The controversy regarding anglers having to kill a fish to claim a record has once again become a hot topic following the capture of a 1,056lb six gill shark – the biggest fish ever caught on rod and line in the British Isles.

Many anglers and conservationists want changes introduced which would see fish being weighed on boats, or weights ascertained by accepted measurement systems such as length/girth/weight ratios, or just using the product of length and girth to create some form of points system.

As with all new ideas such an approach has been met with a high degree of scepticism from those who prefer the existing process which demands the fish be be killed and officially weighed in order to ensure the validity of a record, quite often on the basis that:

• How else would you know what sizes such fish grow to.
• Records are absolute benchmarks, a measure of an anglers achievement.

The first is a reasonably spurious argument, much bigger fish of most species are caught by the commercial sector and the maximum size of a fish tends to be related more to geography than an anglers ability – in Scottish waters for example, no angler is likely to catch the world’s biggest bass.

The second argument is perhaps the more difficult – many perceive a great deal of kudos in being the holder of a record, which in it’s own right is understandable. However, there is quite often an additional motivation – money, in the form of financial benefit from tackle companies etc who are able to market their gear’s involvement.

If money was not a factor – how strong would the call be to retain the traditional method ?

No related posts.