avoca river 17 lb seatrout!!!

Holyboy

slowburner wrote: »

Mysteriouser and mysteriouser. Why the reluctance to show a photo, if not on Boards then why are we not seeing it anywhere else?:cool:

I recon it was just a mullet that went too far up stream, huge mullet though:pac:

slowburner

Holyboy wrote: »

I recon it was just a mullet that went too far up stream, huge mullet though:pac:

dodderangler

its like the story of 22lb ferox caught up in bohernabreena resevoir on a worm 2 people ive spoke to seen the pics but fish hasn been seen in record or anything ya have to admire the oul fishermen tales

slowburner

dodderangler wrote: »

its like the story of 22lb ferox caught up in bohernabreena resevoir on a worm 2 people ive spoke to seen the pics but fish hasn been seen in record or anything ya have to admire the oul fishermen tales

It's beginning to look that way alright, but I hope I am wrong
Is Bohernabreena not fly only by law - that could explain the mystery of that ferox (22 lbs me hole - 2.2 lbs maybe) not appearing in the records but as for the Avoca fish - no laws were broken surely (?) so there should be no reason to hide anything.

Zzippy

Cropped as I don't know the guy and don't think its my place to show his face...

coolwings

Most impressive!
Kudos to that guy.


BTW. The big Bohernabreena trout was reported to me about 20 years ago by Ned Cusack at 7 lbs, caught on a poachers set nightline about 5 years previous. I assume it's the same fish? Is there a different fish with photos?

slowburner

Zzippy wrote: »

Cropped as I don't know the guy and don't think its my place to show his face...

Thanks a million for posting that Zzippy. Now we can have a debate as to whether it is a sea trout or a salmon.
I am pretty sure it is a salmon. Here's my reasons.

The tail looks to me very much like a salmon - it is concave. A sea trout of this size should have a convex tail.
The scales look a bit too large for a sea trout - more like a salmon.
I would expect to see more spots below the lateral line for a sea trout and they should be smaller.
The maxillary bone (basically the back edge of the upper lip) does not seem to extend beyond a vertical line drawn from the back edge of the eye.
The 'wrist' of the tail is obscured by the angler's hand but it looks more like the wrist of a salmon then a sea trout.

Anglers often think that salmon will not take a fly at night - they most certainly will - I have caught them myself though not often. Perhaps the fact that this fish was caught on fly at night has influenced the identification.
I genuinely think that it is a salmon - the tail is just too forked for a sea trout of those dimensions.
I can't zoom in on the photo enough to count the scales between the back edge of the adipose fin and the lateral line, but from a distance it looks more like the scale count is that of a salmon. The count for a salmon is usually between 9 and 11. For a sea trout, the count should be between 13 and 16. This would be one of the best ways of identifying the species.
Believe it or not, there are hybrids between salmon and sea trout but it is thought that they would only make up about 0.4% of the population, so we can rule that out in all probability.
Still a fantastic fish.

slowburner

coolwings wrote: »

BTW. The big Bohernabreena trout was reported to me about 20 years ago by Ned Cusack at 7 lbs, caught on a poachers set nightline about 5 years previous. I assume it's the same fish? Is there a different fish with photos?

7 to 22 lbs in 20 years - pretty slow growth rate for a salmonid, but then again there isn't great feeding in Bohernabreena

ironbluedun

slowburner wrote: »

Now we can have a debate as to whether it is a sea trout or a salmon.
.

take your points but it does look like a seatrout from the photo to me, anyway well done to that chap fantastic fish.

BoarHunter

slowburner wrote: »

Thanks a million for posting that Zzippy. Now we can have a debate as to whether it is a sea trout or a salmon.
I am pretty sure it is a salmon. Here's my reasons.

The tail looks to me very much like a salmon - it is concave. A sea trout of this size should have a convex tail.
The scales look a bit too large for a sea trout - more like a salmon.
I would expect to see more spots below the lateral line for a sea trout and they should be smaller.
The maxillary bone (basically the back edge of the upper lip) does not seem to extend beyond a vertical line drawn from the back edge of the eye.
The 'wrist' of the tail is obscured by the angler's hand but it looks more like the wrist of a salmon then a sea trout.

