Do british records still mean as much

[Phone]

Barry,

 

I stand by my comment. Page two doesn't even name the pub.

 

Phone

 

Edit: It does show the importance of records as advertising material however. No matter how you come by them.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Phone

[barry luxton]

you just gone down in my esteem, the guy in question has spent all his life building up a business with genuine hard work taking many hundreds of guys out to enjoy themselves for you to come out with this cr@p, behave yourself.

[channelislandcharlie]

I see this forum site is just like all the others then.You start a thread looking for discussion and debate and you end up with people just slagging each other off.shame

[Anderoo]

I see this forum site is just like all the others then.You start a thread looking for discussion and debate and you end up with people just slagging each other off.shame

 

I tried to engage in the discussion, so I'll repeat my question as I had no answers - which British records have come from artificial waters that aren't accessible to most anglers?

[Peter Waller]

Perhaps not now but for a while the predictability of the carp record being broken quite simply devalued U.K. records, great shame.

[Anderoo]

I don't really understand that Peter, how did the predictability of the carp record devalue all the records?

 

There was only one known carp that could beat the record, and that fish is now dead. Fair enough, but I can't see any connection between that and the chub record, or the perch record, or the zander record, or...etc.

[robtherake]

That's my point.If the record isn't the record then what is the point of the record.What do you think of having notable fish lists for all species for example all pike over 35lb,all Bass over 17lb.Still massive fish.

 

I'm a lists fan, Charlie. It's interesting to look back and be able to see a progression from the earlier days of the sport right up to the present. That is, of all the reported catches, bearing in mind that many notable fish go unreported for many reasons, especially secrecy, so even an exhaustive list of known catches can only ever be an approximation of the full picture.

 

I remember reading about Chris Yates' capture of his 51 pounder, back in the day. It never once bothered me that I was unlikely to be able to fish at Redmire, and so could not hope to emulate his feat. It was enough to have been able to share in the capture, albeit from a distance. I think we have to accept that there are waters where only the fortunate few can cast a line, and be glad that they're willing to broadcast their experiences.

[tinca steve]

which British records have come from artificial waters that aren't accessible to most anglers?

As such I would class stock ponds as artificial, so the Crucian Record is one because that was caught I believe from a stock pond, and I do not mean the one that equalled it from a Verulam water.

 

 

As for most of the british records I don't care, as for my own records they are by the individual water or group of waters, Due to the fact I fish North ,South, East and West and sizes do change from Northern climes to Southern ones.

[Anderoo]

The record crucian was caught from a gravel pit in Yateley.

[Anderoo]

An additional thought on the carp record - this was a fish that had grown to an enormous size in the water it lived in, not stocked at a very high weight. Moreover, the water is a difficult, low stock pit, not an easy purpose built commercial. The only reason it seemed a bit of a joke is because it was such a big fish, no others could get close to it! So it just kept beating its own records. A similar thing happened with the barbel record.

 

I wonder what people think of the perch record from Stream Valley? That's an artificial water. However, the perch were not stocked at massive weights, they grew huge because the conditions really suited them and for a long time they were just left alone. Should that record stand?

 

I remember in the 90s when small stillwater trout fisheries like Dever Springs and Avington were growing record sized trout in what amounted to lab conditions, then releasing them into the lakes to get caught in the next few days (sometimes the same day). I can see why fish like that should not count as legitimate records. In the coarse fishing world that has only happened with catfish I believe, where record sized fish have been stocked (often illegally). The catfish record no longer stands as a result. The same thing would happen if this was done with any other species, but that hasn't happened - and the only one that this might happen to is with carp, purely because some people would pay a lot of money to fish for a 70lb carp, regardless of its 'legitimacy'.

 

So, apart from catfish (a non-native fish anyway), why don't british records still mean as much?