|
|
Post by willtrevt on Oct 18, 2007 15:02:57 GMT
A photo of a similarly red 45.25lb salmon caught in russia:  Looks a bit bigger, but then photos can distort size when it is not relative to a standard. Lets just say the chap caught a very very large fish and well done to him. |
|
|
|
Post by Willow Man on Oct 18, 2007 18:10:47 GMT
Still a great fish!  It is a shame that the weight could not be established to the nearest lb!  There is one thing for sure and that is it has made more people get out on their local waters to try for that `BIG ONE`.   Cheers WM |
|
|
|
Post by altmor on Oct 18, 2007 18:25:09 GMT
Absolutely - indeed it's made more people head north to recapture the returned beastie than the masses at the Klondyke gold rush. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by chunkybarbel on Oct 18, 2007 19:14:04 GMT
Hi Gents normally fish for barbel on the River Severn and Warwickshire Avon. Was going through the Barbel forum and came across this thread on the, said new Pb Salmon. I see some of you guys are asking for a pic. not sure if i should post it, but hear goes, as you can delete if you so wish Great fish one day i may have a go for 1 Sorry, your first post I know Chunky - but neither we as a board have the consent (nor I presume you) to post a pic without permission of the owner, a copyright issue that arose erlier.
Picture removed, but please feel free to post, and have a go at the salmon one day - we'd like to hear how you get on.
Altmor. |
|
|
|
Post by chunkybarbel on Oct 18, 2007 19:20:16 GMT
if any of you guys would like to have a go for a Barbel on the Rivers in and around the midlands, drop me a pm or Email and i will be happy to show you around
all the best
chunky barbel
|
|
|
|
Post by strowanlea on Oct 18, 2007 22:30:34 GMT
Re the photo of the 45.25lb russian fish. It also has spots on the tail...thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by struie on Oct 19, 2007 8:32:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by deesider on Oct 19, 2007 14:40:18 GMT
The Scotsman article quotes the beat owners saying it's "45lbs or somewhat more." This is an exceptional fish but quite different from anything corresponding to the girth and length measures we first saw quoted here. Reading Fred Buller's new book there is nothing in his exhaustive listing remotely approaching that girth measurement for any Atlantic salmon caught by whatever means. I'm glad they have restored some sense of proportion to what is still the fish of lifetime for the angler and probably for those who witnessed it too.
I haven't seen any mention of the fly. Anyone know what it was?
As for the tosh about cheque-book journalism, I'm with the poster who pointed out that the fishing magazines have very low budgets. Besides, trying to make big money from such a catch is tacky and the angler doesn't strike me as that kind of chap. Mind, he didn't take the pictures.
|
|
|
|
Post by struie on Oct 19, 2007 22:39:53 GMT
Deesider has hit the nail on the head. Sadly those who have come up with such totally ludicrous weights of 70 lb to 130 lb plus have been naive enough to take the ridiculous girth figure of 50 inches at face value. It is quite simply an impossibility. There can be no doubt that this figure was an error. A freak salmon with such a girth/pot-bellied shape could never have swum across thousands of miles of ocean on its return journey.
|
|
|
|
Post by deesidecaster on Oct 20, 2007 7:47:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tombee on Oct 21, 2007 22:05:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by peterkayne on Oct 27, 2007 16:31:43 GMT
I saw more pictures in the T&S today. I would like to have seen a picture out of the water to get a better size of the fish although the head looked massive.
Does anyone know if there is more to follow?
|
|
|
|
Post by ladywolf on Oct 27, 2007 17:55:54 GMT
Heyhou what a fish! Been up to Inverness on recently and was walking by the river thinking, there must be some good catch in there lurking around. Shame I didn't had any chance to try and fish that day. Wish to be there now, I like Inverness a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by executioner on Oct 27, 2007 18:38:21 GMT
Its people like you that make me laugh, Springer one minute your preaching C&R the next your saying It should of been chaped...... just to prove something....Which is it Alan?
Executioner
|
|
|
|
Post by castslikeaghille on Oct 28, 2007 9:24:29 GMT
Its people like you that make me laugh, Springer one minute your preaching C&R the next your saying It should of been chaped...... just to prove something....Which is it Alan? Executioner It's people like you who should take more care to read a post carefully before jumping in with both feet. If you read what Springer wrote he considered a number of options, at no point did he say it should have been chapped. There is a world of diference, and no contradiction, between advocating and pursuing a general C&R policy in a regeneration phase, and once in a blue moon considering taking a truly exceptional possibly record breaking fish if legal to do so. In many ways there is a healthy arguement that the latter course of action would have greater benefit to the river and salmon fishing in general. Regards CLaG |
|
|
|
Post by wilbert on Oct 28, 2007 10:12:05 GMT
There are no guarantees that the big fish will spawn successfully and will pass its genes on to the next generation. I remember speaking to a guy who runs a hatchery and he said that they did not use big fish for stripping for a number of reasons. 1. They are difficult to handle 2. They produce less milt / eggs per lb than smaller fish 3. They were less fertile than smaller fish and in some cases completely infertile due to their age. It makes sense as bigger fish tend to be quite old. I still cant understand how 1 or possibly 2 experienced Gillie's plus 4 rods could not get more precise measurements for length and girth as there seems to be some discrepancies in the various reports. Also why did 1 of them not come up with the idea of tethering the fish until some heavy duty scales could be found. I know its a spur of the moment decision and mistakes can be made but how many of us would make this same mistake with the fish of 100 lifetimes?  |
|
jock
Member
Posts: 286 
|
Post by jock on Oct 28, 2007 11:16:49 GMT
Like Wilbert I've heard that they do not use big salmon for hatchery stock for the reasons Wilbert mentioned. Indeed on a recent trip to Deveron the Ghillie made the same points. He was about to start broodstock fishing the following week for the Deveron hatchery and said they only used cock fish up to 12lbs.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 28, 2007 13:22:54 GMT
i agree, when i was on the tay hatchery, i was the same once a cock fish got above 12lb there wasn't much milt in them, an ideal fish would be 6-8lb they have gallons of milt. Bigs ones are usually duds!!
|
|
|
|
Post by stoater on Oct 28, 2007 14:31:17 GMT
I say what I say here with complete praise and respect to Mr.Milne, who returned such a belter...well done indeed!
I notice on the picture Ian Neale posted on his site, the fish was pictured near what looks like a Large Size Mclean weigh net. I have the same net so have an idea of proportions, such a shame it only weighs up to 30lb, how silly.
Looking closely at net size/distances/fish proportions, I'm certain the fish exceeded 40lb. Possibly as much as 50lb. But no bigger than that, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
Post by executioner on Oct 28, 2007 21:04:08 GMT
Springer I asked a question and am still waiting for an answer? As for the number of posts I have made, whether it be 6 or 66 is of no consequence IMO. And you and I both know you deleted more than half of my posts...... this is why I tend not to bother but I chose to ask because I couldn't believe you would choose to chap a kipper just for a possible record Executioner |
|
