Mike Fox Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 (edited) After a frustrating wet and windy half term holiday, we managed to take Frisky Fox across to the Solent, to try to get George a specimen flounder - without avail, but we did spend a gorgeous calm evening in Newtown Creek where he reacquainted himself with the schoolies (all returned). We decided to try a mark near Lymington for the smoothhounds on Saturday, as soon as the fog cleared enough for us to see the Solent! We anchored up in about 20' of water, and deployed a combination of rag and squid on 3/0 hooks, which had worked for us in the past, and Carol had a lovely Starry Smoothhound (Mustelus Asterias) of exactly 6lb on our digital scales. I note from the club record list that only common smoothhound (Mustelus mustelus) has a record, and therefore, would like to claim a new club record on Carol's behalf. Photos to follow, hopefully showing the distinctive "stars" to evidence the claim.... The rest of the trip was less eventful - George missed a cracking run, and I managed a pup of an embarrassing 2lb. The promised wrecking on a wreck near Southbourne didn't even find evidence of the wreck! Pollack fishing on the rough produced a couple, and fishing X-Ray on the return trip produced 5 male bream of around 1.5 lb for the pot - but no rays on the drift. Mike, Carol and George PS Paul - could I ask you to modify the catch report site, so this species can be added please? Edited June 3, 2007 by Mike Fox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 nice catch Mike - and Newton sounded great! think we treat yhe smoothies the same - like the grey mullet - for records.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fox Posted June 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 Thanks Duncan, but I note that Golden Grey mullet is distinguished, Red and Black bream are separately recorded, Lesser and Greater spotted dogfish, and Red and Tub gurnard, and loads of different rays, etc as well. Surely all separate species warrant a separate record? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 don't shooot the messenger! have a look back on the grey mullet threads for more info.............that's all I am suggesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul D Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 I think the reason all smoothhounds were treated the same with regard to records was due to the fact that the NFSA specimen list has them listed at the same specimen weight. Personally, I cannot see any reason that the two cannot be separated. ( It is easy to distinguish the two ). One reason against ( which I don't subscribe to ) would be that at the time of capture some may not decide if they have a common smoothhound or a starry smoothhound. - In which case they wont be able to record their capture. Also, how do we know if the existing club record was for a common or a starry ? Discuss at Thurs meeting I would suggest. Mullet is a good example as I intend to propse these are separated, since they are no more difficult than rays ( skate ) to separate. ( method of capture is usually determinate - spinning a rag will only catch thin lipped, whereas ledgered bread will usually catch thick lipped ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnasher Posted June 3, 2007 Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 (edited) I think if we introduce a new species, then we should have a qualifying weight of at least specimen size. Gazza just landed a 15lb + starry a couple of weeks ago (pic in the gallery somewhere). So if the club open up the record for a starry, then get carols entered before him Good fishing anyway mate, and get back out there soon as there are plenty around Edited June 3, 2007 by Gnasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fox Posted June 3, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2007 Paul, the current club record is claimed against Mustelus mustelus, the common smoothound. I trust this was correctly identified at the time. Gnasher, we intend going for another club record this summer, at a little spot where we have previously caught two specimens of a fish not currently on the fish list (as per catch reports). Am not sure if there even is an NFSA specimen size for this particular beastie, but irrespective, the presence or absence of an NFSA specimen size should not prevent a club record claim, IMHO. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
great white Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 I do not believe this damn PC has just lost a long elaberate reply again Basically the Records were generated a few years ago after I checked over 10 years of catch reports, if the catch reports are not detailed nor are the records. [i am sure latin was the last thing on my mind by the time i finished the list] I may have been mixed up on smoothounds as the NFSA list the specimen sizes as "Smoothound all" at 15lb They do have two records though both for fish of Starry 28lb 2 oz 1998 Smoothound 28lb 00 1969 However we have always just listed one to be 100% sure of identification and following a policy I believe that the NFSA also adopted for a while To say they are easy to identify is one thing being 100% sure is another, recent catch reports getting rays wrong are a good example of how easy it is to get mixed up. Somone phoned me a week ago saying he had a 16lb spotted ray onboard, nice one about twice the British Record. Back to the thread IMHO if it is decided to increase the Club record list by sub dividing any of the species, surely only fish caught after the agreement to do so would be valied. and old records would have to be cancelled [is that fair] If you do the smoothound who is to say which one the current record fish was? and the same would go for other species as well I know plenty of anglers who have landed large smoothounds [with or without spots] and it would be unfair on them to suddenly count a 6lb fish as a record [40% specimen] of either species. An interesting thread that needs a little consideration IMHO before the committee and members decide to change things Charlie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fox Posted June 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 Charlie, Some good points, and I do understand some of the history, but think it a little unfair if this fish were not eligible, even on a temporary basis. As an easier suggestion, why not keep the existing record for the common smoothhound (cancellation would be unfair I believe), and let this start the record hunting for starry smoothhound. As you say, the British record is much bigger, and the new club record will probably be broken several times this year until it stabilises at a truly huge fish - but allowing several club members a chance at their 15 minutes of glory (and Carol to grin from ear to ear, at least briefly)! Cheers, Mike PS Had Carol smashed the British record, would the club have allowed it then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 PS Had Carol smashed the British record, would the club have allowed it then? I think a fish of more than 28lb 2 oz would have broken the club smoothound record fairly obviously................ Overall one to be agreed by the clubs committee surely - that's what they are there for! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fox Posted June 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 First picture.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fox Posted June 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) And with the stars.... Edited June 4, 2007 by Mike Fox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 and again - without................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 (edited) actually I think it may well be a rare undulatedhound.................... Edited June 4, 2007 by duncan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djredrupp Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 1st picutre : ahh paintshop clone tool, great fun... 2nd Picture : quite possibly the pattern tool? :S, oh no its just a semi-transparent layer over the top! methinks,,, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
great white Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 Over to the Committee on that one then. Using your point Mike you could say the current fish was a starry and open the record for a smoothy I am afraid, I still believe that we can not back date records to put smiles on faces. I am sure a search on the fish pictures records would throw up some good fish with stars. Especially if Duncan took the photo's If we want to adopt changes the committee must decide 1. Do we need and want to change things. 2. Do the Old records stand? and if so as which of the new species, [hard one when the two grow to identical sizes] 3. How many and which species to choose to change 4. Can we pre date the changes by accepting fish already caught and if so how far back should we go. Now I am no longer on the Committee and digging my heals in, you may even want to count mini species [ that will never get my vote BTW] Still a good topic though Charlie Ps Duncan Can you change the colour and add a few spots mate, Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul D Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 I have no gripes splitting the catch reports into two - one for Common Smoothhounds and one for Starry Smoothhounds. The issue is what to do with the current record Smoothhound. If I caught a 6 lb common smoothhound tomorrow for example then I would be as justified in claiming this to be a club record as claiming a starry of 6lb was a club record ( as we do not know if the current record was a Common or a Starry ). I will propose that we record new fish from now as either Common or Starry ( the fact it is a club record or not is no big deal IMHO - the database will dig out the largest in each category ) and leave the "smoothhound" record as is until such time as either a Starry or Common beats it. re: Mullet - You may have noticed that I have already split these into separate categories for the catch reports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coddy Posted June 4, 2007 Report Share Posted June 4, 2007 Now there is a caption competition! What is the hound thinking? If you like I will start with "Great White, no chance!" Coddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fox Posted June 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 (edited) The case for the defence is simple: - All club records etc are done on trust; - Trust includes correct recording of species and weight; - Analysis of club catches resulted in a record for smoothhound being agreed; - Smoothound is Mustelus mustelus; - There is no club record for a starry smoothhound - Mustelus asterias; - The two species are easy to distinguish; - The British Record list includes both species; - This is the first claim for a new club record for starry smoothound, even though larger ones may have been caught in the past by club members and not separately identified / recorded as such. - There is no need for a category/species/qualifying weight to be agreed before a claim - what if a thresher shark had been caught, for example? Proposal: - Leave existing club record for Smoothhound to stand; - Allow this claim for a Starry Smoothhound; - If another club member has previously caught a larger starry smoothound, and claimed a separate club record as such at the time, then a separate, retrospective claim for that fish should then be allowed. Mike PS Great picture editing! Edited June 5, 2007 by Mike Fox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
great white Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 As I said before Time to let someone make a decision I have no problem with anyone claiming a vacant record or any other record for that matter. In fact if one of mine gets broken I am one of the first to congratulate the angler who did so, and it may spur me on to try to get it back. I am amazed that some have lasted so long. In the past Members who have broken records have not claimed them because they are not 100% sure what the records were, but if they have recorded a fish above the record size the fish recorder has picked up the fact and the record has been changed. At other times Members know that they have set a new record and included that info on the report. We average about 9 per year. It just seems strange to ask a record list to be changed to accomadate a fish that we all know is smaller than several others that were not asked to be recorded specifically as a starry. as I said and Paul says how do we know that the current record fish was not a starry?? Thanks for the picture upgrade Duncan Can I now claim for a 40lb starry tope???? Charlie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newboy Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 It just seems strange to ask a record list to be changed to accomadate a fish that we all know is smaller than several others that were not asked to be recorded specifically as a starry. ................ Easily confirmed if you take a look at the catch gallery whether a fish is a spotted one or not ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 Catch one bigger than 15lb then claim a record i think! I thought most smoothhounds caught in this area are starry and the other type come from Bristol Channel area so it`s more likely that the record holder caught a starry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newboy Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 I've caught both common and starry around the island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted June 5, 2007 Report Share Posted June 5, 2007 well here's a movie clip of PaulD with a starry from 30/4/2004 - no doubt it can be cross referenced to the book for a weight but looks 7lb 8oz to me.......... video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.