What's all the fuss about a big carp?

[Cliff Hatton]

By Martin Salter

Why all the fuss about this great big carp?

I see it didn’t take long for the recent story about the new British Record carp and the so called online death threats to the lucky captor Tom Docherty to be twisted out of all proportion by our wonderful tabloid media and to be pinged around the world.

Within 24 hours I had requests from colleagues in Australia to explain what on earth was going on. The Aussies by and large hate carp, quite unreasonably in my view, and are trying to resist the spread of this non-native species which they blame for damaging both the habitat and recruitment of their indigenous fish. As a consequence, they think it beyond parody that British anglers could get worked up over something they consider to be nothing more than a pest which is only fit for garden fertiliser.

Now whilst I’m not by any means a dyed in the wool carp angler I do enjoy catching them from time to time as they look good and pull hard. This season I’ve spent some enjoyable time catching fish well into double figures off the surface and by float fishing in the margins. A few years ago I spent some time targeting carp in my local River Thames which was challenging but fun. I’ve even been on the occasional carping holiday abroad and was lucky enough to land one or two whackers including a brace of French fifty pounders.

So I have huge respect for those dedicated guys who are prepared to spend them time trying crack hard waters for big carp that have seen it all before. Of course, it’s a bit bonkers that certain fish get given names as if they were pet cats but we all know that while smaller carp can be almost suicidal in their desire to be captured there are plenty of bigger, wiser specimens swimming around in our waters that are the very opposite of pet fish.

Martin doesn’t claim to be a ‘dyed in the wool carper’ but he does enjoy catching them from rivers like this lovely common carp from the Soane in France

The average Aussie angler wouldn’t believe the lengths we have to go to persuade these wily creatures to even pick up a bait. Consequently, there are carp fishers who are up there with the finest anglers I know and who could catch fish anywhere. And there are others who are just mono species specialists who only know how to fish one way – but what’s new about that? I’ve met plenty of fly fisherman who wouldn’t know one end of a stick float or fixed spool reel from the other and vice versa.

Like all branches of our sport carp fishing is not to everyone’s taste and it does have its critics but here at the Angling Trust we remain enthusiastic advocates for both carp and those who choose to fish for them. We have spent a fair bit of time successfully lobbying the Environment Agency so that carp anglers can benefit from the new rules allowing a three rod licence and we have secured increases in funding for otter proof fencing to protect fisheries at risk from predation. Only last week we were delighted to announce a new tranche of Angling Trust Ambassadors including Bev Clifford, the owner of Carp Talk magazine and the TV star and carp enthusiast Scott Maslen. Our ranks were recently boosted with the appointment of Carp Team England manager Rob Hughes as one of our Angling Promotion Officers and we are working on finding new ways to involve carpers in the work of the Angling Trust.

Rob Hughes, Manager of Carp Team England, now works at the Angling Trust

Carp Talk’s Bev Clifford has recently come on board as an Angling Trust Ambassador

But I digress.

There is no doubt young Tom Docherty landed the fish of his dreams when a new record carp weighing 69lb 13ozs finally rolled over his outstretched landing net at the prestige Avenue Fishery run by respected carp enthusiast Rob Hales in the beautiful English county of Shropshire. I wanted to congratulate Tom on a great fish and Rob on creating a great fishery and that really should have been the end of it. Sadly, we now live in the internet age that has enabled the sad, bad and mad to become overnight journalists and commentators. Sadder still is the fact that recreational fishing, that most relaxing and natural of all pursuits, is by no means immune from the outpouring of bile and vitriol that is all too often a feature of social media.

Having spent over half of the 25 years I served as an elected representative in the UK in an web free environment I can tell you I was glad to get out of it in 2010 and leave the internet trolls behind. Our recent poisonous debate over Brexit was an unedifying spectacle in general, particularly so online, where the levels of naked racism plumbed new depths. So the point I’m making here is that carp fishing, like any activity enjoyed by large numbers of people, has its fair share of maladjusted followers who feel empowered by the platform, and anonymity, that social media provides.

Apparently, the charge sheet against Tom and his fish included claims that it was imported from abroad and stocked in a manmade puddle “not much bigger than a swimming pool” so it could be easily captured as new British record fish. The truth is obviously, somewhat different.
The Avenue is one of a number of specialist carp fisheries run by Rob Hales and is far from a puddle. Far from being a swimming pool it is a rich, 17th century estate lake of over ten acres in which fish thrive and prosper. Rob deliberately grows on fish he has selected for stocking in nearby reservoir and ensures that only the fittest and the best are stocked into his waters. He uses the offspring from the fastest growing and healthiest fish to ensure that the best possible genetic lineage is maintained in his fisheries. And what on earth is wrong with that? Stocked fisheries exist all over the world and are an important angling resource.

