Roach Record in Danger?

GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
Does anyone else believe that record fish belong to the captor, and that they should be able to do what they want with this piece of historical fact?
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
Why do some anglers think that they can dictate to the rest of the angling world? if you agree or disagree with the closed season it has no bearing whatsoever on the historical recording of the biggest fish caught. I agree totally with the comments that the record does not "belong" to the captor but to angling history. If i go out tomrrow and catch a record, it doesn't make me a better angler, or person and it sure as hell proves nothing, only that i was in the right place at the right time.
 
A

Alan Roe

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
And I assume that from your standpoint if Sedge cathches a record it is proof positive that miracles can be granted to those that ask.:)
 
J

john conway

Guest
The British record is just that, it is the recording of an event that was verified in meeting the criteria set down by the BRFC at the time of the event. If Ray Clarke wants to have his record roach removed from the record list he could make a statement that he cheated in meeting the BRFC criteria. For example, if the fish was returned alive to the water, he could say he stuffed it with swan shot before weighing it, or get the person or persons verifying the catch to say they lied, etc.
 
P

Philip Inzani

Guest
Just to add that I am yet another one who totally agrees with the fishing magic comment. I think this is the second or third time I have seen Ray threatened to withdraw the fish....
so let him. The fish is still the biggest caught as far as I am concerened, so just erase the name "Ray Clarke" next to it.
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
Alan, if Sidge caught a record i would want to be the first to shake his.........throat, i meant hand! if he catch's a record from that "local" lake of ours i'll become a missionary!!!
 
R

Ron Clay

Guest
Does Ray not realise that it is not HE who holds the record. The fish holds the record and the captor should have no influence on the record's standing whatsoever!
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
We all seem to be in agreement on this one, i would like to know if he can officially remove the fish from the record list, does anyone know? or would he have to do as jon say's and say there were irregularities surrounding the capture?.
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
If he claimed he lied about his record in order to get the fish removed from the record lists then it would do his credibility no good at all, and therefore the stand he is making against records caught during the closed season would also lose credibility.

Also, no matter what the paperwork says what matters is what the majority of anglers believe. So would we all suddenly stop believing he caught a record roach in 1992?

I think not.
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
You are right Graham, official or not it will stand. I have to say though that if i was to ever be privileged enough to capture a record out of all of them it would be the humble roach i would choose, and i also have to say the present holder is not in my opinion worthy of such a fish.
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
PS Graham, your'e getting as bad as me!! sending this thread out on the carp section!!! teehee
 
W

william kirkwood

Guest
well done Fishingmagic. I agree in total about comments on roach record.
 
D

DAVE COOPER

New member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
This bloke has already lost his credibility! Most of the angling world is just laughing at his petulance. He needs to stop acting like big kid, get a life and remember how fortunate he was to see a fish of such quality, which is I hope how the captor of crucian record is treating his good fortune.
 
P

peter webber

Guest
I just hope that its not too long before someone betters his record and that it is done during the old close season. That rearly would get up his nose:)
----(*}}}}<
 
C

Carp Angler

Guest
Well said all.
You lot will probably remember my rantings in the Talbot at Kempsey about Ray Clarke.
Remove his name and let the record stand.
I agree with Paul, it's one record I would dearly love to break above any other.
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
Well, I think we've come up with the answer between us. The record will stand, obviously, but we'll make an exception where he's concerned and allow him to remove his name from the record books.

After all, we're only interested in the fish. The guy's name who was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time we can do without.

Especially one who is trying to use such a magnificent fish as a weapon to try and get his own way. It isn't his fish to do that with.

It's ours, It's history's.

And he can do what he likes with his name. We don't care one way or the other. It's just not important.
 
S

steve baker

Guest
I totally agree he is not a worthy holder of the record.... But is a fish full of spawn?
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
Steve, i know what you mean mate but at the end of the day the record is just that "a historic recording" of the weight of a a given species, if the specimen is legal it should be recorded as the biggest of that species, i think most of us capable of knowing the true merits, but we can go deeper and compair say a 35lb trout water pike with a 30lb river pike, both terrific fish but how do we judge "merit" the deeper we go the bigger the minefield!!!
 
C

Carp Angler

Guest
Paul, have you changed your ISP?
Answer my numerous mails, especially the amusing one about the Wolves manager.
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
Rik, yes i have, look's like i have been really succsessful again!! still it could be worse, i sent Sludge an invite to go Piking tomorrow and he aint got it by the sound of things!!.... i'll send you a mail with my new address....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top