If you could catch just one of the following...

[Team Man]

40lb catfish...never seen one.

30lb carp...never caught one.

20lb pike...done.

12lb bream...lol...not quite no. Only caught my first recently and that was a skimmer.

10lb barbel...never seen one but rare and most likely small.

10lb zander...never seen one.

9lb tench...never caught one but rare and most likely small.

5lb chub...hardly caught any though and never by design but rare and most likely small.

3lb perch...done.

2lb roach...done.

2lb rudd...hardly caught any though and never by design but do-able I'm sure.

2lb grayling...done. Did that when I was 12 or something. First recorded Grayling from the White Cart.

1lb dace...very nearly and very do-able I'm sure. Again, from the White Cart.

 

It's odd that list. I've managed to catch the listed weights of the fish that are most widely available to me and as a result, I've targeted them. Pike (25/8), perch (3/12), roach (2/8), grayling (2) and very possibly dace (only recently realised how rare the big ones are so now they'll be weighed). The rest are very rare or non-existant as a species up here and the weights are highly unlikely.

 

I think some of the list will be impossible as long as I fish In Scotland.

 

 

 

Doesn't it make you want to move south...........don't answer that.

[lutra]

Oh Ive not had a 5lb Chub either! Ive had two now at 4 but dont often get the chance to fish for them.

I think that just go's to show how important location is, as a 5lb chub is something i do on a fairly regular basis with out even trying when barbel fishing. Mind you Ive never even seen a zander of any size.

[tincatinca]

I’m weird, because for me the actual weight of the fish really doesn’t matter at all. Of the fish listed, I’d most like to catch a big Roach, but I’d be equally happy whether it happened to weigh 1lb 15oz, or 2lb 1oz. Truth is, I wouldn’t even know, because I never weigh my fish. For me, the most important objective measure of a fish is to be subjectively pleased to have caught it, so its weight is neither here nor there. A big Roach would be a dream come true- whatever accurate measurements could be made of its dimension.

 

The real point of these target weights is so anglers can describe their fish to other anglers in universally recognisable terms. Everyone knows how special a really big Roach is, and we all know that a 2lb Roach is a really big roach. But is a 1lb 15oz Roach really any less special than a 2lb 1oz Roach, except that it artificially and academically becomes so by the process of weighing it and finding it short?

 

There’s a bit of an obsession with size here, and, as my wife always tells me, it doesn’t matter.

 

Interesting points made here and for a long time my own criteria in fishing has been the quality of location and the quality of the fish irrespective of size. The biggest Carp I ever caught was pot bellied and ugly and although it was certainly a high thirty I did did neither photograph it or weigh it wheras if it had been a nice looking fish of a lesser size I would have done both. Whilst size is not my main driver and has not been for some time, I must admit that I do still get a buzz when I catch a big fish. Another point is that size is genrally relative to the waters that are fished (not taking into account some of the commercials) and to catch very large species one has to have access to waters that hold them which unfortunately many do not. Also,what can be classed small in one water is big in another. Like many others I have fished for a long time and have been fortunate to catch most of the fish listed at the prescribed weights but in doing so have had to cover a lot of ground and spend a considerable amount of time and money to do so whilst at the same time making many sacrifices which unfortunately had a negative effect on my family life at times. The main thing is to enjoy what you do and to catch a PB in any species I think gives great pleasure for most people. The great thing about fishing though is that there is always another challenge for everyone

[Dick Dastardly]

I think that just go's to show how important location is, as a 5lb chub is something i do on a fairly regular basis with out even trying when barbel fishing. Mind you Ive never even seen a zander of any size.

 

Yes totally Lutra. Andy Mac's post shows that as well.

 

Its what you have available OR fires your imagination enough to travel for.

[wellyphant]

Just a bit of fun, but which of the following fish would you most aspire to catch and why? Only one choice mind!

 

40lb catfish

30lb carp

20lb pike

12lb bream

10lb barbel

10lb zander

9lb tench

5lb chub

3lb perch

2lb roach

2lb rudd

2lb grayling

1lb dace

9lb tench would do it for me,already done the catfish,pike and grayling.The 10lb barbel will probably be acheived next year without much difficulty so it,s definitely the tench...(fished for by design on float gear)just for the fight Edited October 30, 2008 by wellyphant

[Chris Plumb]

Just a bit of fun, but which of the following fish would you most aspire to catch and why? Only one choice mind!

 

40lb catfish

30lb carp

20lb pike

12lb bream

10lb barbel

10lb zander

9lb tench

5lb chub

3lb perch

2lb roach

2lb rudd

2lb grayling

1lb dace

 

Umm - I've already done Barbel, Chub, Perch, Roach, Grayling & Dace off that list - though I have a perennial target of a 3lb grayling and a 4lb perch. As others have said - depending on where you fish, some aren't particularly challenging - in the last decade a 5lb chub from the Kennet is quite common, similarly a double figure barbel (though I've struggled to find them this season so far). Of those that remain Bream, Tench and Rudd are the most appealing to me and if I had to pick from those 3 it would have to be Rudd - as I've never caught a really big one. My pb Rudd stands at 1lb 6oz from way back in 1991 - a 2lber would be awesome!

 

 

C.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Chris Plumb

[Anderoo]

The obsession with weights is a bit odd, but unless I weigh a fish I don't know how big it is - that sounds obvious, but I would like to know if I'd caught a 4lb perch or a 10lb tench (I'm not that good at guestimating). I'm not always chasing PBs, but I suppose I do often measure my efforts in pounds and ounces. Other times it's more about the method of fishing or the difficulty of capture.

 

Sad as it is, a 2lb 15oz perch just isn't the same as a 3lber! Same as a 1lb 15oz roach. To me, at any rate.

 

An interesting point was raised a while ago - if we ever did convert from imperial to metric, those magic numbers would have to be reviewed. the 2lb roach would become a 0.9kg roach, which would have to be rounded up to 1kg, raising the bar even higher!

[tincatinca]

An interesting point was raised a while ago - if we ever did convert from imperial to metric, those magic numbers would have to be reviewed. the 2lb roach would become a 0.9kg roach, which would have to be rounded up to 1kg, raising the bar even higher!

 

Oh dear, not for me and not in my lifetime, definately a lbs and ozs person I think I would much rather catch a two stone fish than a 12.7Kg fish although a 4oz Roach doesn't sound as grand as one weighing 113.4 gms

[Dick Dastardly]

The obsession with weights is a bit odd, but unless I weigh a fish I don't know how big it is - that sounds obvious, but I would like to know if I'd caught a 4lb perch or a 10lb tench (I'm not that good at guestimating). I'm not always chasing PBs, but I suppose I do often measure my efforts in pounds and ounces. Other times it's more about the method of fishing or the difficulty of capture.

 

Sad as it is, a 2lb 15oz perch just isn't the same as a 3lber! Same as a 1lb 15oz roach. To me, at any rate.

 

Dont apologise mate! Its become the "cool" thing to do now to say that weights dont matter and knock our so called

"obsession" with them.A big increase in this was due to Chris Yates's comments on the subject on the famous PFA series! A bit rich comming from a one time record holder!

 

Nothing wrong at all in wanting to know exactly what your catch weighed.Neither is there in trying to catch bigger specimens when we go.

 

For me (and Im sure most sensible anglers) being interested in the two things Ive mentioned doesnt makes us not want to catch or spoil our enjoyment in catching smaller fish.Neither does it make us think we are some how superior to those who dont catch/try to catch specimens.

[Andy Macfarlane]

Doesn't it make you want to move south...........don't answer that.

 

Believe me, I thought about it but then again, I love the Highlands an awful lot.

Also, if you look at the speci-fish I have caught, like the Roach, would I have caught that down South? There are folk who fish for Roach all their life and they'd kill for a 2/8. I'm not Roach angler. I do alright at it but I'd be put to shame by some of the folk in here, who haven't caught a 2lber, so in that case, I'm just lucky to have a productive water nearby. Skill had a little to do with it but I know myself, the big ones were there in front of me for the taking.

The same goes with the Dace. I'm 100% certain I could catch a 1lber (it's very possible I already have) if I went after them deliberately but again, that's just luck that I have a river nearby that produces huge Dace. It never occurred to me at the time how special they were. I was collecting deadbaits...eeek!!

The Pike, Perch and Grayling were caught by design, after a lot of effort so I can sleep at night knowing luck had little to do with them.

If I wanted a BIG barbel or a Chub or something, I know I'd have to travel down South to stand a fair chance of catching them. I didn't think catching Chub was hard but they just didn't get to any size and I'm certain I could try for them forever up here and never catch even a 2lber.