The Aussies have stocked barramundi into their water supply dams where they’ve grown to trophy sizes and provided great sport. In the USA largemouth bass are regularly stocked to supplement local recruitment and here in the UK most of our stillwater fisheries have received some form of stocking at some time in their history. To object to the capture of a fish just because once upon a time it was stocked from somewhere else is to object to the basis of a fair amount of what we do and enjoy as anglers.
Although, it was exaggerated out of all proportion there was a bit of jealousy and unpleasantness around on social media but as far as I’m aware the ‘death threats’ are not being taken seriously by either Tom, Rob, the police or anyone else who can hold a pencil the right way up. I’m afraid they are the product of the age in which we live and if you look hard enough on Facebook or in the unmoderated comments section of most major publications you will find the same trolls posting stuff online that they would never dream of saying to anyone’s face.

I hope Tom’s fish is accepted as a new British record carp and that he carries on enjoying his fishing just as much as he did before all this kerfuffle sprang up. As for the trolls and keyboard warriors – well I’ve always found the delete button a more than useful tool in these circumstances.

 

[nogoodboyo]

Hi Martin.
Can you have a quick word with the BRFC.
They're still claiming the British record carp was caught by Dean Fletcher and ratified in January of this year.
And I've just noticed that the Angling Trust last updated its list of record fish in Dec 2015.
Keep up the good work.

 

[john step]

Nice well balanced article unlike the unbalanced twaddle on social media.

 

[no-one in particular]

Nice article, gives a better prospective of this capture. An amazing fish.
Martin also raises the question of social media, it can be unsociable media, once you put yourself on it you are open to abuse because there is not enough control over it. But how do you control it, millions of tweets, blogs, Facebook entries everyday. It would be impossible to ever stop it and where are the lines to be drawn? What is freedom of speech/expression and what is unacceptable censorship? Obviously any threat of violence is illegal and should be dealt with but then Martin mentions Brexit and racism and then it gets very difficult to establish a line. As indeed does general abuse, were do you start, what is acceptable, is it criticism or abuse? Is it barracking or insult. Is it freedom of speech/expression or abuse? Does a smiley make the intention of the writer clear or did it still hurt someones feelings? I have my own lines drawn but would it be right to expect them to be universal for everyone else just because I think my line drawn is the right one?
Martin is an ex MP, a representative of an organization that not everyone agrees with its polices, they will sometimes not like his views be they political or angling trust related. Where's the line Martin draws and concludes that its personal or not? And is his line the same line others will draw. Its the same dilemma for everyone as long as people have views and different ways of expressing them and that will probably be forever.
I see the captor of this fish has been unaffected by the abuse and that's the best thing about it, a very big good luck to him.

 

[martinsalter]

Good points Mark. I gues we have to rely on the law on the land to deal with libel, threats, hate crimes etc that are perpetuated online in the same way as those that occur elsewhere..

 

[Peter Jacobs]

It would be impossible to ever stop it and where are the lines to be drawn? What is freedom of speech/expression and what is unacceptable censorship? Obviously any threat of violence is illegal and should be dealt with but then Martin mentions Brexit and racism and then it gets very difficult to establish a line.

As a general statement that is true, however, all it really would take would be a few high profile cases where wholly onerous sentences were passed as an example to anyone else perpetuating a similar offence.

The advent of (anti) social media has seemingly empowered an entire sub-species of keyboard warrior cowards who can spread their malcontent, racist and nationalistic views far and wide, without fear prosecution.

The simple answer should be a moderated environment, but I agree, with the vastness of the Twitter-sphere and Facebook it is just impossible.

There is always the "report" function on FB and that does seem to get decent results for the worst offenders.

 

[no-one in particular]

A few high profile cases would help Peter, no doubt. I saw a program though where a very bad case of vile on line abuse was investigated and they would not prosecute because there was not enough abuse!! They considered it was not enough to stand up in court because it would be argued and deemed "opinion" only!!! That's the problem I was making, when its clearly illegal, threats of violence etc, the evidence in black and white no problem but the other stuff depends on what line is drawn and who draws it. And with a good lawyer defending it would be hard to win a case.
I think we have a long way to go.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

The bar needs to be set very high - very high indeed - for posts / tweets to be legally deemed 'offensive'.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The bar needs to be set very high - very high indeed - for posts / tweets to be legally deemed 'offensive'.

The bar was set some time ago both by the EU (article 10 of the ECHR) and by UK Law in several statutes that criminalise hate speech with penalties as fines or imprisonment, or both.

The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, or abusive, and which targets a person on account of disability, ethnic or national origin, nationality (including citizenship), race, religion, sexual orientation, or skin colour.

What needs to be done, (and a lot more often) is for the existing laws to be upheld and more people taken to court to answer for their hateful actions.

 

[laguna]

All these vile spouter's have to do to evade justice is to claim 'illiterate', the evidence is everywhere!

Anyway, super capture for the lad. :w

 

[Roto Fryer]

Thew guy who caught the fish is allegedly a nice guy and an OK angler: he should under no circumstances be subjected for abuse for enjoying his fishing as we all have our own ideas.
I have an alternative view on the fish and the fish alone. The fish was imported and stocked at a higher weight than it was caught at: common knowledge in France! This being the case it should, under no circumstances, be considered as a British record carp. In my opinion only fish grown on from fingerlings should/could be considered "British" and not those imported at a high weight.
You can now see why emotions have unfortunately got the better of some for what is only a fish and one which will never be the British record.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Firstly, its nice to se you back Roto; its been a while

While we all have out own thoughts on what constitutes a record fish in the UK surely it is only the BRCF Rules that will dictate whether or not this fish is eligible?

