|
|
Post by wilbert on Apr 28, 2006 15:11:17 GMT
For a terrible example of guessing the weight of a fish turn to page 101 of this months (May) T&S. 4lb 14oz my a*se, maybe the guy is 10 foot tall with hands like shovels or its a misprint that should have been 1lb14oz or more than likely just an exaggeration. The editor should be shot for allowing such blatant exaggerations to be printed. Sorry for the rant but it really winds me up when people lie about catching fish or the size of them. there is no shame in not catching the biggest fish of the day/week/year, a small fish is better than no fish.
|
|
|
|
Post by exerod on Apr 28, 2006 15:17:01 GMT
Never mind that look at the bloody great Orkney seatrout in the picture below it  Andy |
|
|
|
Post by wilbert on Apr 28, 2006 15:40:53 GMT
Thats a great fish and the sort that should be printed!
|
|
|
|
Post by tyneandrew on Apr 28, 2006 16:40:28 GMT
I noticed that too - 2lb's at very best
|
|
|
|
Post by tyneandrew on Apr 28, 2006 17:15:47 GMT
The end of the Dee report is a bit of a horror story - perhaps it is slightly exaggerated though?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogyoch on Apr 29, 2006 19:40:07 GMT
Isn't T&S shooting itself in the foot publishing the last part of Dee report? Isn't this just the sort of thing that the Antis want to read about and to firm up their case? An appalling event nonetheless, but shouldn't the fisher in question have been dealt with there and then, rather than reading the article and feeling "embarrassed"? A person like that will have no embarrassment.
|
|
|
|
Post by tyneandrew on Apr 29, 2006 21:14:13 GMT
Thats a good point.
I still think its exaggerated though...
|
|
|
|
Post by acw on May 3, 2006 6:23:58 GMT
been underestimating my trout ,struggled to catch on Chew this Sunday ,the one fish I had guessed at 2.8 lb went 3.1lb on robin Haywoods state of the art digital scales and the lodge scales .
|
|
