25 May 2014 News/Editorial
Feedback by e-mail to this column is always welcome, even when it comes as follows;
“It is a little disappointing when no-one offers a single word of congratulation to the lucky rod who landed the largest fly caught Tweed salmon for many years. Instead a boring tirade regarding its handling. I’m sure a single sentence on the subject would have been adequate rather than boringly taking the gloss off this great achievement by the angler in question. Jealousy, no doubt!”
I could, of course, respond that I did acknowledge it as an “extraordinary achievement” in the first paragraph of the previous week’s effort, that the fish in question is not “the largest fly caught Tweed salmon for many years”, and that if I am a jealous angler after catching my first salmon in 1960, and one or two more since then, it is a sad state of affairs….maybe only those who know me can judge that.
But, in fact, I think my correspondent is right…at least about taking the gloss off.
Over the last year, this column has picked on the 30lb springer caught and killed on a Flying C at the Junction, on the estimated 50lber caught last autumn at Boleside, and finally on this 33lb springer caught at Hendersyde.
In the process, three issues have been highlighted.
First, that there was far too much spinning on Tweed, especially in low water and with a Flying C; secondly, that claiming any fish to be a certain weight without weighing it, even if accurately measured, is an inexact science, and that the fanfare for the first 50lber caught in Scotland for decades might have been a little premature/optimistic when it was never weighed; and, finally, that displaying fish, which are going to be returned, by photograph, as they now commonly are on all websites, held aloft by the angler, may be to the benefit and glorification of him/her, which is fair enough, but can be positively harmful to the fish and breaks a number of the Tweed Rules on how returning fish should be done.
Now, whether you agree with them or not, those are perfectly valid points of view, and, if my other correspondents are to be believed, I am not alone in holding them.
The problem is that in order to get attention, to demonstrate the point to its maximum, I have picked the biggest targets.
For instance, had I selected a picture of any old 8lb springer being poorly held for a photograph (and there are many) and made the same point as for the 33lber, it would have had nothing like the same impact. My correspondent’s e-mail is perhaps proof of that.
It would be like settling for a run-of-the-mill actress fronting up support for the old Ghurkas when you could have had Joanna Lumley, or like any old Clooney talking about something important when you could have had George.
To make your point, you go for the biggest hit.
So, I did not write about another picture on the websites last autumn which was claimed to be 30lbs when it was at best 18lbs, because it would have had nothing like the impact of the estimated 50lber.
Similarly the 30lb springer last year which swallowed a Flying C, and was pictured dead at the Junction, was the one to write about rather than any old other smaller fish on a lesser beat caught spinning in low water and which also swallowed a Flying C.
In conclusion, my correspondent makes a fair and valid point about the lack of generosity to the anglers in each case.
But do I regret expressing any of these views?
No, absolutely not, and I will go on expressing those views to anyone who is foolish enough to listen….because I believe they are right.
But yes I do regret the lack of generosity and, in the process, removing hopefully only a little of the gloss from the individual triumphs by the three fishermen concerned.
On receipt of his e-mail, I immediately responded that I was most grateful for my correspondent’s comments.
His reprimand was entirely justified.