Do british records still mean as much

[Phone]

gozzer,

 

Nevertheless, it should be recorded?

 

Androo,

 

Credibility comes into play on this side of the pond - we lie.

 

Phone

[gozzer]

gozzer,

 

Nevertheless, it should be recorded?

 

 

Phone

 

Did I say it shouldn't Phone?

 

John.

[Phone]

gozzer,

 

No, you just didn't say one way or the other. I think a lot of anglers keep personal journals and pb data. The thread is about "British Records" not personal journals. You kinda mixed apples and oranges?

 

Phone

[channelislandcharlie]

I simply started this thread to ask the general question do anglers today see a "British record fish" as less important than anglers of say 10,15,20 or more years ago and if so why.If anglers do think less of a British record is it due to the predictability of where a record will come from or maybe some anglers feel they don't have the opportunity to fish a water where these fish are present.Maybe sea anglers simply don't want to kill a fish to make the claim or as has been said with magazines printing reports of record sized fish being returned they don't consider the record list as accurate.Personally I think british records are great but I think most anglers aren't really interested in them.

[gozzer]

Charlie, thanks for clearing that up with your own views on the subject. Please don't think that it's caused a slanging match, or any ill feeling, it's just a healthy exchange of opinions.

Phone, I will try to express my post in a better way. I might run the risk of seeming to contradict some of my earlier stuff, but I'm not.

There are two ways we can look at the record list. One is as a scientific list of potential size a fish can achieve, but it's not. If it were, then we should count fish caught by any method, at any time, or even just found by the water.
The other is a record of rod caught fish, and as such it has to meet certain criteria in regard to method, location, (no poaching), and time of capture, ie, in the correct season. (although even this has changed since the abolition of the closed season on certain waters). If it has to meet this criteria, then it's subject to the individual anglers scrutiny as well. That as far as I'm concerned includes the ethics of the capture. I've said earlier that the relentless pursuit of an individual fish, resulting in many repeat captures, and claims of a record, is not within my idea of ethical captures. Thus the record list loses some credibility to me.
As far as the record fish committee is concerned then that weight is the biggest recorded, and should go on the list. But I feel slightly different about it.

John.

[azrael]

records are just records jet statistics of the best fishes caught don't mean anythink special