Dear paulsewin
Point 1.
Yes I do know of work to support the view, and generally accepted fact amongst scientists/fishery scientists, that Grilse feed closer to our coast than MSW Salmon. Unfortunately I can not put my hands on the paper that comes to mind immediately, and the thought of even going through part of the rest of my cabinet full of fisheries reports fills me with dread. However, a quick search for Faroes on the internet confirms the following accept that Grilse have different feeding grounds to MW salmon. The last report covers the river Tyne system in England, their smolts/salmon are on the same lanes and direction as the Scottish east coast rivers up to the Moray Firth area, and shows grilse being taken around the UK, Irish, Scottish, & Faroes coast(page 40). You will note in that report there are figures for Greenland and are recorded as 1SW but, obviously, they couldn’t be split from MSW! Within these various documents it is also recognised that it is MSW salmon who feed off the coast of Greenland and that grilse and salmon have differing feeding areas (though there is a good proportion of MSW Salmon in the Faroes-don’t know the time of year the salmon were counted!). A basic look at the sizes and growth rates of grilse/salmon and the fact that we know the MSW salmon usually end up off Greenland, together with our knowledge of timings of runs of grilse/salmon into rivers around our coast, only confirms our existing knowledge as recognised in the links below.
Tay District Fisheries Board
www.tdsfb.org/salmon-sea.htmKyle of Sutherland Fisheries Trust
www.ksft.org/files/downloads/download266.pdfEA
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/onffactorsaffect_766479.pdfEA
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/105385/review_10.4_version2b_885710.pdfAlso, I have looked at the English EA’s Fish Status Report for 2001 and this admits to Greenland having MSW but the Faroes mainly having mainly Grilse (though it has MSW, it doesn’t know the origins).
I can also remember a report from Iceland in the Early/Mid eighties, recording tagged smolts staying near the coast and returning as small grilse (up to 1kg), those that ventured away from their coast returned as far larger grilse (up to 4kg). I’ll have to have a little search for this report because thinking upon it now, it catches my interest.
Grilse returning to north and north east Scottish rivers (down to the Moray area) from the Faroes etc can swim in a southern direction down the coast and arrive at their rivers earlier than other east coast Scottish rivers because the later normally go further east and down the North Sea and come into the English coast, only for them to go up the English coast and up to the Tweed, Tay, Dee, Spey etc. (in effect taking the long way around-supposedly something to do with the currents). During the latter’s longer journey the feeding suppression will have increased and feeding instinct/habit decreased. The grilse returning to the North and North East coast rivers have the tendency to act more boisterously and act like other fish returning to rivers in Iceland/Norway that are closer to their feeding grounds. Just because grilse generally have a higher feeding suppression than salmon it does not follow that they are all feeding nearer the coast, because they can probably travel quicker than salmon, but I do think the majority feed nearer the coast. The current work of various bodies, testing to see where salmon smolts migrate over the seas, will probably confirm what we have learnt to date.
If I find the report I’m thinking of, and I’m not going to bust a gut looking for it, I’ll let you know within the next week.
Point 2.
While the main smolt run is in May there are smolts leaving earlier and later than May, also there are 1SW fish (grilse) returning virtually year around. The speed of a fish quoted at 30 miles per day was recorded average maximum on returning to the river with a focus/ultimate objective in mind, and this is obviously when it is following its instinct and knows where it has to go. A salmon parr/grilse/salmon on the high seas that is feeding does not know it is going to the Faroes/Greenland etc, they end up there from following the ocean currents looking for food, and fish would move at inconsistent speeds that would undoubtedly be less than 30 miles per day. You could make the general assumption that the longer it spends at sea, the bigger it gets, and this is borne out by the larger MSW salmon at Greenland and smaller grilse around the UK coast/Faroes. So when you take the fishes wanderings in differing directions into account, on average it is doubtful that a smolt/Grilse would have had the time to get to Greenland and feed heavily before returning within the space of a year as a far bigger fish.
Point 3.
With the majority of shrimp/prawn/small fish/squid, a salmon will take it down whole and without any bother, larger fish will be taken across the body and then turned before swallowing. At sea they will use their teeth to keep hold and kill something, perhaps even use them to take a bite out of something that can’t be swallowed, but I can’t see how they would chew. They could crush something in their mouth. If they do take a bite out of something I am sure they then would probably feel bones, but fish bones are not as hard as metal and certainly don’t feel the same. Perhaps when a salmon takes (and lets remember, lots of game fish react to lures in the same way as salmon so it isn’t unique to the subject fish) it also uses its taste to assess whether to swallow an object, also possible that under some circumstances it tests the temperature of the object (fish can sense temperature down to 1/10th of 1 Fahrenheit.
