Interesting dilemma this one . In theory claiming the record should not in itself spoil things , it's not that hard to take a photo of the captor holding the fish making sure there is no background to identify where the fish was caught and of course do not identify the stretch of the river where you caught it .However when you publicise the photograph other anglers will recognise you and that's where the trouble can start. They see you on the bank , presume you are fishing the stretch where you caught the record and before you know it that stretch will become very popular very quickly .There are some 'anglers ' that will go to inordinate lengths to find out where big/record fish have been caught .The worst mistake to make is putting videos up on social media where it is usually very easy to identify exactly where an angler is fishing if they know a particular river well . I sometimes look on Facebook/Youtube where people put up films of their angling exploits on my local rivers , 90% of the time I can identify immediately where they have been fishing , the day after the video upload I can guarantee that there will be a lot more anglers on that stretch , I have seen this happen so any times for it not to be a coincidence . I think having river records is a good thing as it gives anglers an idea of the potential of a river and a target to aim for and is important as a historical record , however the process of claiming a record , as I understand it, requires a photo of the captor holding the fish and that , in my opinion is where potential problems start . Perhaps a witnessed mat shot with something to scale in the image could be allowed when claiming the record ? Would any BFW river record holders be prepared to share their experience of claiming a record and any backlash that occurred ? Anyway well done Alan on catching such a wonderful Barbel , truly a fish of a lifetime , Ultimately it matters not whether you claim the record but great to see your special capture .
