Would you claim a record?

[Anderoo]

Yes, I would. All it is is a historical record, and I would feel duty bound to keep it up to date. If I could omit the venue, or be very vague like 'The Thames', then I would, but I think it's only right that the record list is accurate. It's certainly not any refelction of angling skill (in most cases).

[wayne baker]

That's a real hard question, On my part i couldn't really say unless it happened, And depending on the species and where i had caught it.

If it happened to be a circus species like a carp or pike i would probably say no. would be content sharing the moment with my friends and having the pictures for my album. If it was to say a river species like roach, Dace or chub then i think i would if i could keep the general location of the capture. obscure. Most rivers are long and only real anglers fish them lol.

[poledark]

Regarding the carp record, it has made no difference that both the venue and the size have been named. The membership is limited, but with a reasonably healthy turnover, no favouritsm, simply a short waiting list.

 

But then, I suppose there are a selfish minority who would like to gain control of "the Brook" just for an"elite" (?) few.

 

Den

[Worms]

Unlikely that I would but mainly because most of my fishing is done alone. Don't you need witnesses etc. to make a record claim?.........on top of that I'm not really up to date on many of the records anyway!

 

As Rusty, I'd photograph it, return it and post the picture on here!

[Wordbender]

The question is,would you claim a record for a species you caught by accident while fishing for something else.

 

Absolutely not. My biggest roach, tench, bream, eel, barbel, crucian and chub have all come while fishing for big carp with big carp tackle, and I don't consider any of them my PB. How can I claim any credit, even to myself, through catching something I was actively trying to avoid, on gear that means there's no meaningful fight possible? Even a double-figure barbel is hugely out-gunned on a 3lb test curve rod and 15lb line.

 

If I was fishing for one species and spotted an opportunity to catch something else, and re-directed my efforts and gear to catch it, that would be different, but anything that happens along and hangs itself while I'm after big carp can't be counted because, for me, there's no personal merit or satisfaction in the capture.

 

Others are free to feel differently, but my fishing is conducted entirely according to my rules and to feel any other way would be deceiving myself - and my blessed pastime is far too precious for that.

[poledark]

Absolutely not. My biggest roach, tench, bream, eel, barbel, crucian and chub have all come while fishing for big carp with big carp tackle, and I don't consider any of them my PB. How can I claim any credit, even to myself, through catching something I was actively trying to avoid, on gear that means there's no meaningful fight possible? Even a double-figure barbel is hugely out-gunned on a 3lb test curve rod and 15lb line.

 

If I was fishing for one species and spotted an opportunity to catch something else, and re-directed my efforts and gear to catch it, that would be different, but anything that happens along and hangs itself while I'm after big carp can't be counted because, for me, there's no personal merit or satisfaction in the capture.

 

Others are free to feel differently, but my fishing is conducted entirely according to my rules and to feel any other way would be deceiving myself - and my blessed pastime is far too precious for that.

 

Fair enough Terry, but what would you say to the guy who has just caught the new record Bream? He was quite obviously not fishing for one, wasn't even sure what he had hooked, but absolutely delighted with the result. Perfectly valid catch by any standards.

 

Had he simply returned it then we (all anglers) would never had known of its existence.

 

Den

[JV44]

Fair enough Terry, but what would you say to the guy who has just caught the new record Bream? He was quite obviously not fishing for one, wasn't even sure what he had hooked, but absolutely delighted with the result. Perfectly valid catch by any standards.

 

Had he simply returned it then we (all anglers) would never had known of its existence.

 

Den

 

The guy who caught the record Zander from the Severn was pellet fishing for Bream and beat the old best by some margin ,had he not reported it we as anglers would have been none the wiser that such a massive fish existed Steve.

[Rusty]

Had he simply returned it then we (all anglers) would never had known of its existence.

 

True enough Den but are we any worse off for that? In the same way that we don't know of the existence of a bigger Bream but I bet there is one somewhere.

 

Records serve a purpose I suppose and I can see how they could indicate that the general size of certain species is increasing (or decreasing) but all the fuss that goes with it leaves me cold. I'm not talking from experience BTW.

[John S]

I'm very much in two minds about this; I reckon any angler would love to be able to point to the records list and see his name there (even if it's as a past record holder), but the circus that would inevitably invade the venue could (would?) do more harm than good - the death of a record pike recently has been blamed on anglers wanting some of the action. As has already been suggested, I'd much rather be able to report the record, but leave out certain details such as venue.

 

Another thing about record fish, especially carp, is that they all have boilie guts - you could take off at least 10lb if the fish were a proper shape and yet the angling mags insist on calling them 'magnificent specimens'; no they're not, they just fat b@stards!

[Anderoo]

I think it's a shame that so few would make a claim. It doesn't matter whether it was caught by design (although personally I would much prefer a record to go to someone who grafted for it) - the majority of records are flukes/accidents/a massive dollop of luck anyway. But that's not the point in my opinion. I can understand wanting to protect a water from the glory hunters, but I bet that most records come from places with capped membership and a waiting list or waters where it's possible to be extremely vague anyway, so that's not really much of a reason.

 

If I caught and claimed a record chub from the Thames in Oxfordshire, how many extra people do you think I'd see on the bank as a result? I bet very few indeed, if any. If I named the swim or it was obvious from the photos, then of course the circus would come to town! If you make it easy for them, you'll get problems, but if it's vague (or even intentionally misleading ) then most won't bother.

 

I'd like the record list to be as accurate as possible, but I don't need to know exactly where each fish is from or whether the captor 'deserved' it. I don't care what the captor's name is, either.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Anderoo