Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 82
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Azide the Stour
    Posts
    3,874

    Default

    Andy Nellist and I have kicked this around for a while. We believe that change is required. Is there anything we haven't considered? Have we gone far enough? Or too far?

  2. #2
    Gerald Fish Guest

    Default

    A complex article!
    In this day and age of exotic fish species, then DNA testing should be a must.
    Perhaps a second list of records should be considered for hybrid fish where weight alone wil doand a pickie.
    Then you have the problem of calibration for weigh scales. Also what was the fish weighed in? Weigh slings etc, wet or semi dry?

  3. #3

    Default

    why is a wet or semi dry weigh sling an issue??surely as long as its not dripping water,you zero your scales before weighing the fish,as for calibration,you can get this done at your local weights and measures office for a few quid.personally.i think that the carp fishing scene is a joke,with all the imports etc being stocked into small pools,theyve suspended the catfish record so why not the carp record.i look at a 25lb plus river carp as a far better achievement than catching a foreign import of xlbs from a two acre hole in the ground.carp fishing has become a commercial joke,which is why i dont bother with it anymore.im glad that eel anglers havnt got the "big at all cost" mentality,otherwise we`d be fishing for stockies from new zealand.

  4. #4
    Warren 'Hatrick' (Wol) Gaunt Guest

    Default

    You might wanna buy the papers next week!!!!!!!!!!

  5. #5
    Ron Troversial Clay Guest

    Default

    Quite a well balanced article with some very good points. DNA testing for such species as rudd, roach and Crucians is also important.

    On the subject of seatrout. We all know that these fish are in fact brown trout that run to sea. They are intrinsically the same species. That is a very difficult one indeed.

    I often wonder if we are all totally wrong when it comes to records of defined species. How defined should we be. Fish species have evolved over millions of years and are still evolving. Is the change in world climates and the actions of human agencies modifying these fish even further?

    How do you define a true roach? = if there was any such thing in the first place.

    If you study the evolution of the species you will see what I mean.

    But we as anglers should by now know what a good capture is. It should not be judged on weight alone. A specimen fish is what is should be, an adult specimen of its species, perfect in fin and scale.

    Some of the heaviest fish I have caught and seen caught by others in my life cannot be equated to a true specimen.

    They have been similar to the human freaks in a circus side show or The Guinness Book of Records.

  6. #6
    Wolfman Woody Guest

    Default

    For a start I support you in this Andy, captures in Northern Ireland should be removed from the BRFC list because NI is not a part of Great Britain and this is the BRITISH list. Being a separate island as well, the evolution of species could have been quite different over there as has been proved in some species of bird and insect in the Hawaiian chain.

    Rather than increasing the representation of the BRFC why not reduce it to simply those with the scientific knowledge. Surely the reason it takes so long is in the BRFC title - COMMITTEE.

    Remember - "Committees are formed to take minutes and waste hours." - "The more urgent the need for a decision, the less apparent becomes the identity of the decision maker." - "The more complex the idea or technology, the more simple minded is the opposition." - "By making things absolutely clear, people will become more confused."

  7. #7
    Wolfman Woody Guest

    Default

    Confusing myself now - for Andy read "Mark and Andy"


    or Andy and Amos

    or ?????

  8. #8
    Big Rik Guest

    Default

    yes Ron, true enough, a specimen is a specimen, which should be judged on other factors, but we are looking at a 'record' of the highest weight of a certain fish, not whether it's a specimen or not.

    Highest recorded weights should be noted, but they should be correct.
    The DNA profiles should be benchmarked, all record fish should be retained and a representative from the BRFC should attend and take a sample (swab, scale etc).
    With the proliferation of mobile phones, then everybody should be able to get hold of a contact somehow.
    The benchmarking should be completed by a noted and professional source
    (not Alwyn 'it's a crucian, no it's a goldfish, no it's a crucian, oh maybe it's a hybrid' Wheeler)
    and future fish should be merited against those benchmarks.

    Sounds easy enough, but does anybody in power actually want the change?
    Do the majority of anglers actually care about record fish?

    A vote on here, of mostly dedicated and specialist anglers of adding 10 pence to the rod licence to fund this would probably only just get a majority vote.
    Add in the hundreds of thousands of puddle fishers and occasional anglers, who aren't effected by this, then the answer would be a resounding no.


  9. #9
    Ron Troversial Clay Guest

    Default

    You are right of course Rik. A record fish is not necessarily a specimen fish, although a few records have been true specimens.

    I once caught a 7lb Vaal River Mudfish one of the Labeo species of Africa. It was a record I was told some time later.

    But in those days you had to present the actual fish - dead - to the committee that verified such records. You also had to present the actual rig or hook and hook length you had caught this fish as well as a sworn affidavit from a lawyer at the time. I had only one witness and that was my wife, and direct relations were not allowed. It was a hell of a thing and would cost you quite a lot of money to get this done.

    I returned the fish, knowing it was a good one and that will do for me.

    Of course I would be pleased if I ever caught a record fish. What angler wouldn't. But such fish should not be deified.

    Many records in the past have been blind strokes of luck taken by some very poor anglers.

    Yet I do feel we should have a record fish committee, from the biological aspect alone. And maybe they should also record fish that were not taken on rod and line.

  10. #10
    Ron Troversial Clay Guest

    Default

    If you want to break a record and win a large amount of money for doing so anywhere in the world, the ultimate prize is the Large Mouth Bass.

    The current record was caught in 1932 in Georgia - Montgomery Lake by a 20 year old at the time by the name of George Perry. It was caught on a Plug.

    It weighed 221/4 lbs.

    There is some evidence of a bigger fish being taken my a woman quite recently of 221/2 lbs, but she returned the fish.

    A prize of one million USD is on offer for the angler to beat George Perry's fish, caught anywhere in the world.

    Apart from the American Deep South, there are some mighty Large Mouth Bass to be found in reservoirs along the KwaZulu Natal coastal area. Fish of up to 18lbs have been taken. Such an incentive would make me, if I was younger, have a try. I know of waters down there that have some monsters in them.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •