"Natural fish/cultivated fish" and national records.

[GloucesterOldSpot]

It doesn't worry me unduly; I know we will never be able to reverse the trend, as too many people now accept it as normal, in the same way that poor grammer and spelling (and the use of terms such as could of instead of could have) are now considered normal, if not entirely acceptable. If people want to fish lakes where the fish are reared to artificial weights by automatic feeding that's up to them; it's interesting to note that a lot of those who object strongly to carp waters of this type cheerfully go stillwater trout fishing! If they regard a fish from one of these places as the record, so be it. I don't care for it myself, and prefer to find waters where the fish are naturally grown. I won't break any records but my own this way, but then I don't particularly want to break any records. I imagine most of us on here feel the same.

Like Weyfarer (and no doubt most of us who fished before the great commercial revolution) I used to know the record list off by heart - weight, date of capture, name of angler etc. I haven't a clue what it is now, and don't much care. I think the Rev Alston still holds the rudd record though, which brings me to an interesting anomaly; Alston caught his big rudd from Ring Mere in Norfolk, a water which periodically dried up. Some years previously he had introduced some rudd and tench to the mere which he had caught from a nearby water. The rudd averaged two pounds or so, and the tench about four pounds. He subsequently caught the record rudd of four pounds eight ounces and a record tench of seven pounds something from the very water he'd stocked. No-one ever questioned the validity of those records, yet they could be considered in the same light as the modern tendency to stock big fish in prepared waters.

[Snape]

It doesn't worry me unduly; I know we will never be able to reverse the trend, as too many people now accept it as normal, in the same way that poor grammer and spelling (and the use of terms such as could of instead of could have) are now considered normal, if not entirely acceptable. If people want to fish lakes where the fish are reared to artificial weights by automatic feeding that's up to them; it's interesting to note that a lot of those who object strongly to carp waters of this type cheerfully go stillwater trout fishing! If they regard a fish from one of these places as the record, so be it. I don't care for it myself, and prefer to find waters where the fish are naturally grown. I won't break any records but my own this way, but then I don't particularly want to break any records. I imagine most of us on here feel the same.

Like Weyfarer (and no doubt most of us who fished before the great commercial revolution) I used to know the record list off by heart - weight, date of capture, name of angler etc. I haven't a clue what it is now, and don't much care. I think the Rev Alston still holds the rudd record though, which brings me to an interesting anomaly; Alston caught his big rudd from Ring Mere in Norfolk, a water which periodically dried up. Some years previously he had introduced some rudd and tench to the mere which he had caught from a nearby water. The rudd averaged two pounds or so, and the tench about four pounds. He subsequently caught the record rudd of four pounds eight ounces and a record tench of seven pounds something from the very water he'd stocked. No-one ever questioned the validity of those records, yet they could be considered in the same light as the modern tendency to stock big fish in prepared waters.

Rev Alston's record has fallen twice in the last 10 years. It is now over 5lbs http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-Time ... sh-record/
I can't imagine ever breaking a record and probably wouldn't claim it if I did as I would just like the personal satisfaction. Unless it was something interesting like the bleak or ruffe.... Now there would be some ironic kudos in that.

[The Sweetcorn Kid]

I can't imagine ever breaking a record and probably wouldn't claim it if I did as I would just like the personal satisfaction. Unless it was something interesting like the bleak or ruffe.... Now there would be some ironic kudos in that.

.....or a gudgeon at Redmire!!??

[GloucesterOldSpot]

It doesn't worry me unduly; I know we will never be able to reverse the trend, as too many people now accept it as normal, in the same way that poor grammer and spelling (and the use of terms such as could of instead of could have) are now considered normal, if not entirely acceptable. If people want to fish lakes where the fish are reared to artificial weights by automatic feeding that's up to them; it's interesting to note that a lot of those who object strongly to carp waters of this type cheerfully go stillwater trout fishing! If they regard a fish from one of these places as the record, so be it. I don't care for it myself, and prefer to find waters where the fish are naturally grown. I won't break any records but my own this way, but then I don't particularly want to break any records. I imagine most of us on here feel the same.

Like Weyfarer (and no doubt most of us who fished before the great commercial revolution) I used to know the record list off by heart - weight, date of capture, name of angler etc. I haven't a clue what it is now, and don't much care. I think the Rev Alston still holds the rudd record though, which brings me to an interesting anomaly; Alston caught his big rudd from Ring Mere in Norfolk, a water which periodically dried up. Some years previously he had introduced some rudd and tench to the mere which he had caught from a nearby water. The rudd averaged two pounds or so, and the tench about four pounds. He subsequently caught the record rudd of four pounds eight ounces and a record tench of seven pounds something from the very water he'd stocked. No-one ever questioned the validity of those records, yet they could be considered in the same light as the modern tendency to stock big fish in prepared waters.

Rev Alston's record has fallen twice in the last 10 years. It is now over 5lbs http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-Time ... sh-record/
I can't imagine ever breaking a record and probably wouldn't claim it if I did as I would just like the personal satisfaction. Unless it was something interesting like the bleak or ruffe.... Now there would be some ironic kudos in that.

Shows how out-of-date I am!

On the matter of minor species, does Dennis Flack still hold the records for several of the little critters? I can't recall which species now, but at one time he had three records at the same time.

[Davyr]

poor grammer and spelling.

That slip was, of course, intentional and just put in to see if we were awake. :hahaha:

[GloucesterOldSpot]

Touche!

A thousand lashings at least.

[Snape]

Touche!

A thousand lashings at least.

That's touché (don't forget the acute!) :chuckle:

[GloucesterOldSpot]

Touche!

A thousand lashings at least.

That's touché (don't forget the acute!) :chuckle:

Haven't got one of those on my keyboard. Got one of these ` but not the other.

[Snape]

Touche!

A thousand lashings at least.

That's touché (don't forget the acute!) :chuckle:

Haven't got one of those on my keyboard. Got one of these ` but not the other.

Character map under all programs/accessories/system tools (in windows 7). 1000s of other interesting characters and symbols etc.

[Davyr]

Haven't got one of those on my keyboard. Got one of these ` but not the other.

Voila!

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 809AAzm5io