We went to the Baltic Sea to understand one regulation. We came back with a question about the system.

Szymon and I set off for the Baltic Sea to understand one absurd thing: why is an angler with a fishing rod forbidden from keeping wild salmon, while in the Bothnian Bay, 30,000 pieces are legally caught in nets annually? Here's what we found in scientific reports that no one reads every day.

Introduction - a rule that is hard to defend

For several years, every angler fishing for Baltic salmon in the main basin (waters between Poland, Denmark, Germany, and southern Sweden) has faced a clear regulation. They can only take home salmon with an adipose fin clipped off – meaning fish from aquaculture. Wild salmon must be released immediately. One fish per person. After catching it, no more salmon fishing for that person for the day.

The logic of the regulation seems straightforward. Wild salmon populations in many Baltic rivers are weak. To protect them, fishing pressure must be reduced. An angler on the open sea cannot distinguish a fish from a strong northern population from an individual from a threatened southern river. So, for safety – everything wild is released.

The deeper we delved into the ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) documents, the more this picture disintegrated. Not because the rule is flawed in its assumptions. But because it targets the wrong objective. And at the same time – even worse – it destroys one of the few data systems available to science.

What science doesn't know about Baltic salmon

The starting point for any sensible regulation should be data. Who fishes, where, how much, what kind of fish. In the case of Baltic salmon, these data are exceptionally patchy.

The 2018 report by the WGBAST (Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group) contains a sentence worth quoting in full: "Data on recreational fisheries are fragmented and, for most Baltic countries, entirely lacking." A Finnish survey of active trolling skippers (92 responses) showed that respondents fished, on average, eight days a year. The average catch was 0.2 salmon per day in the Gulf of Finland and 0.4 salmon per day in the Åland Islands and the Bothnian Bay. Extrapolating these values to an estimated fleet of 300–400 active boats yielded a range of 300–1600 salmon annually caught by Finnish trolling anglers.

The breadth of this range – three hundred to sixteen hundred – says it all. Science has no knowledge of how many fish anglers actually catch. It relies on estimates from online surveys, observations of boats in marinas, and extrapolations. The WGBAST report itself admits: "a potential error in the national survey could arise from respondents reporting the annual catch of the entire crew, rather than just their own share."

Let's translate this into plain language. If three anglers are on a boat and catch six fish, it's unclear whether the report should count six fish once, or six fish three times. Absurd.

Catch distribution - where salmon truly disappear

The ICES WKBALTSALMP report from 2020 presented the structure of Baltic salmon catches for 2019, which looked as follows:

• Commercial sea fisheries: 51% of all salmon caught
• River fisheries (mainly anglers in Swedish and Finnish rivers): 33%
• Recreational sea fisheries (all Baltic trolling combined): 16%

This is a crucial figure worth remembering. The entire Baltic trolling fleet – all boats from Poland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland combined – accounts for sixteen percent of the total impact on the population. And within that sixteen percent, Poland represents merely a fraction.

In 2017, Polish marine salmon catches (commercial plus recreational) amounted to 6,558 fish. Germany – 4,576 fish. Denmark – approximately 6,500 fish. For comparison, Swedish coastal commercial traps in the Bothnian Bay alone caught 23,592 salmon in the same year. One net in one corner of the Baltic collected more fish than all Polish, German, and Danish anglers combined.

ICES Model and a Shocking Conclusion

The WKBALTSALMP report contains something even more valuable than percentage breakdown. Scientists built a model simulating what would happen to salmon populations under different management scenarios. One of the scenarios - described in Table 5.1.1 - concerned a situation where commercial marine fishing was completely closed, with only recreational marine and river fishing remaining at the current level.

The key methodological statement reads: "Recreational fishing effort kept constant at its current level." In translation: angling was treated as a constant background value, not as a variable that the model optimizes. Scientists themselves assumed that recreation is not a problem requiring a solution.

The results of this scenario are striking. For Tornionjoki – the largest wild salmon population in the entire Baltic Sea – the probability of achieving the MSY management objective was 0.92. For the Ljungan river (one of the threatened Swedish populations) – 0.81. For the Emån river – 0.62. Even the weakest population of Mörrumsån reached 0.51.

For comparison – with the pressure level from 2018 (harvest rate around 0.1), these same rivers had probabilities of recovery at single-digit percentages. The difference comes from the closure of commercial fishing, not from the reduction of angling.

Where is legal fishing allowed and what does it mean?