However, and as I read the current rules I see nothing to prevent this fish from full and proper consideration.

 

[Frothey]

Israeli/Bulgarian cross, imported at 30ish and fed in a pond. Stocked at 70 odd and has been caught at least 3 times since.
IT is the record for the biggest carp caught, but we need to do away with the carp record like we have with catfish, trout, etc.
Most of the previous records were imports, but had grown on in situ (or at least before being moved from another lake) and caught at lower weights.

 

[Roto Fryer]

39+ according to Anglers mail but bigger according to my sources . fish for these fish if its your thing as there is nothing wrong in going for legal fish:it's not my cup of tea but i wont lose any sleep over it. only Thai fish for me nowadays. over 10 years living here now

 

[sam vimes]

It's a big fish, the biggest of its species caught on rod and line in the UK. THE END.

Unfortunately, that's not the end. Many people want to know, where, how, by who, what bait, what gear? etc etc. People will be gearing up, or have already geared up, to make money out of the capture. From the owner of the lake to the bait manufacturer, and many points between, they'll all be happy and quids in, if they play the game right.

If the angling world stopped giving records greater significance than they really should have, there wouldn't be an issue. An angler that catches a record isn't necessarily even a good angler, let alone a great one. Being a record size doesn't mean that a fish is naturally bred fish of huge pedigree.
There's far too much kudos attached to both fish and captor when it comes to record fish.

When it comes to carp, the reality is that most of those that have held the record are imports. Even those held up as ideals are nothing of the sort. Leney fish, aka Galicians, were imported from Holland and farmed. Other than not being stocked at huge sizes, Clarissa/Ravioli and The Bishop were no less imported than the fish currently causing controversy.

However, the stocked/imported issue isn't restricted to carp. There's a fair chance that the bulk of our coarse fish records are made up of fish reared in hatcheries and then stocked. At best they might be the progeny of such fish. The truth is that the southern rivers, that have held the barbel record for years now, and the bulk of the rivers capable of threatening that record, wouldn't even hold barbel were it not for unnatural stockings.

Keep things simple and give big fish no greater significance than them being the biggest of their species caught on rod and line. Make things more convoluted and it leaves some huge cans of worms that may have to be opened.

 

[Philip]

Perhaps the only real solution is to move away from the idea of a British record and towards the idea of European or even global records for species....something like the IGFA but just done better.

 

[no-one in particular]

I agree with Sam on this, if its the biggest carp caught on rod and line in the UK, and it fulfills all the rules then that's all there is to it. Pretty pointless trying to discriminate between this carp and that carp given the complexity of it all these days.

Same for all species pretty much I would think.

I like a British Record list as well, something to judge all fish by; it wouldn't be the same without one.
It may not necessarily be an indication of skill etc but that's not the important thing; any record caught is still a remarkable event and should be recorded.

 

[Roto Fryer]

a fish "manufactured" in unnatural circumstances just to be the biggest fish should never be considered a record. if we take that concept to extremes sewing weights inside the fish may become acceptable. As an angling experience, however, it is fine for those who get off on that sort of thing. for me its the venue and ambiance that does it!. I remember going to places , years ago, on the big fish circuit and some of them were boring holes lacking ambiance but full of wannabe's. Not my scene at all. So in Roto's idea of fishing size means very little

 

[no-one in particular]

a fish "manufactured" in unnatural circumstances just to be the biggest fish should never be considered a record. if we take that concept to extremes sewing weights inside the fish may become acceptable. As an angling experience, however, it is fine for those who get off on that sort of thing. for me its the venue and ambiance that does it!. I remember going to places , years ago, on the big fish circuit and some of them were boring holes lacking ambiance but full of wannabe's. Not my scene at all. So in Roto's idea of fishing size means very little

It doesn't me in most circumstances but we still need a record list provided by an independent body with rules. We can either accept their admissions or not as individuals, nothing wrong with that but it should be up to them to decide on an official record. I am sure you weigh fish or estimate their weight and tell others whether it was a good fish or poor fish by this standard. It would never do me to say I caught 5 roach today and forget to mention two of them where 3lbs unless there was no record list to judge them by.
With carp especially it would be a nightmare to judge fish on their origins, birth date, strain etc. As much as I would like every record to be purely wild and British, untainted by human hand in any way, I am afraid we are where we are and nothing can change that now. But no record list, it would all be a bit of a mess. people would be popping up all over the place saying they caught a 4lb+ roach, a 25lb barbel and so on.

 

[steve2]

There is nothing that can stop anyone growing on any species of fish to record size and putting it in a small pond and catching it’s what happen to the game fish records. They were then put onto a separate list of wild and cultivated may it will happen to carp in the future.
Hopefully not, but carp catching as become so artificial.