Another Dave
Well-known member
I'm blissfully unaware of today's records, as far as i'm concerned i don't need updates. Pike 41lb was it? Ruffe 3oz? I think gudgeon was 4oz.
I'm blissfully unaware of today's records, as far as i'm concerned i don't need updates. Pike 41lb was it? Ruffe 3oz? I think gudgeon was 4oz.
It's totally meaningless because of the hoops that have to be jumped through to get on it! Of course the counter argument is if there was no regulation you would have loads of false claims, however there should be a happ medium?
Anyway regarding OCFs claim about rivers I disagree totally, if a fish can grow to a certain size, it can grow to that size, the record list is just that full stop, it's not a purists list!
Rivers had stocked fish too, catching large fish is never easy
Not sure I agree with that bit. Catching large fish can be incredibly easy in the right circumstances. Whilst some "small" fish can be amazingly difficult to catch.
The fact is there are less large ones than small ones so its harder to target them specifically..
thecrow
Well-known member
Absolutely, rivers such as the Trent are still receiving stockings, other rivers such as the Severn were stocked with Barbel the record Zander came from the Severn I wonder if that walked there
of course it could have been born in the river who knows? the Ouse was stocked with Barbel as was the Wensum both have produced some massive Barbel.How can it be proved that a fish put forward as a record was not stocked at whatever size? Unless a fish is dye marked or tagged there is no way of knowing.
If only "wild fish" from rivers were to be accepted as records how does the committee know that they are?
An old fish isn't a fool, that's why he's an old fish!
thecrow
Well-known member
Many years ago when a double figure Barbel was unusual I witnessed an angler on the Royalty (the parlour ) catch a double using a Mitchell match reel, he couldn't work out how the bale arm opened so resorted to slackening the clutch and pulling line off before lowering the bait into the water. Imo he just dropped the bait on its nose without knowing what he was doing.
One things sure the water an angler fishes can have a massive effect on the size of fish they catch, its why waters and fish are kept quiet, I once caught 6 double figure Barbel up to almost 15lbs in a day I was doing nothing different to any other day on there its just angling when an angler is sometimes rewarded just for being in the right place at the right time, I have no doubt that another angler would have caught those fish had he sat where I did.
There are of course times when a water is known to hold fish of record or near record size that anglers target individual fish and its then that I would agree that they can be difficult to catch but at other times?
One things sure the water an angler fishes can have a massive effect on the size of fish they catch, its why waters and fish are kept quiet, I once caught 6 double figure Barbel up to almost 15lbs in a day I was doing nothing different to any other day on there its just angling when an angler is sometimes rewarded just for being in the right place at the right time, I have no doubt that another angler would have caught those fish had he sat where I did.
There are of course times when a water is known to hold fish of record or near record size that anglers target individual fish and its then that I would agree that they can be difficult to catch but at other times?
steve2
Well-known member
Agree that is the main reason why large fish appear more difficult to catch. But stock a fishery with a large number of large fish as in the case of many carp waters and they become easier to catch because that all that in there.
thecrow
Well-known member
Interesting that the BRFC list shows the Crucian record at 4lbs 10oz while inviting DNA tested claims starting at 4lbs 8oz.
The Roach record as 4lbs 4oz but inviting claims from 3lbs 12oz
Rudd at 4lbs 10oz while inviting DNA tested claims from 3lbs 12oz
Golden Orfe at 8lbs 5oz are they not an ornamental species?
The list is just a meaningless mess with other species showing a record weight but claims being closed as other bigger fish have been caught, I reckon it should be scrapped and started again that's if anyone would be interested.
The Roach record as 4lbs 4oz but inviting claims from 3lbs 12oz
Rudd at 4lbs 10oz while inviting DNA tested claims from 3lbs 12oz
Golden Orfe at 8lbs 5oz are they not an ornamental species?
The list is just a meaningless mess with other species showing a record weight but claims being closed as other bigger fish have been caught, I reckon it should be scrapped and started again that's if anyone would be interested.
And whenever the subject of the mess the record list is comes up I just cant help but highlight the one fish that simply sits there apparently bullet proof from any new rules, updates, changes, shakeups or anything else - the Salmon.
1922 ...64lb slap bang on the dot, weighed in the dark yet all perfectly fine.
Yep.
1922 ...64lb slap bang on the dot, weighed in the dark yet all perfectly fine.
Yep.
Keith M
Well-known member
Last edited:
O
O.C.F.Disorder
Guest
I know rivers can be stocked but it would probably be pretty hard to release a huge fish and then find it again the next day or when ever. It wouldnt be bulletproof but a lot better than some of the dodgy fish that have made that list. Hope you are all having/had a good night.
thecrow
Well-known member
Shouldnt have been allowed as she had the advantage of female pheromones that are said to attract fish
And caught by a woman too (a Miss Georgina Ballantine)
Keith
Absolutly right Keith, I was trying to avoid mentioning that in case some may jump to the totally false and ludicrously silly conclusion that was the reason it appears to be immovable from the record lists....
Last edited:
steve2
Well-known member
The same could be said for Richard Walker record carp I get the feeling from what I have read over the years that even he doubted the weight.
When you look at pictures it doesn't look that heavy. When I saw it London Zoo it was big but was it that big we will never know.
But why shouldn't we believe record weights from years ago they had less to gain from cheating.
And caught by a woman too (a Miss Georgina Ballantine)
Keith
...and on a trolled Dace, I believe
mg:mg:mg:
thecrow
Well-known member
It looked a low 30 when I saw it, perhaps it was the change of diet/not being in a natural water?
I'm just going to chuck a curve ball out because.... why not eh?
does the weight of fish actually matter that much? Do you think we would be better recording records by size rather than weight? Wouldn't that not be far less open to abuse?
does the weight of fish actually matter that much? Do you think we would be better recording records by size rather than weight? Wouldn't that not be far less open to abuse?