The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

Last month a Roach of 4lb 1oz was caught within a 5 minute walk of where I live. Given that fish of this calibre are regularly caught on this water there is every prospect that the record will be broken soon. Now one would think that such an opportunity could not be missed by an enthusiastic angler such as myself particularly as I could, if I put in the time, possibly break the record by using cane and a pin.
The water itself is an artificially created and lined agricultural reservoir, free of predators and dominated by large Carp. The Roach are caught mostly by accident by those in pursuit of Carp.
I cannot for the life of me get enthused by the prospect of catching a fish from this water as to me its more like an experiment in growing large native species of silver fish than anything to do with being a natural water and as a consequence a natural Roach. Has the time come for the record books to be formally re-written around river and still water species as they seem to be heading that way with actual records almost losing their meaning? Does it matter?

This is a discussion that's taken place many time Aquaerial. Since the carp record rocketed with doubtful fish with foreign accents and catfish grew 70lbs in a season, its made sorting the wheat from the chaff a little harder. Of course the purists have had their say regarding trout and the fast growing, short lived, farm bred trout that waddle about in little pools for a few hours before breaking another record.

Many of the big roach caught are not 'true' roach either. There is so much hybridisation going on in our congested waters its unclear just what you are catching in some places. I think that the only record that has any relevance to us on a day to day level is the local river or lake record. If I catch a 14.10 barbel (in my dreams), from the Wye I will break the record. Its a record that's stood for over a decade so its apparent that a 12lb fish is still a monster for the water. I could drive over to the Severn or Warwickshire Avon and the same 14 pounder would be hardly worth weighing as far as records are concerned but would that make it more or less a fish?

If you want to accept the challenge of an unusual water that, with a large carp population will give you many, many hurdles along the way in order to land a spectacular roach then take it. If, however, you are more comfortable fishing a weedy pool or gentle river with the outside chance of something close to 2lbs then do that. Your own personal best list is irrelevant to anybody else, you fish for yourself and set your own goals. Fishing accommodates all types of people with all manner of outlooks on life and their sport. Record fish are just that, the biggest of the biggest and only one person at a time can hold a record that just means one fish got fatter than it's neighbours.

Dave Burr wrote:This is a discussion that's taken place many time Aquaerial. Since the carp record rocketed with doubtful fish with foreign accents and catfish grew 70lbs in a season, its made sorting the wheat from the chaff a little harder. Of course the purists have had their say regarding trout and the fast growing, short lived, farm bred trout that waddle about in little pools for a few hours before breaking another record.

Many of the big roach caught are not 'true' roach either. There is so much hybridisation going on in our congested waters its unclear just what you are catching in some places. I think that the only record that has any relevance to us on a day to day level is the local river or lake record. If I catch a 14.10 barbel (in my dreams), from the Wye I will break the record. Its a record that's stood for over a decade so its apparent that a 12lb fish is still a monster for the water. I could drive over to the Severn or Warwickshire Avon and the same 14 pounder would be hardly worth weighing as far as records are concerned but would that make it more or less a fish?

If you want to accept the challenge of an unusual water that, with a large carp population will give you many, many hurdles along the way in order to land a spectacular roach then take it. If, however, you are more comfortable fishing a weedy pool or gentle river with the outside chance of something close to 2lbs then do that. Your own personal best list is irrelevant to anybody else, you fish for yourself and set your own goals. Fishing accommodates all types of people with all manner of outlooks on life and their sport. Record fish are just that, the biggest of the biggest and only one person at a time can hold a record that just means one fish got fatter than it's neighbours.

Indeed. I can't wait to see a roach over 1lbs 1oz from our local river (our best so far). The challenge is no less and no more. Unusual in the sense it will have to come from a City Centre, with hustle bustle (well, dawn raids). I have access to wonderful quiet fishing, elsewhere in a wilderness, but this will mean a great deal if it happens.

What many people don't know is that the roach record is currently open to claims above 3-12 for DNA-tested fish (as is the rudd record at 3-12 and crucian at 4-8). It would be good if the captors of this or similar sized roach or rudd (both caught above 3-12 in recent months) were to take a scale and follow the procedures. It's true that for every true roach of this weight there are several that are hybrids but nothing to doubt this one - yet without a DNA test it's an also-ran. That artificial feeding regimes boost weights is a factor it's nothing new; the Royalty once had a slaughterhouse on its banks with a huge head of big roach - bit before our time though!

Here in East Yorkshire we often get reports of huge roach caught from River Hull.

Below is one of the "roach" I caught weighing 4lb 11oz.

Strange - but - to me it could be an ide? Just does not look right at all.

I have seen a true 4lb roach caught from a London Reservoir a long time ago - never claimed but well documented. Captor now passed away.

Ide say that's no roach

It Sn'Ide Roach you mean Dave? I've only ever caught them out of Oulton Broad near Lowestoft...quite rare round here.

Ide reckon it's a flood victim - many ide have been stocked in E. Yorks. stillwaters!

Look at the dorsal in relation to the pelvic fins - not a vertical line?

On the subject of Ide, I caught this a few months ago



I guessed it was an Ide, but im not sure