British Record Fish

GrahamM · Nov 2, 2000

Are the BRFC right to decide not to accept any more claims for the wels catfish?

What about the genuine wels cats that have been, or will be, reared in British waters to exceed the present record?

Wouldn't it have been better to, at least, consider claims and either accept or reject at the time of the claim? Surely the BRFC know, as do most experienced anglers, where the (recent) foreign imports are planted.

Philip Inzani · Nov 2, 2000

This is becoming a joke! I mean, what happens when an imported Carp beats the current record...and it will eventually. Are they going to close the list to Carp as well ? The other thing I was really surprised about was for the Barbel and the "handling of the rod by a second angler" ....Does it matter?

As far as I am concerened the 17.10 is the biggest Barbel caught on rod and line in the UK. If they have problems with two anglers handling the rod then credit the record to both of them!

What a laugh.

GrahamM · Nov 2, 2000

I'm inclined to agree with your sentiments Philip. I thought records were there to record fish for historic purposes, not to pour acclaim on the captor. The fact that he handed the rod to someone else while he freed the fish from a snag is something that he should have been praised for rather than penalised.

It's the fish that matters primarily, not the captor, and he acted with that in mind. He could just as easily have placed the rod in a rest while he freed the fish and took a chance.

DAVE COOPER · Nov 2, 2000

I happen to agree with the committee as far as the catfish is concerned. They hit the nail on the head when they say 'not in the spirit'. The record list should be about capturing 'native' fish, not 'lets import huge fish, catch them and claim a record'.

I know there will be a challenge as to what constitutes a 'native' fish, but a definition could be made. However in the current climate the unscrupulous few would still break the rules through illegal stocking. By not accepting claims the committee will hopefully deflect interest away from stocking big cats until the situation stabilises and they feel they can open the record up again to genuine contenders.

DAVE COOPER · Nov 2, 2000

Rejecting the barbel record could be considered a bit petty, but the BRFC do publish the rules and conditions of capture. In the case of Trevor Wilson, he knew he had breached the rules, but with good reason, namely the well being of the fish. Wasn't it in the 70's a rival list sprung up to recognise fish that didn't make the 'official' list because of minor rule breaches? Whatever happened to that?

Carp Angler · Nov 2, 2000

Because most people accepted the unofficial list, the two lists merged and became the current BRFC.

They'll probably change the rules again, they had to change the one about the carcass of the fish being available for inspection.

They'll eventually get with the times.
I hope they apply the sames rules to the carp as they do to the cat.

Keep it real and keep it British.

DAVE COOPER · Nov 3, 2000

Thanks Carp. I stopped reading the angling press in the eighties (can't remember why - probably too mean to buy the papers) and missed the merging.

I'm not that interested in records anyway, only my own. I much prefer to know venue records as a benchmark for the quality of fish that I am catching. I know when to move on to somewhere else then, even if it's to catch smaller fish. It's performing consistently on a venue that counts more than anything for me.

Jon Moores · Nov 6, 2000

Phillip wrote

This is becoming a joke! I mean, what happens when an imported Carp beats the current record...and it will eventually.

Rumour has it that this has already happened, with no claim made due to an allegedly suspect origin. The carp and catfish records will end up just like the trout records did, an absolute nonsense.

Philip Inzani · Nov 7, 2000

What I find really really annoying is that the committee MUST be aware that this is an issue waiting to happen. Why dont they decide on a course of action NOW and ask anglers what they think instead of waiting until after the event?

My own suggestions are two fold. First have a split list, import and home bred (definition of home bred will need to be defined).

Second suggestion is forget all that and simply say the biggest fish is the biggest fish regardless of where it came from and where it is now.

David Preston · Nov 8, 2000

Trouble with two lists is that someone will try to pass off an import as a native - which could already have happened. We all now of one or two southern waters where all the big carp have Clouseau accents.

I go along with having the one list, but it must be proved that any fish submitted as a claim must have been stocked legally, and have spent at least, say, five years in this country.

After all, the Severn has held the barbel record, and they were introduced illegally. And there's no such thing as a truly native carp or catfish - they were all introduced artificially, even though it may have been hundreds of years ago!

paul williams · Nov 8, 2000

David, I don't want to nit-pick, but the barbel in the Severn were introduced by the Angling Times.

David Preston · Nov 9, 2000

Doesn't make it any more acceptable! I'd like to think they wouldn't do something like that nowadays.

Paul Williams · Nov 9, 2000

David this ain't a dig mate, but do you think the Severn would be a better river now if not for the Barbel?

David Preston · Nov 10, 2000

Paul, you're missing my point. What I was trying to say was that if the BRFC is determined to exclude non-native fish, then they should think about just how many fish fall into that category in one way or another. But to answer your question, no, certainly not.

On the other hand, had the barbel not been stocked, and if the Severn was currently without barbel, do you think the EA would grant S.30 consent to the AT to introduce barbel? - I don't think so.

Carp Angler · Nov 10, 2000

The BRFC have gone the way of the old records committee. They seem to be too full of there own self importance and I think they've made a rod for their own backs by excluding the catfish record.

The main problem is that they are keeping the Withy fish as the 'true' record, is this fish's authenticity and origin without question?

Or is Maddocks another one of their mates?

When the carp record goes, as it surely will, to one of the Darenth, Ringstead, Cracker Meadow or Acton Burnell fish, there will be a massive outcry from the carping fraternity. This will test the mettle and the integrity of the committee.

This will also be the pivotal point in their existence, as I can see their fragile house of cards being burnt from under them.

Leon Foreman · Nov 21, 2000

I agree that records should be cept native to the country. But with general large scale stocking to keep the interest high this will only become more difficult. Everybody is interested in catching bigger and better. I agree that there should be at least a time limit to stocked fish before it can be accepted as native. Might also be considered that only open water stocked fish can be ellagble for a record so that every angler can have the opertunity to catch a possible record. As for a second perso handeling the rod, well unfair as it may seem, it is an acepted rule worldwide with even more stringend rules in some countries. The norm is to adopt the IGFA rules when it comes to record catches. Good guidelines should you wish to partake in record listings as for me it is just a bit to much to worry about so I'd rather stick with my own personal best records.

British Record Fish

GrahamM

Managing Editor

Philip Inzani

Guest

GrahamM

Managing Editor

DAVE COOPER

New member

DAVE COOPER

New member

Carp Angler

Guest

DAVE COOPER

New member

Jon Moores

Guest

Philip Inzani

Guest

David Preston

New member

paul williams

Guest

David Preston

New member

Paul Williams

Guest

David Preston

New member

Carp Angler

Guest

Leon Foreman

Guest