Record carp -denied!

[laguna]

I'm not sure if this has already been covered?

Carp record not ratified because.......






















































wait for it......






































































Its a 'cultured' carp that's been brought up on boilies!

Britain's biggest carp denied official record — Angling Times

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I read this elsewhere and have to say that I maintain my original line of argument; that the BRCF Rules appear to only preclude GAME fis fro their records if they have been "cultivated"

Unless the committee have altered their rules (in which case maybe they should update the Angling Trust section on the site) then I fail to see how they support their decision in accordance with their rules.

Personally, I care not if this particular fish was granted the record or not, but that we should see, an have seen, the rules of the BRF being adhered to.

 

[sam vimes]

I can understand why many wouldn't want it accepted. However, I can't help thinking that goalposts have been moved part way through the game. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that a fish being "cultivated" was ever previously part of the criteria for a valid record claim. It might have been for the likes of rainbow trout, but not for any coarse fish.

As much as specifically cultivating a fish to record size makes a mockery of the records, randomly changing qualification criteria is no better. I'm afraid that this is the final straw for me. I thought they were heading this way, but the BRFC records are now utterly irrelevant to me. In my mind, despite what will undoubtedly be good intentions, they have no credibility.

If they revert back to four simple criteria, then maybe they'll gain some relevance to me. Those criteria should be: Was it caught on rod and line? Was it caught in the UK? Was it the weight claimed? Was it the species claimed? The latter can be quite contentious enough without adding further spurious criteria to further muddy the waters. I'd also dump the wishy-washy indigenous/non-indigenous limitations. There's no good reason for wels catfish being excluded from the records when the equally non-indigenous zander and rainbow trout aren't.

We seem to have added a nebulous concept of merit as an angling feat over the years, people on the record list being lauded over others, especially with regards to carp. The simple reality is that catching a record has never been an indication of angling ability. The record should be about the fish, not the captor.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I can't help thinking that goalposts have been moved part way through the game. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that a fish being "cultivated" was ever previously part of the criteria for a valid record claim. It might have been for the likes of rainbow trout, but not for any coarse fish.

That is exactly my point as well Sam.

The only restriction on cultivated fish that is mentioned is solely related to Game fish . . . . . . . their rules appear to be totally silent on cultivated coarse fish

 

[sam vimes]

They've also left themselves wide open as regards what exactly constitutes "cultivation". As the vast majority of carp in the UK are farm bred fish, there's a good chance that every carp that's ever held the UK record is a cultivated fish.

Does it make a difference if a farmed fish is released at 10oz, 10lb, 40lb, 1oz below the current record or at a weight in excess of the current record? They are all cultivated. Trying to determine one from the other is going to be rather difficult in the longer term.

I can't help but feel that the BRFC has made a rod for their own back on this one. I also suspect that, without cultivation, the carp record would be little more than 30lb, if that.

 

[laguna]

They've also left themselves wide open as regards what exactly constitutes "cultivation". As the vast majority of carp in the UK are farm bred fish, there's a good chance that every carp that's ever held the UK record is a cultivated fish.

That was my first thought too. I would go further to suggest; all reared fish (all coarse fish species bred in captivity) farmed and sold on are/have been 'cultivated'?

Unless they can come up with another definition of what is cultivated? Certainly anything other than being refined and well educated! mg:

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The simple solution surely could be for the BRFC to bring in a rule that states that "only coarse fish that have been cultivated (or grown on) for a period of less than two years shall be considered for any record, and only considered if a valid EA permit was in effect at the time of stocking.

Unless they act, and pretty quickly then they will have certainly made a rod for their own backs.

 

[sam vimes]

That was my first thought too. I would go further to suggest; all reared fish (all coarse fish species bred in captivity) farmed and sold on are/have been 'cultivated'?

Unless they can come up with another definition of what is cultivated? Certainly anything other than being refined and well educated! mg:

Absolutely, if "cultivation" were part of the criteria, there's a chance that many other current records would have to be excluded. I'd suggest that there's a damned good chance that many of the more recent record barbel will have been cultivated fish.

I wonder when they are going to retrospectively remove Chris Yates and **** Walker from the record carp lists? After all, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that both fish were Leney farmed fish. On top of that, they were fish of foreign origin. That sounds like cultivation to me.

As distasteful as accepting the current claim might have been, I can't help but thinking that the BRFC have really screwed up with their decision.

Believe it or not, I'm not particularly in favour of the fish being accepted as a record. However, I am an advocate of rules being applied fairly, without bias and without being changed on the whims of a few individuals or strength of public opinion.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:07 ----------

The simple solution surely could be for the BRFC to bring in a rule that states that "only coarse fish that have been cultivated (or grown on) for a period of less than two years shall be considered for any record, and only considered if a valid EA permit was in effect at the time of stocking.

Unless they act, and pretty quickly then they will have certainly made a rod for their own backs.

How on earth could such a criteria be proven for an individual fish? In addition, whilst moving a fish from one site to another isn't legal without a section 30, I believe that it is quite legal to move fish from one pond to another within a given site.

I know many waters will not stock carp much less than C3s (2.5 years old and approx 3lb+) due to cormorant predation. Those that do are stocking thousands in one go and are generally match type commercials.

I very much doubt that any fish could be 100% proven to meet the criteria you propose. I'm afraid that the reality is that criteria should be left alone as the basic four. It won't stop claims like the current one and some won't be happy with that. However, the truth will remain that it would be the biggest fish of its kind caught on rod and line in the UK. That should be all there is to it. Reading anything else into the records is exactly what causes the problems.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I'm afraid that the reality is that criteria should be left alone as the basic four. It won't stop claims like the current one and some won't be happy with that. However, the truth will remain that it would be the biggest fish of its kind caught on rod and line in the UK. That should be all there is to it. Reading anything else into the records is exactly what causes the problems

The problem however is that the current system has (now) been proven to be flawed and open to, what some including the Committee, consider to be as abuse.

Either your assertion of the largest fish of a species becomes the record is upheld, regardless of how it attained the relevant weight, or, there has to be a level of control exercised over "cultivated" fish whereby any deliberate attempt is made to surpass the current record is deemed to be inadmissible.

Absent either of the above then the BRFC are placing themselves in a very indefensible position.

 

[sam vimes]

The problem however si that the current system has (now) been proven to be flawed and open to, what some, including the Committee, consider as abuse.

Either your assertion of the largest fish of a species becomes the record is upheld, regardless of how it attained the relevant weight, or, there has to be a level of control exercised over "cultivated" fish whereby any deliberate attempt is made to surpass the current record is deemed to be inadmissible.

Absent either of the above then the BRFC are placing themselves in a very indefensible position.

Indeed, but how on earth can they adequately rule on an arbitrary x years of cultivation limit? You'd have to get into the realms of birth certificates and censuses to do so. Surely criteria have to be pretty much black and white to be successfully and equitably applied. Was the fish caught on rod and line? Yes/no. Was the fish caught in the UK? Yes/no. Did the fish weigh the claimed weight? Yes/no. Fish of the claimed species? Yes/no. In some cases, the latter can be contentious enough, adding further criteria with huge grey areas, loopholes, or being impossible to prove one way or another, simply invites far greater trouble.

I'm afraid that it's people's attitudes to the records that needs to be modified. If we stopped trying to kid ourselves that every record holder is some kind of angling guru, or that there is any particular merit in catching a big fish, this would be a non-issue.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Surely criteria have to be pretty much black and white to be successfully and equitably applied. Was the fish caught on rod and line? Yes/no. Was the fish caught in the UK? Yes/no. Did the fish weigh the claimed weight? Yes/no. Fish of the claimed species? Yes/no. In some cases, the latter can be contentious enough, adding further criteria with huge grey areas, loopholes, or being impossible to prove one way or another, simply invites far greater trouble.

It would appear then Sam that you favour the option of simply the largest fish of a species, regardless of how the weight was attained, becomes the record? While I might not necessarily disagree with you that does open the door to all sorts of nefarious shenanigans to artificially increase the weight of the records. Whether that would be in the best interests of the individual fish is an altogether different, although allied topic.

I'm afraid that it's people's attitudes to the records that needs to be modified. If we stopped trying to kid ourselves that every record holder is some kind of angling guru, or that there is any particular merit in catching a big fish, this would be a non-issue.

Personally, I have never really attributed much to the captor, rather preferring to see the record as being the fish and not the captor.

In many cases the capture of a record fish is, or has been, a matter of simply being in the right place at the right time, rather than some reflection of supreme angling prowess . . . .

I maybe should append to that comment that it is providing that the fish has attained the required record weight in as natural a manner as was possible, otherwise we are in grave danger of having a record list of mutant fish rather than natural ones.

As I've been thinking and writing this I guess I am coming down on the side of preferring a naturally attained record rather than a cultivated one. . . . . .

 

[sam vimes]

Peter,
I've no issue with the concepts, it's applying and defining criteria in a logical and consistent manner that I want to see. I don't want to see fish denied on the whims of a few, or because public opinion on it has changed. As it stands, this particular fish has been denied for the given reason of it being cultivated. No further definitions have been given. On that basis, it's reasonable enough to discount pretty much every carp, right back to **** Walker's record, as being cultivated.

The whole "keep it real" and "wrong'uns" thing that's cropped up in carping circles in the last ten years or so is not definitive and is actually rather preposterous when analysed logically. People moan about imported fish strains but hold up Leney fish as true British carp. The reality being that Leney imported his fish from Holland and grew them on. There's a chance that these Dutch carp actually originated from Hungary. This is precisely what so many of the ECHO loons would rubbish if it happened now.

Is it a shame that people see reasons to grow a fish on just to threaten/beat a record? Yes, I believe it is. However, it's just as much of a shame that people see fit to change longstanding rules in an attempt to deny that fish as a record. No one involved comes out of this with any credit as far as I'm concerned.

 

[thecrow]

As I've been thinking and writing this I guess I am coming down on the side of preferring a naturally attained record

I cant see how many of our current records can be seen as having attained their weight naturally when so much of the bait that fish feed on is anything but natural, boilies and pellets being prime examples.

Do we now have to think about having different records for the same species depending on what they have been eating, it would be ridiculous I know but once this fish was refused by the BRFC it opened a very large can of worms.

Don't know if this is an up to date list of BRFC members its taken from the trusts website

Mr Mike Heylin - Chairman

Mr Chris Clark – Marine specialist
Mr Andy Nellist – Freshwater specialist
Mr David Rowe – Marine specialist
Mr Paul King - (SFSA) Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers
Mr David Craig – Ireland sea angling representative
Mr Richard Poole – Wales sea angling representative
Mr Glyn Jones – Wales game angling representative

Mr Nigel Hewlett, Scientific Advisor – Freshwater Fish - Environment Agency
Mr Oliver Crimmen, Scientific Advisor – Sea Fish - Natural History Museum
Mr Nick Simmonds - Secretary

Strange that only one of them has any qualifications for freshwater fish in fact 6 of them are concerned with sea fish.

 

[Philip]

We seem to have added a nebulous concept of merit as an angling feat over the years, people on the record list being lauded over others, especially with regards to carp.

Agreed with everything up to that bit.

Way i see it, nowadays the Carp record holder is not lauded but in fact derided more than any other.

Do agree that the whole thing is now a shambles.

The thing i also always mention when record lists and acceptance criteria come up is Salmon.
No one ever seems to question that one.

64lbs slap bang on the dot. Fancy that. I guess scales and weighing methods must have just been better back in 1922...hmmm....

 

[sam vimes]

Way i see it, nowadays the Carp record holder is not lauded but in fact derided more than any other.

I'd agree that they are subjected to far greater scrutiny than any other record holder. However, that's because there are far greater rewards for a carp record holder and so many people seem prepared to dispute and question every little aspect of a capture. Some people will never be happy with a particular capture until their own personal criteria are met. If they aren't met, they'll argue endlessly. This is entirely because some folks have got it in their heads that a record holder is somehow a better angler and, latterly, that the fish should be from a particular genetic line and provenance. They seem to want the record holder to have camped out for months on end on a particular water with a track record. Anything that's a bit leftfield, unknown angler, water, fish or anything somehow deemed artificial, is likely to be picked apart and generally rubbished. However, if a fish is accepted by the majority, the captor is going to be lauded in a way that the roach or grayling record holder never will be. It's hard to deny that the likes of Richard Walker, Chris Yates, Terry Hearn, Gary Bayes and Lee Jackson have, to some extent, reaped financial rewards on the back of being the carp record holder. I doubt that you could say similar of any other species record holders, except perhaps barbel. In that respect, I'd still suggest that it's fair to say that the carp record holder is lauded.

 

[thecrow]

64lbs slap bang on the dot. Fancy that. I guess scales and weighing methods must have just been better back in 1922...hmmm....

And in the dark which it was by the time the fish was landed

 

[john step]

What a farce. Should a record barbel be claimed from the Trent would it be disallowed because many were farmed in Notts at the EA fish farm.
Or how about the project to bring on and rear and release roach in the Hants Avon.
And as for the crucian project...well.

I always thought the records were of the largest fish, just as a matter of some interest to how big they could grow. Nothing more significant than that.

 

[Philip]

I'd agree that they are subjected to far greater scrutiny than any other record holder. However, that's because there are far greater rewards for a carp record holder and so many people seem prepared to dispute and question every little aspect of a capture. Some people will never be happy with a particular capture until their own personal criteria are met. If they aren't met, they'll argue endlessly. This is entirely because some folks have got it in their heads that a record holder is somehow a better angler and, latterly, that the fish should be from a particular genetic line and provenance. They seem to want the record holder to have camped out for months on end on a particular water with a track record. Anything that's a bit leftfield, unknown angler, water, fish or anything somehow deemed artificial, is likely to be picked apart and generally rubbished. However, if a fish is accepted by the majority, the captor is going to be lauded in a way that the roach or grayling record holder never will be. It's hard to deny that the likes of Richard Walker, Chris Yates, Terry Hearn, Gary Bayes and Lee Jackson have, to some extent, reaped financial rewards on the back of being the carp record holder. I doubt that you could say similar of any other species record holders, except perhaps barbel. In that respect, I'd still suggest that it's fair to say that the carp record holder is lauded.

I understand what your saying but I think there is also the element of people seeing some amazing home captures devalued by big imported fish. As you say the guy who has camped out for months if not years to capture one fish from a difficult venue..only to see the mags then splash over their front covers an obvious imported fish as if its due as much merit or even more simply because it weighed 4oz more.

If you look at it that way then perhaps they have a point to argue the toss and highight to all and sundry when a fish has been stocked at an artifically massive weight into a private pay puddle to simply wait its turn to be captured by whoever draws the right lottery ticket on the day.

The other thing is people focus on the Carp record but whose to say it wont happen with other species too. Perhaps it already has but no ones yet realized. I wonder what would happen if someone took one of those big Ebro Roach and stuck it in a 1 acre commericial lake ?

Bottom line, there is no perfect solution here. Either you go the way your saying and the biggest is the biggest and that’s it ! …and why not..at least that way it clean and clear and everyones on a level playing field.

Or you go the other way and try and build some sort of merit into the system it which is of course impossible and you end up with the farce you have now.

I don’t see a middle ground here unfortunatly. Not for the UK record list anyway. Its why I think the future is perhaps European or even world record lists that does away with national borders so importation does not matter anymore. Something like the IGFA but just done better and without the silly line class aspect.

---------- Post added at 21:29 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

What a farce. Should a record barbel be claimed from the Trent would it be disallowed because many were farmed in Notts at the EA fish farm

I may have my facts wrong here but that reminded me of perhaps the most farcical record decison I can ever remember which was to discount a potential record Barbel because during the landing process more than 1 person handled the rod.

Anyone recall that ? ...I think it was one of the Ouse fish..

It basically took away any aspect of the "fish" rather than the "angler" holding the record...so what if two people touched the rod..just put the record down to both people...it was still the biggest Barbel landed on rod and line at that time.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Strange that only one of them has any qualifications for freshwater fish in fact 6 of them are concerned with sea fish

I actually know Andy quite well and have to say he is knowledgeable and an excellent angler, and a previous Drennan Cup winner to boot. Andy also did a lot of the work together with Mark on the DNA analysis for fish scales, particularly Crucian Carp.

He used to be a very regular contributor here on FM before the exodus some years ago.

As for the regional members I think that they only concern themselves with regional records and only participate in those discussions. I am not 100% sure of that so maybe Mr Salter could offer some illumination on how the committee works.

 

[thecrow]

how the committee works

From what I have seen in the past it doesn't work, a claim for the chub record from a still water a few years ago comes to mind, allowing zander to be on the list but not catfish, not including the European Eel as an endangered species and having it on the list.

My point was that there was /is only one person on the committee with fresh water qualifications, most being concerned with marine fish.

This latest farce just makes a mockery of the record fish list and its as a result of those on the committee making this ridiculous ruling.