Record Salmon caught on the Ness ?

The British record salmon of 64lbs was caught on the Tay by Miss Georgina Ballantine in 1922…

tay record salmon

…however the British angling world is buzzing with the news of a potential record catch on the Ness system.

Reports suggest the cock salmon caught on the Dochfour beat of the River Ness measured 56 inches long and 50 inches around the girth. Seemingly it measures 2 inches longer than Miss Ballantine’s record.

The Salmon was returned unharmed without it actually being weighed. This has caused a bit of controversy on various forums with people stating that the fish although is very large does not look anywhere near the record – some people are even suggesting the size has been inflated to drum up a bit of business as the takings are down up north – the cynical cads 😉

I will let you decide – go and look at the chat !

Fly Forums Thread (the cynical one)

Salmosalar Thread (the optimistic one)

The Scotsman Newspaper (reports on the ultimate fishy tail)



‘Monster’ fish record bid refused


  1. alan atkins · October 16, 2007

    Alistair, amid all the excitement, i reckon the fish is somewhere between 40-45lbs. A big fish, but no bigger than the fish caught on Lanrigg on the Teith last year, and that fish was a lot fresher. However, time will tell. In the meantime, iam preparing for a couple of days on the North Esk next week, but with conditions very low and no rain forcast fishing will be challenging to say the least!!

  2. Alex · October 16, 2007

    That’s one heck of a brown trout!

  3. Alistair · October 16, 2007

    Its funny you should say that actually – other people have been commenting on its color…..How is Boston ?


  4. James · October 16, 2007

    A handsome fish, no mistake. Bigger than the record? That will be coco, I think.

  5. Alex · October 16, 2007

    Boston is quality! Really friendly place, and the eating/drinking culture here is superb.

    There’s a building just round the corner from me called ‘The Frank Sawyer Building’ – how cool is that!!

  6. big fish man · October 16, 2007

    i have had big fish that have been cut down by the authorities but nevertheless i had a fish this year at 51-52 inches and i put 44lb on it i dont carry scales but i am good at putting a weight on it i have also had a 32 and a couple of 25s too the length and girth of this fish puts it at 45ish and the colouration is natural spawning colours a good fish but nowhere near the record

  7. Alistair · October 16, 2007

    Interseting – I have sent you an email – lets have a look at it !


  8. The Bison · October 16, 2007

    Whether or not it is a record it’s still one hell of a fish!! Well done to the man!!

    Any better photos out ther??

  9. Alistair · October 16, 2007

    Hey The Bison,

    Thanks for commenting !

    Have a look through those threads on the forums, you might find some more pictures there !


  10. ian · October 16, 2007

    well it’s a fine fish in the 35 to 40lb range but i think the guys need a new measureing tape beacuse no way has it a 50 inch girth. Also an experienced angler would know to take the fish to land to weigh it to confirm a record with an independant witnesses and photos.
    Miss Ballantine’s record still stands and the guys whom claim a new record should know better anyone with eyes can see this fish is but half the size of Miss Ballintine’s thanks ian

  11. peter · October 16, 2007

    Look at the hands holding the fish, it does actually look really big,

    it may be the photo angle that is misleading you,

    do not compare to the arm and man in front/above of the fish, the angle makes the arm look bigger than the fish,

    I measured my hand the same way the hand holding the head, thumb to across = 15 cm, on my screen that is 1 cm, on my screen the fish is 10 cm, thus the fish ca 150 cm,

    of course not scientific, but still it cant be neglected,

    they recognized 4 big salmons this July in a fish counting system, at the river Morrum in Sweden,

    one was actually 150 cm, ca 50-60 kg

  12. · October 16, 2007

    Well, some good calls here. I ran this thru my CAD model using the hand widths, angles, water defraction adjusted, etc. I keep coming up with around 47 inches, not 56. The girth number is obviously an error. This fish IS deep and heavy…I would est. this one using the state of the art mech computer SW high forties, allowing worst case error, max on individual error ranges calculates out to 54. I ignored that girth number. Still, if ONLY low fifties? Real nice. No record.
    This one reminds me of that Restigouche “Jamieson Salmon” from a few years ago…They claimed 72 inches.??? Another Texan. WMD…Again, that was a lame and silly claim. It was not even close. Weight? Maybe into the low forties.
    For a legit modern era giant, the “Crosby Salmon” from the Restigouche was a much better candidate, as that one has better photos and calculates every time OVER sixty. That shot over Crosby’s shoulder, calculated w CAD SW using all the physical references from the camera and known dimensions from side of the freighter matches the enormous head length and depth well. Crosby’s salmon is a much closer size match to the Ballentine salmon record. The CAD SW data supports that conclusion. I have little doubt that Crosby’s WAS a legit North American – Canadian record.
    Important these things are NOT. Important, IS that these salmon are returning to spawn. These big bucks are critical genetic material we cannot afford to kill, like the Ballentine fish, if we want the species to prosper & survive. Who REALLY cares what it weighed? As long as your camera buddy (you now owe ‘him’ free beer for life!) got that ONE GOOD PHOTO, (he did!)you caught an Atlantic salmon of around FIFTY POUNDS, and now, you are IN the Rare-All-Time-Beast-Club for good! Cheers! Labatt “Blue” for Obama. GDW

Comments are closed.