fredo
Active Member
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by fredo on Oct 16, 2007 6:26:40 GMT
It CANNOT be accepted as a record without weighing. Atlantic salmon is just one species on a long list of records so do not expect the rules to be ignored just because the fish is a salmon. I think, in the interests of conservation, that no new records for atlantic salmon should be accepted. That is what happened with common skate..........in the interests of conservation and to stop people killing/damaging the fish the record committee (European) stopped accepting record claims.
|
|
vacant
Active Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by vacant on Oct 16, 2007 6:47:47 GMT
there is definately soemthing wrong with the girth - a relatively fat salmon has a girth just over half its length.
|
|
|
Post by storlaks on Oct 16, 2007 7:16:19 GMT
|
|
owen
Active Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by owen on Oct 16, 2007 11:13:25 GMT
Have a look at the comments under the link above too. A lot seem to have been removed...though not the one of a kind gent Maurice from Fife explaning what the name of a coloured fish is along with the rules surrounding them for the benefit of a Mr WG. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tyne Angler on Oct 16, 2007 11:25:55 GMT
Have a look at the comments under the link above too. A lot seem to have been removed...though not the one of a kind gent Maurice from Fife explaning what the name of a coloured fish is along with the rules surrounding them for the benefit of a Mr WG. ;D Owen Looks like there is a WG impersonator on there! There is no way the real WG would put an H in Ghillie/Gillie!
|
|
fruity
Active Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by fruity on Oct 16, 2007 12:12:34 GMT
I don't think it matters too much that the fish wasn't weighed and checked properly, if the Scientists calculation of weight exceeds Ballantyne's fish and the most commonly stated measurements are correct and therefore exceed those measurements of the Ballantyne fish, then if anglers commonly and generally accept Milne's Monster from the Ness as a record then it will be a record in the eyes of most anglers.
|
|
|
Post by victorclem2 on Oct 16, 2007 12:32:42 GMT
Yes, and what could be better than spending the next so many years arguing/ discussing this? Perfect fodder for pro-boards and the pub, no end of arguments and counter-arguments. Good way of getting people worked up about fishing........
VC
|
|
|
Post by Willie Gunn on Oct 16, 2007 15:11:25 GMT
Not me
|
|
|
Post by neptune on Oct 16, 2007 19:20:18 GMT
I have a small question, or is it a spanner for this particular works?, have we not got the definition of GIRTH measurement mixed up? How can a 56" long fish have a girth of 50"? unless it is almost a (side on view) perfect circle. IMO, the girth stated was actually the "circumference" of the ness fish and this has been lost in translation. If we assume that this misinterpretation has taken place, that would put the ness fish into a bracket much closer to Miss B's fish, ie the true girth would be closer to the low 20s of inches. I shall now take a defensive stance (or hide in a cloud), waiting for the germans to come and shoot me down in flames (again : . The girth of a tree is the circumference Dan, so it is presumably the same for a fish. A 50" girth equates to a circle diameter of 16". Now get a ruler and imagine what a 16" diameter fish must look like! this would then make the fish weigh around 60- 65lb using the formula this sounds more realistic than the 200odd pound that was calculated on the 50 inch circumference
|
|
|
Post by castelforte on Oct 16, 2007 20:38:00 GMT
I have seen some monster salmon in the press here and they are often caught by worm fishers. The hooks are found right down in the stomach so needless to say the fish gets killed and it is easy to wiegh.
Howver, it seems crazy to kill a fish just to get the new record in this day and age when Atlantic salmon are classed as an endangered species in N America and they are killed in many countries with little or no fish management practices.
We have a pile of rivers over here in Norway which are shadows of their former years and very few really big fish left eg Vosso, Suldalslågen. OK we cannot blame everything on the English gentry for over-fishing and killing all the big ones but we cannot exonerate them either. Angling pressure is not the only problem since we also have acidification to deal with.
