More recognition problems

On the front cover of the April Edition of Angling Star we see a "Salmon" caught from the Yorkshire Ure near Ripon.

What we actually see, in my opinion, is an escapee from a trout farm, a brown trout in fact with the pectoral fin and the two lobes of the tail fin removed in classic trout farm style.

Oh dear, it really is time certain of the angling editorial staff of magazines like this one were taught a lesson in fish identification.

if that were a brown trout Ron, would you not be able to see teeth on the bottom Jaw?


(not that I know what I'm on about mind you , if you remember it was you who had to tell me the diference between a brown and a rainbow!)


Why do the farms remove these fins Ron ?

These are the reasons why it isn't a salmon.

1: The centre line of the eye is set well forward of the maxillary (scissors) of the mouth.

2: The scale count from the lateral line to the front of the adipose fin is in excess of 13.

3: There are a significant number of spots on
the body below the lateral line.

4: There is no pronounced notch or wrist forward of the tail fin.

5: The tail fin is minus the upper and lower lobes, however the edge of the fin is convex, not concave.

The lack of visual teeth in the mouth would be typical of a brown trout reared quickly in a hatchery. The lack of pectoral fins is typical of many hatchery fish.

Certainly it is not a salmon.

As to why many of the fish farmers remove or deface fins is purely subject to conjecture. Many fish from farms are crammed into small spaces or cages so that the farmer can get the most out of a brood.

It's very sad in a way.

Could it be a scam?
Passing brownies of for the more expensive salmon to the unknowing general public!

It might be an April 1st Joke Ged.

AS not accepting your articles anymore Ron?

Heh heh!

I was under the impression that salmon traveling up rivers to spawn do not feed, this is why they have to be tempted by lures or flies that prompt a instinctive reation to snatch at them ( I either read this or saw it on telly)

Is this true ? if so then I suppose it is highly unlikely you would get one to take a maggot or caster, or a stationary legered bait ?

Oh Dear Beecy.

The myth that salmon do not feed after entering fresh water was exploded years ago. They may not feed in the same way that they do at sea, but if they stay in a river pool for a while, they have no compunction in taking insects, small fish and worms.

In fact there are probably more salmon caught on worms legered stationary on the bottom than any other method!

why do folk piss about with flies and lures then ?

Good question Beecy.

There is no doubt that once a person has become reasonably proficient in the art of fly fishing, or lure fishing - and salmon "fly fishing" can only really be decribed as a form of lure fishing - it will be found to be the most enjoyable way of catching salmon.

And as we go fishing for enjoyment, the ability to cast a fly is worthy of the learning.

And under certain conditions, fly fishing can be the most effective way of catching salmon too.

In some rivers and at certain times of the year, fly fishing only is allowed. The reasons for the fly only rule are varied, but the most common is that those who are good enough to find it the most enjoyable method, are anxious that others should learn the art and thus share the pleasure.

If on many of the waters, bait fishing were allowed willy nilly, numbers of anglers too stupid or lazy to learn fly fishing would be able to catch as many fish as the skillful anglers, thus increasing the catch, which would lead to massive increases in day and season ticket charges.

Remember most salmon caught are killed for the table. There is not an infinite supply of these fish.

Although numbers might increase in the future and there is positive evidence of this.

You bugger Mr Clay! I've just spent ten minutes drafting a post on this subject and you've already started the thread. I'll post it anyway... ;-)

A Case Of Mistaken Identity?

The other week I had a call, ?Bob, have you seen those dace in today?s paper. Them?s not dace, them?s roach ? they?ve got red fins!? Well I rarely get the paper these days but I had a look and the angle wasn?t good so who am I to suggest they were anything but dace?

This week I had another call, ?That?s not a roach, the dorsal fin doesn?t look right to me!? Again, who am I to say? This is where DNA does have a role to play.

Yesterday I picked up a copy of the Angling Star (Salmon Special Edition). On page 17 the caption beneath as obvious a zander as you?ll ever see runs: ?SO EFFECTIVE: Fine sport with a decent pike,? Oops!

But back to salmon. King of the river.

There?s a letter describing the capture of one from the Don and Lee Swords eulogises over the future when he can pick and choose whether he fishes for Trent barbel one day and Trent salmon the next. There?s even a cracking, if grainy, picture of a leaping salmon. You can tell it?s a salmon because the tail is approximately twice the breadth of the wrist. It is concave and the decorative spots are all above the lateral line.

So to Dave Pilgrim?s column on page 16. I like his style as a writer and there?s always a smile or two to be had in his work, but I do suspect his column was hijacked this month. There?s a PS announcing Steve Newns has landed a lovely prime-condition salmon from the River Ure ? it?s on the front cover.

Elsewhere on the page there?s a thumbnail of the cover picture. ?Steve Newns plays THAT salmon (see page 1)?

