|
|
Post by puffin on Oct 16, 2007 13:16:52 GMT
There is a photo of this fish now in today's Times.
Well done to have returned this fish, if the photo is correct it looked to be in a very good condition.
Puffin
|
|
|
|
Post by cullodencatcher on Oct 16, 2007 14:06:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ianjones on Oct 16, 2007 14:48:48 GMT
I don't think it matters one bit whether its officially recognised or not, if boffins at Pitlochry can accurately estimate its weight from the measurements, which have afterall come from very reliable and experienced people, then thats more than enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by johshaw on Oct 16, 2007 15:10:21 GMT
Question for the captor/ghillie or any of the witnesses - was any thought given to or discussion of trying to keep the fish alive in a net and contacting the hatchery on the Connon (I believe it is the largest in the UK) to gain the maximum potential from this fishes DNA ? Would have been nice to think of millions of small fry turning into parr, smolts and then returning as replicas of their dad !!! If any brood stock fishing is done on the Ness worth considering ......
|
|
|
|
Post by kingfisheryh02nxs on Oct 16, 2007 17:14:20 GMT
Just wondering couldn't the fish have being tethered, like they do on the Teithe when collecting fish for the hatchery?
|
|
|
|
Post by altmor on Oct 16, 2007 20:11:55 GMT
Just wondering couldn't the fish have being tethered, like they do on the Teithe when collecting fish for the hatchery? Good point .. if only to keep the fish till scales could be brought to the river to weigh it ? |
|
Snap C
Member
Use the current to your advantage
Posts: 7
|
Post by Snap C on Oct 16, 2007 21:17:41 GMT
This fish was weighed before being returned: -  28lb.............a minnow compared to the Beast detailed. I've posted this photo to put the size of the Nessie into perspective - the fish is 2x - 3x the weight of my fish  Snap C |
|
|
|
Post by bobrobert on Oct 16, 2007 22:42:05 GMT
That one looks about the same size to the other one Not about half the size Something fishy
|
|
|
|
Post by dryfly on Oct 17, 2007 7:06:52 GMT
I guess I have to come clean . I caught the fish. I'm still shaking!
All I can say that hasn't already been said was that it was a hell of a shock, it nearly pulled my arms off and will stay with me 'till the day I died.
Then the alarm went off, it was a dark rainy morning and a miserable day in the office in front of me and no prospect of getting to a salmon river until at least March. Still, it was nice while it lasted!
|
|
|
|
Post by gotoneon on Oct 17, 2007 8:44:58 GMT
Hi chaps,
Couple of point if I may.
I say, couldn't agree more with you CLaG. I have seen many fish photos on sites that have been returned and recorded it seems higher in weight than they look. It has been a talking point among myself and many others some of whom have caught fish in the mid 40's and mid 50's lbs in Tay and Norway. We wonder how much it is an attempt to gain fame in angling circles as a stretch of water that produces large fish. Same also goes for numbers of fish reported and returned?? Have fished many stretches of water where "you should have been here last week" where great numbers have been caught and returned. One emminent Tay angler once told me many years ago "nothing brings out the envy and greed in a man more than gold but salmon are a close second." One wonders if numbers and sizes of fish caught and released are great for owners (large catches, large fish etc) and anglers who report them (ego, etc), but not to those paying good rates on the back of it and seeing and hooking very little.
As to the fish..."hell, what a size". My cronies and many others I'm sure have looked at this fish. It is truly enormous but looking at the now removed photo, I reckon its a fish into the fifties. If you look at GW Ballantines fish, it looks massive in comparison but photos can play tricks. Anyway a truly wonderful achievement by the angler in question to hold onto the fish for so long. As to returning the fish, I believe the man that catches the fish has the ultimate decision and I respect that. I think going down the road of wanton catch and relaese leaves us open to persecution from antis. It is possibly indefensible to go with the sole intention of hooking, landing, photographing and returning a salmon solely for our pleasure. I will continue to return the vast majority of fish I catch but will also take one or two for the table over the season. My rods are however now dry for the new season so tight lines to all out trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by davyba on Oct 17, 2007 9:14:09 GMT
Hi
I can see where a few of these posts are going....
I caught a 21lb Salmon on a little river in Bridge of Weir about 6 years ago.
It was a heavily coloured cock fish but I kept it because it was my first Salmon....and
20lb-er. It took me an hour to land on basically a trout fly set up and it was unafficially a 100 year record for the little river. The fish was physically shattered on the bank - it may have died in any case.
I know that normally you would return coloured Autum fish and of that size also, but it was
exceptional circumstances. I still feel a bit bad though maybe I should have put it back?
|
|
|
|
Post by waddy on Oct 17, 2007 10:16:11 GMT
What an amazing capture, makes you wonder if he would have landed it when it was in its prime and fresh run! Never the less what an achivment, well done. Ive used some formula to estimate its weight and providing the measurments are correct it, one gives a weight of 104lbs and another at 85lbs. Must agree with other posters, it does look a 50+ to me but photos are deceptive, ive photos of grilse that look 20lbs and 20lbers that look 5lbs!
Anyway, my point is this: Back in the days of leviathan Salmon, everything was killed and therefore could be weighed. We now live in a different climate, a catch and release world, where even fish of a lifetime are being returned and as this fish was almost gravid had it been killed there would have been an outcry.
Its about time the British Record Commitee changes its policies to accept non weighed fish, providing dimensions are verified and scale samples provided, with the science we have these days accurate weights can be obtaiuned, applications should be considered, who afterall carries scales around that will weigh upto 100lbs???.
If this fish did weigh more than 64lbs the it deserves to be named the British record! but as it was returned it cant be claimed. If it was larger, it should be considered.
Come BRC change your policies with the changing world of Salmon fishing....
|
|
rennie
Member
If they cant see it they cant take it
Posts: 269
|
Post by rennie on Oct 17, 2007 13:08:49 GMT
Indeed Mr. Milne should be congratulated for the capture of such a fish,it is very big indeed.Having only seen the now withdrawn pictures it doesn't look(to me)like it would break the record,I do understand that many more pictures are in existence which may give greater detail.As far as a record claim goes,well the criteria for making a claim hasn't been met,the BRFC would loose all its credibility if it changed its criteria just to suit the capture of this particular species of fish,please remember in order for things to count properly things must be done properly.Captures of possible records for other species have been recorded but as procedure wasn't met no claim could be verified.As for photographs,well just look at some of the carryings on in the carp and pike fishing worlds over exceptional fish captures, or not!
I take this view,the Gentleman caught a very big fish indeed and the important course of action to him was to return the fish(amid a host of experienced witnesses)and not make plans to pursue any record claim either by killing and weighing the fish and having the carcase as evidence,or by holding the fish somehow until it could be weighed etc. etc.Maybe it was a case of close but no cigar,the chap would have got lambasted in certain quarters for killing such a fish(wrongly so I feel) and imagine the uproar if he had killed it and it fell short of the record?,hung if he did and hung if he didn't.At least he has witnesses and photos. for such an achievement,remember that supposed record fish that came from Borrowstone Flats on The Dee a few years back?,even the Estate Gillie questioned that one,don't suppose most folk will remember that one and at least The Ness fish will promote conversation and maybe controversy for seasons to come.At the end of the day Mr.Milne did what 99.9% of us will never do,he caught a proper big lump of a fish and took the course of action he considered most appropriate,well done to him.It is very possible indeed that a claim is in progress if enough credible witnesses were present and enough photos were taken,maybe Mr. Milne is not counting his chickens before they hatch?or untill enough experts have provided testimony to the genuine nature of the fish?.Thinking about it all maybe he is going about things in the right way,we will all know in the fullness of time.Pedro.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottyboy9nro on Oct 17, 2007 21:29:17 GMT
jeez this posts went quiet, wheres the picturs? wit they doing wif them? waitin for Ok magazine tae bid? unreal wit people will do for quick buck, get it the gether n give all us dreamers a look
|
|
|
|
Post by strowanlea on Oct 17, 2007 23:47:55 GMT
Congratulations to Mr Milne on his incredible catch in this day and age, considering what this magnificent beast has probably had to face in its lifetime to attain such a size, its release is loudly applauded.Lets hope its genes survive for many a year. Not having had the pleasure of landing any 30lb+ fish I would ask if the spots on this specimens tail are not uncommon on extremely large atlantic salmon? Seems unusual. I also would like to say in agreement with a few here, that the records commitee should rethink their requirements. The fish has been photographed many times/angles, measurements taken and verified by reliable men of integrity ( I am informed). This is 2007 not 1907 when there were numerous leviathans surmounting the fewer obstacles to ensure the survival of our salmon. To kill that fish would have been a travesty. Well done that man.
