The big river roach of the past

[Phone]

Androo,

 

There is a formula for "old boy" stories and their fish size. Using the formula is sort of like "estimating" the fish weight when proper scales are not available.

The process of subduction is not limited to geology. "Old boy's age; decades in the past; whether it was a personal accomplishment or a "friends"; etc., are all part of the formula. The better you pay attention the better the fish was likely to have been.

 

Alas, The "BEST" fish have all been caught! (I think it was in the 50's - maybe just after the war in the late 40's when a friend (he's dead now) and I - - - - - - shall I go on?

 

Phone

[Mark Wintle]

I'd love to carefully examine pics of those Beult fish. I know Alwyne Wheeler supposedly pronounced them true roach but Alwyne had a habit of getting confused on the more difficult hybrids, witness his about face on a crucian record, and I've been at a BRFC meeting where a pic of a supposed very large roach was under consideration and it was difficult for the official fish identifier to be sure despite his academic expertise. John Searl painted a pic for Red Letter days and said that the 3-14 didn't look right at all. Hybrids vary enormously in appearance and it's always easier with the fish on the bank though a good set of pics can be examined at leisure. Similarly the two recent Thames fish of 3-10 and 3-12 would be good to see in a pic; it's easy to get over excited on the bank and not see the obvious, nor want to accept the disappointment of discovering the truth! I once had what I thought was my best ever crucian at 3-07 one cold March day. I didn't have a camera but a nearby carp angler did and several months later he sent me a print when it was obvious what I had was a hybrid crucian x goldfish; that was from a water with true crucians as well as hybrids and goldfish.

 

As Phone says, be careful what you believe. When I researched big roach I found many tall stories and a few charlatans who had supposedly got a good reputation but were proven to have over-egged the cake. Fortunately, the genuine stuff is there too. One or two of the recent Thames reports are based on " had 20lbs of roach in match, several over a pound and one that must have been over 2lb..." but without weighing the 2lber there's no way to be sure and more likely 1-12 or 1-14. Memory is another fallible; without detailed diaries I'd never accurately remember what I had 30 years ago, and in several cases I'm glad I wrote up specific days in the 90s because detailed memories of what happened on specific days has faded with time. Other good days are reduced to bare bones of what was caught but I can't remember anything specific that stands out.

[Anderoo]

Very true about guesstimates. If I didn't have scales with me when I had that roach the other week, I would have guessed at 'a low 2'. As it was, it was actually half a pound lighter! It works the other way too, I remember guesstimating a perch at '2ish' when Steve B was present, which on the scales was actually just over 3lb. That's why I always carry good scales!

 

The net (and press) is awash with fish of very dubious weight...

[Steve Burke]

Mark, my friend Nigel claimed 3 roach of 3lbs+. I wrote "at least 2" in my earlier post as I'm convinced that his 3-12 was a rare roach/chub hybrid. I actually witnessed that fish, and we both thought something wasn't quite right about it as soon as we saw it. Nigel sent the pic to Alwyne Wheeler who pronounced it a true roach, but I remain unconvinced.

 

I also witnessed his 3-04 and that looked every bit a true roach. Indeed, we took scale and ray counts and everything added up. John Probert kindly drove down from London to photograph it and it appeared on the front cover of Angler's Mail.

 

I didn't witness his 3-14, but did see the photographs. This looked nothing like the 3-12, although of course it's difficult to be sure from just a photo. However I'm happy to accept it as a true roach unless evidence to the contrary surfaces. Mind you, I didn't know about John Searl's comments until today.

 

As far as I know the Beult contained no rudd so a roach/rudd hybrid would be extremely unlikely. It also contained very few bream in that area, plus I've seen enough roach/bream hydrids to be almost certain it wasn't one of those. And of course roach/chub hybrids are very rare (in fact not mentioned in many textbooks), but quite distinctive.

 

So, for the moment at least, I'm prepared to accept Nigel's 3-04 as a true roach, and his 3-14 probably so. I'm not prepared to accept the 3-12 though.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Steve Burke

[gozzer]

The net (and press) is awash with fish of very dubious weight...

 

Even more on the bank Andrew. It's surprising just how much weight a fish can lose between landing and weighing.

I've weighed dozens of 2-3lb roach for people, that have lost as much as 50% of their weight in that few moments, even more that were obvious hybrids.

 

John.

