Two New Records

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Yes Ron, I saw the fish.

I have fished many times on the same stretch and have only one "2" to my name.So well done to Micheal on his splendid catch.

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay]

Thanks Nige.

And let's keep this thread ticking over if we can.

Let's try and get anglers in Britain fishing for wild fish, unknown fish and fish that have grown up eating natural food.

Let's put some real ethics back into our sport.

 

[Wooly]

Some of you guys type the most complete bollocks I have ever read. Most of you couldn't catch 2 tone as long as you've got a hole in your arse. Just because a fish gets caught a few times in a year doesn't mean it isn't an achievement. Just because a lake is small doesn't mean it is easy - try fishing Withy Pool and catching anything. The only reason you know 2 tone has been caught before is because it is such a mahoosive fish. If it had been a little roach it wouldn't be famous and nobody would know if it had been caught before.
And please stop waffling on and on about your poxy little 1 lb roach blah blah blah and how hard they are to catch - some years back whilst fishing at Willen lake in Milton Keynes I caught loads and loads of em, up to more than 2lb in weight. It wasn't hard, in fact it was positively easy.

Ron, you seem to be responsible for some of the most pompous crap going. Some sort of reverse size snobbery. I'm used to guys slagging off catching little carp, but frankly I'm just as sick of the plonkers slagging off those who want to catch big ones.

 

[Murray Rogers]

Yates Redmire record had been caught loads of times, and by the Special Few, if you lot are to be listened too.

Whats wrong with the circus then? Ron?

How many of your mates have done the fish chase thing?????

I know of a realy big Perch at the mo, I've told Wol, he will have told Dog, Dog will have told his missus that He's going missing for a while (maybe) Where's the problem???????????????????????????? This fish lives in the middle of nowhwere and is only fished for by the guys who know its ther.........

If the fish gets caught at an awesome weight ? Will we be looked at as fish chasers and Don't Count?

Over to you.

 

[Murray Rogers]

Wooly., sounds sensible, about time we had one,

 

[Jim Gibbinson]

I think there's a hint of "we're better than thee" coming from those of us who prefer to seek wild fish rather than repeat-capture named fish.

Fact is, though, we are - better that is!

We might as well just resign ourselves to the fact!

 

[Wooly]

Jim how do you define wild fish?
Fishing at Willen Lake many years ago illustrates my point. The lake was large at 50 acres plus and the fish I caught had in most cases never been caught before. The best run of fish I had was 8 2lb plus Rudd. They had I believe never been caught before, were very naive and very easy to catch and not much of a challenge - were they wild?
(I did however enjoy catching them).
I personally do not go out and target known fish, I have neither the time or the money to do it. Thats not to say I will not occasionally fish at a well known water. Recently I fished at Selby 3 lakes. All the fish in there have been caught before. If anything that makes them even more of a challenge. Often these waters are far more challenging than fishing for unknown, uncaught fish. They've seen just about all methods.

 

[Matt Brown]

Catching unknown fish is more mertious because a venue has to be located and then the fish caught.

Catching fish from a venue where the fish are known to reside is easier - every angler fishing the venue is in with a chance.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

It wasn't on this thread but Wol made a good post on a recent thread about every angler setting his own terms of enjoyment and what he got out of the sport.I agree with that.If you want to chase a big known fish and get satisfaction from it then whilst you wont find me in the queue, the best of luck.

The original post was not so much to do with the merits of the capture as to how boring it was that the two records had been broken by the same two known fish.I have to agree with that whilst not taking anything away from the capture.Just imagine the excitement if the barbel record went from a new fish from a new river.

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay]

Yes Jim, we ARE better. The last fish I ever want to persue in my life is Benson or Two Tone.

No mystery or real uncertainty you see.

It is the very fact that a "little" roach as you call it, that is not a known fish and may have not been caught before, that makes that fish superior. Those roach of Mikes are born and bred of the water, and I can assure you that such river roach are not easy to catch.