If Mr. Milne had killed the fish and had it weighed and beaten the old record by 1/2 kg he would regret his action. He did the right thing, because maybe in a few years time the next 4SW fish will be spared by the next guy trying to beat the record by another 1./2 kilo. It would be better to have accurate fish volume calculations agreed by scientists.
If these fish were caught every year I would still think the same.
The guy deserves a medal.
CF
|
|
|
Post by salmonking on Oct 16, 2007 20:48:56 GMT
Agreed with above,,you can be sure that there will be a few more Gillie's purchasing relevant scales for the not too distant future. Or should i say beat owner's,,,
|
|
conwyrod
Advisory Board
Autumn on the Conwy
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by conwyrod on Oct 16, 2007 21:15:07 GMT
Mr Milne only had a few minutes to make his mind up; it can't have been an easy decision - there was probably a little voice in his head telling him to kill it so he could have it weighed. It was his fish and his choice, and I'm sure many of us would have been sorely tempted to chap it.
As salmo says, he deserves a big pat on the back because hopefully the next angler to catch a monster will follow his lead.
...............and yes, the lack of photographs is frustrating!
|
|
hornet
Active Member
Posts: 1,120
|
Post by hornet on Oct 16, 2007 22:04:53 GMT
You forgot the whiskey for the celebration afterwards that has to be a must. As before a well done to Mr Milne and the others involved on a tremendous catch and release regardless of it being a record or not. Hornet
|
|
fruity
Active Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by fruity on Oct 17, 2007 9:43:16 GMT
I can see why people disagree and why people think a fish should be officially recorded, but would they change their mind if there was a separate set of records with a Catch & Release "Record" where there was a separate level of sufficient proof required (ie.you didn't need to kill or harm the fish!). Considering the caliber and number of people involved, if the measurements or scientists estimated weight exceeds Miss Ballantyne's...as far as I am concerned the matter is done and dusted...and let the British Records Fish Committee go to pot.
|
|
severnfisher
Active Member
The Severn Valley in spring
Posts: 226
|
Post by severnfisher on Oct 17, 2007 10:59:18 GMT
This whole episode reveals that salmon anglers haven't really made the transition to a catch and release culture.
I'm not for 100% C&R myself, but the idea of applying C&R most of the time, then foregoing it when you can set the gene pool back siginificantly, is a bit odd.
It is amateurish beyond comprehension that beats that charge large amounts of money for the fishing and 'encourage ' C&R, don't have the facilities readily at hand for safely retaining and accurately weighing fish of 'specimen' status before releasing them. The same goes for the anglers themselves.
Having found myself with a big fish and no scales once, I've always tried to avoid making the same mistake twice. A weigh sling and scales don't really take up much space in a fishing bag and can prove really useful. I remember one very wet and black night on the Towy in 2006 for instance. A young lad fishing below me landed a big sewin that was easily a double, but his mate reckoned about 9lb. They were both new to the sport. " Twelve pounds if it is an ounce" I thought, so I got him to hold it in the water in his landing net, while I raced back a few hundred yards up river to get my scales and weigh sling. When the scales went round at 12"lb 8 ounces the lad's face said it all.
Tom
|
|
Speyducer
Advisory Board
Release to spawn another day
Posts: 4,123
|
Post by Speyducer on Oct 17, 2007 11:37:38 GMT
Also, British carp fishermen, who in the UK don't ever kill or retain their fish, are absolutely geared up for catch & release:
1. landing in HUGE landing net 2. Transfer to a landing mat to protect the fish from harm if it should flap about 3. safe release off barbless hook 4. transfer to a weight sling (sometimes the landing mat doubles as a weigh sling by zipping up the sides) 5. weigh and record fish accurately (most in UK would have scales that go to 55-60lbs, but on the continent, many will have scales that go to 120lbs) 6. take appropriate pictures whilst fish properly supported, many of these would be with the fish having been returned to the water WTH the angler, and the angler holding the fish up out of the water for a few seconds per photo 7. allow recovery in water, prior to safe release to the depths. 8. When a very large fish and it is night-time, some will, if the local rules allow, place the fish in the water in a carp sack - a light soft mesh sack of perhaps 5 x 3 feet with a zipper opening and a D ring to attach the carp sack cord, which is secured to the bank.
The only thing that the carp guys (and I have fished as one for over 15 years as well) don't generally do, is measure the fish length and girth; the weight and photos are all that is recorded. Again, it is a matter of being prepared for that possible fish of a lifetime.
I have now, in my game fishing kit, a large luminous dial scale, a weigh sling, and a tape measure in addition to the usual digital camera & waterproof digital camera.
The other small snippet of info is, if you think that a fish will weigh more than the scales you have, or has bottomed out the scales, then, with the fish in an appropriate weigh-sling support with handles/loops, you can use TWO sets of scales in parallel, ie, both scales are seperately wieghing the fish, each sharing some of the weight, and you simply add the weights of each together.
You can't do this with scales in series (ie one scales hooked onto the other scale, as the second scale simply weighs the fish and the other scale!!
We had to do this for a catfish of 76lbs in France, where no-one had a scale of greater than 55lbs
(also posted under Broodstock, but worth repeating here)
Mike
|
|
bloke
Active Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by bloke on Oct 18, 2007 5:55:42 GMT
There do seem to be some strange anomolies here. 1. Why have the measurements not been confirmed by the captor and witnesses or are we just playing chinese whispers with the press 2. Where are these pics ? I heard that they are either being auctioned or sold to raise revenue for the Ness...I applaud this but who is going to pay for them ? the only possible buyer I can think of is Trout and Salmon...but how much will they or anybody else pay, and will the figure be disclosed to allow other bidders ?? That way much more revenue could be obtained... 3. Scales...ok nobody walks around with a set of scales capable of weighing up to 100lbs but we are lead to believe that there was a least one person with a mobile phone....yet that person didnt think of making a quick call to get a set of scales... 4. The poll is pointless....it makes no reference to the calculations or measurements required.. I dont doubt for one minute that this was a true leviathan but why all the secrecy ? I can only think that the captor and witnesses are in a state of shock. M
|
|
fruity
Active Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by fruity on Oct 18, 2007 8:46:28 GMT
The answers to most of your questions appear within the postings on this site. Considering the level of chatter among anglers online, on the bank, and via the telephone at the weekend I think there is a lot of interest and all magazines would enter a bidding war to get the exclusive. Like many anglers I am sure to buy the first magazine that has full details, irrespective of whether it is Trout & Salmon or Blinker, and if I like the content of it may well be tempted to buy that magazine again.
As I started the poll you will hardly be surprised to learn that I think it has a number of virtues and allows initiation of a number of subjects. Because there has been conflicting information with no immediate way to prove anything I decided to cut through all the confusion and move to the subjects of fish records and catch & release. The fact remains that the Ballantyne record is likely to stand unless someone is willing to become known as the worst kind of kipper killer in modern times, in which case the British Record Fish Committee will become more of an historical society rather than what it should be ..... a part of modern salmon angling and reflecting modern ethics and practices.
|
|
toucan
Active Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by toucan on Oct 18, 2007 10:04:27 GMT
The record will be broken when a larger fish is caught and reliably weighed.
This does not necessarily involve killing the fish, as numerous carp and catfish (and posts above) have demonstrated, but it does mean that suitable equipment will need to be available. So anglers, ghillies and owners be warned - invest in weighing slings and big scales if you want to be a record breaker. I suspect an order or two for such equipment may be going in from the Great Glen shortly.
|
|
|
Post by neptune on Oct 18, 2007 13:26:22 GMT
how about we all drive 4wd pick-ups then we could drive to the fishing spots with all the equipment ready to record monster catches maybe even get avery to supply trailer scales to tow behind the pick-up or just accept the record may well have been broken say well done & get on with fishing again
|
|