Did they really catch what they say they did

I,ve read numerous angling books over the years by differant authers and there are times when I question if they or their friends really caught the fish they claimed they did.
Back in the late nineteenth century anglers were claiming that they had over two hundred barbel in a weekend in individual catches.
I dont dispute that they did indeed catch some big bags but to say a hundred in a day is a bit much.
Maybe if they were very very small fish that could be taken out quickly then maybe but if the fish had any size to them then I cant go along with the claim. mg::wh

It is strange because I catch loads of near record fish when I'm fishing alone, but whenever friends are with me I blank.

Spiders has broken more coarse records than there are listings, all when he's alone....

It does make you think though because when people were moanign about poor catches on the Thames about 6 years back, someone turned up an old match report from 1905 or 1906 of a 100 pegger and the winning weight was a single roach of a few ounces and about 96 of them blanked.

One chap I met on the bank of a pool last year said that one day he'd caught 37 smallish carp of floating bread. Now 37 is a fairly precise figure, had he said "about 35" or even "40 or so" I'd have been convinced. Was he carving notches in his cork handle for every fish he caught???

So I do have to agree with you and there are some today (not just me) that will perhaps do that, invent.

What happened to John Cadd, I remember that it had been claimed a few years ago, that he had exaggerated his catches.

Anyone remember, or know of the outcome ???

In my opinion, some did and some didn't.

Certainly in some cases large bags of barbel were taken but I guess these catches were the sum total of a number of men fishing together. JW Martin is I think blameless in this field. I believe he really did catch the numbers of barbel he mentions. He didn't get the nickname "Trent Otter" for nothing.

But in those days the dead fish were laid out in the grounds of a nearby holstelry and sold at silly prices to those who wanted them. Often the fish were given away and this attracted the very poor, of which there were quite a few in Victorian times.

Most of the Trent barbel caught then were quite small compared with what we catch today. A 2 to 3 pound fish was about the average and a 6 pounder a monster.

However based on what I have read, the shoals were huge.

Further to the above, did Andy Little say that some of his captures were'nt as big as claimed, or is it my memory playing it's tricks again.

Merv Harrison said:

What happened to John Cadd, I remember that it had been claimed a few years ago, that he had exaggerated his catches.

Anyone remember, or know of the outcome ???
__________________

Click to expand...

Strange you mention JC I was only thinking of him yesterday and how he just seems to have stopped appearing in the angling press.
I had heard there was some ???????? s about him but dont know what it was so I'll just put that down to the rumour mongers.
He certainly put a lot of Hanpshire chub on the bank tho.

---------- Post added at 14:28 ---------- Previous post was at 14:11 ----------

Ron The Hat Clay said:

In my opinion, some did and some didn't.

Certainly in some cases large bags of barbel were taken but I guess these catches were the sum total of a number of men fishing together. JW Martin is I think blameless in this field. I believe he really did catch the numbers of barbel he mentions. He didn't get the nickname "Trent Otter" for nothing.

But in those days the dead fish were laid out in the grounds of a nearby holstelry and sold at silly prices to those who wanted them. Often the fish were given away and this attracted the very poor, of which there were quite a few in Victorian times.

Most of the Trent barbel caught then were quite small compared with what we catch today. A 2 to 3 pound fish was about the average and a 6 pounder a monster.

However based on what I have read, the shoals were huge.

Click to expand...

One of the books I own is by the "Otter" and yes- it was some of his referances to catches on the Trent that made me wonder. I love the guy and his writings, they have always been great to read and I have fished along his Trent path most of my life. But I cant get my head around the numbers claimed. They just dont add up-- even with modern tackle, baits and the like. I've had many a large catch of barbel off the river and , if you take a fifteen minute turn around for each fish (a very conservative allowance), cast, trot, hook, play, land, return, bait up,then ten fish x fifteen = 150 mins or 2.5 hrs. Twenty fish = 5hrs. forty =10hours by which time youre knackered and the "days session" is over but you need a twenty five hour day with no sleep to get to the numbers claimed. One hundred in a day-- two hundred in a weekend? even small ones . Sorry it just doesnt add up.

The original Dorset Stour barbel stocking is said to have come from the Thames in 1899. the then owner of that part of the Stour (Iford downstream), a Henry Newlyn "commissioned" a T. W. Gomm to arrange it.

Gomm and "Otter" Hones, a Thames professional (popular nick name!), caught 70+ barbel (2lb - 4lb) over two days from Staines and transported them to Iford Bridge. The exercise was repeated in 1910.

Those barbel found their way downstream and then upstream on the Avon into the Royalty. Records suggest the first Royalty barbel was 6lb and caught in 1911.

(Peter Wheat 1977)

The rest, as they say, is history.

Big catches, in terms of numbers, were fairly frequent in the good old days from the Top Compound on the Royalty. Usually shared between 2 or 3 anglers using several gallons of maggot, the barbel really did queue up and the anglers totally knackered by the end of it!

The biggest Trent Catch I ever had was 18 barbel over 2 days in 2001. I took 11 on the Saturday and 7 on the Sunday. I could have caught more but I was knackered. I packed and came home at Midday on the Sunday, badly in need of sleep.

They were fish of between 4 and 9 lbs and I agree that to catch 100 barbel in a day is hard to believe.

But if they did, they were probably small fish and were swung into the boat.

My best ever catch of Barbel was twenty three fish using one rod only in the floods of 07. I only used slightly less than a tin of luncheon meat. My pb barbel of 15-05 was included. They all came in daylight hours and they were really having it big style.
Late last year I had another big catch of barbel one day that consisted of twenty one fish-- all in the upper singles low double size bracket, they were all taken on float tackle using maggot as bait.
Believe me you,re really tired after a session like that so 100/200 barbel in a session is somewhat exagerated even if they were small ones it would still be a bite a cast which seems unlikely.
Take trotting for silver fish such as roach- I still do plenty on the Trent, the stamp of fish with, say, hemp and tare in the warmer monthes is around five to a pound-- I maintian that forty fish is somewhere in the region of 8lbs or so give or take.
Twenty pounds consists of about a hundred fish- again give or take some. Catching that many fish is not impossible but not the norm, 8/15lbs being a more reasonable expectation. On the very rare occasion that Ive had up to thirty lbs of silver fish you're at it the whole time but you still have runs thro where you dont get a bite , times you miss one and times you drop one. That would mean taking a hundred and fifty fish --maybe less if the stamp is above average, as I say your arms are like a windmill and you have the advantage of a fixed spool reel which those old boys didnt- using those old wooden starbacks was akin to walking backwards where speed was concerned.
No, I think some of the catches mentioned in some of the old anglers books were all in the mind, certainly not in their keepnets.
.

Lord Paul of Sheffield said:

I think it's most likely that all anglers have exagirated their catch either numbers or size at some point

Click to expand...

Were you thinkling of anyone in particular, hint .....

Jeff Woodhouse said:

Were you thinkling of anyone in particular, hint .....

Click to expand...

Surely not!

Now come on....I'll not have a word said against the Dalai Spiders and his amazing wrist mounted scales. The man is a legend and beyond reproach.

Or reperch for that matter.

And Spiders weighs all his fish "on the bounce".

Ron The Hat Clay said:

The biggest Trent Catch I ever had was 18 barbel over 2 days in 2001. I took 11 on the Saturday and 7 on the Sunday. I could have caught more but I was knackered. I packed and came home at Midday on the Sunday, badly in need of sleep. They were fish of between 4 and 9 lbs and I agree that to catch 100 barbel in a day is hard to believe.

Click to expand...

I had 30 in exactly 5 hours once using 1 rod so I think it is possible...

Having had two or three red letter days on Trent barbel, I can honestly say that I doubt that I'd want to catch too many more than thirty in a day (fishing one rod). I've no doubt that I'd enjoy trying, but catching twenty(ish) in a day leaves you utterly knackered. Elated and grinning like a fool, but knackered all the same. Fifty, maybe sixty, in a day is just about feasible but you'd not want to drive home after it.

Jeff Woodhouse said:

Were you thinkling of anyone in particular, hint .....

Click to expand...

?????????????????????????????

---------- Post added at 23:20 ---------- Previous post was at 23:19 ----------

dangermouse said:

Surely not!

Click to expand...

?????????????????????????????????

---------- Post added at 23:21 ---------- Previous post was at 23:20 ----------

S-Kippy said:

Now come on....I'll not have a word said against the Dalai Spiders and his amazing wrist mounted scales. The man is a legend and beyond reproach.

Or reperch for that matter.

Click to expand...

??????????????????????????????

---------- Post added at 23:21 ---------- Previous post was at 23:21 ----------

Ron The Hat Clay said:

And Spiders weighs all his fish "on the bounce".

Click to expand...

?????????????????????????????????



I have very respected witness's for all my catches of big fish, only yesterday i found my scales to be underweighing, not overweighing.
Anyway it's to late for apologies now, I'm deeply hurt, these accusations from so called mates, your just jealous.
I have had 18 barbel in 7 hours on the Dove, ranging from 5lb upto 27lb, it does get a little boring, I packed up and went home

Why so confused Spidey?

I was just as shocked as you, hence the

Spiders do your dial scales look like Jeremy Clarksons rev counter at times ?

dangermouse said:

Why so confused Spidey?

Click to expand...

???????????????????

---------- Post added at 23:30 ---------- Previous post was at 23:30 ----------

beerweasel said:

Spiders do your dial scales look like Jeremy Clarksons rev counter at times ?

Click to expand...

Pair of risoles