DNA ...a new era for records or the start of a big mess ...

[flightliner]

Years ago record fish and the record fish list was very well known by angler's, and was part of your learning as a kid coming into the sport, the Record fish meant something then, Not now.

Ray, thats exactly what it was like when I was growing up as a young angler, the record fish list was there, accepted, recognised, and fully appreciated by all anglers of whatever persuasion.
After so many years now of intervention, conflict, debate, false claims, incorrectly identified fish,It all seems to have lost its way somehow which is, to me, all very sad and for years now i,ve sort of keep the old list (pre sixties)as my own personal yardstick.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

I started fishing at the age of 5 back in 1963.

My mates and I use to test each other on fish wieghts, by the time i was 10 years old, I knew the record list inside out, Captors name.s, weight of fish species, when caught, and even the venue if known, not now.

I withdrew my record yaers ago, I didn't want to be part of the Circus that the BRFC had become and is even more so today.

One weight for each species, and for species such as the Roach, Rudd and Crucian DNA claims only. That way there is No, is it isn't it, and one so called expert saying it is a true Roach or whatever, and another so called expert saying it isn't, it make's Angling look second rate.

Sadly I have to say that Angling has lost part of it's History, and thats down to the BRFC, No body else.

 

[waggy]

I think this thread has been hijacked by Weights and Measures.
I don't think accurate W&Ms are the main problem.
As I understand it, the main problem with DNA testing is the very real danger of cross contamination of the fish scale, fin, etc; in this case by, say, slime or blood or any other fishy body fluid (either wet or dried) from any landing nets, keep nets, mats, towels, disgorgers, hands, tweezers, etc. It seems to be an almost intractable problem.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Waggy,

A Roach has just been DNA tested as a True roach weighing in at 3lb 14ozs if I am right.

Now, the BRFC are talking of lowering the DNA Record Claim so this fish can be on the record list, yet the Captor doesn't have the correct witness'es, according to the press, so yet again it look's like the BRFC are going to move the goal post's.

I find this very strange when years ago, a barbel record was turned away, even when the captor had Witness'es, who were never contacted, so i am told, and Scientific evidence to back up his claim, scales checked, so what is going on with the BRFC, and No wonder the record list doesn't stand in high esteem with anglers nowdays.

 

[waggy]

Yes, I've seen it Ray. I was just thinking about police procedures and precautions used prior to samples being taken from a scene of crime. That's the important bit really, getting uncontaminated samples to the lab, even before meticulous lab handling begins.
I think it would be a good idea if someone from the EA or the lab processing specimen samples took on board the job of developing a protocol for fish handling, taking samples and issuing anglers with advice on avoiding contamination.
It would be a shame if true species specimens were rejected because they had been contaminated.
I can see other issues developing where fish from different gene pools (ie, sub-species and varieties) that have a different genetic signature have been imported from abroad and also perhaps altered the genetic make up of indigenous fish.

 

[The bad one]

Yes, I've seen it Ray. I was just thinking about police procedures and precautions used prior to samples being taken from a scene of crime. That's the important bit really, getting uncontaminated samples to the lab, even before meticulous lab handling begins.
I think it would be a good idea if someone from the EA or the lab processing specimen samples took on board the job of developing a protocol for fish handling, taking samples and issuing anglers with advice on avoiding contamination.
It would be a shame if true species specimens were rejected because they had been contaminated.
I can see other issues developing where fish from different gene pools (ie, sub-species and varieties) that have a different genetic signature have been imported from abroad and also perhaps altered the genetic make up of indigenous fish.

I think it's the mitochondrial DNA of the scale that's tested. Same as taking bone samples of an unknow body from the past to establish who they are related to. The contamination and proof of evidence in a criminal trial wouldn't apply.

 

[waggy]

I'm not talking about proof and evidence in a criminal trial but the risk of cross contamination is the same in both cases.
My question is: how do you tell whether the whole sample is from one organism or not? You need scrupulous sampling methods for that and someone trained to do it.
I'm not sure what your point about MiDNA is. I'm not sure whether the maternity or paternity via MiDNA or Y chromosome analysis of any fish species has even been looked at yet but the complete genome probably has been for several.
http://www.chem.agilent.com/Library/usermanuals/Public/5500-0100.pdf

---------- Post added at 06:38 ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 ----------

Try this one for brevity.
http://www.theriondna.com/pdf/aquacult-ss.pdf

---------- Post added at 06:43 ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 ----------

Or this.
http://www.eurofins.com/media/2530746/fish_speciation.pdf

---------- Post added at 06:54 ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 ----------

So eventually we'll all be able to ID our fish on the riverbank.
Keeping A Family Cow - Fish misidentified. DNA testing tells all.

 

[The bad one]

I think you need to read Andy N reply earlier in this thread. Andy has lead, campaigned on this and sits on the BRFC.

What I was suggesting is the scale is cleaned, dissected by the testing lab it goes to and the DNA is extracted. There would be no cross contamination under this procedure as all protocols would be followed by the testing lab. That is how bone fragments are dealt with to ascertain the relationship of the origin of it.

 

[waggy]

I've reviewed the post but there's nothing that addresses the specific point about sampling consistency in relation to contamination. Saying 'clean' sample is very broad brush.
As for cleaning, now that's the tricky bit. How to clean a sample without destroying some of it. I wonder how they manage that.
Presumably, whatever cleans off anything adhering to the sample also dissolves away some of the sample. Perhaps it doesn't matter though but a failsafe sampling method/kit for the individual angler might help.
Perhaps a hypodermic sampler with disposable needles, as used in muscle fibre analysis, would be the way to go.

 

[The bad one]

It's the DNA "within" the scale that's extracted after external cleaning and removing of possible cross-contamination by the lab.
The angler needs to do nothing other than put the scale in a clean bag.

 

[waggy]

Fair enough then.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I withdrew my record yaers ago,

How do you 'withdraw' a ratified record, I thought it was the Fish that holds the record and not the captor?

 

[Tee-Cee]

Sorry,and its probably a little old fashion, but if I caught what I thought was a fish close to the record (and I did come close with a gudgeon over 7" long many moons ago!) it would go straight back after weighing and taking a photo.
I really couldn't handle 'sample taking or scale removal' and the like-I just wouldn't want to see 'my' fish put through that much stress...

I appreciate some must have 'figures' and hope to catch a record (I also weigh all my 'above average' fish) BUT its not for me I'm afraid ..records don't mean diddly!(IMHO)

 

[Graham Marsden]

How do you 'withdraw' a ratified record, I thought it was the Fish that holds the record and not the captor?

That's right Peter. If you could rewrite history I would withdraw World War 1 & 2 and 9/11 as well.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

How do you 'withdraw' a ratified record, I thought it was the Fish that holds the record and not the captor?

Easy, the record is that of the Captors not the BRFC, the records on the BRFC are Voluntary, and therefore are the Captors to withdraw as and when if they so wish to do so, that you will find is how Voluntary things work.

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:27 ----------

That's right Peter. If you could rewrite history I would withdraw World War 1 & 2 and 9/11 as well.

No it's not right at all, got that one wrong, rewrite history?? who said anything about that.

Some people just see what they want.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

No it's not right at all, got that one wrong, rewrite history?? who said anything about that.

Sorry Ray, but if it is possible to 'withdraw' a record fish from the listings then you are exactly rewriting the history of that catch, there are no two ways about it, surely?

How long after claiming the record was it that you attempted to have it withdrawn then?

 

[Graham Marsden]

Easy, the record is that of the Captors not the BRFC, the records on the BRFC are Voluntary, and therefore are the Captors to withdraw as and when if they so wish to do so, that you will find is how Voluntary things work.

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:27 ----------



No it's not right at all, got that one wrong, rewrite history?? who said anything about that.

Some people just see what they want.

No, I'm not seeing what I want, and I didn't get it wrong. I'm simply applying good old common sense. In fact I said much the same thing in the year 2000 on this website and I've had no reason to change my mind since then.

You caught a record roach and the history books will always show that you caught a record roach and that your claim was accepted and ratified by the BRFC.

That's a historical fact. You can't change it; you can't withdraw it. It happened.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

No, I'm not seeing what I want, and I didn't get it wrong. I'm simply applying good old common sense. In fact I said much the same thing in the year 2000 on this website and I've had no reason to change my mind since then.

You caught a record roach and the history books will always show that you caught a record roach and that your claim was accepted and ratified by the BRFC.

That's a historical fact. You can't change it; you can't withdraw it. It happened.

There you go again, saying what isn't there.

Where have i said i wanted to, or changed History, I said I withdrew the record from the BRFC list, FACT, and from the Guiness book of record, something else you didn't know. Where have i said I had it removed from the history book's ?? Your seeing what you want, as I said before.

It makes no difference what the BRFC did or didn't do, the record is Voluntary, nothing more nothing less, and it is just a list that has no meaning in angling any longer, as others have said. The BRFC lost it's way years ago.

Do you want the dates, if so No Problem, here you go, Letter's to the BRFC and Guiness Book of records, Date 23rd November 2000.

Confirmed reply from the BRFC 24th November, I sent them the letter via Fax on the 23rd November 2000.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:54 ----------

Sorry Ray, but if it is possible to 'withdraw' a record fish from the listings then you are exactly rewriting the history of that catch, there are no two ways about it, surely?

How long after claiming the record was it that you attempted to have it withdrawn then?

Didn't change History, you can't change the past, it wasn't an attempted, it happened, and it was 10 years after.

Been here and done all this before, some just don't catch on do they.

 

[steph mckenzie]

I'm just catching up to this.

Ray, if you had the Record withdrawn from the BRFC and the Guinness book of Records (for reasons beyond my undestanding) then why do you still refer to it and bring it up from time to time if you don't want it to be recognised as a record ?

Yes, you caught a Record fish, yes you had it recorded as so in the BRFC and the Guinness book of records, but isn't it a little selfish to have it removed ?

Sorry, i don't know the reasons as to why you had it removed, just seems a shame to deny others the chance to see it.

It's very hard to say i am a record holder when there aren't any documented records of it for others to see. Couldn't you not just had your name removed from the public records and kept the Record in tact ?

 

[Philip]

Well Philip, I have watched Doctors perform but couldn't tell you what they do that is special....could you.

The problem is simple, You want to have DNA testing, I am fine with that, that is done by a specialist who is trained in doing his job, I am fine with that.

Then you want the whole thing to fall apart by having someone, who isn't trained in scale calibration, check the captors Scales, I don't think so, do you take your car to be repaired by a guy down the road, just because you saw him change a wheel ???

You stated in one of your posts that you know how to weigh fish, well looking back at the way you weigh fish, I would say you don't weigh fish in the correct way, yet you have been fishing for years.

The members of the BRFC may weigh fish correctly, but they don't know how to calibrate scales. You didn't state what scales were calibrated twice with different readings, just something you read.

If I knew exactly what Weight's and measures did, I would tell you, what i do know that is fact, is they have to be trained to calibrate scales, simple as that, and that i have said time and time again.

The DNA testing of fish is the way to go, the calibration of Scales by the BRFC is not, and is going backwards.

You went off on tangents again that have nothing to do with the question I asked. For example you say I
don't weigh fish correctly. Fact is I never said how I weigh fish, second that's got nothing to do with this
discussion & third I could not care less what you think about that.

So back to what exactly weights & measures do to test scales, finally
after 4 or 5 pages from you saying how difficult & complicated the process is & how I don't understand
& how you know & how you have seen it done & how I need to go & see for myself etc etc...you now
say you don't actually know what they do!!!?

So you don't know what they do but you KNOW someone else can't do it?!?

Tell you what, why don't you describe what you saw, maybe somone else will know...