Why did I lose 7 of my last 9?

[bagoworms]

rps "two-rivers"

I have to disagree about the salmon fishing = science thing and correlation with the golfing analogy. I honour your knowledge and wisdom (see other strings) about feeding at sea, plankton, river-specific feeding grounds and all the other deep-at-sea stuff since I know no better and genuinely seek enlightenment.

Golf, on the other hand basically means inaminate objects (balls) that thereafter require the whole inanimate/potential/kinetic mix to make them remotely interesting. You obviously know your stuff when talking balls, nobody can dispute that.

I once saw someone on the Old Course self-flagellating with a stout niblick. I also saw the best working part of a B&W Norway 15' being rigorously self-applied by someone who salmon fished without the aid of a lifejacket or sense of the ridiculous having just failed to correctly hook a suspect attracted fish. Were they both you?

The public has a right to know.

[ibm59]

bagoworms said:

rps "two-rivers"

I have to disagree about the salmon fishing = science thing and correlation with the golfing analogy. I honour your knowledge and wisdom (see other strings) about feeding at sea, plankton, river-specific feeding grounds and all the other deep-at-sea stuff since I know no better and genuinely seek enlightenment.

Golf, on the other hand basically means inaminate objects (balls) that thereafter require the whole inanimate/potential/kinetic mix to make them remotely interesting. You obviously know your stuff when talking balls, nobody can dispute that.

I once saw someone on the Old Course self-flagellating with a stout niblick. I also saw the best working part of a B&W Norway 15' being rigorously self-applied by someone who salmon fished without the aid of a lifejacket or sense of the ridiculous having just failed to correctly hook a suspect attracted fish. Were they both you?

The public has a right to know.

Oh dear , I've just wet myself . ;D Again ;D ;D
LMFAO.
Regards.
BtB.

[sagecaster]

Just arrived back from a day on the Naver, where I suffered the same fate.

Grilse and fresh summer salmon were streaming through a pool and very active, almost behaving like Tuna after bait fish. It was very exciting however I only properly hooked three(countless other chases and touches) for them to come off at the net. I could see that two were all hooked right in the front of the mouth.

I tried everything to hook them properly, changed presentation, technique, fly change etc and was stripping the fly most of the day as the Naver Ghillies insist upon.Ultimately I believe these fish were just not taking the fly with conviction and hence I would have been lucky to land one.

We all need days like these occasionally, where landing a fish is a genuine challenge and although it can be immensely frustrating I am philosophical about it, it also stirs up my passion, motivation and drive for the sport which can only be a good thing.

[buntinbee]

Having read through the thread, a couple of thoughts come to mind.
What is the average measurement from the point of a hook to the barb, must be fairly small, particularly on the flies that we are using at this time of year. The difference between pricking a fish and the point sinking past the barb must also be correspondingly small.
Try sticking one of these flies right into the mouth of a fish and bending your rod into it as much as if you were playing the fish. I think that you will find that the hook will generally go right in and find a solid hold - if the hook is right inside the mouth.

The other thought that came to mind was what do salmon feed on?
Predominantly fish - with sharp spines, fins and gill covers
Crustaceans - with fairly prickly hard shells.
Why then should they eject a hook just because they feel what must amount to a pinprick?

I have had fish take the bait as much as six times in a row without being properly hooked. I eventually left that fish to its own devices, thoroughly exasperated.
I have also seen fish lost after being played for a while and then take on the next cast and be landed. These fish were obviously not too bothered by the hook pricking them.

While I admit that none of this is conclusive, I personally feel that a good hook hold depends mostly on how much the salmon wants to take the bait right into its mouth.

[rpsalmon]

Dear bagoworms
I note you disagree about salmon fishing being a science, fine OK.
You have implied a connection between that and a golfing analogy when the golfing analogy was only stated as part of my explanation that I didn’t believe in luck. Coincidence yes, but not luck.

Dear ibm59
I am delighted that at least I am providing the basis for your amusement.

Dear buntinbee
I suggest you think about what you would do if you suddenly felt a point/unusual object when eating your Sunday dinner. I’d suggest that because you are a human being and not an animal, you’d immediately bring your hand or napkin up to your mouth and eject the contents into your hand/napkin. If you were just an animal, without social cares or graces, I reckon you’d spit it out with a lightening reflex-this is part of the survival instinct.

When a fish takes a small fly at a high momentum then there is a greater chance of it being immediately hooked, were it moving slowly then there is less momentum and more opportunity for something to go wrong in the hooking process. In what we humans call cold water, the salmon has adjusted its body temperature in line with that water temperature by regulation of its metabolism and bodily functions/movement to a point where there is less activity than in what humans call warm water. In what we call cold water, a salmon’s state/feeling of security is higher and will therefore take a lure more securely and adopt a differing take as the norm (the return to the lie with lure in mouth) , with the added benefit that a salmon’s feeling in the mouth is nullified to a degree by the colder water it has less ability to feel hook points and therefore less reason to spit a fly out.

When we look at what we humans call warm water, a salmon’s metabolism is at a higher tempo, its feeling/state of security is reduced and its ability to feel in the mouth is heightened. As such it has the ability to feel a point on a hook and, with its highly developed and successful survival instinct, can spit/eject that foreign object out almost instantaneously.

Just because we are fishing in a fast current, downstream and at a narrow angle with a quite straight line, does not mean we should automatically expect the salmon to hook itself because of a high momentum between salmon/fly/current. Even in fast water that we couldn’t stand up in, a salmon can swim through with ease, since it hasn’t just survived but thrived it has invariably become a master of movement in water. A salmon can look up and see a fly being fished directly across the current, it can move straight up through the water column and even follow that fly inch by inch, match/balancing its speed and position against the current with that of the fly. It can therefore simply open its mouth and suck in the small object with its surrounding water (just as a trout can suck a fly into its mouth), eject the water and consume the fly. But because the salmon is travelling at the same pace as the fly and therefore isn’t the momentum between fish and fly (at the time of the take) to almost ensure a hooking, the salmon’s greater ability to feel objects allows it time to spit the fly out. (or feel the drag/weight of the line and spit it out/let go!) The only way I know to stop this happening is to create momentum/force to increase likelihood of hooking (you can pull in 4 or 6 inches but that isn't really an option because how do you know the fish has taken and can you react quick enough?-no!) so fish from the side, I know the particular fish you’re after may not take a lure fished from the side, and keeping a tight/straighter line as possible, force the fish to chase and therefore create a momentum (to increase likelihood of immediate hooking) at the time of take.

Now of course I have outlined the two extremes, being the secure take as well as the take that will result in nothing. Depending on a wide range of factors in tackle and tactics etc, a whole host of scenarios could actually happen, including the fact that the salmon is fresh from the sea and the fish’s mouth is soft. In order to hook and land more fish you have to be aware of what is happening underwater and adjust your tactics accordingly.

I think one of the major causes for people loosing hooked fish, is the use of rods that are simply too powerful/stiff for playing fish with the result that hooks are pulled out of the mouths of Summer and Autumn fish. Some fly lines have no “give” or stretch in them either. You have to be easy on the fish at times, even though they aren’t being easy with you. Another reason is hooks, there are times when I find Salar (in point) hooks to be useless, as such I tend not to use them unless I can be sure there is going to be a high momentum/good hooking.

Dear sagecaster

I do not believe a fish takes without conviction, it merely feels that it is an unnatural object and spits it out, you know this is happening when you hook them in the tongue, roof of the mouth – or sometimes the front of the mouth. While I don’t know the currents/angles/fish positions & directions/exact methods/tackle etc, I suspect you may even have only hooked those fish because you were retrieving quickly. In such circumstances, if you were physically able to retrieve faster (even with help of current) then a larger fly/hook may have succeeded in hooking/landing more fish.

[rpsalmon]

No, it isn't based on a fish feel pain theory.

It is based upon the basic ability of any fish to use their "sense" of "feel" to recognise there is something unnatural and incompatible with any of the umpteen thousands of various life forms it has consumed over its life.

[ibm59]

rpsalmon said:

Dear ibm59
I am delighted that at least I am providing the basis for your amusement.

If the cap fits..........?
Then again , perhaps I shouldn't be rude to an elderly person.
You must be as old as Methusela given all the " wisdom " you have condescendingly chosen to impart on us poor mortals.
Regards.
BtB.
ps. I was amused by Baggyworm's post.

[Bloke]

I have a new approach to hooking salmon....wait until the fish has turned well and truly and STRIKE !
The tricky bit is knowing what position the fish is in before utilising the rod tip.
It doesnt look sexy but the last 12 fish I have hooked have not come off and have been hooked in the scissors
M

[Sloggi]

buntinbee said:

While I admit that none of this is conclusive, I personally feel that a good hook hold depends mostly on how much the salmon wants to take the bait right into its mouth.

I would agree completely with this

[bagoworms]

Dear rps,

I was at no time poking fun at you personally, has the time come where good Britsh satire has no place? I sincerely hope not.

I note that a lot of this string is about fly fishing, and of why and how the fish does, or does not take a firm hold. I would respectfully promote the idea that fish are not as knowledgeable about what is being offered as we might assume them to be. Salmon fishing, in my honest opinion, is not a science since science ultimately depends upon mere mortals piecing together seemingly disparate information in order to arrive at a logical, demonstrable conclusion. Yet, often overlooked by mortals, the ingredients for science were always there, it's just that highly intelligent mortals could not connect them - at first.

For instance, the base elements of a nuclear device have existed on earth longer than mankind, yet it was not until Oppenheimer et al (not to mention German and Japanese scientists who were also getting close in the late 40's) that the "device" became shockingly destructive. Everything they used existed already, it was the combination that made the difference. Laser beams? Since when have light sources and prisms not existed? The Doppler effect? Sound has been around for a long time. Electricity? Explain electric eels. Sonar? Explain the lateral line in fish and bats. I could go on and so could you. I honestly think we take ourselves too seriously sometimes.

Back to salmon. I remember the time when the prawn and shrimp were legal methods on the Tay system. (Trivia pub talk question - how long ago was the p&s banned on the Tay?) Anyway, the p&s was widely regarded as being deadly, on their day (but it was not every day). How many of us can remember some days when the p/s bait was taken as if in aggressive retribution for some unhappy/painful incident that happened to a particular fish?

By the same token, how many of us can remember the days (sometimes sequential) when the bait was refused point-blank? Or the days (also sometimes sequential) when bits were gently plucked off yet still no fish to take properly, lots of missed offers? I remember all of those. Today, if fishing the worm, how many "pulls" before you strike? I'll bet that if it is straight away you'll lose more than you hook. Therefore, why be surprised because it is a fly? Could the same not be happening? Sometimes, undoubted hooking, sometimes almost like playing with a fly, sometimes a few "goes" before finally hooked and sometimes nothing, although we could have sworn we felt something?

Do you think the fish differentiates below the water as much as we obviously do above it? If they do, they must have read even more expert advice than we have which I seriously doubt. Someone once said that fishing was all about a worm at one end and a fool at the other. We are indeed fools when we get too scientific about something that has a brain the size of a small pea (at best) doesn't eat anyway and wants to do no more than procreate with a partner or partners unkown.

rps, if you fish as much as you say you do, and have experienced the many and varied forms of daft salmon behaviour then you HAVE to have a sense of humour and sense of the ridiculous, otherwise how do you maintain sanity?

FORE! (or should that be (25/5 - 1)? Or (6x2/12x4?) C'mon, salmon fishing is 99.9% pure luck is it not? The remainder is taken up by having a line and bait in the water? Amusement comes from our endless struggle to explain the inexplicable, and lomg may that continue. If you ever want to look a good gillie in the eye, and ask them what will definitely get you a fish, and when, then expect an honest answer...

Apologies if I seemed flippant at your expense, not my intention. I'm laughing at all of us.

[rpsalmon]

Dear bloke

Your approach to salmon fishing, in waiting for the fish to turn “well and truly” and then strike is straight forward enough and will be successful in itself because you will have the momentum and weight of the fish working for you in the hooking process. If you have a fast current then you are likely to have a number of practical problems with your system, the line may snap because of the strain from the fish going downstream in a current, the hook being pulled out irrespective of what you do because the fish are fresh and the skin in the mouth is soft. I will not repeat my remarks about how a salmon in warm water tends to take differently than during cold water, and has heightened senses in warm water, but will mention that depending where the salmon is in relation to your lure, how it takes the lure, and where t moves after the take, your system may not work. In continuing with your system, you will lose the capability to catch what I suspect will be a larger number of fish that don’t take in the way that conforms with your system.

Dear sloggi

A good hook hold will depend in part upon how a salmon takes the lure into its mouth, it may be “mostly” on some occasions but not in all. But whatever your opinions, surely if we improve our knowledge and understanding of what happens during the “taking process” we are more likely to be able to successfully land more fish.

[fenton]

RPS wrote that,
'I do not believe a fish takes without conviction'

I'm afraid that I would have to disagree with this. I have seen fish chasin lures to the bank, and 'bumping' the lure with their noses, without opening their mouth. All that could be felt through the rod was a tiny knock.

I haven't seen it many times (3) but it does happen and their was no conviction about their take.

I am not writing this to 'pick' on RPS, just to contribute some of my own experience to the debate,

cheers
F

[rpsalmon]

Dear fenton

Your query is entirely sensible.

Since you describe the fish as just bumping the lure with its nose, it did not even open its mouth so therefore there could not have been a take and therefore surely there is no question of intent/what kind of take was intended. While we can not know what was in the mind of the fish, from the fact that the fish was following the lure for some distance we can be sure it had a serious interest in it and I would suggest that the retrieve/fishing process was natural and tempting enough. A faster retrieve may not have allowed the fish so much time to observe the lure and so force it to decide whether to take or not, however it may well be the case that the salmon would not have been tempted by a fast moving lure in the first place! From the bumping I would suspect it was the lure itself that was the problem. Perhaps the fish had tried to suck it in earlier but, because it was attached to your line and that was being pulled in the opposite direction, it was puzzled that the object didn't come into its mouth and (unafraid of the little object) decided to investigate. Perhaps it did take the lure, felt something unnatural but wasn't scared and so decided to follow and investigate. It may have been just slightly unusual to the fish, by either looking nothing like a shrimp or, too much like a shrimp at sea and the fish thought it was unnatural to see one in the river. Whatever was the case, you can sometimes put a smaller/different or like object on the line and the interested fish will take. I'd be tempted to think that a faster moving lure would force the fish to act mor positively next time, and as long as it wasn't scared and associates the object with a predator(you!), I'd be tempted to use a slightly different lure (different in terms of shade of colour or slightly different style of pattern).

[rpsalmon]

Dear bagoworms

If it were possible to go back in time as many times as possible I would surely do so and fish differently in many situations in order to, as scientifically as possible, learn how it was best to hook fish at particular times. I can not so have to make do with reality, and as far as is possible approach things as intelligently and systematically as possible.

I do believe that there is a science to salmon fishing and that if we improve our knowledge and understanding, and yet stay flexible and take a balanced approach, we can dramatically improve our catches. Anything can be a science if you approach it as a science.

If you want to learn about a fishes abilities I suggest a book called “Through the Fish’s Eye” by Mark Sosin and John Clark, the British version has been edited for special UK relevance by Fred J Taylor and is written as an anglers guide to fish behaviour (1976) (ISBN 0 233 96664 1). This covers everything from lateral lines, electric eels, a fish’s ability to sense things beyond visual range etc and will provide much “food for thought”, and implies much advice for fishing for species including salmon etc, over your fishing life.

A fly fisherman has much to learn from the experiences of shrimp/prawn/worm fishing, and I believe no angler could not call himself a complete salmon fisherman until he has understood such. I do not call or regard myself as a “complete salmon fisherman” and doubt I ever will because while I may get to the stage of what I may regard myself as “95% complete”, unless I have the ability to tap into the mind and motives of a salmon in all circumstances I believe it would be impossible to be a complete salmon fisherman. As such salmon fishing is perfect for me, realistically it is impossible to master it 100%!