Well, I have to say that the front cover is a cracker. Pin sharp, high definition and perfectly exposed which is a welcome change. GAME ON: Steve Serves Up a Salmon - runs the banner headline. What a pity this ?prime-condition salmon from the River Ure? has no pectoral fin. And what a shame it has such a narrow, CONVEX, tail. Nice spots, too, extending well down the fish.

Hang on, this isn?t a salmon! Maybe it?s a roach, or a dace, or perhaps a pike even?

Should coarse anglers stick to what they know best?

Could all this just be elitism and snobbery?


"In some rivers and at certain times of the year, fly fishing only is allowed. The reasons for the fly only rule are varied, but the most common is that those who are good enough to find it the most enjoyable method, are anxious that others should learn the art and thus share the pleasure.

If on many of the waters, bait fishing were allowed willy nilly, numbers of anglers too stupid or lazy to learn fly fishing would be able to catch as many fish as the skillful anglers, thus increasing the catch, which would lead to massive increases in day and season ticket charges."

Not for the plebs, so keep em off the rivers!

You state most fish are killed for the table??Err well no not really! Many rivers have restrictions either voluntary of legal on catch and release at certain times of the year.
Heaven forbid that these superior Gentlemen you talk about are breaking the rules!
No that could be, they are after all Gentlemen!!!
Or is it that they are, and the superior Gentlemen think the restrictions are the bits that dangle between their legs?

I say Phil, less of the inverted snobbery what? You sound like a blinkin left winger!

I am fully aware that a lot of salmon are released. Maybe I should have said "many" and not "most" when I mentioned whether fish were killed or not.

And what's wrong with learning how to fly fish? It's a jolly site more interesting and enjoyable than lobby splodging!

It's not all that expensive either. You don't have to carry around loads of gear like the average beastly coarse fishah does what?

Oh I forgot to add.

What a lovely bite - dray flay of course.

)

what are the rules on taking salmon ?


If, for instance, i am lucky enough to hook one,and even luckier to land it on say an average day ticket strech of the Trent, am I ok to take it or would this be ilegal if I only have a coarse fish licence?

Ron I disagree.

Salmon do not feed as such after they enter fresh water. They undergo a physiological change on entering a river that renders their stomachs incapable of digesting food.

So why do they take anglers baits? Nobody knows for sure. Lots of different theories exist and the truth probably lies with a combination of them all. I won't go into them all here.

I don't know where you've caught your Salmon on static worms Ron, but I've never heard of one caught that way. I fish the Ribble regularly and worm is a great bait (not in summer- eels!). The Ribble has a very healthy Salmon population in the autumn but you do not pick them up by accident. Fish the worms on a float, or bounced through the swim on a light bomb yes, but not static.

It's also widely recognised that Salmon NEVER take anything that's presented below their eye level. So a bait bounced through will catch fish lying deep, but hard on the bottom? Not a chance.

I'd loved to be proved wrong here!!

So fish a moving bait, in line or above their eye level,and they may take the bait out of curiosity or whatever, but it will not nourish them, so often they won't take it.

There's a good argument Ric.

I would certainly like to see evidence where a salmon's stomach undergoes a change that prevents it taken and digesting food. Maybe this is true.

What is not true is that a salmon never takes or swallows food in freshwater. I know that they do, often.

I caught a salmon once on legered lobworm on the Royalty fishery, and have known many others who have done the same.

All my deliberately salmon caught in England have been taken on lures. I have also caught lots of seatrout on static worms make no mistake.

Also many seatrout and salmon rise for dry flies

Beecy, if the Trent becomes a proclaimed salmon river you will have to possess a migratory fish licence.

The taking of salmon is normally controlled by local clubs, or even bylaws.

If you do not have a migratory trout and salmon licence, the fish must be returned to the water as quickly as possible.

Ron I've no doubt that odd fish get caught on bottom baits. Actually now I think on I remember a Kelt being taken on legered bread flake of all things! Also heard of one being taken on legered pellet. When you think of the hundreds of coarse anglers on there every week of the legal season (plus others outside the legal season ), it's a pretty poor return.

I've heard that Salmon taken on worms are often hooked very deep. So the fish may believe it can gain sustanance from eating when really, it can't. Who knows? That's one of the fascinations for me.

By the way Ron I've never caught one. I've tried and have my licence again so who knows, this year maybe?

I know very little about Sea Trout. Supposedly they don't eat in fresh water either but certainly, lots are caught every year on worms and maggots, very often on static methods. A friend of mine had a 4lb' er a couple of years ago on maggot feeder. Amazing fighters apparently!

Beecy I guess one of the reasons people fish the fly for Salmon is that the casting itself needs a level of skill that makes it enjoyable, even if you don't catch. I don't think the same can be said for spinning!