THE ULTIMATE ANGLING BUCKET LIST

More recently, that trend has given way to shads, which are small soft bodied lures on four to six foot
monofilament droppers with a separate lead taking them down, though still fished with the same type
of lift and drop action that pirks have. So the link is still there.
The mimicking of a small fish darting up and down close to the bottom covering ground as the boat
drifts taking the lure within grabbing range of a concealed angler fish, is almost certain to trigger an
instinctive response from a concealment predator reasonably widespread enough in deep water to make
this a potentially productive technique at many locations around the country.
The main reason why it isn't used at many locations, and therefore possibly why fewer angler fish end
up in the boat, is undoubtedly a lack of other more numerous and sought after species about to make
fishing these lures worthwhile.
West country wreck fishing bouncing lures over the sand accumulations created by tidal disruption
around clean ground wrecks has been another major source of specimen angler fish over the years,
including the previous record shown here taken by wreck fishing legend JJ McVicar.
The big question has to be, which angler fish are we talking
about here. It has been known by the fishery science
community for quite some time now that two similar
species exist in what I term here as home waters, these
being Lophius piscatorius and Lophius budegassa.
All current records are assigned to L. piscatorius, but with
the actual bodies in many cases no longer available for reexamination,
how can people be sure, a point I have chatted
about with BRFC chairman Mike Heylin.
For a long time, even fishery scientists were un-aware of
the situation, despite the geographical overlap, though L.
budegassa is thought to be much thinner on the ground at
a ratio of 45:1 to L. piscatorius, and with more of a
preference for west facing coasts.
If you ask the question what are the various record fish
committee's intending to do about the situation, the simple
answer would appear to be to ignore it in the hope that it
goes away. But it isn't going to go away.
Yes, the problem is a difficult one to solve retrospectively without throwing all past records out and
starting again. On the other hand, getting things absolutely right and squeaky clean is what these
organisations pride themselves on.....supposedly.
The major points of difference are as follows....
1. L. piscatorius has a tentacle on the upper margin of the eye, while L. budegassa has none.
2. L. piscatorius has a club shaped nostril, while that of L. budegassa is flat at the tip.
3. L. piscatorius has a broad fringed lure with a central free stalk, while that of L. budegassa is
bilobed and without central stalk.
4. The edge of the pelvic fins of L. piscatorius are dark edged or dusky on the upper surface, while
those of L. budegassa are clear white, possibly tinged with grey or brown in large specimens.
269