THE ULTIMATE ANGLING BUCKET LIST

Fortunately, most of the recorded species have features which could, if carefully recorded with a decent
camera, allow positive identification based on photographic evidence alone so that the specimen
concerned could be released if its captor so wished.
This may well turn out to be a vitally important point, particularly if on-board weighing or some other
way of arriving at a representation of size or estimation such or using my suggested points system is
ever adopted, because as previously mentioned, some species which can still legally be caught,
measured, and photographed by anglers, can no longer be brought ashore.
If there isn't some move towards recognising and resolving this issue, then why continue to list those
species as available for claims.
The same is also true of the freshwater schelly, which at the time of writing is still listed, but is protected
from any form of human interference under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Yet the wels catfish,
which isn't even native to the UK, has had its record suspended while other alien foreign imports have
not.
My next big gripe, again on the saltwater scene, but backed up by coarse angling records, is having a
two tier list. In the coarse fish list, all species are given equal status in a straight forward roll call of
names. Not so the saltwater list, where records coming in at under a pound are given second class billing
in a separate mini species list. Where is the consistency there I wonder.
Where too is the consistency within the saltwater system of having the British boat caught comber listed
at one pound thirteen ounces in the main list, which automatically generates a vacant shore angling slot,
then give this a minimum qualifying weight set at twelve ounces making it by definition a mini species.
Would it not be better to simply include ALL saltwater species in the one list with boat and shore options
available to each, and with all vacant slots simply left open to claims by the biggest example that comes
along, instead of some artificial qualifying threshold.
Talking to BRFC chairman Mike Heylin during
our audio interview, the exclusion of the wels
catfish was put down to a combination of it not
being indigenous, plus unscrupulous activities
with regard to stocking and manipulating potential
record status. But again, let's see some consistency
here.
Isn't exactly the same true of carp. Or is the money
generated by carp fishing now so big as to get away
with that sort of indiscretion, even though the
BRFC make no secret of the fact that they would
not only like to see all alien species removed from
their record lists, but also from the country, and
that includes the carp.
Why then not rainbow trout too which are also a
foreign import, and have in the past been grown on
to record proportions for introduction to fisheries
where only certain people are invited along to fish
for them.
Why separate mini species records??
Why also list the walleye, which is an American
species of zander accidentally introduced to the
491