a new record!

[Severn Wolf]

quote:

---

'Truly amazing bit of angling history' - a piece of typical journalese, perhaps? it's a big specimen and do you really want it to suffer the same type of pressure that The Traveller and Two-Tone have been put under - especially for a species already suffering a serious decline in numbers if the angling press are to be believed?

---

I`d lay money that even if the world and his mate turned into spessie eels anglers and descended on the water that fish will never grace the banks again regardless of pressure.

 

Agree with not revealing the water but is there any harm in a couple of piccies? Hell, you could cut the head off the angler if they were that strict. I for one just want to see a freshwater eel of that size.....

[Severn Wolf]

Just as a quick example of what I mean......

 

One of my mates nailed a few bream from a local venue that no-one fished. He wanted it to be kept quiet so I did a couple of Photoshop adjustments to the picture for him so as not to give anything away

 

Guess the venue....................

 

[Elton]

You know what I find amazing, from the perspective of a carp angler.....

 

Working on the calculation that a 1lb eel generally leaves about 4lb of snot all over your rig and line, the guy had to reel in a 65lb weight!

[argyll]

I will carry on doing what I am paid for - enlightening people!

 

That's all we need... the Martin Luther King of fishing and there was me thinking that you were being paid to sell newspapers.

 

 

Severn Wolf

 

'If it isn`t submitted to the BRFC then the club should hang its head in shame'

 

I'm sure the club has taken that under consideration and has decided that discretion in this case, is the better part of valour. So who are we to 'demand' that they go public. They're simply protecting the future of their fishing, besides not everyone fishes to break records. Whilst hundreds of anglers may not descend on the water, a determined 'select few' as you put it could be a continuing irritation.

 

[ 27. September 2005, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Alan Stubbs]

ben_weir:

Doh! was replying to earlier posts

Maybe, but why the song and dance?

 

Truly a big fish, but of interest primarily to the members of the club whose water it resides in.

 

There again, I would say that - I like the no publicity rule.

[mark barrett]

gerry,

 

the issue is not the naming of the water at all, its whether or not the photos will be released to the press of what i am sure you will agree is a historic fish. the mail is 100 per cent correct to push to bring those into the public domain.

 

also find it quite laughable you mention the circus considering your best mate from norfolk!

[zedhead]

hey mark,

i emailed you the other week regarding if it was permitted to nightfish at a certain venue i had in mind, thanks for the help.

im off this weekend for the zander, whats the weather been like down there?

 

Cheers, matt.

[jason.p]

Can we assume this truly amazing fish was returned unharmed to the water??

[argyll]

'the issue is not the naming of the water at all, its whether or not the photos will be released to the press of what I am sure you will agree is a historic fish. the mail is 100 per cent correct to push to bring those into the public domain'

 

Sorry Mark you'll have to do better than that to ingratiate yourself even further with your friends at the Mail.

 

The fish is the business of the controlling club and the captor. Anything that they want to give up is entirely up to them. Thats a full stop..no ifs or buts. Those obsessed with records and news coverage may think otherwise. These people clearly dont. The day that any angling newspaper is 100% correct in 'demanding' that the whole story is public domain, is the day I'll go out and buy the Sun newspaper.

 

Not sure how Charlie Bettell comes into the reckoning, thank God you werent comparing his ability and business acumen with yours. I see that you're selling off fishing gear to raise a few quid. Guiding service not doing well ? Door minding not so popular? Take that as read. Still there's always your book to look forward to...when you find a ghost writer that is. But I dont suppose Steve Harper has anything to worry about.

 

Checked your website and found this extract

 

'There is only one broad associated with the Yare and that is Rockland Broad. Rockland has always had a reputation for producing good numbers of Pike although as with most places bigger fish are fairly thin on the ground'

 

Sorry Mark there are two broads associated with the Yare. Pretty basic mistake for a 'guide'. Now thats what I found 'quite laughable' In fact when you think, its absolutely hysterical. Its a big broad on the left going towards Norwich, can't miss it. Well you did.

 

See you found your way to Oulton Broad. I believe that you weren't guiding tho', I mean who would pay you.

 

Over to you Mark...go on...go for it.

 

[ 27. September 2005, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Severn Wolf]

quote:

---

the issue is not the naming of the water at all, its whether or not the photos will be released to the press of what I am sure you will agree is a historic fish. the mail is 100 per cent correct to push to bring those into the public domain

---

So if its a no publicity water how come we know the fish has been caught? The club can`t release the fact a record has been caught then close up with the rest of the details.

 

Sounds like double standards to me

 

Go for it Anglers Mail