Striking on the take is, or even performing actions to beat the fish on the take, is solid advice in many situations. Not in others. I do not see the salmon as having to think a great deal on the take, many of the things you seem to imply that the salmon may do are in fact automatic responses that has developed into habit/instinct over time. Sometimes I look at food, or walk into a room and feel something isn’t quite right, I can’t put my finger on it but feel unease and act differently. A salmon can feel roughly the same upon seeing a lure, it may not know what is wrong, I tend to refer to such situations as “unnatural” because I do not have the scientific knowledge of the fish’s brain processes to explain it 90% or 100%.

I do have a sense of humour, but I am very serious about salmon fishing. I am amazed and puzzled that people, often with precious time and money, choose to spend disproportionate amounts of that time/money on salmon fishing and yet haven’t taken the time to read books, buy instructional videos or take advice from other anglers. Surely they would want to maximise their time, money and enjoyment, and can do so by educating themselves, or asking for advice from other experienced anglers.

If you really think salmon fishing is 99.9% pure luck, explain to me why you don’t just tie a hook on the end of a washing line or rope and throw it into the river. Surely if it is all luck you would have the same chance as an angler using 13ft fly rod, fly line and ally’s shrimp?

[hornet]

So far this year i have hooked 16 fish and lost 2 of them after a fair fight. I have kept 3 for the table. 1 sea trout, 1 grilse and 1 salmon.

I have also blanked about a dozen times. Not even a touch on these occasions.

For the fish i have caught each take was off the reel and allowed a few seconds before i lifted in. Three have been on my 14ftr dh and the rest on my 11ft sh. The only reason why i fish off the reel is simply because that is the way i was taught.

I remember when i had my first lesson and hooked a fish. I felt the knock then the pull so i lifted right away as i was still in rainbow mode. The next thing i felt was a rap on the knuckles and told to let go of the fecking line. From that day i have only ever fished one way.

Personally what i need to improve on is hooking into a bigger percentage of fish which i suppose is everybody else's goal.

Hornet

[grahamrobertson]

There is far to much thought going into all of these theory's for my liking.
It's not that I am saying anyone is wrong but I am a firm believer that, what's for you will not pass you.
If a fish has your name on it you will get him, if not.... well thats just fishing.

[tyneandrew]

Can we get rid of this thread its cursed.

Up until I read it i commented I had hardly lost a fish all year - hooked 11 landed 1 on the border Esk this afternoon. Nearly all sea trout, possibly a grilse or two. None of them were on for more than a few seconds.

[rpsalmon]

Dear grahamrobertson

I’m astonished. If you saw a truck heading toward you would you also let it run over you because “what's for you will not pass you” and the “truck has your name written on it”, or would you step out of the way so that you could live? I think you’d choose to step aside and live.

Why not fish with a snooker cue, washing line and bare hook, if you approach is true then you’ll catch the fish irrespective of the tackle.

[ibm59]

rpsalmon said:

Why not fish with a snooker cue, washing line and bare hook, if you approach is true then you’ll catch the fish irrespective of the tackle.

Add " Fish off the reel " and you've just about got it right.
If they want it they'll have it . If not , there's bu**er all any of us can do about it. End of story. :'(
But isn't that the point of the whole thing.
ps. My smileys have gone on strike.

[grahamrobertson]

rpsalmon said:

Dear grahamrobertson

I’m astonished. If you saw a truck heading toward you would you also let it run over you because “what's for you will not pass you” and the “truck has your name written on it”, or would you step out of the way so that you could live? I think you’d choose to step aside and live.

Why not fish with a snooker cue, washing line and bare hook, if you approach is true then you’ll catch the fish irrespective of the tackle.

Like I said, as far as I'm concerned what's for you won't pass you.
If your time has come there ain't anything you're going to do to change it.
Why make life more complicated than it has to be.
From my experience if a fish wants a fly or a bait it's going to have it good and proper, and you will have your fish.
If you don't get him why change the way you fish if it has worked for years in the past.
You obviously were not meant to get that one so just relax and get back to business and wait for your time to come.
In my opnion it saves a lot of head scratching and fraid nerves, fishing is suposed to be an enjoyable experience after all.

By the way, I have known of people catching salmon on a bare (silver) hook.
Havent heard of anyone using a snooker cue or washing line yet though.