Mac
|
Chub records goneHeard on Fishermans Blues this morning the chub record has been broken, not quite confirmed but it said only a formaility 
The angler had 2 chub
8lb 11oz......which is a huge fish but then he went and broke the record with a
9lb 3oz chub :o 1 oz above the present record
Well done that man I say 
|
Steve Howard
|
Hell!
How long before the first double-figure Chubb is caught now then! 
|
maple
|
wow thats a big chub , hope it was not a carp angler that caught it 
|
Mac
|
| maple wrote: | | wow thats a big chub , hope it was not a carp angler that caught it |
On the show they had the editor of (I think ) Angling Times and he said the angler was actually tragetting the chub.
Not a bad brace or what, 2 fish for over 17lb :o
Keith Arthur then went on to sat he thought there should be 2 records, 1 for still water and 1 for rivers :?: :?: :?:
I thought this was a joke to be honest, surely there is only 1 record which is the heaviest fish. You can argue whether there should be still water chub but there can only be one British record fish, can't there??
|
Steve Howard
|
Totally agree mac, one record, the biggest fish.
That's ALL the record is... its purely and simply a record of the largest fish of each species caught by rod and line, and it makes no distinction to where it was caught or by who it was caught. (ie, an angler not physically targetting the species)
I know Paul doesn't agree, nor do a few others, but 'so what' if it was a carp angler? - It could have been a fluff chucker, or someone spinning for perch etc... if you catch a fish of a species you don't 'intend' to catch, so what, its still a record and deserves to be "recorded", thats what the name implies!
|
bigkipper
|
yes your right steve, it`s up to the angler that catch`s a record fish wether he clame`s it or not,
but to be honest the only record`s im interested in are me own 
|
|
|
|