Record fish

With the possibility that athletic records may be scrapped and started again because of drugs, should we now scrap some rod caught fish records because some are built around fish fed on modern high protein baits and/or selective breeding therefore not what would be their true natural weight. At the same time should spawn filled fish also be discounted?
It wouldn’t be the first time fish record weights have been scrapped.

Personally I couldn't care less what happens about records fish ones or others for running about a bit they are all suspect.

Fish that are carrying spawn should never be considered as a record, its illegal to fish for a gravid fish so I just don't see how such a fish can be considered a record although if one wanted to be pedantic the gravid state of the fish would be at the time of capture be a natural weight for the fish.

The recent none record carp imo shows how daft things have become, because the fish was "grown on" before being stocked but how far back does this apply, did it apply to the Leeny fish stocked into Redmire which eventually went on to become the carp record on more than one occasion?

As far as I can see there is only one qualified scientific freshwater member of the BRFC with most having no particular qualification to be judge and jury over a record claim, how does one become a member of this committee? invite, election or the old boys network? or is it just something else the Truss have taken over?

Trouble is fish can carry spawn year on year. I belive the old record Roach of 4lb 1oz was carrying something like 10oz of spawn but it was a roach not a carp so i guess thats ok then...

If we discount fush carrying spawn then we may as well not have a record list.

Rewrite the records? ...ok ! ..lets start with salmon..i say it evey time...1922, weighed in the dark and 64lb slap band on the spot...yet no one ever questions that one. How strange!!!!!

I saw a foto of a huge roach caught on a lure earlier this year. A river fish and one that I had no hesitation in saying it was a true roach but it was freakishly overlarge, No idea what it weighed but if it was laid alongside the record fish it would have quite likely overshadowed it in size.
Amazing thing to witness!.

flightliner said:

I saw a foto of a huge roach caught on a lure earlier this year. A river fish and one that I had no hesitation in saying it was a true roach but it was freakishly overlarge, No idea what it weighed but if it was laid alongside the record fish it would have quite likely overshadowed it in size.
Amazing thing to witness!.

Click to expand...

Maybe the really big ones turn cannibal, Mick? I read an article/blog entry of a kayak angler out lure fishing on light gear, who had big roach after big roach on tiny grub lures bounced on the bottom.

Edit - It was posted on here: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/coarse-fishing/357398-big-roach-snapping-up-micro-lures.html

It was a float tube, not a kayak. Maybe I've mixed up two separate accounts.

Rudd do get caught on spinners and lures. Rudd and Roach will take a fly or nymph which at the end of the day is a lure.

Was the Roach you saw a british fish flight?

Throw out all existing records and start a new one for


Fish caught on a float

on a lead

on a feeder

from still water

from a river

from a club water

from a syndicate water

from a free water

on 2lb line

on 4lb line

from a water where lots of bait goes in

from a water where little bait goes in

from..............................

You get the idea, once a fish is refused because it was "grown on" it makes the list an irrelevance as that carp was clearly the biggest caught that is known about.

All fish that reside in waters that receive reasonable amount of good anglers baits have been "grown on" I wonder if it would have been refused had it been a well known angler that caught it?

There is a huge difference between a fish being "grown on" deliberately in order to break a record and a stocked fish that has grown over the years.

To argue otherwise is to deliberately obfuscate in my opinion.

As for the Record fish committee themselves, well, I know a couple of them personally and can without hesitation tell you that those I know are established anglers; one of them being an previous Drennan Cup winner and regular contributor here on FM.

There is a huge difference between a fish being "grown on" deliberately in order to break a record and a stocked fish that has grown over the years.

To argue otherwise is to deliberately obfuscate in my opinion.

As for the Record fish committee themselves, well, I know a couple of them personally and can without hesitation tell you that those I know are established anglers; one of them being an previous Drennan Cup winner and regular contributor here on FM.

The BRFC evolved over many decades; originally record fish were 'recognised' through angling press entries (Fishing Gazette, The Anglers' News etc.) later Angling Times. The NFA dipped a toe in the water then withdrew before getting involved again, the S&T association became involved as did the NASG in its various incarnations until it became what it is now under the aegis of the Angling Trust, with the addition of a qualified fish biologist along the way.

A lot of records were thrown out in 1968 when they almost wiped the slate clean, and it's fair to say that plenty of mistakes have been made over the years with everything from wrongly identified species, hybrids, fake weights and even fish not actually caught by fair angling ending up on the list and even today one or two records would be removed if only we could get to the truth of their capture....

Peter Jacobs said:

There is a huge difference between a fish being "grown on" deliberately in order to break a record and a stocked fish that has grown over the years.

To argue otherwise is to deliberately obfuscate in my opinion.

As for the Record fish committee themselves, well, I know a couple of them personally and can without hesitation tell you that those I know are established anglers; one of them being an previous Drennan Cup winner and regular contributor here on FM.

Click to expand...

Not for the first time I am afraid I cannot agree with your opinion nor can I agree with your opinion that I am making things obscure or unclear, imo its very clear the record fish list is an irrelevance and some of those sitting in judgement on claims have no scientific qualifications to do so.

My post was a daft way to indicate how silly the record fish list has become, how far back in a fishes life does one go before it stops being a "grown on fish? Last time I looked at the qualifying criteria for making a claim the weight of a fish when it was stocked into a water wasn't one of them so it looks to me as if the committee have decided to use other criteria that isn't laid down critera that they have made up for this one fish and that is different to all other claims before it, what gives them the right to do this? Just another sign that the Wangling Truss is involved.

As for you knowing a couple of them and they are established anglers how does that qualify them to sit on this committee?

What is an "established angler" is it one that has fished for a long time therefor becoming established as an angler? Is it one that has become established in the angling press through publication of their catches? perhaps you can enlighten me because from where I am looking from they have nothing that qualifies them to sit on this committee and pass judgement on another anglers catches meeting the requirements to be considered for a record claim.

I asked a question in my first post on this thread that you may be able to answer as you know a couple of those that sit on this committee, the question is How does one get to sit on this committee?

Just scrap the lists entirely, the bounty hunters will have to stoke their egos another way. It's becoming a joke.

Nobby C (ACA) said:

It's becoming a joke

Click to expand...

Has been for a long time.

robtherake said:

Maybe the really big ones turn cannibal, Mick? I read an article/blog entry of a kayak angler out lure fishing on light gear, who had big roach after big roach on tiny grub lures bounced on the bottom.

Edit - It was posted on here: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/coarse-fishing/357398-big-roach-snapping-up-micro-lures.html

It was a float tube, not a kayak. Maybe I've mixed up two separate accounts.

Click to expand...

It's certainly food for thought Rob, I,ve never had a roach on a lure, fly yes on the odd occasion along with the odd perch and rudd tho I had a nice bream on a spinner from a canal some five or so years back.

Lets's face it, records are only guidelines - many fish that have exceeded the existing 'records' have never been claimed for various reasons.............

Philip said:

Rudd do get caught on spinners and lures. Rudd and Roach will take a fly or nymph which at the end of the day is a lure.

Was the Roach you saw a british fish flight?

Click to expand...

Yes Philip, english all the way , last December/ January if my memory is correct.
barely thirty minutes from where I sit now !.
I,ll certainly ask to see it again if I bump into the chap who banked it!!!

thecrow said:

, its illegal to fish for a gravid fish

Click to expand...

Never heard of that one before? Where is this law stated?

peter crabtree said:

Never heard of that one before? Where is this law stated?

Click to expand...

I am sure I have read this somewhere but where I cant remember, I have E mailed the EA asking for clarification, it may be that it was but isn't now since the abolition of the closed season on still waters, when I receive a reply I will post it.

Something in my grey matter that I just can't capture at the moment.....Old Fart... telling me the Gravid fish relates to Salmon.

thecrow said:

I am sure I have read this somewhere but where I cant remember, I have E mailed the EA asking for clarification, it may be that it was but isn't now since the abolition of the closed season on still waters, when I receive a reply I will post it.

Click to expand...

It's in the salmon and freshwater fisheries act 1975, section 2 and applies to all freshwater fish. It still applies, close season or no close season.