Possible new British record salmon [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: Possible new British record salmon

G Ritchie
10-14-2007, 08:53 AM
A very large salmon of 56 inches in length was caught on the River Ness in Scotland yesterday.


10-16-2007, 10:57 PM
Did anyone get a picture of this beast? I've followed various links and have only been able to discover that the one picture posted (in my search) was deleted due to possible copyright infringement.

There's got to be a photo somewhere.

Petri heil,


10-17-2007, 04:18 AM
Here's an article that contains a picture.


I don't know if it does this fish justice or not, but it doesn't look 56'' to me. Tough to tell when they're tailed in the water like that.


10-17-2007, 02:00 PM
Yeah, that doesn't look like it's 56" or 100 lbs to me either. More like 45" and 40 lbs maybe.

Earle Fletcher
10-17-2007, 03:56 PM
That looks like a brown trout to me--- 15 pounds tops.

Earle Fletcher

10-17-2007, 04:52 PM
I am sure the 15 pounds is in jest.

Bad picture angle but count the fingers of the guy tailing it. So 4 inches across. Count down the body and it is definitely over 50 inches. 100 pounds, would have to see it next to angler. Growing up in Alaska I have seen 80 pound + kings and they are ginormous.

Still a magnificent fish and good to see one like that come out of scotland where from what I am told a 20 pounder is a great catch. Also that it was released was cool to see. I am sure it is hard to let a fish like that go.


10-17-2007, 07:26 PM
While everybody is speculating ...

I'm with Mr. Teflon Jones ... mid forties for both length and weight.

We've all seen pictures of truly huge salmon from several North American rivers. I'm betting that both David Bishop and Ann Smith (among others) could provide pictures of fish that would rival the Ness Monster.

That's a hint folks ... :hihi:

Personally, I've seen photos and had some 'live sightings' of spectacular salmon from the York on the Gaspesie. The Ness fish looks to be a similar size to the largest of the first-run fish that come up the York. I don't think a fish over fifty pounds has been recorded from the York in recent history, although a few in the 40 pound neighbourhood are caught in most years. There are several early-season maniacs that have an uncanny knack for hitting these huge first-run fish.

So, I'm guessing that a 100 pound salmon would be quite a lot larger than the one shown in this photo.

Anyway, once one gets past the "new record" stuff, it is very encouraging to know that beautiful big fish like this are swimming up the rivers in 2007. It's even more encouraging to think that a legendary salmon like the Ness Monster might end up on your line someday! :eek:

Jim Corrigan

10-18-2007, 09:07 AM
I am not a salmon expert but I agree with Sean...also, take a look at the guys hand in it's mouth, despite the camera angle, a look at the hand and then the head as compared side by side with the hand should give a respective length. IMHO. Still a great fish no doubt and released too!

Willie Gunn
10-18-2007, 01:24 PM
The British Salmon experts have declared it around the 45lb, but bear in mind it would have been heavier when fresh. Cock salmon loose a lot of weight fasting in fresh water.

Still an atlantic of a life time.

10-18-2007, 05:58 PM
Gotta be 50lb,, even now. The one pic i got to see of it is all i have to go on but it sure looks at least 50lb in the pic. Man,, as a bright fish that ol boy would be a thrill to pin! Congrats to the angler by the way.
Had a good chuckle at the Trout comment,,:hihi: Made my morning:hihi:
Salmon Chaser

Earle Fletcher
10-18-2007, 06:43 PM
Ok guys, I may have "low balled" it a bit, but the claim that it was a picture of a 100 pound salmon was so ludicrous, I felt I had to resond in kind. However, my "hat is off" to the fisherman who caught and released it.

Earle Fletcher

Gaspe Salmon
10-24-2007, 07:47 AM
My "guide eyes", which have held similar fish, tell me that that fish is at least 50 inches long. Sorry to all of you nay sayers! Look at the guys hands in the fishes mouth and you will get a better idea of the length! The fish is turned and it seems as if the gillie tailing the fish is a pretty big guy and his arms span about 40 or so inches up towards the head.

Hell of a fish anywhere in my humble opinion. In any case, what is a few inches when we are talking about such a regal fish anyway?


David Bishop

P.S. I am sure better pictures exist!

10-24-2007, 12:30 PM
Agree with you David,

Based on the man's hands, my guess was in the range of 48 to 52 inches, but at this size, with this angle of picture, it might be more.

Willie Gunn
10-24-2007, 02:08 PM
Ok guys, I may have "low balled" it a bit, but the claim that it was a picture of a 100 pound salmon was so ludicrous, I felt I had to resond in kind. However, my "hat is off" to the fisherman who caught and released it.

Earle Fletcher

The 100lb figure came from forum dwellers who simply put the length and suggested girth into the salmon o meters that abound on the internet, hype followed hype. Some forum owners thought they could benifit from the publicity.

10-26-2007, 06:34 AM


G Ritchie
10-26-2007, 07:02 AM
Scroll down a few pages on my original link. Gordon Armstrong has updated the story. No accurate measurements were taken and the fish is now estimated at 45lb+. They cant make a more accurate estimate than that due to the loss of condition of the fish due to it being in fresh water for about 5 months. It would have been some fish when it first entered the river though. :)

11-13-2007, 12:24 PM
If you look carefully and you use a very simple method to validate the weight, this salmon is closer to 45 inches and 40 pounds more then anything else.

The distance between the two hands holding the salmon is equivalent to seven hands. This gives us merely a 30 inches between the two hands holding the salmon and I have been generous. Now the distance between the hand at the tail and the extremety of the tail is about 6 inches. The distance between the hand holding the salmon near the head is at about 9 inches or two hands and a half. If you total all of this, it will give you 45 inches. Please keep in mind that I have been generous with the width of the hand use to calculate the distances.

We are not close to 56 inches at all. But still, it is a great fish to be happy of and this fisherman should be.

Claude alias redibermarin