G
Gary Knowles
Guest
Certainly a very stocky fish Albert and much better than anything I've ever had off the Dane.
Well done mate...
Well done mate...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Richard Farrow
Senior Member
Well done Albert long may your fishing successes continue.
A
albert watkinson
Guest
i am delighted to have caught these two chub and many thanks to our editor graham marsden for his fair minded manner in which he reported it.i knew it was over 5lb when i saw it and have had my scales checked 4 times and they are accurate.
albert
albert
D
Dave Slater
Guest
Well done Albert. Looks like a very nice fish. I hope it is the start of many big chub for you.
E
EC
Guest
Happy Days Albie...well done mate!
J
John Pleasance
Guest
Nice one Albert.
Bill Maitland
New member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
Well done Albert, as Graham said looks every bit of 5lb 2oz.
J
jason fisher
Guest
see albert's proved that not all the big chub are in the south
J
John Hepworth
Guest
Congratulates Albert. Although I have never fished the Dane I know, mostly from Graham?s writings, that Dane 5's don't come along very often. I remember a few years ago when Matt Hayes was challenged to catch a four from the river. The article said he did, but I still have doubts about the photo.
I was beginning to think I would never have a six from my local river, it took me 18 years to put one ounce on my Wear PB, and I'm running out of time, but you are an inspiration to us all.
Well done mate.
I was beginning to think I would never have a six from my local river, it took me 18 years to put one ounce on my Wear PB, and I'm running out of time, but you are an inspiration to us all.
Well done mate.
J
John Hepworth
Guest
To put Alberts fish into perspective, the CSG held a get together on the Gt Ouse last weekend and the best we could manage for the lot of us was one decent fish, all the rest were hardly worth weighing, and there weren't many of those either.
A
albert watkinson
Guest
hello john,you have perked me up no end with your kind remarks and this site is an inspiration to me as well.time is not on my side but when i have had my usual mot i might wet a line this week.your fish at over six must have been a cracker and dogged determination got you that.
all the best albert.
all the best albert.
J
jason fisher
Guest
That's one thing that annoys me about the weeklies.
they put 6lb and 7lb chub in there all the time, barble dont appear to be worth a mention unless they are 14 lb plus,
it appears to me that a chub of 5lb plus is a very good fish wherever it came from, but to catch one from the dane, it is a fish of a life time achievement.
and at least the equal of a 7lb chub from rivers like the avon.
they put 6lb and 7lb chub in there all the time, barble dont appear to be worth a mention unless they are 14 lb plus,
it appears to me that a chub of 5lb plus is a very good fish wherever it came from, but to catch one from the dane, it is a fish of a life time achievement.
and at least the equal of a 7lb chub from rivers like the avon.
A
albert watkinson
Guest
jason i know what you are saying.i had a barbel of 8lb 12 ozs from the severn in 1970
and i have not beaten that.but the chub pleases me very much and who knows some lad will catch it one day and be over the moon .good luck to him
albert
and i have not beaten that.but the chub pleases me very much and who knows some lad will catch it one day and be over the moon .good luck to him
albert
D
Dave Slater
Guest
Jason,
I don't read the weeklies these days so I am not sure what you are trying to get at. 6lb and 7lb chub are really big fish. So are 14lb barbel. Are you saying that barbel should be reported at lesser equivalent weights than chub? If you are fishing the Thames there are a lot of very big chub there at the moment but, I gather, not so many very big barbel. On the Ouse the reverse woould be true. It depends on where you fish on what a big fish is. The weeklies sensationalise things, which is one of the reasons I don't read them these days. The prizes they give do not take into account where fish are caught. I would agree that a 5lb chub is a very good fish, wherever it came from. I have been lucky enough to catch two of over 7lb but I fish good big chub waters. I fully agree with you that Albert's chub is at least the equivalent of a 7lb chub on my local rivers and also rivers like the Thames, which also seem to hold a lot of very big chub these days.
Albert,
I hope you are catching some more biggies. it is a bit of a struggle down our way at the moment.
I don't read the weeklies these days so I am not sure what you are trying to get at. 6lb and 7lb chub are really big fish. So are 14lb barbel. Are you saying that barbel should be reported at lesser equivalent weights than chub? If you are fishing the Thames there are a lot of very big chub there at the moment but, I gather, not so many very big barbel. On the Ouse the reverse woould be true. It depends on where you fish on what a big fish is. The weeklies sensationalise things, which is one of the reasons I don't read them these days. The prizes they give do not take into account where fish are caught. I would agree that a 5lb chub is a very good fish, wherever it came from. I have been lucky enough to catch two of over 7lb but I fish good big chub waters. I fully agree with you that Albert's chub is at least the equivalent of a 7lb chub on my local rivers and also rivers like the Thames, which also seem to hold a lot of very big chub these days.
Albert,
I hope you are catching some more biggies. it is a bit of a struggle down our way at the moment.
A
albert watkinson
Guest
dave not wet a line since the last one buggered me up
albert
albert
J
jason fisher
Guest
Dave i think you have most of it, my point was.
the weeklies don't seem interested in chub less than 6lb and barble less than about 14, so if someone is fishing a river with a 10lb record barble and they catch an 11 then the weeklies still probably wont be bothered about it. though in my mind as you seem to agree it's the relative size for the river which gives a fish it's greatest merrit.
the other thing was that because so many people catch big ones from the likes of the ouse and avon that distorts peoples perceptions of what a big fish is when they are all reported in the weeklies.
by the way where are all these 7lb chub in the thames i've had 5 fives and one 6 this year and i thought i was doing brilliantly.
the weeklies don't seem interested in chub less than 6lb and barble less than about 14, so if someone is fishing a river with a 10lb record barble and they catch an 11 then the weeklies still probably wont be bothered about it. though in my mind as you seem to agree it's the relative size for the river which gives a fish it's greatest merrit.
the other thing was that because so many people catch big ones from the likes of the ouse and avon that distorts peoples perceptions of what a big fish is when they are all reported in the weeklies.
by the way where are all these 7lb chub in the thames i've had 5 fives and one 6 this year and i thought i was doing brilliantly.
J
John Hepworth
Guest
Albert, I think you misread my post, I have had a 6 but not from my local river. At the rate of one ounce every 18 years I'll be about 114 years of age by the time my Wear six comes along.
Congrats again.
Congrats again.
A
albert watkinson
Guest
sorry john,in any case a 6lb chub is a big fish from anywhere.more power to your arm
albert
albert
G
Gary Knowles
Guest
Jason,
I think you are wrong, weeklies will generally publish catches of fish which are geographically imporant, but you need to point them in the right direction.
Case in point would be the River Dove. A mate of mine has had a couple of big barbel (for the Dove)11lb plus and as well as getting printed (very large pictures!) he even won a Drennan award for one.
Another example would be the Ribble, AT have given Drennan awards for barbel from the Ribble that wouldn't even be weighed on some stretches of the Gt. Ouse.
The point is in both cases the angler in question sent his pictures in EXPLAINING to the weekly the significance of the catch.
Do you expect the weeklies to come to you ?, do you expect them to KNOW the significance of a chub such as Alberts from the Dane ?. This is obviously not the case.
In my personal experience I find if you explain the significance of your catch and produce quality photographs then the weeklies ARE interested....
Next time you get a fish that is of significance geographically, try it...you may be surprised !
I think you are wrong, weeklies will generally publish catches of fish which are geographically imporant, but you need to point them in the right direction.
Case in point would be the River Dove. A mate of mine has had a couple of big barbel (for the Dove)11lb plus and as well as getting printed (very large pictures!) he even won a Drennan award for one.
Another example would be the Ribble, AT have given Drennan awards for barbel from the Ribble that wouldn't even be weighed on some stretches of the Gt. Ouse.
The point is in both cases the angler in question sent his pictures in EXPLAINING to the weekly the significance of the catch.
Do you expect the weeklies to come to you ?, do you expect them to KNOW the significance of a chub such as Alberts from the Dane ?. This is obviously not the case.
In my personal experience I find if you explain the significance of your catch and produce quality photographs then the weeklies ARE interested....
Next time you get a fish that is of significance geographically, try it...you may be surprised !
J
jason fisher
Guest
gary i already have, they didn't print it, caught a barble first one from stretch in 12 months, rcord for stretch, 1 and a half pounds short of river record.(the river being the thames)
supplied them with photo's electronically, now it's a month later they haven't printed it and a friend of mine who sent in his photo by post of a fish caught 2 days earlier is in this week. so i don't think it is going to be in.
also submitted 2 4lb + thames perch in the past which were also not published.
interestingly the same month 2 4lb+ perch were caught in the gtouse by someone else and they were in the papers.
supplied them with photo's electronically, now it's a month later they haven't printed it and a friend of mine who sent in his photo by post of a fish caught 2 days earlier is in this week. so i don't think it is going to be in.
also submitted 2 4lb + thames perch in the past which were also not published.
interestingly the same month 2 4lb+ perch were caught in the gtouse by someone else and they were in the papers.