Potential Perch Record Holder

S

Simon Vicos

Guest
Blinding Perch, beautiful fish

But, doubts still exist about whether it was poached and now it would seem, he doesn't have a rod licence either.

Duh !
 
P

Paul (Brummie) Williams

Guest
Plenty of doubt about it's weight too!
 
B

Bob Roberts

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
2,334
Reaction score
8
Where in the following title:

"<u>British Rod Caught Record</u>"

Does the moral issue come into anything? Surely the record list is simply a list of the biggest fish to ever have been caught in Britain on rod and line.

Whether we like it or not, the fact that it is poached should notaffect the matter of record,if the fish is indeed genuine, weighed properly, witnessed, etc.

If this perch was caught on rodand line, is a genuine perch and weighs more than the previous record it must surely be the new British rod caught record?

The record list is not about the captors, it is about the fish.

I mean, who deliberately goes out on a Saturday thinking, "Oh, you know, I might catch a record perch today..."
 
S

Sean Meeghan

Guest
I Agree Bob. Its the fish, the method of capture, the weight. The rest is just detail.
 
G

Gary Newman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
I also agree Bob, as long as it was fairly hooked in the mouth, landed without assistence and caught in season, anything else isn't material to whether or not it is the biggest of the species caught on rod and line.
The BRFC are there to keep recordsand ensure the authenticity of claims, not to police anglers.
I'm not saying it is right to poach or fish without a licence as obviously you'd be breakign the law.
 
H

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
Hang on lads. If someone is willing to poach, fish without a licence and possibly tell porky pies about exactly where it was caught, how reliable are they?

Doesn't the fact thateverything's not exactly kosher raise questions about whether the angklers were pretty inexperienced? I mean if you think you can fish your mate's second rod on your mate's licence don't you think that raises doubts over whetheryou can weigh a fish correctly? It does in my book. And that's before you consider theother facts related to journos which may or may not have been entirely accurate....

Throw it out. Too many questions surrounding the capture haven't been answered satisfactorily in my book. And I spoke to him! As I assume did you Gary? Would you pass it?
 
H

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
So in answer to your question Bob, yes, the moral question is everything. Otherwise anglers with no morals will fill our record lists with totallyfabricated fish!

No one goes out on a Saturday to fabricate a record. However, they might catch a real whacker that's only a few ounces short.....which then grows with the re-telling...
 
G

Gary Newman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Greg,
If all the witness statements corroborate his story and the committee feel that it is true then i think it should be passed - it is purely a record of how big the species grow and have been caught to on rod and line. The record list is there as a historical reference in my view, not just for the anglers who catch a record fish. I haven't seen enough evidence either way to count or discount it.

If we're worried about anglers telling the truth, then how about people who catch a record and then lie about the venue, there has been the odd pike in the past from Norfolk that comes into this category!

You need to have some element of trust without leaving the system open for people to take advantage of it.
 
H

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
I agree with the principle of the list beinga historical record. But you don't have to name the exact venue any more do yoiu? If your water has a publicity ban thensome may havefelt compelled to throw blinds about the location of capture when reporting it...

However, in the case of this perch,when it comes to witnesses we alreadyhave the captor insisting he was outside the marina and the marina's mangement insisting he was seen fishing in the marina. On the other hand the captor is claiming ignorance as to the licencing rules, which byimplication includes his more experienced boat partner who must have known his licence only covered him. Personally I believe there are too many discrepancies.

Set against that the BRFC are saying that catches must be made by 'fair means'. So if a fish is caught whilst breaking the law (civil or criminal) thenthat makes itas bent as a nine bob note!

Time to bring back regional BRFC reps who can be called out to witness and weigh records? It's the only way to eliminate all the doubts that seem to crop up on the back of claims.
 
E

ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)

Guest
Surely it is the weight of the fish which is the record .....not whether the captor had a licence .........therefore if the weight is proved to be right then the record should be accepted ........
 
W

Warren 'Hatrick' (Wol) Gaunt

Guest
I heard he actually swooped it in his landing netwhilst trying to get livo's from the margins.

My best swoop was an 11lb Grass Carp, buggers on a drift float mind.
 
G

Gary Newman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
When i said about big pike (not necessarily records but around that size, keeping vague as proving these things is difficult!) , it wasn't just that the captors didn't want to name the venue, the venues they were fishing had an angling ban - such as Hickling Broad i believe.

I don't think regional BRFC reps would work, now that there is no requirement to name the water i can't see some captors wanting someone they don't even know goign to their 'secret' venue, especially if they're specimen anglers themselves, i certainly wouldn't myself!

I've heard loads of arguments from both sides, looks like opinion is really split on this one. Personally i agree with Ed, that it is the weight not the captor that is the record. But i can see it from the other viewpoint as well.

Out of interest on this vein of thought about it not being accepted, if a match angler won a big match and it was subsequently proved he didn't have a rod licence does this mean he'd have to return his winnings or would they see it that it is down to the EA to police and he won as he caught the most weight of fish?
 
W

Warren 'Hatrick' (Wol) Gaunt

Guest
Dont let it grind you down. You dont have to accept BRFC. Have your own list of what YOU think are acceptable, problem solved. To much bickering these days, we could have a weekly 'Dodgy Cup Award' to run along side the Drennan or a 'Feck Sake Surely It Aint' award to run along side the Fox.
 
M

MarkTheSpark

Guest
If someone is willing to poach, fish without a licence and possibly tell porky pies about exactly where it was caught, how reliable are they?

I won't give you a list of names of former AT writers guilty of all three sins, but it would be quite long, Greg. I'm with Bob on this one; as long as the witness statements stack up, and the scales work OK, it's a record. The bloke might be a complete poacher but I'd be a hypocrite if I held that against him...
 
H

honslow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
3
Personally I can't vouch for those former writers and wouldn't if I even knew who they were.

I honestly had no issue with the claimed weight when it was initially reportedand probably don't now. It could haveweighed 6-2. However, in light of subsequent revelations doubts have begun toset in.

My point is ifan angler'shonesty is in question then can your claim be trusted? Let's face it, all we've got to go on is a photo, and not a very good one at that as proof that the fish weighed what was claimed. Once a record is passed then it's pretty much set in stone.
 
M

MarkTheSpark

Guest
It wouldn't be the first dodgy one to have got into the record book, Greg. There was that chub byb a lad down south, that didn't look what it was claimed at from the off. Appearences can be deceptive, but the chub was quite obviously a five-pounder.

I've no axe to grind with this bloke with the perch, but I've seen them up to 3.8, and this one just doesn't look so much bigger - as I say, appearences can be deceptive. If thecaptor tries to tell you he weighs less than 18 stone, though, you've got him bang to rights...
 
captain carrott

captain carrott

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
4
i've seen em up to a reputed 6-2 and it don't look anywhere close to the size of the previous one.
 
A

alan

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
1
Location
portsmouth
does weighing the fish in a boat count as being weighed correctly? everytime ive tried to weigh a fish in a boat the scales bounce all over the place.
 
B

Bully

Guest
"Poaching is the unlawful taking or killing of game"......this is a legal definition.

He neither took it, or killed it.

He may have illegally fished where he was not allowed, but he did not poach.
 
F

Fred Bonney

Guest
Quite right Bully, how many times does that need clarifying?

Anyway, if it was rod caught, and size verified, then it should count.

But,the angler should be reported to the EA, and if he trespassed, then the owner of the area should take action too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top