PBs

[Now there's a right un.]

Added the link now http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/poledark/

 

I will have a dig around to find the crucian pic.

 

Den

 

 

 

 

 

Love the pictures.

 

Cannot wait to see the Crucian...shame it was not considered legitimate..

[Errrm]

I've had a fairly good year considering I haven't fished as much as I would have liked but a few PBs.

 

Tench - 8lb 9oz

Carp - 35lb 11oz

Eel - 5lb 7oz

 

I wasn't going to weigh the eel when I first saw it in the net but decided it might just beat my previous PB of 4lb 8oz, glad I did now :-).

 

Already thinking about wahat I'm going to do next season, I have been thinking about trying to catch a 2lb roach for a while so I might actually give it a go, or try and find some Barbel near Cambridge.

[Vagabond]

The only PBs I now care about are ;

 

1/ New species (and I am running out of new UK freshwater species)

2/ A 2lb roach (I have equalled my PB of 1-14 FIVE times!)

 

These days I very rarely weigh fish, nor even carry scales, but having said that, if any fish looked like a PB I would weigh it, IF I could remember offhand my PB for that species - and IF I happened to be carrying a set of scales (I ALWAYS take some scales if targetting roach)

 

After 70 years angling it is difficult to set new PBs (unless its a new species!) and a lot of my PBs are many years old. There are a lot of fish, like pike, eels, catfish, carp, barbel that I now very rarely fish for.

 

But here are my UK freshwater "bests" ie the heaviest for each species , compiled from my spreadsheet - I don't carry too many of them in my head.

 

Barbel 11-8

Bass 2-0 (River); (13-2 in sea)

Bream 6-3 (I never knowingly fish for the slimy horrors)

Brown Trout 9-12

Carp 29-12

Charr 0-15

Chub 5-15

Crucian 2-12

Dace 0-15

Danubian Catfish 20-6

Eel 4-12

Flounder 1-0 (River) (1-14 in Sea)

Grass Carp 5 lb (estimated, not weighed)

Grayling 1-12

Ide (or Orfe) 3-4

Perch (Stillwater) 4-0; (River) 2-15

Pike 21-8

Powan 0-6 (caught in the 1960s when it was still legal to fish for them)

Rainbow Trout 21-8

Roach (Stillwater) 1-14; (River) 1-14

Roach-Rudd Hybrid 3-12

Roach-Bream Hybrid 4-2

Rudd 3-8 (Slapton Ley in 1952 at age 18 - my oldest standing PB)

Salmon 14-8

Seatrout 9-8

Silver Bream 1-2

Sterlet 14-0

Tench 8-12

Thick-lipped Grey Mullet 3-6 (river) (5-6 in sea)

Thin-lipped Grey Mullet 1-9 (river)

Western Goldfish 2-1

Zander 4-4

 

Have left out minispecies - ie anything that normally doesn't grow beyond 4 oz.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Vagabond

[Phone]

All,

 

I'm lucky I finely practice C&R. That's a record.

 

The only one I'd like to at least "repeat" is common carp. I caught my largest in the 1970's and was weighed at a bait shop nearby on some old spring scales that "bottomed out" at 50 lbs. I'd say the fish weighed 45+ although it did indeed bottom out the scale. I'd like a more accurate "pb". That's the only one now - common carp.

 

Here's the bad part. In many states to "claim" an official weight you have to sacrifice the creature. To much trouble. I do have a set of Ruben Heaton(sp) scales to 60 lbs I keep in the truck now days. I have it certified annually or every other year. It will satisfy me.

 

Phone

[Sportsman]

As I have said on here many times I really don't understand this preoccupation with numbers. There is so much more to catching a fish than it's size.

The only PB that I actually know is a pike of 29lb 12oz and that is just because the guy I was fishing with insisted on weighing and photographing it. (I have since lost the photo)

Was I disappointed that it wasn't 4ozs bigger? How stupid would that be? (Given the accuracy of most fishing scales if I had weighed it on a different set it probably would have been 4ozs bigger)

However, I can remember every detail of the capture, the swim, the bait, how I felt when the bite alarm went off, how it fought and what it looked like in the net. That has to be better than a meaningless number and a photo of a fish out of water.

 

I would much rather read "I caught some really nice fish" than "I had a 10.08 a 12.13 a 14.6 and a 8.15"

Edited September 14, 2011 by Sportsman

[wotnobivvy]

In reply to Sportsman, I agree but has the whole world not now become obsessed by numbers and meaningless statistics. The esoterics of likes and memories are pushed to one side.

 

PS I haven't got an iPhone, what does that make me

[Dales]

I would much rather read "I caught some really nice fish" than "I had a 10.08 a 12.13 a 14.6 and a 8.15"

 

It is a little strange, I never used to bother with photo's but occasionally weighed a fish, then around 8 years ago I bought a digital camera and then that all changed and I became a little obsessive and now photograph loads of fish and weigh a great number of them. Odd it never used to bother me and now I have crossed over to the dark side of number crunching and photo clicking. I guess once you set off down that path

[Anderoo]

As I have said on here many times I really don't understand this preoccupation with numbers. There is so much more to catching a fish than it's size.

 

Absolutely right. Success is not measured in pounds and ounces. However, if I can fish in a way that interests me and challenges me (the important bit), and I do catch a big fish, I like to know what it weighed. Not to impress others or win prizes, but just as a personal record. I don't weigh many fish and photograph even fewer (most photos are taken so I can identify recaptures of the larger fish - if I start catching the same fish, it's time to start thinking about moving on).

 

There are certain weights of all species that I find exciting, and if I catch a fish that exceeds those weights, it does make the capture a bit more special. But it is never the measure of success.

[Phone]

Sportsman,

 

I suggest you use the "American" method and lie. I know of one ex-Pat who always, in the name of fish safety, adds a couple cups of water to the weigh sling before weighing. I love to have MY picture taken and with fish is OK - but - to have a fishes picture taken with me as the secondary figure. Makes no sense, I'm far more handsome??

 

Anderoo,

 

I can tell you EXACTLY why weights and numbers are important. Money! Look at your fishwrap publications. Do you think for one minute an Englishman would be considered an "expert" without the BS you English seem to rely on so heavily. I don't know how but "fish experts" and "good fishermen" are seperate in North America. Good fishermen tell us "HOW". Fish experts tell us "WHY" Your "all around experts" seem to be fishermen. How does that work?

 

Phone

[Dales]

The thing with PB's is that they tend to tell more about the venues you fish then how good an angler you are. My PB for a few species has gone up in the last 2 years most notably Tench & Bream. Am I a much better angler then a few years ago, maybe or maybe not. If I am better, it's not by a huge amount. All my new PB's prove is that I now fish a place that holds bigger fish then other venues I frequent.