Anglers often think that salmon will not take a fly at night - they most certainly will - I have caught them myself though not often. Perhaps the fact that this fish was caught on fly at night has influenced the identification.
I genuinely think that it is a salmon - the tail is just too forked for a sea trout of those dimensions.
I can't zoom in on the photo enough to count the scales between the back edge of the adipose fin and the lateral line, but from a distance it looks more like the scale count is that of a salmon. The count for a salmon is usually between 9 and 11. For a sea trout, the count should be between 13 and 16. This would be one of the best ways of identifying the species.
Believe it or not, there are hybrids between salmon and sea trout but it is thought that they would only make up about 0.4% of the population, so we can rule that out in all probability.
Still a fantastic fish.

You see it's not concave that much and it's the record fish caught earlier this year on lough Currane 13.5 lbs.

I think it's a sea trout myself.

con___manx1

I think d guy in the picture is a fisherie officer he is wearing some sort of tag around his neck anyway..I might no d guy.fair play to him .I really hope its a record fish.

experimenter

Yes he is...spot on..

Compton

its a seatrout 100%

Daroxtar

slowburner wrote: »

Thanks a million for posting that Zzippy. Now we can have a debate as to whether it is a sea trout or a salmon.
I am pretty sure it is a salmon. Here's my reasons.

The tail looks to me very much like a salmon - it is concave. A sea trout of this size should have a convex tail.
The scales look a bit too large for a sea trout - more like a salmon.
I would expect to see more spots below the lateral line for a sea trout and they should be smaller.
The maxillary bone (basically the back edge of the upper lip) does not seem to extend beyond a vertical line drawn from the back edge of the eye.
The 'wrist' of the tail is obscured by the angler's hand but it looks more like the wrist of a salmon then a sea trout.

Anglers often think that salmon will not take a fly at night - they most certainly will - I have caught them myself though not often. Perhaps the fact that this fish was caught on fly at night has influenced the identification.
I genuinely think that it is a salmon - the tail is just too forked for a sea trout of those dimensions.
I can't zoom in on the photo enough to count the scales between the back edge of the adipose fin and the lateral line, but from a distance it looks more like the scale count is that of a salmon. The count for a salmon is usually between 9 and 11. For a sea trout, the count should be between 13 and 16. This would be one of the best ways of identifying the species.
Believe it or not, there are hybrids between salmon and sea trout but it is thought that they would only make up about 0.4% of the population, so we can rule that out in all probability.
Still a fantastic fish.

From what I see the tail is only concave because of it being pressed by the guys hand, the head is blunt unlike the pointy snout of a salmon and the spots look much more like sea trout than salmon spots. Just my take on it , but I think its a sea trout

con___manx1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5NFqpvW7E
fish at the end of the video caught 16lb 4oz..near
ly as big as the one in the avoca but not quite haha

slowburner

[Embedded Image Removed]






[Embedded Image Removed]











I sincerely hope I am wrong and my first impression was that it is a massive sea trout. Heck, I want this to be a sea trout! But we have to look at the identifying characteristics impartially, before we jump to conclusions.
I'll note again the standard ways of differentiating the two species.
Overall, the Avoca fish is more streamlined which would indicate a salmon. Note also, that the Avoca fish has a longer head.
If you compare the two tails you will see that there is a fork in the tail of the Avoca fish (DR, I think the angler's hand is on the fish's wrist rather than the rays of the tail. If the fin rays were extended in the Currane fish the tail would be convex.
Also, if you drop an imaginary line down from the back of the eye of both fish you will see that the upper bony lip (the maxillary) extends beyond the eye in the Currane fish but it is forward of the back of the eye in the Avoca fish. Also there are far more spots below the lateral line in the Currane fish. And the scales look bigger but is hard to tell at this resolution.
Really the only way to be sure, is a scale count from the back of the adipose fin diagonally downwards to the lateral line: salmon 9 - 11, sea trout 13 - 16 scales.
Anyone else voting for salmon?

Compton

Nope, its a definate ST.

Holyboy

slowburner wrote: »

[Embedded Image Removed]






[Embedded Image Removed]











I sincerely hope I am wrong and my first impression was that it is a massive sea trout. Heck, I want this to be a sea trout! But we have to look at the identifying characteristics impartially, before we jump to conclusions.
I'll note again the standard ways of differentiating the two species.
Overall, the Avoca fish is more streamlined which would indicate a salmon. Note also, that the Avoca fish has a longer head.
If you compare the two tails you will see that there is a fork in the tail of the Avoca fish (DR, I think the angler's hand is on the fish's wrist rather than the rays of the tail. If the fin rays were extended in the Currane fish the tail would be convex.
Also, if you drop an imaginary line down from the back of the eye of both fish you will see that the upper bony lip (the maxillary) extends beyond the eye in the Currane fish but it is forward of the back of the eye in the Avoca fish. Also there are far more spots below the lateral line in the Currane fish. And the scales look bigger but is hard to tell at this resolution.
Really the only way to be sure, is a scale count from the back of the adipose fin diagonally downwards to the lateral line: salmon 9 - 11, sea trout 13 - 16 scales.
Anyone else voting for salmon?

I'm no expert but it seems like a salmon, would be amazing if it was a sea trout though, great fish either way:D

slowburner

shblob wrote: »

Nope, its a definate ST.

Reasons? :pac:

thehamo

judging by the tail and the head I would vote Salmon my self.

Compton

slowburner wrote: »

Reasons? :pac:

position of the eye
shape of the head
the build of the fish
the tail
the spots

Compton

Unless if its one of those hybrids that were caught on the drowes last season, but I don't think so.

stevie_b

Yep, definately a tarpon :pac:

spero elite

Hello everyone, just came on to clear up any speculation about the sea trout.
First before I start let me just say, that a state licence is needed to fish the Avoca River and all rivers that flow into it. The method for fishing is single barbless fly Only and it's catch and release for sea trout under 40cm (NO SALMON FISHING).
The fish is a sea trout it was confirmed by the Fisheries Board, scale samples were taken and the fish measured 34 1/2 inches the fish was then safely released back, he weighed 16 3/4lbs he was caught on the night of 9th July 2011.
I was the angler who caught the beast!! the weight was witnessed by my fishing partner so there you have it, it's TRUE.

stylie

I wouldnt use a Curranne Sea trout pic to compare it against, I would use a welsh Sewin one which this fish looks very like

experimenter

spero elite wrote: »

I was the angler who caught the beast!! the weight was witnessed by my fishing partner so there you have it, it's TRUE.

Well congratulations on a fish of a life time...

Zzippy

stylie wrote: »

I wouldnt use a Curranne Sea trout pic to compare it against, I would use a welsh Sewin one which this fish looks very like

Exactly. There's a good chance the east coast rivers and Welsh rivers have a common sea trout stock, I would certainly expect a closer relationship between them than between Wicklow and Currane sea trout. AFAIK there is some ferox DNA in the Currane sea trout, which might explain how they grow a lot larger than other west coast sea trout.

Thanks for coming on spero elite, well done on the catch of a lifetime!

slowburner

spero elite wrote: »

Hello everyone, just came on to clear up any speculation about the sea trout.
First before I start let me just say, that a state licence is needed to fish the Avoca River and all rivers that flow into it. The method for fishing is single barbless fly Only and it's catch and release for sea trout under 40cm (NO SALMON FISHING).
The fish is a sea trout it was confirmed by the Fisheries Board, scale samples were taken and the fish measured 34 1/2 inches the fish was then safely released back, he weighed 16 3/4lbs he was caught on the night of 9th July 2011.
I was the angler who caught the beast!! the weight was witnessed by my fishing partner so there you have it, it's TRUE.

Hearty congratulations! Delighted for you and for the river.:)

coolwings

It's a seatrout, I have one beside my computer desk so it's an easy comparison.

Have a look at it beside another east coast double figure seatrout.

and

It's carved, but the original body measurements are replicated.

Compton

slowburner wrote: »

Hearty congratulations! Delighted for you and for the river.:)

told ya haha