avoca river 17 lb seatrout!!!

fisherking

Fly caught recently and released ! Anyone hear anything more of this leviathan?

experimenter

I got the heads up on this last night..

Record Breaker I gather.. I think the record was 16lbs.

slowburner

Any more news on this?

dodderangler

17lb? thats unreal hope its true that'd be great especially if it was released

Compton

Would love to see this beast, fish of a lifetime.

experimenter

dodderangler wrote: »

17lb? thats unreal hope its true that'd be great especially if it was released

Yes it was released..

sean raff

monster fish well done who ever caught it

Compton

it had to be released AFAIK.. The avoca is closed for sea trout over 40cms

dodderangler

shblob wrote: »

it had to be released AFAIK.. The avoca is closed for sea trout over 40cms

yeah but there are those that'd keep it fair play to the bloke for releasing it

Compton

It would be very stupid to kill a fish you're going to be claiming as a record then admit it. he may have killed it.. who knows? who cares? fair play to him for catching it.

ironbluedun

i am a bit skeptical, any photos of this fish about?

slowburner

ditto

con___manx1

I struggle t catch fish over a pound on d avoca.but somtimes there are some klonkers caught like every river and its catch and release full stop below or above d 40cm and fly only..

bibio

Heard about it too, scale samples have been apparently sent off, captor released the fish. Great catch well done to the luckly angler
Guess the details will come back once it is confirmed as a sea trout

dodderangler

con___manx1 wrote: »

I struggle t catch fish over a pound on d avoca.but somtimes there are some klonkers caught like every river and its catch and release full stop below or above d 40cm and fly only..

ive heard there does be 4to5lb wild browns caught in it every year is that true? its a lovely clean river aswell very well looked after by the local club anyone know who to contact to get in? i lost a salmon on it about 8 weeks ago had net beside him an he got off lovely fish and lovely river an congrats to the angler that hooked the sea trout :cool:

slowburner

dodderangler wrote: »

ive heard there does be 4to5lb wild browns caught in it every year is that true? its a lovely clean river aswell very well looked after by the local club anyone know who to contact to get in? i lost a salmon on it about 8 weeks ago had net beside him an he got off lovely fish and lovely river an congrats to the angler that hooked the sea trout :cool:

Here you go
http://fishwicklow.ie/rathdrum.home.html

con___manx1

well from avoca to arklow the river wouldnt be the cleanest there is an old copper mine in avoca that leaks into the river u can c when d river is low a copper tinge off the rocks on the river bed. thats why the river is catch and release.but fish make it above the mines some also die.there is also the aughrim river that flows into the avoca.its pretty clean.i only fish one pool on the avoca regularly .I fish in d aughrim river d rest of the time.my friend hooked and lost a lovely fish last night think it was a sea trout.

natdog

dodderangler that kind of reads that you where fishing without a permit im sure this isnt the case

con___manx1

natdog wrote: »

dodderangler that kind of reads that you where fishing without a permit im sure this isnt the case

there is no club on the avoca but u can get a permit in d petrol station at woddenbridge.its only 5 euro.

slowburner

Fishing on the Avoca river downstream of Whitebridge is free. Above that, as far as Clara Vale, the fishing is controlled by the Rathdrum Anglers (see link above) and day tickets are freely available.
The most polluted stretch is from Whitebridge to the confluence of the Augrim river. There are no fish in this stretch. The Augrim river dilutes the runoff from the mines somewhat, so fishing improves from this point to the sea.
The catch and release policy is nothing to do with pollution from the mines - it is in line with salmon and sea trout conservation policy for all east coast fisheries and nationally where the numbers of returning fish have reached dangerously low levels. So low in fact, that there may not be enough fish available to sustain a breeding population.
Bait fishing (worm, shrimp etc.) is prohibited as part of these conservation measures because such methods could possibly damage or even kill a fish. So it is fly or spinner only.

slowburner

It seems the rumour is a strong one. I have heard that the fish was caught in the Aughrim river.
It would be fantastic if the report is true, but there is always the chance of misidentification - happens all the time.
Could it have been a salmon? Could it have been an escapee from the nearby trout farm? I hope not.

fisherking

Yes
The scales were taken for verification....
Still...if not...
A great salmon !

slowburner wrote: »

It seems the rumour is a strong one. I have heard that the fish was caught in the Aughrim river.
It would be fantastic if the report is true, but there is always the chance of misidentification - happens all the time.
Could it have been a salmon? Could it have been an escapee from the nearby trout farm? I hope not.

Zzippy

ironbluedun wrote: »

i am a bit skeptical, any photos of this fish about?

slowburner wrote: »

It seems the rumour is a strong one. I have heard that the fish was caught in the Aughrim river.
It would be fantastic if the report is true, but there is always the chance of misidentification - happens all the time.
Could it have been a salmon? Could it have been an escapee from the nearby trout farm? I hope not.

16.75lbs apparently, though I don't think the scales was certified. I've seen the photos, but I don't have permission to post them. Caught in the Avoca alright, on a fly the angler tied himself. Definitely a sea trout, and a massive fish. I have a photo of a 15lbs trout that I caught a few years ago, and this one is definitely bigger. Well done that man!

slowburner

Zzippy wrote: »

16.75lbs apparently, though I don't think the scales was certified. I've seen the photos, but I don't have permission to post them. Caught in the Avoca alright, on a fly the angler tied himself. Definitely a sea trout, and a massive fish. I have a photo of a 15lbs trout that I caught a few years ago, and this one is definitely bigger. Well done that man!

Can you not bribe him for the photos or is he holding out for the press?
Hopefully he was able to get some measurements of the fish, or at least something in the photos to judge the size by. If a scale sample was taken, it could reveal a lot of information. Very exciting stuff if it's all true. What a catch!
The current record is 16 lbs 6 oz. caught on the river Shimna, County Down in 1983. I know of a sea trout of 19 lbs that was gaffed out of a river in the late 70's and I handled another illegally caught one of 14 lbs* - both from the east coast - so they are definitely about!



*I had a legitimate reason for handling this fish, by the way!

dodderangler

natdog wrote: »

dodderangler that kind of reads that you where fishing without a permit im sure this isnt the case

well i didnt know a licence was needed never met a bailiff on it and no one told me i needed one ive talked to loads of anglers and they never said anything

Zzippy

slowburner wrote: »

Can you not bribe him for the photos or is he holding out for the press?
Hopefully he was able to get some measurements of the fish, or at least something in the photos to judge the size by. If a scale sample was taken, it could reveal a lot of information. Very exciting stuff if it's all true. What a catch!
The current record is 16 lbs 6 oz. caught on the river Shimna, County Down in 1983. I know of a sea trout of 19 lbs that was gaffed out of a river in the late 70's and I handled another illegally caught one of 14 lbs* - both from the east coast - so they are definitely about!



*I had a legitimate reason for handling this fish, by the way!

Someone else sent me on the photos, they are low res but clear enough, but its not my place to post photos of someone who may not wish to have their pic on an internet forum without asking them, and I don't know the angler concerned personally.... trust me though, its an impressive fish!

bitemybanger

26 posts in and still all hear say.
Any real evidence?

Compton

surely you'd have to wait for confirmation of the scale samples.

experimenter

I have also seen photos, and scales have been sent off for investigations.

fisherking

Such distrust tsk tsk
You would swear all anglers are scoundrels that inflate and exaggerate....
I for one am a believer!!!

bitemybanger wrote: »

26 posts in and still all hear say.
Any real evidence?

slowburner

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

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.