Of course I have fished a few waters - gravel pits in the South of England where 1 pound plus and even many two pound roach have been ridiculously easy to catch. But it's all about real values. I would much rather catch a 1 lb roach from a river like the Idle for example, than a 2 pounder from a dead easy water.

And the Avon at Britford is not an easy water. That's what makes those fish of Mikes such a great achievement.

I say again, I would rather catch fish like this than a thousand Two Tones!!

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay]

By the way Wooly - what's your real name?

 

[Murray Rogers]

I think there's a hint of "we're better than thee"



Accurate, and very unhealthy for all you preach too.

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay]

)

 

[Murray Rogers]

Twee!

 

[Jim Gibbinson]

I wasn't being serious when I said that those of us who preferred to pursue unknown, unnamed fish were better than those who deliberately set out to catch repeat-capture specimens. It does, however, raise a number of ethical issues. First, at what point does repeat capture become abuse? To take an extreme example, School Pool's "She" has probably been on the bank more than 200 times. Most anglers, I suspect, would regard that as unacceptable - or, not to put too fine a point on it, abuse. But what about a fish that has been caught 20 times? Or 10 times? Is that abuse? And at what point does fishing become unnacceptably synthetic? I regard many, if not most commercial fisheries as falling in the "synthetic" category; some syndicate fisheries, too. How do I define a "wild" fish? That's easy; it's a fish that has spent most of its growing life in the water from which it is caught; a fish that relies on a diet of natural food; and a fish that, all things being equal, stands a reasonable chance of living its alloted span without getting caught.

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay]

Perhaps it would be easier to list what wild fish are not.

1: Carp that are heavily stocked into commercial lakes, including F1s and other hybrids.

2: Carp that are imported from other countries.

3: Catfish that have been imported from other countries.

4: Both rainbow and brown trout that are pellet fed and reared to catchable size and then released to be caught in a water that cannot sustain them.

 

[christian tyroll]

i get much more satifaction catching one 5lb fish from a lake on one of my club tickets than i do a huge bag of carp from an easy water were all i have to do is put a bait in the water and they're queing up for it!
in the summer months i often fish this club water and its 10acres in size and hasnt been stocked since 1920 ish, probably 3acres of the lake is reed beds!
all the carp are wild carp and the biggest caught is about 15lbs, a small fish by some standeds! but these fish go like a steam train! they is never more than 4 other anglers even in the summer and it is such a great water to fish i cant see why!

it doesnt fish well in the winter but come spring it will be my favourite water again!

p.s sorry for drifting of subject

 

[Les Clark]

Jim ,just has a point of interest ,how old would you think that " she " would be by now ,i was fishing school pool in the mid 70`s and she was in there then .

 

[Wooly]

"Let's try and get anglers in Britain fishing for wild fish, unknown fish and fish that have grown up eating natural food".

Interesting thought. Would the next thread go something like this:

Nowhere to fish!
Went to my favourite river and found it to be packed out, anglers everywhere you looked. It was the same at the next water I went to. Its outrageous, fume, rant, fume, shouldn't be allowed rant, fume, rant, some 12 year old caught a 3 pound roach and complained it wasn't very big, then used it as livebait to catch a pike, rant, choke, sob.

The point I'm trying to make is this.
If you want to fish as you describe then thats fine.
If someone wants to fish a commercial puddle thats fine (it keeps them away from you and me).
If someone wants to fish somewhere inbetween the 2 then thats fine (as long as its not too many because thats where I usually fish).
If someone wants to target specific fish then thats fine if it keeps them happy.
Provided they are not doing something cruel, illegal, dangerous to others why get so worked up about it?
If you don't see a capture of a big known fish as an achievemet, ignore it.

Ps. Why do you want to know my name? Do you want to send me a Christmas card?

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay]

I certainly do not want to send you a Christmas card whoever you are.

I do get very peeved when people who come on this website with any sort of bitch, do so without the balls to reveal who they are.

What the heck are you scared of?