Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    south yorkshire
    Posts
    6,508
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default All england championship & LAA size rules

    I have recantly finnished reading a book where the auther describes the day when the old "all England Championship" was fished on the river Trent immediately after the second world war. Unless I read it wrong he says/infers that the guys from the London club/s adhered to thier size limits when taking part in the match, so, any fish that was (I think) under seven inches long was returned to the river without being wieghed. Could anyone out there say wether or not this is correct as ,if it were true, the outcome of the competition could well have been very differant.
    This is one for you guys who have a large library of angling books that lean towards match angling- I would be gratefull if anyone could provide an answer.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    metroland.....
    Posts
    7,469

    Default

    I think the limit was 9 inches and the fish over that were called goers. ie roach ,dace etc.............

    kinel thank goodness they don't apply today, otherwise there would be a few dry nets.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Azide the Stour
    Posts
    3,879

    Default

    The LAA team did adhere to their local size limits even though they did not apply on the venues concerned. Different species had different size limits and these size limits did change with time. I only fished about two size limit matches circa 1975 when as far as I can remember the size limits were 8" for roach, 9" for perch, 12" for chub and bream. There were limits for all species including bleak and gudgeon.

    Just checked one of my books: Bill Taylor - The Upper Thames 1968
    Barbel 16"
    Bleak 4"
    Bream 12"
    Carp 12"
    Chub 12"
    Dace 7"
    Gudgeon 5"
    Perch 9"
    Pike 18"
    Roach 8"
    Rudd 8"
    Tench 10"
    Trout 16"

    It's possible that 20 years earlier these limits were slightly different.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Thorpe Park
    Posts
    3,998
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Different species had different lengths. A goer roach was eight inches I thing and a dace wad 7 inches as I remember. All Efgeeco green seat-boxes had a rule running the width of the seat with the various lengths for species were recorded.

    ---------- Post added at 20:22 ---------- Previous post was at 20:21 ----------

    'thing' 'wad' ??? That's me!
    So many cormorants.... so few recipes.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Subtropical Buckinghamshire
    Posts
    24,567
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I remember Frank Guttfield telling me of a big national match he fished, not sure when, but possibly 60s, and as he was a LAA member he too stuck to the size limit rules and returned all fish below those sizes. He reckons he would have walked the match had he kept those fish in his keep net, but as it was, he came soem way down the field. Even now he says it was stupid of him, but were he found out he could have been excluded from the LAA in future.

    I also saw a LAA match about 15 years ago in Little Marlow where no one weighed in even though many had caught fish.
    "I care not what others think of what I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do! That is character!" - Theodore Roosevelt

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Barnet, S.Herts/N. London
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Eventually the roach in the Thames learned to stop growing at seven-and-three-quarter inches, and the matchmen grumbled so much that the LAA had to bring the roach limit down to 7".
    Within two years, every roach in the river was 6.75"....or so it seemed.

    ---------- Post added at 20:26 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------

    Come to think of it, I suspect what killed the size-limit rule may have been the plague of bleak that hit the Thames in the mid '70s. If you thought someone who'd caught a bleak a minute for five hours had cheated by slipping in a couple of slightly undersized ones, then 300 bleak would have to be sedulously checked until you found one of the naughty ones. No-one would have gone to the next match for fear of drawing the scales...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Thorpe Park
    Posts
    3,998
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    I thought it was an excellent rule though. It stopped immature fish being mis-handled by being poured into those death-trap wire-mesh metal trays with lids where they would shed scales by the billion... Never did get the 'any-size' match fishing, the Goer system was a much better one for the fish in my opinion.
    So many cormorants.... so few recipes.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Barnet, S.Herts/N. London
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    I think designing a better weigh-sling-thing would have been better - it'd save immature fish being unhooked far too hastily and flung back as nasty, bait-stealing timewasters, rather than handled like next year's goers...pointless to speculate, though; the old LAA might change (a teeny bit) in the face of imminent extinction, but run an experiment???
    Last edited by Alan Tyler; 25-04-2010 at 22:32. Reason: too, not to!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cranleigh, Surrey
    Posts
    4,189

    Default

    wasn't this rule largely related to the fact that in the 1940's and 50's the majority of the catch would be taken home for the pot at the end of a match ?
    Last edited by Windy; 26-04-2010 at 07:25. Reason: grammer....

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Lydney, in the Forest of Dean
    Posts
    9,147

    Default

    "I thought it was an excellent rule though. It stopped immature fish being mis-handled by being poured into those death-trap wire-mesh metal trays with lids where they would shed scales by the billion... Never did get the 'any-size' match fishing, the Goer system was a much better one for the fish in my opinion."


    Stupid rule made by stupid committees, once a fish is caught what is the difference when it is placed in a keepnet? Nobody is going to convince me that a fish measuring six and seven eighth inches is going to die as a result of being in a keepnet whereas a seven inch one will survive. Labour councils throughout the country make stupid rules like that and we mock them whereas people such as Geoff Maynard accept the same misguided rules as perfectly acceptable. Judging by his comments on how fish are weighed he is quite obviously anti match angling so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. The anti angling brigade must really love you.


    Politicians, like diapers, have to be changed frequently - and for the very same reason

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •