'Benson' out again!

[OP-JB]

Jim Shelley:

peter,

yes iam speading rumours..end off..how many years ..has it been there..joke.

uncle jim

KIR.

ps,ill leave you to think about it and draw your own believes..happy hunting

Your behavoir within this thread has left me cold .

To begin with you suggest the fish has Dropsy,an illnes with causes water to be retained within the body, and the fish will soon die. Pressumably you have examined the fish to close at hand to atthenticate your prognosis? You go on to patronise the rest of the forum users by claiming that "you feel sorry" for us all. The owner of the the lake then gets called a liar and then to round off your assault you suggest the fish is foreign.

Not once do you offer a shread of evidence to back up anything you say. You rely upon slang, insinuation,innuendo and appalling English to jeopardise the owners livelihood. Who do you think you are?

 

OP -JB

[Jim Shelley]

hi op,

i like your big words ..son..most conjuicive..

i know who i am fella..who the .... are you ?????.

seems like your another faceless one...who aint got the guts to sign his or her own name..

by the way..we knoow the truth..thank god..

luv uncle jim

KIR.

[Steve Burke]

I can't comment on the history of Benson as I know nothing about the fish. However, I do know many carp anglers are getting hot under the collar about fish being imported from the continent at near record weights. The general feeling seems to be that this devalues native fish. The same problem occured with record trout being stocked from stew ponds.

 

There are certainly waters that hold big unknown carp that have rarely if ever been fished for. The problem is sorting the wheat from the chaff. As a fishery owner myself (and one who has stocked only small UK fish to grow on) I can see both sides of the story here.

 

For instance, Jim Shelley clearly believes that there's something fishy about Benson. The problem is that he may not have hard evidence to back up his suspicions. Bear in mind the problems of libel here.

 

Turning to the issue of dropsy, my understanding is that this is a relatively rare disease. I suspect that many fish that are supposed to be dropsical are in fact spawnbound. They haven't shed their spawn and it's not been reabsorbed. Indeed, I gather Chris Yates's record fish was spawnbound.

 

IMO, it was quite rightly accepted as a record. Many fish contain spawn, in fact most do every year of course! So where do you draw the line? How much spawn is excess? How to do measure the weight of the spawn anyway?

 

Additionally, spawnbound fish can eventually shed the excess spawn and make a full recovery, returning to full fighting fitness. If they don't there are various treatments that are available, one involving hormones, but these are risky and could lead to the death of the fish anyway.

 

I'll finish by asking members not to let this topic develop into a slanging match. I for one find the subject interesting and don't want the mods to close the thread!

[OP-JB]

Jim Shelley:

hi op,

i like your big words ..son..most conjuicive..

i know who i am fella..who the .... are you ?????.

seems like your another faceless one...who aint got the guts to sign his or her own name..

by the way..we knoow the truth..thank god..

luv uncle jim

KIR.

Sorry, I am lost. Do you mean `conducive` (likely to produce a result), `conductive` (ability to transmit energy) or `conjective` (the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence)?

I suspect the latter.

 

OP -JB

[Jim Shelley]

morning..

faceless one..

i know how to spell it..but thats the way i spell it son..and i do now wot it means.

thanx for all your help..pauly..axey.

hows it hanging luvs.x x x

uncle jim

KIR.