"Natural fish/cultivated fish" and national records.

[Davyr]

And cross-posted with Snape!

[The Sweetcorn Kid]

Quick bugger isn't he!!?? :think:

[Davyr]

Quick bugger isn't he!!?? :think:

He sure is - looks like he deleted his last post as I was replying to it!!

[Snape]

Quick bugger isn't he!!?? :think:

He sure is - looks like he deleted his last post as I was replying to it!!

Had a change of mind as to whether I was right or not. I depended on whether the voilà referred to the link of the contents of the website it pointed to.... What do I know I gave up languages as soon as I could!

[Davyr]

Yup, I was going on this definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voil%C3%A0

[MGs]

I too have no interest in records. Not since the 1970s or early 80s have I even known what they are (I used to know them all and details of most of the captors.....how sad). I am not likely to ever catch a fish capable of breaking the record. Even if I did, I would probably find it aesthetically displeasing. I prefer my fish svelte and in proportion.

To me, catching my best of a species remains relatively important. However, if it was achieve by an overfed stocked fish, I would be disappointed. This probably explains why my best fish are in most cases half the weight of the current record, or even less. It doesn't make the fish I catch any less wonderful to me.

I remember years ago, rod licenses used to have the sizes of "keeper" fish printed on the back. If this was the case today, I imagine that the sizes would exceed the records of the 1960s. As long as I catch fish which I consider to be reasonable for the water in question I am happy.

[Davyr]

I remember years ago, rod licenses used to have the sizes of "keeper" fish printed on the back. I.

Matches in the Thames catchment area used to be fished to size limits and consequently all participants used to carry a fish ruler in their tackle boxes. Any fish that made the qualifying length was called a "go'er" and this term continued to be used long after it had lost its original meaning.

[MGs]

Thanks for the clarification. It would be interesting to think what these sizes would be scaled up to now

[SilverBirch]

Records aren’t important to me anymore, apart from my own personal records. All I want to achieve from my fishing is to enjoy myself, set myself targets and to do things on my terms.

The carp fishing world is in limbo at present, no new record carp to fish for, it just doesn’t exist, well not as far as we know, so it’s about sitting around, trying to catch a whacker whilst waiting until something big turns up. Not for me but each to their own.

This is why there is controversy surrounding certain lakes, talk of importing fish that can topple the current record and fish that can grow on to overshadow anything we have seen before, but this would cause so much stir that the same would happen that we have already seen happen with the catfish and grass carp records.

I’m more than happy to let the world do their thing, I am focussed to what I want out of my fishing, that’s all that really matters to me.

I stand squarely with you on this SK and have also lost interest in the concept of national 'Record Fish' lists. The waters are just too muddied to discern the true merit of a fish on it's weight alone.

Funnily enough ( the concept ) still exists as a fond memory that helped to set goals and motivated me to get out and chase the unknown as a teenager. Back then everyone somehow felt that they were in with a chance of finding and catching such a beast that might top the list.

The potential of virtually any water has nowadays been revealed, documented and exploited, rendering them demystified and relatively charmless. 'Knowledge is power' so goes the saying and we all seem to be programmed to aquire it ( and it is easliy sourced and shared in the information/internet age ) but too much in certain fields like angling erodes the for me essential element of mystery and with it gnaws away at it's soul, so perhaps the maxim 'a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing' is more apt.

The tipping point occured long ago for me and nowadays i give little thought for a fishes weight at all and focus on the process's of angling and the enjoyment of immersing myself in a waterside enviroment. Plenty of uplifting and rewarding days are to be had without a hint of slime on the net.

FB, for me The List had it's place in time and that has past, talk of two tier natural / brought on fish lists would only further complicate an already untenable situation.

I don't enjoy sports in general but am aware of the disarray in Boxing titles nowadays, all the codes proclaiming their own world champions at similar weights, if thats a valid comparison.

SB

[Gary Bills]

The boxing comparison is a good one, SB - so, is there consensus that we should scrap the lists for record fish - or simply ignore them in the search for other values?