theartist
Well-known member
Many years ago on a Notts gravel pit I had a rather large Crucian carp on sweetcorn, it went a little over four lbs. the record at that time if I remember was a fish from a water near Kings Lynn that was five lbs ten ounces.
I did give the story to ATs where it was mentioned a week or two later.
The following year two things happened, one was the same fish was caught by a matchman (well done to him) and two- the record fish was thrown out as it was found to be a big brown goldfish and ATs asked that Crucians of four lbs and over would be accepted for consideration for a new record.
I never enquired if my fish would be considered retrospectively , I as just happy to know what I'd caught and after all it was also caught by the match angler some time later .
Would I have claimed it if the record then was, say 3-15 or 4-0 lb?
Hand on heart-- yes!
Would many of us honestly claim such a record? I would, records are history and it's more for the fish as a species sometimes, to record weights and progress is history, I'd love the Gudgeon record more than any other for this reason. How many of us know the rough record weight of a species yet can't recall who caught it? That's how it should be
Yet I'd be really hesitant about a Barbel or Carp claim. Why? Because of the reaction you get regarding these species, could it be the circus is more on social media than on the bank?
Last edited: