" King Rat of 2007 " ~ Shall We Go For It?

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

Duckwing's post started the germ of this idea off. Only how about we go for it - and do it properly. Here's the craic:

 

I probably kill as many rats as many, yet 'incredibly' I see relatively few of the buggers. Because I work by tracking their 'Sign' and then poison them. Obviously, I do pick up the few dead ones. But only a fraction of what I wipe out. Most pesters carry on like this. Thus I have a damn slim chance of winning the little 'Competition' I'm proposing here. So, ye may see, there's really no ulterior motive for my proposal

 

And here Is my proposal:

 

Duckwing's just said he's caught one of What?! " 14 1/2" body length " That Is a f*cking Monster! However, we NEED a proper photo. I'm hoping DW can yet get back out there and rescue the corpse from where ever he flung it. Because, to keep this Real, we Must have a standardised photo of each entry. Yes? It's the only truly fair and unambiguous way of doing it. Then No One can argue

 

So; May I suggest The Photo Must be of ye rat. The rat must be laid out in what anyone would consider a 'natural', unstretched position. On it's side would probably be best, yeah? ('Discuss'). And it Must have at least one fore and one rear foot resting on / over a standard inch / cm 'Stanley Tape'.

 

Obviously, this is just an off the cuff brainwave of mine. Any further, reasonable and sensible, input welcome. It's just that we've All heard about " Rats the size of cats " and " These HUGE Things, down at Liverpool Docks " - Yeah, yeah ..... I've even seen a 'Monster', shown on a Pro' Pesters forum, compared to a green boot! So what?! What size is a damn boot?! Irish boots - I swear to god! - are bigger than english ones! (Honestly! I used size 11 in uk. Here I flop about inside a 9! ) So a standard Tape has to be the yard stick. Feet ON it - so we all know where the rat is in relation to it. No Stewards Enquiries. Agreed?

 

Like I say; Just a flash of inspiration and I doubt I'm even ever likely to come up with a serious contender myself. But for the blokes like DW, P&G, Millet, Nell etc. All you who take rats with terriers and other 'visible means', surely it'd be a bit of craic? See who can produce THE Rattus norvegicus Monster of the year - Starting round about now.

 

Let's have ye opinions, please. Maybe - if the idea catches on - Ian could pin and lock a special Thread for it? Somewhere where the Moddies will have to load ye shot for ye. Save all this shit with people repeating the photo's and saying, " Cor! BIG rat, mate! " or other distracting and needless comments. A place, simply, to view the (Hopefully!) ever bigger rats caught in 2007 untill we all find out which one just can't be beaten. That bugger will become; 'King Rat 2007'

 

Comments?

[Nell 1]

Watch this space!!! :ok:

[john b 38]

Ditch - I like this idea.

 

The only alternative, or possible addition, I would suggest is maybe laying the rat full length on the tape, so we get a 'nose to tip of tail' measurement ?

 

Legs do pivot at he body and I don't want people to have to get set squares out do make sure the legs are at right angles to the body

[donky7 9]

i wont enter these into the comp, cause i never measured em... but..................

note. A4 report sheets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i now carry a tape with me at all times...............

Edited January 7, 2007 by donky7

[kurgan 5]

 

SORRY FORGOT MY TAPE

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

-->

QUOTE(john b @ Jan 7 2007, 03:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would suggest maybe laying the rat full length on the tape, so we get a 'nose to tip of tail' measurement ?

 

 

Excellent point, John! In fact; Do ye suppose the tail really even matters? What I'm thinking is, A/ Inclusion of the full tail will necessitate the shot being taken from that further back, thus losing much of the impact. And even, B/ The simple fact that there's always an outside chance of such an old rat having lost a bit of tail over the time it took him to grow so big. Might sound picky, I know. But how gutting to lose the contest due to a perfectly naturaly caused short tail!

 

But yeppers; Laid out along the tape? Brilliant! Can't argue with that, can they?

 

Anyway, adopting such a 'strict' criteria for entrance will also help ensure these truly Are 2007 rats. Not something anyone's dug out of their Folders from earlier times

 

I know I'll certainly be carrying a tape in my own work bag from now on!

[john b 38]

So to recap:

 

• The length for competition purposes is nose to base of tail.
  
• Evidence is a clear photograph showing the specimen laid out on a standard rule.
  
• Full length from nose to tip of tail also recorded for interest
  

Is that right ?

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

Sounds spot on to me, John. Short of having all laid across the front page of the days paper, I can't think of how to make it any fairer and safer, can you? Anyone ....?

[Squirrel_Basher 17,100]

Would the prize be a days mink trapping with you D.S?

 

Another point -Surely the rats measuremaent must include tail .If the tail is cut short then its not a contender .OVERALL length surely.

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

If the threat was held over the 'winner' that they'd have to suffer a day trapsing across sodden bogs with me, peering balefully down at empty mink traps, Drops? I doubt anyone would dare mention their rats, mate!

 

As for tail / no tail thing? See above. Anyway, I read a Lot of statistical recordings of rat sizes. Some go by nose to bum. Some go nose to tail tip. Some mention tail length as an aside. Others even go by weight. I'm certainly not about to suggest anyone start bringing rats home to the kitchen scales!

 

Personally though, when ever I consider a rat, I always look at the body mass. Tails don't really bother me. And anyway, a rat can lose a potrion of its tail and still carry on. One that loses an inch off it's head? Well ....!

 

Anyway, the Black Rat (R. Rattus) has a longer tail than the Brown. God forbid if someone came along with one of those things and threw a spanner in the whole works, eh?

 

That's why I suggest we just stick with body length. It's really the bit that matters, surely?

[john b 38]

How about thre catagories then ?

 

 

 

- longest body

 

- longest nose to tail

 

- heaviest. (not sure how the evidence works on this one)

 

 

 

Any rat can be entered into multiple catagories.

[Guest Ditch_Shitter]

All sounds fine to me. As I said above; I see each of those catagorisations used in litrature. And I guess if someone wants to weigh a rat, they need only put it in a plastic bag. Do ye have a reliable Pocket Spring Balance, Millet? That would be handy.

 

I take ye point, John. Weight's in no way as verifyable as size. But I can't really see anyone wishing to cheat on it. There'd simply be no point. This, after all, largely a fun thing. Even if my sub focus is to encourage people to get in the habit of providing irrefutable records

 

Anyway, guess all we need now is our first 'big' rat?

[moley 115]

-->

QUOTE(john b @ Jan 8 2007, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about thre catagories then ?

 

 

 

- longest body

 

- longest nose to tail

 

- heaviest. (not sure how the evidence works on this one)

 

 

 

Any rat can be entered into multiple catagories.

 

what about catagories for longest whiskers, cutest nose , biggest arsehole

[Butler 396]

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john b @ Jan 8 2007, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

How about thre catagories then ?

 

 

 

- longest body

 

- longest nose to tail

 

- heaviest. (not sure how the evidence works on this one)

 

 

 

Any rat can be entered into multiple catagories.

 

what about catagories for longest whiskers, cutest nose , biggest arsehole

 

 

Think you would win that last one hands down my friend

[salclalin 240]

What about a category for thr Buck with the biggest Bollocks