Roach Record or Hybrid?

[Neil Maidment]

Well the Roach record may have been beaten, or has it?

Warren (Wol) Gaunt (a fine angler of distinction and occasional contributor to FM) has landed a truly stunning fish. Some say it is a true Roach, others say not.

It's been debated within a close circle elsewhere on the internet for a while and opinion is divided, although everybody is stunned by the quality of the capture. It's now being publicly debated and will be appearing on the newspaper shelves soon.

Either way, Wol, it's a remarkable and beautiful fish, many congratulations.

New roach record? - First pictures! | Coarse Fishing News | Angling Times | Gofishing UK

Roach expert says record is '100% genuine' | Coarse Fishing News | Angling Times | Gofishing UK

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

I got a call from a friend of Wols, I think it was the day after he caught the fish. I saw the picture in the paper today, sadly it's a very poor picture, and with a picture like that, you can't tell if it's a true Roach or not, and no BRFC could say it's a record with such a photo.

With other, better pictures they have, they will get more info.

The BRFC haven't lets say, been over the moon, with the Irish fish the so called experts said was a true Roach, so i wouldn't be so sure what the outcome might be this time round.

Good luck to Wol, what ever happens.

 

[Neil Maidment]

Wols away at the moment, but I've seen the various images and they are of a truly stunning looking fish. I am definitely no expert in the realms of Roach/Rudd hybrids but my first reaction was, "Wow that is a Roach".

It seems Wol and his mate were both a little unsure at the time of capture and subsequently people like Mike T., Mark W. and Andy N. have some doubts. But a certain Doctor thinks a bit different.

I wasn't aware until recently that the BRFC have two records for Roach:

• DNA Tested - vacant, qualifying weight 4lb
• Photographic Evidence - 4lbs 04oz

 

[watatoad]

I don't know the angler, not going to make a comment on the fish, but whatever it is Congratulations on a great fish, well done.

 

[dannytaylor]

congratulations to wol, as that is a stunning fish whichever way you look at it. Agree its difficult to tell from the pic.

However the fact it comes from Holowell (long history of producing hybrids) will stack the odds against him claiming a record.

 

[dezza]

I'm just a tad worried about the position of the dorsal fin. It looks a little too far back.

I wish Wol had displayed a photo of the fish layed down flat, on an unhooking mat for example. There is far too much importance made for photos of specimen fish being held by the captor. The anal fin is partially covered up and this is also a dead give away.

But it is a great capture and couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

---------- Post added at 00:28 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 22:48 ----------

And there is something else. There is evidence from the photo of a significant abdominal keel which is partially obscured by Wol's left hand. A sure sign of a roach/rudd hybrid.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Isn't it amazing how opinions on the heritage of large 'Roach' can vary?

Whether or not it is a 'true' Roach I think it is a stunningly beautiful fish and one that any real anlger would be more than happy to have on the hook end of his line.

Well done to Wol on its capture.

 

[Alan Tyler]

"There is evidence from the photo of a significant abdominal keel which is partially obscured by Wol's left hand. "
Isn't that just an effect of the "specimen hunter's grip" to keep as much human hand out of the pic as possible?
Plus the flat lighting from the flash makes it look as if the keel runs right up to its chin!

 

[dezza]

"There is evidence from the photo of a significant abdominal keel which is partially obscured by Wol's left hand. "
Isn't that just an effect of the "specimen hunter's grip" to keep as much human hand out of the pic as possible?
Plus the flat lighting from the flash makes it look as if the keel runs right up to its chin!

That's why it's vitally important that with record fish we need photos of the fish laid flat against a contrasting surface with the fins layed out so that ray counts can be conducted accurately. Remember it's the fish we are interested in, not the angler. It's the fish that holds the record, not the angler.

 

[jack sprat]

It won't be a record unless:
A) It is claimed to be a record,
B) It is accepted by the BRFC as a record.

I can see the hint of a keel that Ron alludes to.

I'm struggling to see 100% proof of it being a roach without more and better photos. Next week's AT will be interesting!