It's worth clarifying what is currently permitted in the Baltic Sea. Since 2022, commercial salmon fishing in the main basin (ICES sub-areas SD 22–28) has been closed. ICES continuously recommends zero catches in this area. Only commercial coastal traps in the Bothnian Bay (SD 29N, 30, and 31) and commercial fishing in the Gulf of Finland (SD 32) remain.

The limit for 2026 for the Bothnian Bay is 30,000 salmon. For the Gulf of Finland – approximately 10,500 salmon. In total, Baltic commercial fishing is expected to take over 40,000 salmon in 2026.

These catches occur during the spawning migration – fish traveling from the open sea towards rivers swim directly into traps set in the coastal zone. Their genetic makeup is more uniform than in the main basin (they originate mainly from the northern rivers Tornionjoki and Kalixälven), which justifies ICES tolerating these catches.

Szymon fishes in SD 26. This is open sea, no rivers nearby. The fish there could return to any of the dozens of Baltic rivers. Taking one salmon in this location is statistically a different decision than setting a trap seven hundred meters from the mouth of the Tornionjoki at the peak of the spawning migration.

A fish in the river is more important than a fish in the sea

There's a second, more fundamental question we raise in the film. Where does the loss of salmon hurt the population more - at sea or in the river?

The answer is unequivocal, though rarely stated directly. A fish in the river is an individual who has won the lottery. It survived the smolt phase (the lion's share of salmon mortality occurs in the first months at sea), matured, and is now returning to spawn. With the current low smolt survival rate - below two percent - out of every hundred smolts that enter the Baltic Sea, fewer than two return to the river.

Taking that one fish in the river represents a loss fifty times greater than taking it at sea. Because the sea is still a field of selection. The river – a direct contribution to the next generation.

And yet – river catches still account for 33% of the total pressure on Baltic salmon. Almost entirely, these are anglers on the rivers of Sweden and Finland. Nets in rivers with wild populations were eliminated in the 1990s. Only pressure from us – anglers – remains.

Misreporting - 30,000 salmon vanished from statistics

Even more disturbing is the problem of misreporting. Genetic studies in Germany showed that 30–40% of commercially landed salmon and sea trout were misidentified by species. Why is this important? Because sea trout do not have a TAC (Total Allowable Catch) limit. Reporting salmon as sea trout is a simple way to circumvent quotas.

In 2017, the estimated level of misreporting amounted to 30,500 salmon across the Baltic Sea. This scale is comparable to the entire Polish commercial catch of this species in former years. No one faced consequences. The control system was not, and still is not, able to eliminate this scale.

Let's compare this now. One Szymon on a boat in the Baltic Sea is forbidden from taking one wild fish. Commercial fishermen in the same year "lost" thirty thousand salmon in their statistics. The level of control and consequences for dishonesty is dramatically asymmetrical between these two groups.

A ban that killed data

This is perhaps the most serious, because least discussed, consequence of the current regulation. Before its introduction, recreational anglers who could keep a fish had an incentive to report catches. Survey systems, applications, licensing registers - all of this was based on anglers documenting what they caught.

After the ban was introduced, motivation declined. Why report catch & release if there's no trace of it in the form of a fish in the fridge? The number of active trolling skippers dropped by 51%. Along with them, one of the few bottom-up sources of data on salmon presence in the main basin disappeared.

In ecology, there is a concept of "citizen science." Anglers are one of its best examples. Thousands of people on the water, every day, observing what is happening. In a situation where science does not have the budget to monitor every river and every sub-area of the sea, such data are invaluable. Regulations that destroy this motivation deprive scientists of their observers in the field.

What would work - a licensing and tagging system

Polish ichthyologists, with whom we spoke while working on the film, point to a specific solution. A licensing system with a quantitative limit plus mandatory tagging of each fish taken. You go out with Szymon, pay for a license, attach a tag to the fish you take. Scientists see who, where, when, how many. Enforcement relies on tags, not on trust.

Such systems have existed for decades in Norwegian and Icelandic fisheries for Atlantic salmon. In Poland and throughout the EU, this would require pan-Baltic coordination, which is politically difficult but technically feasible. The benefits are obvious - reliable data, real enforceability, preservation of the fishing tourism economy while protecting endangered populations.

Instead, we have a black-and-white regulation. Allowed, not allowed. No calibration, no differentiation, no mechanism for data acquisition. The side effect - the trolling industry is shrinking, regional marinas are losing customers, and scientists don't know what's happening in waters with fewer boats than before. Oh! Let's not forget the economy, which has lost a large number of tourists.

What really kills Baltic salmon

To be fair, it must be said directly. Fishing pressure, though significant, is not the main problem. The problems of Baltic salmon are multilayered and include:

• River fragmentation - in Poland, there are over four thousand small hydropower plants operating or planned, many of which lack efficient fish passes. Each hydrotechnical barrier means losses in smolt migration to the sea and spawners to the river.
• Habitat degradation - river regulation, channel deepening, digging drainage ditches, discharge of saline water from mines. Current controversies around the Odra River show the scale of the problem. A river that has been straightened can be included in a European Union re-naturalization program.
• Predation - grey seal and cormorant populations have increased four and ninefold respectively over 25 years. This exerts increasing pressure on local fish populations.
• Diseases - M74 syndrome (linked to thiamine deficiency) and UDN (ulcerative dermal necrosis) decimate populations in cycles whose mechanisms we do not fully understand.
• Climate change - rising water temperatures, water deficit in rivers during dry seasons, disturbances in migration timings.

None of these phenomena will be solved by prohibiting one angler from taking one fish. Mandatory species protection requires working at the source - unblocking rivers, supporting natural reproduction, restoring spawning grounds, ensuring safe smolt migration to the sea. Stocking can be a supporting tool, but not a substitute.

Who makes the decisions

The flow of power in EU fisheries management is multi-level. At the lowest level are ICES scientists, who produce recommendations. Above them - the European Commission, specifically DG MARE (Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries), which formulates the TAC (Total Available Catch) proposal. The Commissioner responsible for this area is currently Costas Kadis.

The final decision rests with the EU Council in the AGRIFISH (Agriculture and Fisheries) configuration. Once a year, in October, the fisheries ministers of all member states meet and vote by qualified majority on the final TAC. Poland is represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. At the vote on October 28, 2025, which set limits for 2026, the proceedings were chaired by Jacob Jensen - the Danish Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries.

Concurrently, an informal group called BALTFISH operates, comprising eight Baltic countries (Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, and Sweden). It is here, behind closed doors, that ministers agree on a common position before voting in AGRIFISH. BALTFISH's role is significant, because without coordination among these eight countries, no reform of Baltic salmon management stands a chance.

What to do about all this

In writing this text, we tried not to fall into the trap that most public discussion about salmon falls into. Either "all fishermen are villains" or "anglers' hobby is innocent". The truth is more demanding.

Recreational fishing for Baltic salmon is a real, albeit minority, element of fishing pressure. Sixteen percent of the total, of which Poland accounts for a fraction. For the weakest populations (Vindeälven, Mörrumsån), a complete ban on angling would have a measurable effect - but smaller than the commercial ban, which is already in place.

At the same time, the current regulation destroys the data system, shrinks the angling tourism economy, takes away the motivation to document catches, and directs public attention to the least important piece of the puzzle. Decision-makers can say "we did something" - because they did. The question is whether this "something" solves the problem or masks it.

If you want your grandchildren to still be able to see salmon in the Vistula, the answer does not lie in a single angler. It lies in improving river patency, monitoring water quality, real control of commercial misreporting, a system of licenses and tagging instead of bans, and an honest conversation about what really works.

Szymon is still swimming. Nothing he does determines the fate of the species. But the decisions that ministers make in Luxembourg once a year - yes. And it's worth all of us knowing what they are voting on then.

---

Sources

1. ICES. 2018. Report of the Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group (WGBAST).
   File: 01WGBAST_ReportoftheBalticSalmonandTroutAssessmentWorkingGroup.pdf.
   References in the article:
   • Quote "Recreational fishing data are fragmented, and completely lacking for most Baltic countries" - section on recreational data.
   • Finnish skipper survey: 92 responses, average 8 days of fishing per year, CPUE 0.2 salmon/day in the Gulf of Finland and 0.4 in the Bothnian Sea, extrapolation 300–1600 salmon per year.
   • Quote "potential error in the national survey…" - section on methodology.
   • Division into farmed versus wild rivers; statement that nets in rivers with wild populations were eliminated in the 1990s.
   • Swedish commercial river fishery (Luleälven): 8,681 salmon (41 tonnes) in 2017.
   • Commercial coastal traps in Sweden in the Bothnian Sea: 23,592 salmon (157 tonnes) in 2017.
   • Polish marine catches 2017: 6,558 salmon.
   • German marine catches 2017: 4,576 salmon; 701 released (C&R).
   • Misreporting: estimated 30,500 salmon in 2017; genetic study in Germany showed 30–40% misidentification of species.
2. Kirkegaard, E. et al. (ICES). 2020. Workshop on Baltic Salmon Management Plan (WKBALTSALMP). ICES Scientific Reports, Vol. 2, Issue 35.
   File: kirkegaard_e_et_al_201012.pdf.
   References in the article:
   • Catch structure in 2019: 51% commercial marine, 33% river catches, 16% recreational marine.
   • Definition of categories "Fisheries in wild rivers. Almost entirely recreational" and "Fisheries in reared rivers. Recreational and commercial".
   • Table 5.1.1: scenarios "no fishing", "only recreational fisheries" and harvest rate from 0.05 to 0.5 for commercial.
   • Methodological quote: "Recreational fishing effort kept constant at its current level".
   • Probability values P(Smolts>RMSY) for selected rivers in the "only recreational" scenario: Tornionjoki 0.92; Ljungan 0.81; Emån 0.62; Mörrumsån 0.51; Vindeälven 0.51.
   • Values for the "no fishing" scenario: Tornionjoki 0.98; Ljungan 0.93; Emån 0.95; Mörrumsån 0.85; Vindeälven 0.76.
   • Post-smolt survival below 2%.
3. BSAC. 2021. BSAC recommendations to the ICES advice for western Baltic cod and for Baltic salmon (BSAC 2021-2022_21).
   File: BSACreplyCODSALMON_FINAL21_22_21.pdf.
   References in the article: ICES recommends zero salmon catches in the main basin (SD 22–31) according to the MSY approach; discussion of scenarios and closing of commercial fishing in the main basin.
4. ICES. 2024. Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group (WGBAST). ICES Scientific Reports 6:42.
   Online source: https://ices-library.figshare.com/articles/report/Baltic_Salmon_and_Trout_Assessment_Working_Group_WGBAST_/25868665.
   References: since 2022, commercial salmon fishing limited to the Bothnian Sea, Åland Sea and Gulf of Finland; permanent zero recommendation for the main basin.
5. ICES. 2025. Salmon (Salmo salar) in subdivisions 22–31 (Baltic Sea, excluding the Gulf of Finland). Advice for 2026.
   Online source: https://ices-library.figshare.com/articles/report/Salmon_i_Salmo_salar_i_in_subdivisions_22-31_Baltic_Sea_excluding_the_Gulf_of_Finland_/27202839.
   Quote: "ICES advises that when the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) approach is applied, no more than 30,000 Atlantic salmon should be caught within subdivisions (SDs) 22–31 in 2026. This catch should be taken during the time period of 01 May until 31 August and only in the area of sub-divisions SDs 29N–31."
6. Council of the European Union. 28 October 2025. Baltic Sea: Council agrees on catch limits for 2026.
   Online source: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/10/28/baltic-sea-council-agrees-on-catch-limits-for-2026/.
   References: Danish presidency (Jacob Jensen), decision to reduce TAC for salmon in the main basin by 27% and increase by 1% for the Gulf of Finland; maintenance of summer coastal fishery in SD 29N–31; ban on commercial fishing in the main basin maintained as bycatch-only.
7. European Commission, DG MARE. 2025. Proposal for a Council Regulation on fishing opportunities in the Baltic Sea for 2026 (COM 2025/491).
   References: TAC 2026 structure; proposal for a ban on recreational fishing for farmed salmon; comments by Commissioner Costas Kadis on the state of Baltic stocks.
8. Karlsson, K. et al. 2026. Analysis of the Baltic trolling fleet based on tournaments and AIS data.
   Reference: decrease in the number of active skippers from 5,343 (2014–2020) to 2,604 (2021–2023), a 51% reduction after the introduction of the ban on taking wild salmon.
9. ICES. 2020. ICES Request Form 23-16: Baltic salmon – Revised request.
   File: DGMARE_Baltic_salmon_request.pdf.
   References: context of regulations for SD 29N and 30, protection of Ljungan populations, management measures in the Bothnian Sea.
10. Baltic Cluster / National River Protection Centers. Industry publications on hydrotechnical barriers in Poland.
    Reference: estimated number of over 4,000 small hydropower plants in Poland, problem of river fragmentation and fish passages.
11. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Republic of Poland. 14 July 2025. AGRIFISH Council meeting – challenges in the Baltic Sea region.
    Online source: https://www.gov.pl/web/agriculture/agrifish-council-meeting--challenges-in-the-baltic-sea-region.
    Reference: increase in cormorant population (9x) and grey seal population (4x) over 25 years in the Baltic Sea region; data cited by ministries of Baltic Sea states.

This article was created as a supplement to the documentary film produced by Wild Fish Stories. If you believe that the topic of Baltic salmon management deserves wider attention, please share the text further. Without public discussion, nothing will change here.