Mes amis, il y a débat. Dans un souci d’honeteté je me dois de vous en informer. Un tel poisson en Février, un combat bien que plus qu’exitant, probablement un peu mou pour un fish de cette taille, j’ai décidé de soumettre le cas à l’avis d’experts. Un grand débat National s’est ouvert en Ecosse sur le forum de l’ADAA (Aberdeen District Angling Association) – Kelt or not Kelt ? That is the … KELTION (merci Fred). Et les avis d’éminents spécialistes divergent, avec une tendance qui se dessine tout de même pour un Kelt. Reste la présence inexpliquée de traces (ou supposées) de sea lices (poux de mer). Ci après une copie de quelques commentaires et avis postés sur le Forum de l’ADAA (dans la langue de Shakespeare). Comme vous le verrez, le débat fait rage. Encore une bonne raison pour relacher tous les poissons à cette époque de l’année. Quel que soit le résultat des délibérations, pas de honte ni de remords, le poisson a été précosieusement relaché et restera de toute manière un super souvenir et un joli coup de ligne.
The question:
Kelt or not?
« Thread Started on Yesterday at 4:37pm »
I’ve been contacted by an experienced ADAA member who caught a salmon on the Don yesterday on the fly.
The fish went back safely but the query was was it a kelt or not. Briefly the fish was in good condition, albeit slightly thin, 34 inches long, faught fairly well, had a couple of what looked like sea lice tails on it, a fairly large head, don’t know about gill maggots.
It would be interesting to hear what the take of forum members is on the fish for the benefit of less experienced anglers and beginners. See photos below.
Les réponses:
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #1 on Yesterday at 6:42pm »
Right I’m going to be 1st stick to my neck on the block here. I’m going to say its a kelt. Reasons? Well at 34″ long I’d expect the fish to have more shape about it for a start if it were fresh in from the sea. I’d also expect a spring fish of 34″ to put up more than a ‘fairly’ good fight. I’d like to think if I hooked a springer at just under 3ft long I’d know about it! But the one thing that swayed me more than anything is the slight grey patterns on the gill cover below the 3 spots. I think they are remnants from when the fish was in full spawning colours. The anal fin is also slightly frayed.
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #2 on Yesterday at 7:08pm »
Ian, From the photos it looks like a Baggot. Which is basically a very late running hen fish which for one reason or another has not been able to spawn and therefore is still full of eggs. These fish would appear to the untrained eye to be clean fresh Spring salmon and indeed are often still sea liced.
Colin
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #3 on Yesterday at 7:28pm »
I would also say it is a kelt, although a much better looking one than some of the others seen recently. It is still relatively thin and not silver enough.
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #4 on Yesterday at 7:46pm »
Certainly a kelt. Has no hallmarks of a springer. Were any eggs expended when you held/beached/netted the fish? Fins look a bit ragged too – everything points to a kelt.
Excellent photos and a good help for kelt identification purposes.
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #5 on Yesterday at 8:36pm »
Heres a thought guys and i am not trying to stir things up .I think it is either a baggot or a spring fish. The way i see it like all other living things on this planet fish also come in different shapes and sizes to a certain degree. I don’t think its a kelt but i would not rule it out a springer either.
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #6 on Yesterday at 8:39pm »
Changed my mind again Baggot i think.
Chris.
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #7 on Yesterday at 9:22pm »
Kelt for me !!!! To long and thin, Anal fin ragged…
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #8 on Yesterday at 9:22pm »
I caught fresh fish in the summer thinner than this felow so i don’t think it is fair to rule out a springer on the basis that it is thin. The feeding at sea has apparently become very lean pickings for salmon.
The fish caught at kemnay on opening day wasn’t a particularly fat fish either.
Further, i’m almost convinced that just by the anglers hand is a sea louse and the marks too where others ay have dropped off.
Sea lice fall off usually within two days in fresh water but sometimes can remain for longer (no more than a week though i would guess). How does a baggot then retain sea lice?
I wonder whether the angler checked for gill maggots?
I caught a very well mended kelt at manar on friday, which fought extremely hard and looked similar to this fish. It was only the presence of maggots that made me certain this was a kelt.
I think this one will remain a mystery!