|
|
|
|
Post by langshan on Oct 18, 2007 8:32:44 GMT
Well If I was running a glossy fishing mag there would be a wee bidding war going on for exclusive rights.
At the moment I would guess this would be between; Emap (T&S, Angling Times, etc.), Fly Fishing & Fly Tying and Davis Hall Publishing (Total Fly Fishing, Irish angler, etc.). Won't be bye-bye to your mortgage stuff, but enough not to ignore. Whoever can secure it will probably think about doing a special edition but this may just be packaged as a supplement in the end. As the images have been fairly well locked down, then this increases the value as all the losers in the bidding will be able to do is report without the images. Its the wining editors dream, and the losers nightmare.
One loophole though in the exclusive rights is that the analysis of the weight is being done by the FRS at Faskally, and their output would be Crown Copyright - which can be virtually public domain. Now if that includes analysis of the pictures and they publish the pictures with their analysis determination then they own the rights to the determination of the weight of the fish - then that may enough for the losers to lick their wounds with.
Actually hope its FF&FT who pick it up though, as I tend to prefer their treatment.
But its all fair game to the captor to make out of this what they can, anyone else in the commercial chain of this story will be, and of he doesn't take his share someone else will...
|
|
|
|
Post by tynetraveller on Oct 18, 2007 8:42:29 GMT
Magazines like Trout and Salmon, Total Flyfisher etc are run on a shoestring budget and consist of just a few people dedicated to each subject ie Fly fishing, moto cross racing etc, all under one massive publishing umbrella. They will not be bidding more than a pub lunch and a packet of ready salted.. Any decent money would have to come from the national press ie Times etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by langshan on Oct 18, 2007 9:09:12 GMT
Would differ on this one...
Guesstimate Emap and David Hall would run to about 5 to 10k, FFFT possibly third to a half of that (its about the same money that they would spend on a promotion). As you say the first two are parts of massive enterprises and are effectively run primerilly to an account balance. When that account balance can be boosted by a special or an exclusive then the money for it will be found by the editor knocking on higher management doors - if he dose not go and knock on the doors he will get it in the neck if someone else gets an exclusive tag and he hasent tried.
Two factors here are the minor boost to circulation, and their credibility in the market place - to any of them really £5-10k should be good value on this.
Doubt papers won't spend money on this, they won't think it will sell an additional copy, and it would only run to about 1000 words in a Sunday supplement say £200 max.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeyb on Oct 18, 2007 9:55:25 GMT
To be banned you would normally have to have broken some rule/law......
This is a truly exceptional fish probably of little value to the spawning stock......
My Apologies to CLaG. Perhaps I should have said Bannished, and please don't bore me with obvious Legalities, be they right or wrong! The last few posts do suggest that I'm not alone in believing that this fish is important to future generations of Salmon.
Catch and release has it's place on rivers with uncertain fish stocks but the final decision on wether the angler should take one home rests with them, I still take the occasional fish home - even though they do look better in the water.
MB
|
|
|
|
Post by uskgrub on Oct 18, 2007 12:04:21 GMT
Surely with the experience of the people who were there to witness this incredible angling achievement, someone could have come up with an idea of keeping the fish safe whilst an appropriate set of scales were found. One idea would have been to make a tether out of the anglers fly line, which would of also benefited the fish by making sure it had plenty of time to recover before being returned  |
|
