Keith M
Well-known member
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?
I personally think that would just be too much faffing about and cause even more confusion as a fish with a shorter but much thicker set body (in depth and width) could actually be a bigger fish than one with a longer but much thinner body. so which fish would be classed as being bigger if weight wasn’t taken as a guide?
As as an example there are some strains of Carp that are known to have much deeper bodies than other strains out there and this isn’t always because of being over fed, they just have different shaped bodies and it isn’t always just because they are just fat buckets or full of spawn.
I think that fish records are just a way of assessing the maximum sizes that fish can attain in our waters and some people seem to take them too literally and far too seriously.
Keith
Last edited: