• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Front page photo

Richard Hamlyn said:
This might seem like a daft question, but why does BFW put what is obviously a highly dubious claim on its front page?
Click to expand...

i had a look at the record list and it's look's as if dave as accepted this as a record(sorry dave) i know dave does usually contact current record holder's and experienced angler's from said river's first(does his homework)
mark's doubt's the weight as he recognises the fish and my gut is this fish as been weighed wrong,the fish does look big on inspection but the lads got long arms:eek:
 
I don't usually get involved in 'is that fish really that size' discussions, but I have to here. There's obviously some local knowledge which counts for a lot but I just want to put my two peneth in...

I believe the fish looks the weight stated. You can see he's not holding it out a long way as his arms are bent.

A friend of mine once caught a fish on a stretch that was fished by very few people with a low head of big barbel. The fish was a summer 12 and used to come out fairly regularly. He put a lot of effort into feeding a swim and fishing it every day in August. He caught the fish 3 weeks in at 14lb 3oz. It just goes to show how quickly they can put on weight and that even a 12 can be a 14 in certain conditions.

Regarding the records; we get a submission with a photo and details of the catch and witness contact details. Dave talks to the captor and witness and evaluates the photo in conjunction with others who are experienced with bigger barbel. If the witness and captor testify to the weight and the 'panel' think the weight looks genuine the fish is accepted. This is the least that happens. What else can be done?

The records process has come a long way from the days when you could send your photo to Angling Times stating it as a new record at which point it was published by the paper and also automatically added to the records list!

Back to my cave...

Andy
 
All you can really do is take someone's word for it I suppose. It's very difficult to judge by a photo, I have pics of that fish from when I last caught it and from different angles the fish looks totally different in each pic.
 
There is obviously a a whiff of suspicion regarding the weight of this new record Wye fish, and let's be honest a fish from the Wye of that size is pretty much unheard of. I am pretty sure it does not weigh 15 plus, unless my eyes deceive me those pecs and anal fins look prety small to me, and the fish is held out, however I prefer to weigh my judgement on local knowledge, and that fish is known by Mark and others, and came out recently much smaller.
 
Its all down to trust.

I have had fish on the Wye that look enormous and would have been 15lb on the kennet........................but weighed 11+
 
I personally think BFW have to take it as golden its not obviously evident that the fish may not be the claimed weight. Only with prior knowledge would they have known. Plus its possible that the fish could be the claimed weight but I would probably bow to local knowledge.
 
Its not the only dubious record I know of at least one more.:(
 
Six of one half a dozen of other until we bear witness to the footage of it at 12 ;) - The BFW team do a damn fine job anyway, its too much to ask for them to do an extensive vetting process for something relatively unimportant. To compound what Andy had to say I have had a mate catch a fish at 11lb 8oz off the thames, for it to evidently swim straight back out onto the immense bed of pellet he had laid earlier, where it continued troughing for another 2 days evading capture until the third day when he snagged it again at 12lb 10oz. This time looking bloated and smothered in regurgitated pellet (vulgar) so perhaps its not too surprising?
 
Had a fish not a big fish in length around 7lb 13oz ish had it again at 10lb 8oz 2 months later fat as a pig.
 
People are entitled to an opinion , but come on folks why can't we just accept the decision of Dave and his experts and leave it there . If I was the captor of this fish , I think I would be a little upset that people were at best thinking me a numpty not able to weigh a fish accurately , or at worst implying I was trying to pull a fast one .
 
simple rules to follow : supply a good photo, have a reliable witness or two to verify the fish and a written account of the capture,provide a copy of the scales calibration certificate.
This may be difficult if fishing alone, but such a capture is surely worthy of carrying out properly.
As the fish was obviously caught during daylight, getting witnesses should be easier, a mobile call to a local tackle shop and either the club or whoever has the rights to the stretch should get that done, the photo is great so no prob there, scales - these can be calibrated or checked by local weights and measures for a small fee.
In my experience of the Wye, lots of barbel look much bigger than they are and a big nine can look really much bigger. thats not to say there are much larger fish present and occasionally these do get caught. Claiming a record isnt difficult as I believe Dave and BFW do a fantastic job of scrutinizing each claim so if this fish is correct then wow what a corker and hearty congrats to the captor
 
Defo fish of the year. If it passes the RR stipulation thats good enough for me...
 
The captor is not a BFW member as far as I can see, so probably not too bothered about any judgements we might have on the fish.
I really think any new records or front page pictures should be reserved for members only.
 
The records list doesn't just include fish submitted to BFW, some are very old and some go direct to Dave. We hope it's a definitive list of UK river records.
 
The fish certainly has a solid breezeblock of a gut.

One of the problems with all photographs is that there is nothing against which we can judge its size. The captor could be 6'6" tall with hands like shovels or be completely the opposite in stature. If we all carried a white plastic 15cm ruler (cheap and lightweight) this could be placed on the fish for a shot of it on an unhooking mat. It's not a solution to the overall problem, but would give us all a much better idea of the size of the fish, if not its weight.
 
The fish in question resides in a stretch which is heavily fished, belonging to a large South Wales Association i am sure that it has been caught since 20th October and if we
every have a mild spell will be caught again before the end of the season and will weigh no where near 15 lb !!
 
I had a 14lb fish one October which was a scraper double in the summer, so who knows. I don't however think it looks its weight.

Nick C
 
Andy Frances said:
The records list doesn't just include fish submitted to BFW, some are very old and some go direct to Dave. We hope it's a definitive list of UK river records.
Click to expand...

Yes I appreciate that Andy, and I did comment with tongue in cheek, however the information being received, and the last two posts seems to be very much that this new record is in fact not a Wye record at all. I have no real problems with anyone saying a fish is of a certain weight but when it's claimed as a record for a river then that is very much a different situation.
Do you now have any reservations in light some of the comments now querying the weight of the fish?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top