First on fly

[JAD]

Caught this last week..on a size 8 Cascade. Needless to say I'm chuffed.....my first Salmon on a fly. ;D

[Willow Man]

Jad,
What a great fish! And best of all on the fly!

The first one on the fly will always be the one that you remember the most.

Well done!

Regards WM

[JAD]

Thanks WM...I've caught Salmon whilst spinning and its been my ambition to catch one on the fly and now I have and I'm chuffed... ;D

[speycaster]

wello done jad nice fish , the first of many , bi 8-)lly p

[T7]

Was it returned?

[granitec]

Of course it will have been returned - as it's a very coloured fish.

gc

[T7]

Well I would have thought so too but what with the recent "incident" on another forum (documented here) you can't be sure...

[juniorspey]

I've seen a lot redder than thon chapped

[scottyboy9nro]

am no so sure bout that willow man, maybe if a do get one on fly al think diff but up until now ad disagree

[greenalert]

scottyboy9nro said:

am no so sure bout that willow man, maybe if a do get one on fly al think diff but up until now ad disagree

Hi Scot

Have caught a few on the spinner years ago,now only use the fly(nothing against the spinner) & a salmon caught on the fly, believe me, is one of the greatest experiences you will find, better than s**

Hope you get one soon

Cheers

[stoater]

Well done, a Salmon on the fly is special and a cause for celebration! Hope you had a good celebration!
Any post-match talk around moral issues of retaining differently coloured Salmon is to me a side issue, and a "holier than thou" thing.
I can't see what is better in keeping a sealicer, or the very same fish 2 weeks later......either way, if the captor legally kept it, it ain't going to spawn, whether it had been in the River 1 or 100 days. As long as the Fish was used as God intended (i.e. as a food source), I cannot see a reason for "the moral high ground". After all, a lot of people in cities eat large quantities of carp, roach, bream etc....just go along to any inner-city wholesale market or daytime open-market, plenty of these fish look far less palatable than this fine first Fish.
As I said, there is no moral justification in thinking you're a more sporting chap for returning your 25th Salmon of the season (when you may have already killed 20), and then criticising a fellow angler "because you wouldn't have kept it" for keeping a much awaited first Salmon on the fly.
I say, go back to where you began(when you first got into fishing for the pot). Then, truthfully, re-assess your likely course of action.
Maybe I am miles off-beam here, maybe not, but I find it necessary to promote the right of anyone to retain a legally caught Fish-on fly,and a first one!---without undue flak.
Well done that man!!

[castslikeaghille]

stoater said:

Well done, a Salmon on the fly is special and a cause for celebration! Hope you had a good celebration!
Any post-match talk around moral issues of retaining differently coloured Salmon is to me a side issue, and a "holier than thou" thing.
I can't see what is better in keeping a sealicer, or the very same fish 2 weeks later......either way, if the captor legally kept it, it ain't going to spawn, whether it had been in the River 1 or 100 days. As long as the Fish was used as God intended (i.e. as a food source), I cannot see a reason for "the moral high ground". After all, a lot of people in cities eat large quantities of carp, roach, bream etc....just go along to any inner-city wholesale market or daytime open-market, plenty of these fish look far less palatable than this fine first Fish.
As I said, there is no moral justification in thinking you're a more sporting chap for returning your 25th Salmon of the season (when you may have already killed 20), and then criticising a fellow angler "because you wouldn't have kept it" for keeping a much awaited first Salmon on the fly.
I say, go back to where you began(when you first got into fishing for the pot). Then, truthfully, re-assess your likely course of action.
Maybe I am miles off-beam here, maybe not, but I find it necessary to promote the right of anyone to retain a legally caught Fish-on fly,and a first one!---without undue flak.
Well done that man!!

I'm standing off beam with you on this one.

