well that the causes are multiple: changes in the Gulf, water temperature, food availability, predation, accidental catches, aquaculture, disease, habitat, water levels, and water quality.

But using the complexity of what happens at sea as an argument to avoid taking strong action here, now, is too easy.

The problems at sea are enormous. They are complex. They will cost fortunes to understand, and even more to correct, if we ever manage to correct them. Changing the thermal regime of the ocean, fixing food availability on salmon feeding grounds, controlling what happens in the Gulf, around Greenland, offshore, in fisheries, and within the interactions between species — that is not a small task. There is no miracle pill coming tomorrow morning.

And while we study all of that, while we search, while we debate, while we wait for perfect answers, the salmon that come back to our rivers are already here. Few in number. Exhausted. Vulnerable. And they need to spawn.

That is where I say: can we at least do better here at home?

Can we at least make sure that the maximum number of salmon that survived the ocean can reach the spawning grounds? Can we admit that egg deposition has never been more important? Can we stop managing this as if it were just another bad year?

Because this is not just another bad year.

This is a historic crisis. The returns of 2024 and 2025 are among the most disastrous since salmon have been seriously counted in our rivers. And in that context, a river receiving 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, or even fewer than 150 salmon should no longer be treated like a river open to business as usual.

At that level, every salmon counts. Every spawner counts. Every female counts. Every fish that reaches the spawning grounds counts.

And yes, at that point, even the act of fishing becomes pressure. Even catch and release becomes pressure. Stress, handling, the fight, warm water, delayed migration, poor conditions all of that matters when only a handful of fish remain.

We also have to be honest: in this entire crisis, the only major measure really being put forward is catch and release. And that measure should have been widely implemented more than ten years ago. But if catch and release has become our only answer to protect the last salmon, then we are in serious trouble. Catch and release is not a recovery strategy. It is a minimum damage-reduction measure. Is it better than killing a salmon? Of course. But it is not a sufficient response when some rivers are now on the edge of collapse. We will not fix the ocean this season.We will not fix the climate this season.We will not fix aquaculture this season.We will not fix accidental catches this season.We will not fix the marine food chain this season.

But this season, we can decide to leave the few salmon that managed to come back alone.

That is my point.

This is not an attack. It is a wake-up call.

And I know very well that I am not the only one thinking this. Many people around me see the same thing and say the same thing in private, but they do not dare say it publicly because they know what happens next: people shoot the messenger instead of facing the message.

But attacking the messenger proves exactly that there is a problem. A serious problem.

Because some people have held important positions over the last few years. Key positions in the development, management, image, or protection of Atlantic salmon. And today, instead of admitting that the system waited too long, that the decisions were not strong enough, that the warning signs were ignored for too long, people get defensive.

But the salmon no longer has the luxury of waiting for everyone to save face.

It does not need us to protect the image of those who waited too long to act.

It does not need us to protect the comfort of salmon anglers.

It does not need us to protect the folklore.

It does not need us to protect the industry built around it.

It needs us to protect its ability to survive and spawn.

So yes, we need to work on the ocean. Yes, we need to work on habitat. Yes, we need to work on water quality, temperatures, predators, accidental catches, aquaculture, and everything else.

But in the meantime, here, in our rivers, we have an immediate responsibility. And that responsibility is to protect the last salmon that return. Not in ten years. Not when we have the perfect study. Not when the system becomes comfortable with the idea.

Because when we keep looking for reasons not to act here at home, we end up protecting our habits more than we protect the salmon.

And if the only answer to those calling for stronger measures is to dismiss them, caricature them, or put words in their mouth, then we need to ask a real question:

Are we still here to protect the salmon?

Or are we mostly here to protect the image of what we built around it?