richiekelly
Well-known member
who cares anyway, records are all b!!!!!!!s anyway, as long as my scales are accurate for my fish that will do for me.
DNA ...a new era for records or the start of a big mess ...
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
Ray Daywalker Clarke
Well-known member
Read back it been said, keep up.
Graham Marsden
Editor Emeritus
I think you're missing the point. Having your name removed from a specific list hasn't made a blind bit of difference to anything. Your fish is still recognised as the record roach for the period before it was beaten by a bigger fish. My point was that 'withdrawing' a fish from the list makes no sense because history remains the same no matter what the words are on a list. Do a search, as I've done, for the BRFC list for the period in question and on every one you'll find your roach listed.
Ha Ha. Nice tactic.
No, I won't read back, I don't need to. We BOTH know the reason your throwing up smoke screens is because you b*****tted yourself
into a corner, patronizing me and acting like you know all there is to know about testing scales but when we really dig down you
don't know do you.
Anyway the scales debate ends there. I'll leave you dig yourself another hole on the record Roach retraction...I see the hole growing
by the minute for you on that one.
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)
Senior Member
Son of Meldrew
Active member
Any modern scientific procedure for determining identity has got to be better than what we have now - just look at all the dodgy big 'roach' that have been claimed in recent years...not always by ordinary 'pleasure' anglers, but also by some who seem to be regarded as 'authorities' and should know better! (But then there's always the temptation of the Drennan Cup, eh...?)
And why the roach 'record' should be held by an Irish fish...caught in the spawning season...plus the fact that if it had been caught south of an imaginary line in Ireland it wouldn't have counted...is beyond me! But that's another debate.
Makes me seethe!
And why the roach 'record' should be held by an Irish fish...caught in the spawning season...plus the fact that if it had been caught south of an imaginary line in Ireland it wouldn't have counted...is beyond me! But that's another debate.
Makes me seethe!
B
Berty
Guest
I like to put my feelings foreward on this one.
The present day BRFC is in my opinion one of the best yet.....Andy Nellist is someone i look upon as a friend and i and ALL those who know him have total respect for his dedication.
We need a record fish list as a guide and to record angling history.....it needs to be retained within the angling world so that it can be monitored.....the BRFC are here for that.
If lady luck ever blessed me with the capture of a record fish i have total confidence that the BRFC would handle it in a manner that was totally fair and unbaised.
I also believe that it is THE FISH and not the captor that is the important part of the record ans should be recorded.........being the captor would be something i would be immensly proud of...........but it is the fish that is recorded for posterity.
The present day BRFC is in my opinion one of the best yet.....Andy Nellist is someone i look upon as a friend and i and ALL those who know him have total respect for his dedication.
We need a record fish list as a guide and to record angling history.....it needs to be retained within the angling world so that it can be monitored.....the BRFC are here for that.
If lady luck ever blessed me with the capture of a record fish i have total confidence that the BRFC would handle it in a manner that was totally fair and unbaised.
I also believe that it is THE FISH and not the captor that is the important part of the record ans should be recorded.........being the captor would be something i would be immensly proud of...........but it is the fish that is recorded for posterity.
quickcedo
Well-known member
Having just read this thread from start to here, all I can say is "Prams and Teddies"
For what it's worth, once a record fish is on the list I believe you can ask to have your name removed but the fish stays.
Having owned a shop or two over the years which had scales, all i can say is the testing by w&m is, well lets say simple. Add tested weights and read scales, not complicated. If they prove to be out, they got sent away. As for callibration I aint got a clue. Just send them away, come back callibrated. Jobs a good un.
For what it's worth, once a record fish is on the list I believe you can ask to have your name removed but the fish stays.
Having owned a shop or two over the years which had scales, all i can say is the testing by w&m is, well lets say simple. Add tested weights and read scales, not complicated. If they prove to be out, they got sent away. As for callibration I aint got a clue. Just send them away, come back callibrated. Jobs a good un.
Graham Marsden
Editor Emeritus
Exactly.
The record fish list will never be perfect because it will always be open to abuse by cheating individuals in one way or another. But it is a historical record that belongs to all of us. Just as it would be ridiculous for Roger Bannister to withdraw his four minute mile record it is equally ridiculous for a captor to withdraw a record fish.