Regards

CLaG

[salmonnut]

scottyboy9nro said:

am no so sure bout that willow man, maybe if a do get one on fly al think diff but up until now ad disagree

Hey scotty, Your a man after my own heart. I'm an out and out bait/ spinning man(No offense to the fly fishing paternity)but believe me when i say its something else when you get 1 on the flee (Ive only had 2 buy both memorable). I Fish to the prevalent conditions on the water on the day and never put away the spinning rod. stick at it and you will get you reward..................Regards SN

[scottyboy9nro]

a hope so salmonnut and stoater ur right by the way

[JAD]

stoater said:

Well done, a Salmon on the fly is special and a cause for celebration! Hope you had a good celebration!
Any post-match talk around moral issues of retaining differently coloured Salmon is to me a side issue, and a "holier than thou" thing.
I can't see what is better in keeping a sealicer, or the very same fish 2 weeks later......either way, if the captor legally kept it, it ain't going to spawn, whether it had been in the River 1 or 100 days. As long as the Fish was used as God intended (i.e. as a food source), I cannot see a reason for "the moral high ground". After all, a lot of people in cities eat large quantities of carp, roach, bream etc....just go along to any inner-city wholesale market or daytime open-market, plenty of these fish look far less palatable than this fine first Fish.
As I said, there is no moral justification in thinking you're a more sporting chap for returning your 25th Salmon of the season (when you may have already killed 20), and then criticising a fellow angler "because you wouldn't have kept it" for keeping a much awaited first Salmon on the fly.
I say, go back to where you began(when you first got into fishing for the pot). Then, truthfully, re-assess your likely course of action.
Maybe I am miles off-beam here, maybe not, but I find it necessary to promote the right of anyone to retain a legally caught Fish-on fly,and a first one!---without undue flak.
Well done that man!!

Thank you Stoater. I have happy memories of my first Salmon on the fly. In fact. The photo is framed and its at the side of my bed......

Tight lines

JAD

[T7]

Obviously a dead fish is a dead fish - not going to spawn. But a fish that coloured is going to be very poor eating, so what's the point in whacking it on the head??

[T7]

Just seen this on the seatrout forum (Hoppy's):

Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and ( 5 ) below, any person who-
(a) knowingly takes. kills or injures or attempts to take,
kill or injure, any salmon, trout or freshwater fish
which is unclean or immature, commits an offence.

Part VI

"unclean" in relation to any fish means that the fish
is about to spawn, or has recently spawned and has not
recovered from spawning.


I suppose it could be argued that any fish upon entering a river is 'about to spawn' but I think it means 'coloured' fish. Worth thinking about when one is about to chap a salmon, whether it's your first or fiftieth.

[donnieW]

A cock fish that still has a hint of purple about it (i.e the one in the photo) would not come into the category of "unclean fish". Stoater made some very good points in his post and I bet a lot of us have killed worse in our time. Well done on your first fly-caught salmon, JAD.
Before anyone takes legal action, make sure the fish wasn't returned first!

[T7]

I shall say no more - I don't want to appear as a C&R fanatic (I have caught 1 salmon this year and kept it. If I catch another I will release it as I probably won't eat 2) And also I don't want to appear patronising (which is easy to do using the typed word).

I agree with everything said by Stoater - it doesn't matter how long a fish has been in as it will not spawn anyway. As long as the fish is eaten it is all the same. However I believe that the fish above would be poor eating so would have returned it. I suppose the debate is how coloured is too coloured?

By the way I wish to take nothing away from JAD here - congratulations on the fish. And yes we still don't know if it was returned ;D

[colliedog]

t7 said:

Just seen this on the seatrout forum (Hoppy's):

Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and ( 5 ) below, any person who-
(a) knowingly takes. kills or injures or attempts to take,
kill or injure, any salmon, trout or freshwater fish
which is unclean or immature, commits an offence.

Part VI

"unclean" in relation to any fish means that the fish
is about to spawn, or has recently spawned and has not
recovered from spawning.


I suppose it could be argued that any fish upon entering a river is 'about to spawn' but I think it means 'coloured' fish. Worth thinking about when one is about to chap a salmon, whether it's your first or fiftieth.

Like many aspects of law (and I am most definitely not a lawyer ) this appears very much open to interpretation. My understanding of an unclean fish for the purposes of this act would be a gravid fish - ie one on the point of spawning, normally identifiable through the fact that it discharges milt or eggs when handled.

some of you may remember a case from a number of years ago when a ghillie on a Dee beat was charged under this act on account of having a number of very coloured fish in his possession - the prosecution failed, at least partly I think on the grounds that the definition of unclean had not been met (and possibly not even established as a point of law). This has probably been taken as some sort of test case as I have never heard of a similar case being brought since.

Any yes, like most of us, I would be found "guilty as charged" for such "offences" in my younger, naiver days.

Well done JAD - first fish on the fly is always memorable.

CD