Hi
Cypography released and then swiftly deleted a podcast yesterday. Seen some accusations of a fish death on burghfield last summer... was this discussed on the podcast?
Can anyone shed any light?
Cypography released and then swiftly deleted a podcast yesterday. Seen some accusations of a fish death on burghfield last summer... was this discussed on the podcast?
Can anyone shed any light?
In reply to Post #1
Apparently Elliot clubbed the Burfy common to death with one of his buzz bars as the fish bent it on the take. Obviously not happy. Id of been the same to be honest.. been kept quite by the lake owners for obvious reason. Fuss about nothing if you as me. Thought there might be a bit of a back lash probably why it was deleted..
Apparently Elliot clubbed the Burfy common to death with one of his buzz bars as the fish bent it on the take. Obviously not happy. Id of been the same to be honest.. been kept quite by the lake owners for obvious reason. Fuss about nothing if you as me. Thought there might be a bit of a back lash probably why it was deleted..
I saw Elliott posted a video explaining everything on Facebook earlier.
A fish did die, but it was found a couple weeks after he had caught it.
Check his video for his side of the story.
I've not bothered looking around for the other side of the story
A fish did die, but it was found a couple weeks after he had caught it.
Check his video for his side of the story.
I've not bothered looking around for the other side of the story
In reply to Post #3
Supposedly sacked a Carp for to long in hot weather... Said Carp turns up dead two weeks later.... Not much of a story there to behonest..
Supposedly sacked a Carp for to long in hot weather... Said Carp turns up dead two weeks later.... Not much of a story there to behonest..
In reply to Post #2
In reply to Post #4
There's also a suggestion it may have died in the sack, no idea if true or not though!
It seems someone knows something or they just have an axe to grind with him.
There's also a suggestion it may have died in the sack, no idea if true or not though!
It seems someone knows something or they just have an axe to grind with him.
In reply to Post #6
Think it's the latter... someone desperate for a bit of interaction on Social media probably..
Think it's the latter... someone desperate for a bit of interaction on Social media probably..
Elliott made a post about it explaining his side.
There's people asking him to clear it up by showing everyone the time on the camera the pics of said fish were taken...which he hasn't done yet I don't think. You'd think if the fish wasn't in the sack for hours and hours he would want to prove them wrong surely?
There's people asking him to clear it up by showing everyone the time on the camera the pics of said fish were taken...which he hasn't done yet I don't think. You'd think if the fish wasn't in the sack for hours and hours he would want to prove them wrong surely?
In reply to Post #6
Think the one that died in the sack as pointed out by Shelley was a completely different fish from Suffolk Water Park. Fingers were pointed at Shelley at the time but he claims he found it!
Elliot caught and sacked a fish which then died 2 weeks later. The rules allow sacking and he says it was done properly in well oxygenated water. Very unlikely that his capture and handling of the fish had anything to do with its demise, can't 100% rule it out but the probability is extremely low.
I caught very special fish a few years ago, had been out in the previous November at 50lb plus but was well down in weight when I was the next one to catch it at 43.3 the following September. I caught it in daylight, didn't sack it but retained it, in 5ft of water for 30 minutes until a guy came round to do the photos. The fish swam off well but was never caught again and was found dead sometime later. Did my handling and treatment of that fish lead to its demise? Again, can't 100% rule it out but just as unlikely as Elliots fish IMO.
Personally the sacking or retaining of fish should probably stop altogether, it's not really necessary these days! Some of these photos you see of multiple retainers in the water having been there all night are truly shocking!
For 90% of captures we should all be able to do a self take with the amount of camera/phone accessories available now. Get your camera gear set up in advance, leave the fish in the net for a few minutes, graph it, return it.
Think the one that died in the sack as pointed out by Shelley was a completely different fish from Suffolk Water Park. Fingers were pointed at Shelley at the time but he claims he found it!
Elliot caught and sacked a fish which then died 2 weeks later. The rules allow sacking and he says it was done properly in well oxygenated water. Very unlikely that his capture and handling of the fish had anything to do with its demise, can't 100% rule it out but the probability is extremely low.
I caught very special fish a few years ago, had been out in the previous November at 50lb plus but was well down in weight when I was the next one to catch it at 43.3 the following September. I caught it in daylight, didn't sack it but retained it, in 5ft of water for 30 minutes until a guy came round to do the photos. The fish swam off well but was never caught again and was found dead sometime later. Did my handling and treatment of that fish lead to its demise? Again, can't 100% rule it out but just as unlikely as Elliots fish IMO.
Personally the sacking or retaining of fish should probably stop altogether, it's not really necessary these days! Some of these photos you see of multiple retainers in the water having been there all night are truly shocking!
For 90% of captures we should all be able to do a self take with the amount of camera/phone accessories available now. Get your camera gear set up in advance, leave the fish in the net for a few minutes, graph it, return it.
In reply to Post #8
Have to agree that there does appear to be inconsistencies in Elliot's story. Sacked at 2am but photos done at first light? If that's the case, show the photo taken time. Put it all to bed.
Agree with other comments on here, we're past the stage of needing to sack fish.
Have to agree that there does appear to be inconsistencies in Elliot's story. Sacked at 2am but photos done at first light? If that's the case, show the photo taken time. Put it all to bed.
Agree with other comments on here, we're past the stage of needing to sack fish.
In reply to Post #9
Without trying to stir the pot, the fish was found dead two weeks later unless there's been an autopsy to prove estimated time of demise.
Without trying to stir the pot, the fish was found dead two weeks later unless there's been an autopsy to prove estimated time of demise.
In reply to Post #11
Yeah a very fair point mate.
Just because it was found 2 weeks later doesn't mean it died 2 weeks after the capture....
Yeah a very fair point mate.
Just because it was found 2 weeks later doesn't mean it died 2 weeks after the capture....
The trouble is it's a bloke that owns a fishing photography business. He films everything, all his cameras will be correctly setup and have the right times, dates on etc etc.
He will have filmed the carp returning, swimming off. If the fish was indeed in a good way then why isn't he showing it? Because he can't is the only reason surely.
As stated the fish could have died an hour after bring caught and then found two weeks after, it's a big old lake.
He will have filmed the carp returning, swimming off. If the fish was indeed in a good way then why isn't he showing it? Because he can't is the only reason surely.
As stated the fish could have died an hour after bring caught and then found two weeks after, it's a big old lake.
Bit rich this being put out by the biggest stroke puller in carp fishing history, the man that had a sacked fish swim off in the sack, soaps snags,builds dambs trapping fish ect ect.
In reply to Post #13
I agree with this. I can understand initially not publicising the photos as waiting to drop them at a convenient time for the most traction for his business. If in the interim the fish died he might've felt a certain way about never posting them. As others have said it could just be an unfortunate coincidence.
But, now his integrity is in question, they are the key to exonerating him. Why would you not do that now?
The explanation he's given just gives a version of events with no explanation, there's no evidence. If you are someone that thrusts yourself into a prominent position, you have to be happy to be held accountable.
I agree with this. I can understand initially not publicising the photos as waiting to drop them at a convenient time for the most traction for his business. If in the interim the fish died he might've felt a certain way about never posting them. As others have said it could just be an unfortunate coincidence.
But, now his integrity is in question, they are the key to exonerating him. Why would you not do that now?
The explanation he's given just gives a version of events with no explanation, there's no evidence. If you are someone that thrusts yourself into a prominent position, you have to be happy to be held accountable.