Trout and Salmon - why do I read it!

[Clan Ford]

Trout and Salmon are at it again!  I know, I know, shouldn?t be reading the landed gentry?s mouth piece but the in-laws pay the subscription and it beats a dodgy jumper!  Anyway, there is a reasonable article about grayling fishing on the Tweed.  Techniques are very similar to those I employ on the Earn so found it interesting but right at the end of the article there is a wee rider (inset into the final picture) saying:-

?SHOW RESPECT TO FELLOW ANGLERS ? Always remember if you are fishing for trout or grayling on a river famous for its salmon that salmon-fishers will have paid dearly for their sport.  Most beats are booked months or even years in advance so, even if the river is very low, salmon-fishers will want to have a go.  Don?t wade through the salmon lies, always go in behind a salmon fisher and generally show courtesy to those who have probably paid a small fortune for the dubious privilege of flogging a shrunken river under a hot sun.?

In other words ? you horrible working class oiks, who don?t have the spending power to afford some real fishing, doff your caps and try stay out of my line of sight or I?ll set the Ghillie on you!

Who ever added the rider obviously never even bothered to read the article which was generally about up-stream nymphing and not the sort of thing you do by ?following behind a salmon fisher? and lets face it, the grayling are more likely to be disturbed by a heavy salmon line being spey cast down and across a pool, rather than the salmon being disturbed by someone fishing an upstream nymph on a dry fly set up.

I?m all too aware that salmon is king (I fish for them myself) and that we only get to fish some beats for trout and grayling under the strict understanding that we don?t get in the salmon fishers way but boy does it get on my goat when they disturb my fishing!

Looks like I?m going to go back to the dodgy jumpers!

Norm

[aliferste]

Dont see why Salmon should be the King of fish......bloody stupid fish more like it, damn things dont even feed in the river  :angry;

[Wildfisher]

“SHOW RESPECT TO FELLOW ANGLERS – Always remember if you are fishing for trout or grayling on a river famous for its salmon that salmon-fishers will have paid dearly for their sport.  Most beats are booked months or even years in advance so, even if the river is very low, salmon-fishers will want to have a go.  Don’t wade through the salmon lies, always go in behind a salmon fisher and generally show courtesy to those who have probably paid a small fortune for the dubious privilege of flogging a shrunken river under a hot sun.”

If ever there was an incentive to take up canoeing.

Trout and Salmon is in a time warp. I would not wipe my arse with it. It is manifestation of everything that is wrong with angling attitudes. I have said it before and I'll say it again. The average Scottish angler would be far better placed were there no salmon in our rivers. Sad but true.

[Wildfisher]

The sad thing is that the salmon is a magnificent fish deserving of admiration and respect. It’s just a pity that so many rich dickheads  are attracted by fishing for  it and that this leads to the exclusion or at least the attempted exclusion  of ordinary anglers even if they have no interest in catching the bloody things and  are after "lesser"  species. All justified by the  money required to perpetuate the status quo. 

[Malcolm]

Agree with a lot of the last few posts. I buy Trout and Salmon for a couple of reasons. Jon Beer and (occasionally) Lawrence Catlow.

When they go I will too. A lot of the attraction went when they stopped publishing articles by Gordon Mackie (or Geoffrey Oaklands as he was sometimes known).   

[Malcolm]

Malcolm,

Isn't he the bloke who does that "view from the chalk streams" column

He did write (almost exclusively) about the Wiltshire Avon and the rivers around Salisbury, he didn't have much choice as when he could afford a car it was of a standard that meant while it might go 20 miles without a breakdown but more likely not. Ok I exaggerate but not by much. His main interest and one he campaigned long and hard about was habitat destruction as a result of insecticide use and water abstraction. I wish we had a few thousand more who are as passionate as he is. I've always thought of him as the mouthpiece of the common man of the South of England. When reading about chalkstreams it's as well to remember that the average chalkstream fisher is no wealthier than the average fisherman. Probably far poorer. A lot of really good fishing is in the hands of the clubs - Salisbury and district angling club for example. Gordon was a member of SDAC as well as a couple of others.

 

and gave us all that hogwash about the hunting with dogs ban rending the countryside (where is that? Didn't quite catch the post code...) in two?  Or have I got the wrong one?

I don't remember the article in question - if he wrote that he had probably thought long and hard about it - remember the people in those little villages hated interference in what they saw as meddling in country life from "those posh barstards up in Lon'on". I lived in one of these villages for years and while they were very friendly people they had their own way of life that revolved around the pub, cricket, fishing, fox-hunting, ferreting, coursing and bar billiards. When I was there there were very few wealthy people there and if I remember rightly I think the local Master of the Hunt was a brickie. Quite different from the media portrayal of the foxhunter! BTW I have no interest in foxhunting but a lot of the people that the ban affected weren't millionaires or anything like it. 

.....Just as most of the salmon fishermen I know are far from the image portrayed in the Trout and Salmon! Then again I fish the Leven and not the Dee. 

[Wildfisher]

Is that the  same chap (Mackie)  who now writes about chalk streams in FF+Ft each month? I must confess that is another section I never read. I had not realised he had been poached from T+S

[rabbitangler]

Personally I gave T&S a bodyswerve about 10 years ago, though I've copies going back to 1973 and thought it was great then. Reason?? Couldn't find the articles amongst the ads & piccies. Its like a kids comic, all photos and very little prose.

Peter

[Wildfisher]

Last copy I bought was to pass some time when I was in hospital. The other patients on the ward were wondering  why I was roaring and laughing. There was no way I could  explain. Unless you move in fishing circles you could never understand that while it is pretty obvious that ? of the  paper is taken up with ads, the remaining  25%  is not ad. free either. Paul Proctor  had an article on trout fishing in Northern Ireland. Every photo featured a close up of some piece of Orvis gear.

The word 

ORVIS

Taking centre stage. It hit you like a kick in the crotch.

Mr Proctor works for Orvis.

I decided then never to buy it again. Reason? T+S in my opinion, is showing a  cynical disregard for the folk who buy their  magazine. I don't mind ads.  I am just not prepared to  pay  for them. With that % of ad content the magazine should  be given away free.

Hats off to FF+FT – there the ads are a little more "under control"

[rabbitangler]

Come on Fred, when did you lst watch a James Bond movie without noticing the blatent ads throughout?? He's only following the trend!!






Hey where did the 'more' emocions go to???