The record fish list is our history, our heritage, and no individual should be allowed to change it on a whim.
B
Berty
Guest
I cant get my head around why Roger Bannister would want to suddenly want his sub four minute mile removed.......would that make it so it never happened?
quickcedo
Well-known member
Buzz Aldrin was the first man on the Moon. Armstrong removed his name saying NASA had lost it's way.
B
Berty
Guest
Graham Marsden
Editor Emeritus
Sorry to bring this one up again after it had appeared to have faded into the background but I've been waiting for a reply off a BRFC Committee member so as to once and for all clarify the position regarding 'withdrawing' records.
I asked if I could quote the reply and was given permission. Here it is, in full:
"You cannot withdraw a record that has been ratified and is on the list.
If new facts are made known to the committee by anyone a record could be removed by the committee. The Rainbow Trout is a good example where the captor confessed that he had not caught it.
The record is held by the claimant but they don't own it."
I asked if I could quote the reply and was given permission. Here it is, in full:
"You cannot withdraw a record that has been ratified and is on the list.
If new facts are made known to the committee by anyone a record could be removed by the committee. The Rainbow Trout is a good example where the captor confessed that he had not caught it.
The record is held by the claimant but they don't own it."
Well, that pretty much solves the question, thanks Graham for the clarification
Ray Daywalker Clarke
Well-known member
Well thats not how it is in Law, and thats what counts, the BRFC have no law holding on the records as they dont own it, the captor does, the BRFC stands for nothing in truth, as the record list is Voluntary, nothing more and wouldnt even be around if it wasnt for captors making the claim, chicken and egg, fish and captor what came first, you should know, you think you know everything.
I can only compare what you know about this, to that of your knowledge of outboard motors and the leads they come fitted with, forgot, the company that makes them were wrong and you were right. NOT.
God how boring this has become, as we went over this along time ago, and you were wrong then as you are now.
B
Berty
Guest
Ray.....this aint a "pop" it's a genuine issue that i feel strongly about.....
The job of recording the biggest fish that are caught fairly by anglers on rod and line is something that we should do imo.
To do this we need a body...we have the BRFC, now love em or hate em that is what we have.
If a fish is caught that is a record and it is "verified" then it's a record full stop......i personally would not be happy to claim a "new" record unless it was over the old one.
The same would apply if i were say a javelin thrower......i wouldnt be happy to claim a record throw that was under another "verified" throw.
You note no mention of names.......that bit is unimportant it is the "deed" that is relevent, once a deed is done it can't be undone.
The job of recording the biggest fish that are caught fairly by anglers on rod and line is something that we should do imo.
To do this we need a body...we have the BRFC, now love em or hate em that is what we have.
If a fish is caught that is a record and it is "verified" then it's a record full stop......i personally would not be happy to claim a "new" record unless it was over the old one.
The same would apply if i were say a javelin thrower......i wouldnt be happy to claim a record throw that was under another "verified" throw.
You note no mention of names.......that bit is unimportant it is the "deed" that is relevent, once a deed is done it can't be undone.
Last edited:
Blimey! Did I miss roach wars ? 
B
Berty
Guest
Never a dull moment Fred
Ray Roberts
Well-known member
Why bring it up again then, I think you have another agenda other than records and are just using this thread as an excuse for a cheap shot at Graham.
Common sense should tell you that if there is a fish that is the largest of it's kind then it's really the fish that is the record for the species and the captor in a way is secondary. If the fish was caught fairly and it's capture is an historical fact, how can you withdraw that? To claim otherwise is total nonsense and would surely make you look rather foolish if you tried to do so. Imagine if Roger Banister tried to say that he didn't want to be seen as the first man to break the four minute mile, he couldn't, it's a historical fact. The only way he could get out of being the record holder is if he admitted to cheating and his record was disqualified.
Oh, just for the record I have never met either Graham or Ray in person.
Now this is becoming confusing, again.
The BRFC Committee has given their clarification on the question of 'withdrawing' records, and now Ray is saying that that is not how it is in Law;
Which begs the question, which Law are you referring to Ray?