 

[Neil Maidment]

AT have obviously so far used the standard type of image for their publication. There are other very good images (as you would expect from an angler with the experience of Wol) so I hope they get published in due course.

Jack is right, if it is claimed/submitted as a record, it will then need to be considered by the BRFC. Either way it is a truly stunning fish to behold.

 

[mickhayes]

iv'e just seen the pic for the first time, my immediate thought was that's a roach/rudd hybrid, of course i'm probably totally wrong, whatever it is it's a truly magnificent fish. Well done to the captor.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

It won't be a record unless:
A) It is claimed to be a record,
B) It is accepted by the BRFC as a record.

I can see the hint of a keel that Ron alludes to.

I'm struggling to see 100% proof of it being a roach without more and better photos. Next week's AT will be interesting!

Your right to a point, but there are many more factors also when you make a record claim.

Scales have to be checked for weight, two Witness statements, and better photo's which we have been told are around.

Well i can't see how anyone can tell from that photo if it's a true Roach or not, it's not good enough to show the details needed. The mouth doesn't look right, but thats due to the angle.

What i don't understand is the AT's printing such a poor photo, and the fact that the story isn't on the front page.

Many think the Dr got it wrong with the Irish fish, plus he couldn't wait to get out there and fish the venue himself, now that fish is more a Roach/Rudd than Wols, IMO, and I don't think many take much notice of what the Dr says anymore. I can't tell from the Photo if it's a true Roach or not, and am not going to make a call on it from that photo, nobody can.

What ever happens Wol's fish is a stunning sight to see on the bank, if there's anyone who doesn't think so, then sorry, you have no idea what fishing is all about.

 

[dezza]

Only one way to determine a true roach in my opinion and that is to get the fish dissected by experts.

Of course many will lift their hands up in horror at such a thing. But let's face it, record claims do not come all that regularly, and a large fish is most likely towards the end of its life anyway.

And it's nice to see a well executed job of taxidermy to see just what a really big roach looks like.

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

That's a very large hook you're using there Ron - I think a bit more finesse and fine tuning of your presentation if you're going to get a bite on that bait....

 

[steph mckenzie]

Would be even more of a Travesty if it was used as Live Bait for Ferox Trout ......

 

[dezza]

I'm not trying to wind anyone up, I'm just stating facts!

Ray's fish was fully authenticated and stuffed.

 

[The bad one]

Only one way to determine a true roach in my opinion and that is to get the fish dissected by experts.

Of course many will lift their hands up in horror at such a thing. But let's face it, record claims do not come all that regularly, and a large fish is most likely towards the end of its life anyway.

And it's nice to see a well executed job of taxidermy to see just what a really big roach looks like.

Wrong Ron! DNA testing will tell you whether it is or is not and the sample can be taken from the live fish, so it can swim away afterwards.
Like Ray I'm not going to make a call on it from the photo in the link, but will say it's a stunning fish and Well done Wol.

Now what puzzles me is Wol is Andy Ns mate. Andy sits on the BRFC committee. So I would have thought they have had many conversations over claims for record fish. And knowing Andy's views on DNA testing, Did Wol not take a scale sample from the fish for testing?

If he did, this debate will in the fullness of time, be an academic debate because the results will show one way or another.

 

[dezza]

You know I'd forgotten all about DNA testing.

Let's hope a sample was obtained.

 

[Neil Maidment]

DNA is the only way to prove a true Roach.

If you kill a fish for the sole purpose of true identification then, in my opinion, you're on some sort of ego trip. Fine, you might end up with the scientific proof that the carcass was once a fish of potential record proportions but that would be pointless. The BRFC will not accept carcasses as part of any claim.

Not sure if a scale was taken, or indeed if the record is being claimed, but from the start Wol and his mate have both said they had some doubts about the identity.

I think the "esteemed" Doc has just livened up the debate with his positive identification. However, I'm impressed by the restraint shown by Mike T. in his response to the article.. "anything silver with red fins" indeed. mg: