Named Fish

[GrahamM]

What's the concensus of opinion about named fish? It's almost 100% a carp thing, obviously because they're recognisable by scale pattern. But I read and hear a lot of derogatory remarks about it when all the time I reckon most of us are catching the same fish of all species more than once. We just don't know it. Most barbel, for instance, look the same, unless there is some scale damage or something else to identify them by. What do you think?

 

[Carp Angler]

As you say Graham, it's mostly a carpy thing because of their distinctive markings. It is slightly annoying upon catching a carp for some know all local to tell you it's name, the last three captors and the respective weights. There are only a limited number of large carp and in anybody's local lake the biggest fish are known and named. Unfortunately it's going to happen when 60% of todays anglers fish for carp.

 

[GrahamM]

And what is even more annoying is when the fish you've caught weighs, say, 29lb 15oz and Mr Knowall turns round and says, 'shame that, it was 30lb 1oz when it came out last week.' Just as though the capture was any the less rewarding because of the 2oz difference.

Some anglers really do need to get themselves a decent set of values.

 

[Carp Angler]

Or a decent set of scales <wink>

 

[Kevan Garrett]

This is just one of my reasons for saying enough is enough,and have given up fishing.It will always stay close to my heart,but i can no longer cope with the attitude of 85% of carp anglers,and thier strange little ways.

 

[Philip Inzani]

Personally I am not a great fan of it but it does have some uses. For example at commercial fisheries I think people do have a right to know what they are fishing for...size, quantity etc particularly if they are travelling long distances and have paid a lot of money to fish somewhere for a holiday.

Also I know several fishery managers who welcome it as it allows them to keep track on how their stock is doing by tracking the growth of individual fish.

 

[Andy Davis]

Personally I hate the "named fish" thing...and that's all I think about the subject !

 

[Keith Finn]

My children have named their hamster, I have named my Golfish and the wife calls me by a few names , some not so pleasant, but naming a fish that you are basically hunting for, is bloody ridiculous.

 

[Andrew Spreadbury]

I was responsible for naming a 30 pound carp back in 1977 - 'She' which has been caught literally hundreds of times since and is still going strong. The fish is something of a local legend and has given untold pleasure to scores of anglers in the club in which it resides. What's wrong with naming it? There's a little story behind its name - which I won't go into because I don't think anyone would be particularly interested, but the point is, the fish is something of a character and is far more than just a 'fish' in terms of pounds and ounces. To say that it is a much-loved fellow member of our club is not over-stating things.

 

[Stewart Bloor]

I don't think there is anything wrong with naming a fish, if that's all we're talking about, but it's often the 'tip of the iceberg' so to speak. In some / many cases, it's the manifestation of all that is wrong with angling - hyper competitiveness and so on.

To comment on Kevan's mail. Don't let some of the nasty side of anglers put you off angling. There may be other reasons why you gave up, but don't let it be because of the reason you mentioned. I see and hear some things that to be honest disappoint me. For example, some carp anglers who set up their bivvies and obviously didn't want to be disturbed. So they put a sign on the back of their bivvies telling people to 'go away' if you get my drift...I think these guys have lost it. Angling, for 99.9% of us, is not our living, it's our hobby, to be enjoyed. Where is the enjoyment when you get to that stage?

So, in principle, I don't have a problem with 'named fish', but often it's more of an issue than just a name.

By the way, Cooperman, how's Boris the barbel.........

 

[GrahamM]

From Andy's point you can see the nice side of naming fish. I've seen this before with carp anglers. They really do look on their 'celebrity' fish with a lot of affection.

The side I don't like is the disappearance of the element of mystery.

 

[Philip Inzani]

Graham, although I think I know what you're getting at I don't really see the "naming" as such as taking away the mystery. Do you think that if fish were not named then it would be any more mysterious ? People would still recognise fish and know the approx weights of fish in various venues.
I am guessing your point may be more angled towards repeat captures and chasing known fish?

On that score I think that it's not necessarily all bad. I mean even years ago people travelled to far off venues to try and catch big fish that they had heard about other anglers catching....take **** Walker going to Redmire……. you could argue that this was fish chasing! Ok thats a bit tongue in cheek but hopefully you get my drift.
I recently read some stuff by Fred J Taylor who said that he now realised how unbelievably naive he and his friend were when catching countless big Chub and Perch from the Ouse years ago....they where almost certainly catching the same fish over and over again. It's no different to today it's just that we understand this to be the case now.

 

[GrahamM]

I said in an earlier message to this thread that we are all making repeat captures. It's just that we're more likely to know it with carp which can be easily identified by scale pattern.

But I take your point with names, it isn't the actual name that robs us of the mystery. The name just gives repeat captures a 'label'.

 

[Leon Foreman]

Naming isnt verry common in South Africa seeing that most fish are firstly taken home and secondly the most anglers fish in the Vaal and Orrange rivers which is just to vast to contemplate the idea of catching the same fish over and over again. Personally I do not have aproblem with naming a fish but I am not one to target a specific fish. Should I visit a private lake or dam I just wish to have a general idea of the fish available. I prefer fishing the unknown, always hoping for something bigger and better. I do not wish to know what the actual limit is on the biggest possible fish that I might catch. It Feel it takes away some of the magig of fishing. What is next when you have caught the biggest possible fish in a lake? do you wish to return to that lake soon if you have allready reached the pinnacle of succes for that particular lake?

 

[Philip Inzani]

Leon, I take your point but you have to remeber that you are in a very fortunate position in being able to fish in venues with an untapped potential. For many anglers in the UK that is an impossible dream.
Also I do not agree entirly that fish "chasing" is all bad. I wrote what I thought about this a bit further up the thread so I wont repeat it here.

 

[Leon Foreman]

Philip, no fish chasing isn’t a bad thing at all. I also get the urge to go fishing where I know the fish are big and potential records are available even if it only means that I will improve my personal best. I do believe that it is solely up to the angler and how he/she feels what they would like to do. Knowing that a certain lake holds a certain known fish doesn’t mean that you will catch it. All I am suggesting is that an angler wishing to fish the unknown should have the opportunity to do so even if it is just unknown to him personally. I know the UK doesn’t have many of these waters and that we are very fortunate to have a vast amount of these locations. To me however it is strange, not wrong, I grew up on unknown waters and therefore am keener to fish such waters. What I do not agree with is people actually telling you that your catch isn’t the best even if it is for you. It is one thing knowing what the biggest fish is but someone actually killing your joy because you haven’t caught old so and so is not only wrong but also rude.