EXPERTS’ RE­AC­TION TO THE DE­CI­SION...

Angling Times (UK) - - THIS WEEK -

EX­IST­ING BRI­TISH CARP RECORD HOLDER, DEAN FLETCHER

“It’s a thorny is­sue, and I re­alise that carp fish­ing has changed so much over the past 20 years and that these big fish are in­creas­ingly com­mon­place, but I have to say I agree with the de­ci­sion. I’ll be hon­est and say that I thought they were go­ing to give his one, but I’m glad that they haven’t, be­cause it just doesn’t feel right. Each to their own, and I have noth­ing against those an­glers who want to tar­get these fish, but it’s just not my cup of tea.”

WELL-KNOWN BIG CARP AN­GLER ADAM PEN­NING

“I’m re­lieved, and think we should be work­ing to­wards pre­serv­ing the her­itage of the record lists for as long as pos­si­ble. “Had this fish been ac­cepted, the record list would have been ren­dered ut­terly mean­ing­less by peo­ple who have a to­tal dis­re­gard for the his­tory of the sport. I don’t have any is­sue with peo­ple who want to go and tar­get these carp, but I can’t help think­ing that they de­value the achieve­ments of pre­vi­ous cap­tures, and cap­tors. It’s a false achieve­ment, if you like. “In the higher ech­e­lons of any sport, the ‘pin­na­cle’ achieve­ments need to be earned, through time and ded­i­ca­tion, not laid on a plate for them.”

CARP TEAM ENG­LAND MAN­AGER ROB HUGHES

“The record list should be ex­actly that – a ‘pa­per’ record of the big­gest carp caught in this coun­try. Was it caught on rod and line? Was in caught in Bri­tain? Was it weighed cor­rectly? If the answer to those three ques­tions is yes, then it should be a record.

“What if a ‘Bri­tish’ 40lb fish was moved from one wa­ter to another 200 miles away, be­fore grow­ing another 30lb over the fol­low­ing decade. Would that then not be a record?

“This de­ci­sion ef­fec­tively opens up just about all of the pre­vi­ous record carp to ques­tion. Take per­haps the most revered record of them all – ‘Mary’ (caught at a record weight of 56lb in 1996). That fish was moved from another lake into Wrays­bury, but at what weight? Over 25 per cent of its fi­nal ‘record’ weight?

“We can’t start en­ter­tain­ing this ‘sub­jec­tive’ view of cred­i­bil­ity from the BRFC, be­cause what’s cred­i­ble to one man will not be to another. The pub­lic give the cred­i­bil­ity, not the BRFC, they should just deal with records. And as for the BRFC’s com­ment about the 150kg of pel­lets that the fish­ery is sup­posed to have fed the lake with each week – that’s just a ridicu­lous thing to say. Take a busy runs wa­ter in the UK, with 50 an­glers on for two nights. In high sea­son, each an­gler might in­tro­duce 10kg of pel­lets, boilies etc bait per day. That’s 1000kg of bait in just two days, and that’s deemed OK.”

CAP­TOR OF CAP­TAIN JACK VINNY PARKER

“This was al­ways an ex­er­cise to try to get the rules sur­round­ing record fish clar­i­fied, but the BRFC still don’t seem to have done that, and that’s the dis­ap­point­ing thing.

“This was their chance to say that record fish have to be bred in this coun­try, which I sup­pose they have said, and that they have to be stocked at less than 10lb, less than 20lb, or a cer­tain per­cent­age of the record, but they haven’t.

“I know it’s a con­tro­ver­sial fish and I wasn’t overly con­cerned about the record one way or the other, but it was an op­por­tu­nity to get some rules in place. That’s what it needs, or the carp record will go the way of the cat­fish record and the trout record.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.