Not Again

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
I got a phone call this morning from a mate, get the Angling Times, why i asked, just buy it he said.

So out i went and bought it.

Now on the front page there is a small heading, two Perch for 10lb.

I opened the paper to have a look and read about this outstanding catch, great fish and both in prime condition.

I then turn over and see my ugly mug stuck on the page.

It's 20 years this month that I had that fish, and the paper is talking about the very same thing we have been talking about here on FM.

River Roach, just how rare are they.

Whilst I agree that big river Roach are hard and getting harder to find, let alone catch, I do wise the AT would stop using that picture, it's History long gone, it would also be nice if the press would ask to run it all over again.

As for some of the claims by the AT, I leave it for those who read it to make up their minds.
 

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
Hahaha, good write up in the middle Steve.

But what of the cliams from the AT, most significant record fish in angling history, and, became one of the most iconic coarse fish of all time,

Very OTT IMO, and I caught the thing.
 

Steve Pope

Well-known member
All credit to the Doc, Paul Garner for that one, super bloke!

You're going to have to live with that capture forever Ray, thats how it is.

One heck of a way to be part of Angling history though, you'll always be there.
 

Bob Roberts

Well-known member
Congratulations Steve,

For a bloke who doesn't reply to forums how come you've got 5,122 posts gainst your name? ;)

And how come after another post the counter hasn't increased?:confused:

Same goes for Ray's post count...? Identical in two consecutive posts.:p

The question that we might ask is where are all the up and coming 'stars' who should be grabbing the headlines and column inches?

Perhaps they all go carp fishing and we're the last of the old far's!

Bob Roberts
Bob Roberts - Fishing information for the complete angler
 

Steve Pope

Well-known member
Cheers Bob.

I know I used to post on here quite frequently but that was a few years ago and I very much doubt it was in such quantity!

Very fair question about the "new" guys, the opportunity is there for any angler from the younger generation, but away from the carp scene the cupboard appears to be rather bare.

Anyway, I've signed up to Facebook to increase web traffic, plenty of fisherfolk on there, we can communicate with the less old anglers as well!
The last hurrah from an old f..t !
 

jcp01

Well-known member
Just out of interest Ray, how long was the fish retained for? This is not a 'funny' question either, it's just that I have mulled over what exactly I would do If I ever had the good fortune to capture a record fish and what the logical steps would then be.

I think that nowadays, given all the questions that would inevitably arise regarding parentage, with a record roach I would certainly retain it in a keep net and get the fish experts out in the field to witness it for themselves.
 

S-Kippy

Well-known member
Good question. I dont carry a net and I'd be damned if I'd kill a fish of that size.

Fortunately I dont think its ever likely to be an issue I'll have to deal with.
 

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
Rufus,

The fish was retained for about two hours all in all, may have been a little longer, but not much.

My mate went off to find some other anglers, he was gone what seemed an age, but I saw Terry Lampard walking across the field and called him over.

The rest we all know.

Steve,

Seems strange to me that the press still take about it, when the record has been broken.

Bob,
There are plenty of young good anglers out there, but a few i know don't like the way the press do things, so they keep away.
 

S-Kippy

Well-known member
Ray

I know its not likely but given how things have changed if you were lucky enough to do it again what would you do ? Would you claim it or say nowt ?

Skippy
 

preston96

Well-known member
Ray

I know its not likely but given how things have changed if you were lucky enough to do it again what would you do ? Would you claim it or say nowt ?

Skippy
Personally i think he just gets embarrased cos of that hat.. :wh
 

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
Personally i think he just gets embarrased cos of that hat.. :wh

Hahaha who true that is, funny thing about that hat is this. I had forgotten to pick mine up when i left the house. On the way down to Dorset we had a stop for fuel and a coffee. The hats were on the counter when i went to pay, i looked at them, the guy behind the counter said, "take one, they are Free". You can see why they were free, but kept the rain off me nut anyway.

Skippy,

Put it this way, a new Roach record today would have to be 4lb 5ozs, and I think I would have to make a claim, but miss the press out. At this moment in time, talk is that the current record isn't a true Roach, and should that be removed from the list, then my fish would become the record again, so i am told. I wouldn't want to go down that road, as i dont want to go down the road regarding the current record Roach.

IMO the record list to me is a bit of a joke at the moment. The Cat fish isn't on the list, for what ever reason's are given, that to me is wrong. It's been bought into this country, as have other species, yet they are on the list, and cats have been here for donkeys years, it's either a record list for fish in this country, or it isn't. So ask why are grass carp on the list and not cats ??? it's laughable.
 

S-Kippy

Well-known member
Ray

I am minded to agree...but on "claiming a record" could you actually do that and miss the press out ? I'm not sure you could and if it happened to be a record roach then they'd find out somehow and pester the life out of you. Its not the same as [say] a known carp coming out at 3 ozs heavier than the last time.

I'm thinking here of protecting the water. We all know what would happen if the water was named. There would be every numpty and his uncle on it before the ink was dry.

On that basis alone...and to protect the fish which if I were lucky enough to catch would definately go back I dont think I'd claim. It would be enough for me and a couple of very trusted friends to know I'd done it.Though I accept that it is perhaps not quite as simple as that. There is a "public interest" sort of issue to be reconciled as well I suppose....particularly with a record roach. It is,after all, the one that everyone would love to hold and anybody who says otherwise I suggest is fibbing.

That said I am not so naive as to believe that whatever list is currently "the" one actually lists the biggest fish of whatever species ever caught on rod and line.There is at least one on there that I know has been exceeded by nigh on 25 % but not claimed in order to protect the water. There will be others too I'm sure...that's just the one I know about and I'm just an ordinary angler with no big name contacts.

Skippy
 

John Spilsbury

Well-known member
The question that we might ask is where are all the up and coming 'stars' who should be grabbing the headlines and column inches?

Perhaps they all go carp fishing and we're the last of the old far's!

Bob Roberts
QUOTE]

An interesting question indeed. In the good old days, when very few big fish anglers were on the scene it was very easy to become a recognised name. Any of the regularly successful big fish anglers could have done it. Some of us chose not to court the press, liking our fishing more than the fame, and largely managed to stay out of the limelight. Others took the opposite view and plastered the papers with their catches. In doing so they became tackle box names, and some earned a fair few dollars over the years from doing so. Fair enough. In some cases the fishing was not that difficult, and one might even ask whether all that fame was really earned and deserved. I used to annoy a few people by saying that it was not that difficult to catch big fish, even way back then. But in reality is that not also what Walker's "Still Water Angling" was doing? Saying that big fish could be successfully fished for?

In later years, in order to become well known, it seems you had to work harder, you needed to put the time in, to hammer the waters wherein the best fish lay...and this often meant waters that were getting regularly fed ( effectively fish farms). One aim was to get sponsorship. Getting that and the professional status and finance that could go with it, allowed the angler to spend enough extra fishing time to get into the comics even more regularly. If they couldn't write themselves, they could be ghost written.

So today to break into the circuit is more difficult. Time and money now conspire against any young aspiring angler. So many anglers catch very good fish these days, that to get your head high enough to be seen in the crowd, would need a really exceptional fish or three. Young anglers generally don't have the time and money to do it....and not JUST young anglers I suppose.

There are still, I believe, some anglers that are doing very well, but who choose to keep their heads down. Most though, just seem to go with the crowd, fish exactly the same as everyone else, and therefore catch the same as everyone else. Catching big fish these days, especially carp and barbel has been so well prescribed , almost laid out on a plate.

We need original thought to make interesting reading. In no other sport is so much utter rubbish written on a daily basis. But in this playstation generation, the instant gratification culture, the masses do not see through the smokescreen. So it works. and the publications thrive and make money. The instant anglers continue to buy the mags, which recycle the same old articles, often reshuffled by the same old authors at an ever increasing frequency. Very few articles contain much that is new or hold original thought.

I wonder how many hackles those few paragraphs might raise?
 

Ray Roberts

Well-known member
I have only just seen this thread, otherwise I would have posted earlier.

Isn't going on a public forum to complain about unwanted publicity a bit like running stark boll0ck naked up your local High Street on a busy Saturday afternoon and hollering at the top of your voice "Don't look at me, don't look at me"?

Come on Ray, you know you love it really.
 

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
I have only just seen this thread, otherwise I would have posted earlier.

Isn't going on a public forum to complain about unwanted publicity a bit like running stark boll0ck naked up your local High Street on a busy Saturday afternoon and hollering at the top of your voice "Don't look at me, don't look at me"?

Come on Ray, you know you love it really.
Ray, Just how wrong you are you will never know.

The worst thing I did in my angler life was going to the press, and you have know idea what a pain in the Ar*e it can be at times, even 20 years on.

This is the reason for this thread,

The point that everyone is missing is the statement from the AT, which i did post but will repeat, just for you.

I Quote,

The most significant Fish in Angling History,

One of the most Iconic coarse fish of all time.

That can not be the case, as the record has been broken, further more, shouldn't the present record fish hold centre stage here, and shouldn't I have been contacted by the AT that they were running this story ???

To me, it's all very OTT.

Skippy,

Yes you can cliam a record without the press.

You contact the BRFC direct, and state that all photo's are of copyright to yourself, and No pictures are to be sent to the press. As long as you have all the right criteria in the right place, then there shouldn't be a problem. The prees dont make records, just report them, and you don't have to use the press to claim a record.

Like you, I know of two different carp that have broken the record, and by a couple of pounds, but have not been cliamed to protect the water.

When i caught my fish I never named the section, just the river, but as time has gone by, it has become known where the fish came from. So i would say to anyone who should catch a record, if you want to go to the press, then do if that is what you want, but DO NOT NAME THE VENUE, you don't have to to claim a record.

For me, it's a fish of a lifetime, but I have had many many good days fishng, that would knock that one fish into a tin hat.
 

S-Kippy

Well-known member
Ray

That's two fish bigger than the record I know about then...the fish I referred to is not a carp.:eek:

What a dilemma eh ? I'm glad I'll never have to worry about it....ruinning naked up the high street I mean :D

Skippy
 

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
Ray

That's two fish bigger than the record I know about then...the fish I referred to is not a carp.:eek:

What a dilemma eh ? I'm glad I'll never have to worry about it....ruinning naked up the high street I mean :D

Skippy
That's a sight we dont want to see ..................:eek:, Ray might as he bought it up, or maybe he has done it himself...:)

Your on about the other fish being the Bream Skippy ???
 
A

alan whittington

Guest
Im sorry to say i wouldnt claim any record,im loath to tell people locally when i catch a decent fish even as at one time i had fellas looking for me on stretches i was fishing at the time(not going to happen now cos i catch sod all),fishing is about being on good waters with some peace and quiet,not having the specimen circus trying to get their names in the papers(and we all know who they are)on your water.
Still think of it this way Ray,you will have your band of groupies after you again mate.
 
Top