In the cold waters of the spring and Autumn (if we ever get cold water again in the Autumn) a fish will more often than not take and lure and attempt to take it back to its lie. This happens even with a metal Toby and I don’t think it is bothered in these circumstances, however in warmer waters the increased senses make it increasing unlikely that it would hold onto a metal Toby. Experience bears this out, also there are other game fish that react in the same way in cold/water water. Off the top of my head, we already know for sure that many fish carp/catfish have incredible senses of touch and can detect metal. I know trout and sea trout, from bait fishing, can sense metal hooks with points well hidden in baits; and I know of an instance where a shrimp fisherman ran out of pins and found his catch rate increased-he didn’t buy any more and his catches went up exponentially! So, even discounting my experiences with metal flies, I have no reason to doubt salmon can’t feel metal either.
I’m certainly glad to see Kit Kat & Club biscuit wrappers change, just the thought of that metal foil gave me pains in the teeth. I have spent an hour or so searching links related to EPNS to see whether there is something special about the process in relation to an effect with fish, can’t find anything. I had some metal spoons electroplated about 15 years ago, but only used them in the very cold water during spring, but the fish didn’t have a problem hanging onto them.
Point 4.
Yes, it was narrow minded and wrong of me to state salmon were at the top of the food chain. In “natural” terms it would be a seal, whale or shark but sadly we humans have come in above them to become top of the food chain.
Point 5.
The problem with your buffet scenario is that you have humans who aren’t really hungry (I’ve seen civilised people fight & kill for food and they don’t act the same as if we were just hungry) and even if they were, they would probably have to be “anorexic like” to simulate the physiological/psychological effect on a salmon. I do understand your analogy and agree with your thought process, up to the point of what is likely to motivate a reluctant salmon.
I think I would agree with part of your approach in that the best way to fish for resident/reluctant takers is to fish a fly smoothly/steadily and within natural speed limits, ensuring it is neither scared or educated for the sake of yourself/everyone else fishing. But I would not agree that a slow lure is the best way to attract a reluctant fish. In a swift current, and near the surface, I would say that a fly moving slowly across a fast current is a very tempting and easy object as it mimics most fishes idea of an easy target to consume and the fast water will probably help in the hooking process.
I can not see (and it is my experience) that the “trigger” would not be more likely to occur with a slow/lively modern fly than it would be with a fly that has been drawn ever quickly away from the fish. When the aspect of hooking the fish is included, and of course it depends on the current speed/direction of fish pre/post take, I would rate my chances of a successful hooking higher because I am creating the momentum for the fish’s weight to act against it once the lure is in its mouth.
It is strange that I am in the north of the Britain where down and across is entirely normal, yet prefer to fish from the side; you are near to Crossfield’s/Pashley’s Wye and they liked to fish the fly quickly, yet you like to fish the fly slowly.
Your addition of your remark “to make it as easy as possible for these fish to take” is where I really become concerned, to me such an approach is more likely to disinterest a fish and educate it. The only time a salmon needs “help” to get hold of the lure is when that lure is moving irregularly and because of its body’s inflexibility the salmon can’t necessarily hit an irregularly moving target accurately, if a lure is moved steadily then this problem is usually solved.
Point 6.
I don’t think the behaviour of the salmon is too different, yes there are separate genetic strains and runs of fish with different experiences and slightly different habits but not to the extent that they act so differently as I think you imply. I have hard takes from salmon to small flies fishes slowly, but like other forms of fishing, they have something to do with currents, the fish’s position/direction pre/post take and their feeling of security at the time of the take.
Point 7.
I think that the hook is also part of the fly, and when you look at sat a size 12 l/w double stoats tail it is surely nonsense to pretend the bends of the hook do not exist. To me the bends of hooks are probably seen by the fish as something akin to legs or antenna on a shrimp. I prefer black because they do seem to have the least effect. I tried green hooks in a strong but smooth stream, so the salmon could see the bends, but the salmon turned away. It is strange but they worked with trout! Yellow hooks worked fine. We know gold/silver/grey work ok.
Point 8.
I am delighted you’re so well read and apologise for suggesting you weren’t. Yes, Hugh had a few choice words to describe certain authors (authors I actually liked) as well as strong opinions on a great many other subjects. Knowlesie deserves credit for simply pushing his head above the parapets. While “his” techniques are not particularly sophisticated when compared to techniques developed abroad, and part of this is a result of the limited availability of appropriate fishing water/time, I think they should be considered another of the standard techniques any competent salmon angler should have.