Ant.
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #9 on Yesterday at 9:47pm »
No doubt about it – kelt.
Compare it with the springer caught on opening day (the 2nd picture with the fish straight) then imagine a straight line from the vent to the underside of the head (can use your rod on the bank) the fish above has a sunken belly whilst the springer has a nice deep shape, that along with the ragged fins & damage between the tail & adipose, bet it had sharp teeth & gill maggots.
Its not a baggot – they still have the deep belly but soft & the vent distended.
(once saw a guy walking off kintore water with a deep looking fish – by the time he got 2 the car park the eggs were streaming out – not a sight I want to see again)
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #10 on Yesterday at 10:06pm »
Definitely a kelt!
Certainly if i caught this fish i would not be thinking anything other than that,the vent is very much that of a spawned fish and the body shape and anal fin all point to a kelt so that is my call.
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #11 on Yesterday at 10:24pm »
I must agree with Piscator and Leuchar on this one the proportions are all wrong and it also looks as though the vent is distended.
The picture of the opening day fish from Kemnay, when compared next to it, says everything – particularly the shape of the fish and sheen of the silver.
It just goes to show that it’s not easy when faced with a well mended fish – but as a rule of thumb if you do have any doubts then it probably is a kelt.
Well worth putting the picture on to help clarify some issues.
The following link may also be of assistance:
http://www.atlanticsalmontrust.org/salmon_facts/recognition.html
I wonder what your views are about this picture of a ‘spring salmon’ on the following link (4th picture down)?
http://www.thepikeshop.co.uk/default.asp?id=2
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #12 on Today at 8:39am »
A kelt, look at the eyes, they are looking straight down. Another sign of a kelt
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #13 on Today at 8:53am »
Might be a spring fish but certainy not a fresh run fish. Looks more like the other pike in pictures link above than a spring fresh run salmon- it is long and thin and obviously a kelt -The angler in the pike picture should be ashamed of himself.
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #14 on Today at 9:15am »
A kelt without any shadow of doubt. (Close up of adipose fin also shows bites/scratches from spawning).
Cheers, GR
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #16 on Feb 25, 2008, 11:24pm »
Couple of points on above thread which are worth clarifying
– Baggots do not carry sea lice, they spend the winter in the river & often carry gill maggots. There is a theory that C&R is increasing the no of baggots found in the spring as they no longer have the energy/reserves to ripen the eggs fully & complete spawning.
– Although not illegal to kill, if a baggot is killed the eggs will usually be released as the fishes muscles relax, the fish then becomes a kelt & the angler has broken the law!
Lastly – All live fish point their eyes down out of the water not just kelts, even more so in bright conditions – they have no eyelids!
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #17 on Yesterday at 9:05am »
No doubt about it, that’s a kelt ok. Bit puzzled about the « what looked like sea lice » though – it’s either lice or it’s not Good fish to get a hold of, especially on the fly, but defo on it’s way back to sea. Maybe just the angle of the photo, but the shape of the head is more like a cock kelt, which is much less common to see these days. Can angler confirm cock or hen fish ?
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #19 on Yesterday at 8:03pm »
It looks like a kelt but if it did have sea lice then this cann’t be a kelt and might be a repeat spawner which are usually thinner.
Re: Kelt or not?
« Reply #20 on Today at 11:59am »
Could this be a very late spawning fish which has partially spawned and been hooked while on it’s redd?
It doesn’t look like an out and out kelt to me.
Reports from various rivers suggest that fish are spawning later than usual due to climate change.We are simply not getting the cold temperatures that trigger the fish into spawning.
Think i’m right in saying that the Tay delayed the start of their season this year due to the big numbers of unspawned fish in the system.
Dunx
Walter, Dee Banchory opinion:
Its a very well mended kelt. If you look at the dark lines on the lower jaw this is a dead giveaway to someone who see a lot of kelts. Also the scale damage above the lateral line and the vent looks enlarged as in a hen fish thats an early spawner. The other thing to look for when you catch a fish like that is gill maggots. Gently lift the gill cover. 95% of the time you will see maggots small brown parisites about the size of a grain of rice. This is a joint verdict by me and Mr.T who also sends his regards.
Walter.
