Perch record?

[Anderoo]

Doesn't look like it was claimed, list up to date as of 14 Dec 2012....

 

http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&itemid=1447

 

C.

Oh, that's a shame. I know carpers hate bream but that's 2 records that have been fairly caught and not claimed.

[lutra]

Doesn't look like it was claimed, list up to date as of 14 Dec 2012....

 

http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&itemid=1447

 

C.

Anglers mail site says "claimed but not yet ratified at 22lb 12oz. Seems very slow at a year on.

 

http://www.anglersmail.co.uk/uncategorized/british-record-coarse-fish-list/

[philocalist]

Anglers mail site says "claimed but not yet ratified at 22lb 12oz. Seems very slow at a year on.

 

http://www.anglersmail.co.uk/uncategorized/british-record-coarse-fish-list/

 

Lutra - thats an unfortunate truncation (in your post) of the URL! :-)

[lutra]

Lutra - thats an unfortunate truncation (in your post) of the URL! :-)

lol, maybe its trying to tell us something.

[Peter M]

Slighly off topic, but do any of you have any notion why they seem to grow bigger on mainland Europe?

 

i wonder if its climate or availability of food like cray fish ?? only a guess

[Andy Macfarlane]

Good point Chris, but surely the fact is that a certain species of fish weighs that amount, it should be recorded? Or just ignored?

 

I kind of agree with you Dave. Surely if a fish of that size has been recorded, it should be recorded at least as proof that fish of that size actually exist but perhaps with some sort of caveat demonstrating that no monies, rewards, prizes or certificates can be claimed due to the nature of the capture.

 

Surely the whole point of a record weight is the highest weight that a particular species has been, well, recorded at??

 

I can see the other side of course but I still can't help feeling that a list of record weights is somewhat pointless if it doesn't include the actual largest weights that any particular species has been caught at, otherwise it's merely a list of big fish that have met a certain criteria laid down by a group of people who have full control of what is legitimate or not.

 

If I caught a 7lb perch from my local park pond, I'd know that 7lb perch exist but the fish wouldn't make the list. That to me would make the list somewhat a sham in my mind.

[Steve Walker]

I agree, I see the record list as a historical record rather than a prize list.

 

Perhaps fish which are caught in circumstances like that described should be recorded without the captor's name?

[Bobj]

Slighly off topic, but do any of you have any notion why they seem to grow bigger on mainland Europe?

 

Possibly because they hold the fish at arms' length, closer to the camera??

[Steve Burke]

It seems as though the Record Fish Committee meets just twice a year in June and December, so there may be a delay in ratifying records.

 

Does anyone know why the Ferry Lagoon bream wasn't ratified in December though?

[gozzer]

We discussed this a while back on the thread about records in general. I said then that if it was to be a record of weights a fish can achieve, then it has to included those caught outside the criteria set down by the committee. It should also note any whole dead fish of record size found.

But it isn't a record of the size a fish can reach. It's a record of rod caught fish, within a set of rules that determine time of capture, method of capture, and place of capture. So it can only be for the prestiege and rewards that goes to the angler and water, that comes with the capture of a record fish.

 

John.