As many times as you like Bob.
Your observations regards AT columnists/contributors are in all likelihood accurate (my history is limited to recent times, so I probably know less than you). However, none of those examples to my knowledgeinvolved dubious behaviour/actions during the session when a claimed record was caught.
I spoke to the captor. I suspect he might have told me a fib about where exactly he caught it. I'm not sure, but I have my doubts. As soon as doubts set in when you're dealing with a record fish then I personally feel it's only natural to start doubting other 'facts' surrounding the capture. If there are doubts about a claim then I for one don't think it should be accepted.
I don't think this has anything to do with who catches it and everything to do with having the mostreliable processes possible forverifying record claims. Which is why I would always argue for a network of regionalBRFC repsthat can verify claims on the bank. Gary's objections to this system are valid. However, if you don't want a rep to know where you've caught a fish, thenno one's forcing you tomake a claim.
Let's face it,how reliable is youraverageangler likely to be at weighing and photographing fish? I'd argue that it's easy to make a weighing mistake and that photographing a fish well is an art form. There are no photos ofthis perchon a mat next to a recognisable object are there? That's a BRFC recommendation.Such photos help remove doubts that arealmost always raised when the only evidence available is a trophy shot, and often a poor one at that.
And for the record, for the BRFC to pass a record knowing it was caught by an unlicensed angler would, in my opinion,be a step backwards for angling. We already seem to struggle for credibility with the likes ofpoliticians, television programmers and Sport England, without an organisation made up of reps from the various governing bodies, together with the EA and the Natural History Museum, being seen to condone license dodging!
So it's actually about the reliability of the verification process and those involved in it, not the fish or the captor. Tosay that it's only about the fish would, I'd argue (respectfully), ignore the wider issues.
Your observations regards AT columnists/contributors are in all likelihood accurate (my history is limited to recent times, so I probably know less than you). However, none of those examples to my knowledgeinvolved dubious behaviour/actions during the session when a claimed record was caught.
I spoke to the captor. I suspect he might have told me a fib about where exactly he caught it. I'm not sure, but I have my doubts. As soon as doubts set in when you're dealing with a record fish then I personally feel it's only natural to start doubting other 'facts' surrounding the capture. If there are doubts about a claim then I for one don't think it should be accepted.
I don't think this has anything to do with who catches it and everything to do with having the mostreliable processes possible forverifying record claims. Which is why I would always argue for a network of regionalBRFC repsthat can verify claims on the bank. Gary's objections to this system are valid. However, if you don't want a rep to know where you've caught a fish, thenno one's forcing you tomake a claim.
Let's face it,how reliable is youraverageangler likely to be at weighing and photographing fish? I'd argue that it's easy to make a weighing mistake and that photographing a fish well is an art form. There are no photos ofthis perchon a mat next to a recognisable object are there? That's a BRFC recommendation.Such photos help remove doubts that arealmost always raised when the only evidence available is a trophy shot, and often a poor one at that.
And for the record, for the BRFC to pass a record knowing it was caught by an unlicensed angler would, in my opinion,be a step backwards for angling. We already seem to struggle for credibility with the likes ofpoliticians, television programmers and Sport England, without an organisation made up of reps from the various governing bodies, together with the EA and the Natural History Museum, being seen to condone license dodging!
So it's actually about the reliability of the verification process and those involved in it, not the fish or the captor. Tosay that it's only about the fish would, I'd argue (respectfully), ignore the wider issues.