[Mark Wintle]

Mark, my friend Nigel claimed 3 roach of 3lbs+. I wrote "at least 2" in my earlier post as I'm convinced that his 3-12 was a rare roach/chub hybrid. I actually witnessed that fish, and we both thought something wasn't quite right about it as soon as we saw it. Nigel sent the pic to Alwyne Wheeler who pronounced it a true roach, but I remain unconvinced.

 

I also witnessed his 3-04 and that looked every bit a true roach. Indeed, we took scale and ray counts and everything added up. John Probert kindly drove down from London to photograph it and it appeared on the front cover of Angler's Mail.

 

I didn't witness his 3-14, but did see the photographs. This looked nothing like the 3-12, although of course it's difficult to be sure from just a photo. However I'm happy to accept it as a true roach unless evidence to the contrary surfaces. Mind you, I didn't know about John Searl's comments until today.

 

As far as I know the Beult contained no rudd so a roach/rudd hybrid would be extremely unlikely. It also contained very few bream in that area, plus I've seen enough roach/bream hydrids to be almost certain it wasn't one of those. And of course roach/chub hybrids are very rare (in fact not mentioned in many textbooks), but quite distinctive.

 

So, for the moment at least, I'm prepared to accept Nigel's 3-04 as a true roach, and his 3-14 probably so. I'm not prepared to accept the 3-12 though.

 

Steve,

 

Thanks for your very honest comments. I don't doubt for one minute the 3-04 fish but I have had doubts expressed about the other two fish and your comments tend to back this up which is why I'd love to see good pics to see for myself. Just remembered a possible pic of one of the bigger fish so will try and find it later.

 

Hybrids in unlikely places is an intriguing subject. I know the Dorset Piddle and Dorset Frome very well as these are the two waters that were either side of my home town. Neither river has a breeding population of rudd nor bream yet connections to various stillwaters upstream (the recent debacle with Pallington carp being a prime example) and drains on the marshes downstream of Wareham has resulted in occasional roach x bream and rudd x roach, not to mention odd bream, carp, rudd and other fish getting into both rivers. similarly I know where a population of rudd exists on the Dorset Stour and also the Thames at Oxford.

[Steve Burke]

Mark, if you can turn up a pic of the 3-14 I'd be very interested in your comments. I'm afraid I don't have a copy so can't help you on this one. I do remember though that Nigel was convinced it was a true roach, whereas we both had doubts about the 3-12. It was for this reason that Nigel sent a photo of the latter to Alwyne Wheeler.

[jimmyh]

Some cracking roach there

[Latimeria]

And of course roach/chub hybrids are very rare (in fact not mentioned in many textbooks), but quite distinctive.

 

The Ribble's been mentioned before with regard to roach x chub hybrids, but on a trotting session last week around half the fish I had were, IMO, hybrids. This suggests that when conditions happen to be right this is something that can happen quite easily. It's not a one-off as they are present in many different sizes.

That lovely river does have a splendid head of roach of all sizes, I'd rather be catching a few dozen fish up to a good handful in size with occasional larger fish to get the heart beating. If every third fish was over the pound, I'd be worrying, not celebrating.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Latimeria

[Mark Wintle]

The Ribble's been mentioned before with regard to roach x chub hybrids, but on a trotting session last week around half the fish I had were, IMO, hybrids. This suggests that when conditions happen to be right this is something that can happen quite easily. It's not a one-off as they are present in many different sizes.

That lovely river does have a splendid head of roach of all sizes, I'd rather be catching a few dozen fish up to a good handful in size with occasional larger fish to get the heart beating. If every third fish was over the pound, I'd be worrying, not celebrating.

 

I'd love to see pics of these roach x chub hybrids. They really are very very rare; I know that because it was very difficult to source pics of this particular hybrid for my book though in the end, thanks to help from Angling Times and a couple of Chub Study Group members, I did get three pictures. I've had two of this type of hybrid myself in over 40 years fishing on many rivers that have roach (tens of thousands of roach in that time and into the thousands of chub) and chub, yet the other hybrids are common (roach x rudd and roach bream) to the extent that I normally get about 200 in a season.

 

Steve,

 

Still looking for that pic and article of Nigel Witham's. I've tried a couple of magazine runs (Specialist Angler and Coarse Angler) that I thought it might be in but no luck; will try again in other mags though from memory the pic is a fairly muddy b&w, possibly from colour, and identical to the one that John Searl used to do his drawing in Red Letter Days. If you are ever in touch with Nigel I'd love a scan of the pic.