The BRFC - Time for some changes?

Andy Nellist and I have kicked this around for a while. We believe that change is required. Is there anything we haven't considered? Have we gone far enough? Or too far?

A complex article!
In this day and age of exotic fish species, then DNA testing should be a must.
Perhaps a second list of records should be considered for hybrid fish where weight alone wil doand a pickie.
Then you have the problem of calibration for weigh scales. Also what was the fish weighed in? Weigh slings etc, wet or semi dry?

why is a wet or semi dry weigh sling an issue??surely as long as its not dripping water,you zero your scales before weighing the fish,as for calibration,you can get this done at your local weights and measures office for a few quid.personally.i think that the carp fishing scene is a joke,with all the imports etc being stocked into small pools,theyve suspended the catfish record so why not the carp record.i look at a 25lb plus river carp as a far better achievement than catching a foreign import of xlbs from a two acre hole in the ground.carp fishing has become a commercial joke,which is why i dont bother with it anymore.im glad that eel anglers havnt got the "big at all cost" mentality,otherwise we`d be fishing for stockies from new zealand.

You might wanna buy the papers next week!!!!!!!!!!

Quite a well balanced article with some very good points. DNA testing for such species as rudd, roach and Crucians is also important.

On the subject of seatrout. We all know that these fish are in fact brown trout that run to sea. They are intrinsically the same species. That is a very difficult one indeed.

I often wonder if we are all totally wrong when it comes to records of defined species. How defined should we be. Fish species have evolved over millions of years and are still evolving. Is the change in world climates and the actions of human agencies modifying these fish even further?

How do you define a true roach? = if there was any such thing in the first place.

If you study the evolution of the species you will see what I mean.

But we as anglers should by now know what a good capture is. It should not be judged on weight alone. A specimen fish is what is should be, an adult specimen of its species, perfect in fin and scale.

Some of the heaviest fish I have caught and seen caught by others in my life cannot be equated to a true specimen.

They have been similar to the human freaks in a circus side show or The Guinness Book of Records.

For a start I support you in this Andy, captures in Northern Ireland should be removed from the BRFC list because NI is not a part of Great Britain and this is the BRITISH list. Being a separate island as well, the evolution of species could have been quite different over there as has been proved in some species of bird and insect in the Hawaiian chain.

Rather than increasing the representation of the BRFC why not reduce it to simply those with the scientific knowledge. Surely the reason it takes so long is in the BRFC title - COMMITTEE.

Remember - "Committees are formed to take minutes and waste hours." - "The more urgent the need for a decision, the less apparent becomes the identity of the decision maker." - "The more complex the idea or technology, the more simple minded is the opposition." - "By making things absolutely clear, people will become more confused."

Confusing myself now - for Andy read "Mark and Andy"


or Andy and Amos

or ?????

yes Ron, true enough, a specimen is a specimen, which should be judged on other factors, but we are looking at a 'record' of the highest weight of a certain fish, not whether it's a specimen or not.

Highest recorded weights should be noted, but they should be correct.
The DNA profiles should be benchmarked, all record fish should be retained and a representative from the BRFC should attend and take a sample (swab, scale etc).
With the proliferation of mobile phones, then everybody should be able to get hold of a contact somehow.
The benchmarking should be completed by a noted and professional source
(not Alwyn 'it's a crucian, no it's a goldfish, no it's a crucian, oh maybe it's a hybrid' Wheeler)
and future fish should be merited against those benchmarks.

Sounds easy enough, but does anybody in power actually want the change?
Do the majority of anglers actually care about record fish?

A vote on here, of mostly dedicated and specialist anglers of adding 10 pence to the rod licence to fund this would probably only just get a majority vote.
Add in the hundreds of thousands of puddle fishers and occasional anglers, who aren't effected by this, then the answer would be a resounding no.

You are right of course Rik. A record fish is not necessarily a specimen fish, although a few records have been true specimens.

I once caught a 7lb Vaal River Mudfish one of the Labeo species of Africa. It was a record I was told some time later.

But in those days you had to present the actual fish - dead - to the committee that verified such records. You also had to present the actual rig or hook and hook length you had caught this fish as well as a sworn affidavit from a lawyer at the time. I had only one witness and that was my wife, and direct relations were not allowed. It was a hell of a thing and would cost you quite a lot of money to get this done.

I returned the fish, knowing it was a good one and that will do for me.

Of course I would be pleased if I ever caught a record fish. What angler wouldn't. But such fish should not be deified.

Many records in the past have been blind strokes of luck taken by some very poor anglers.

Yet I do feel we should have a record fish committee, from the biological aspect alone. And maybe they should also record fish that were not taken on rod and line.

If you want to break a record and win a large amount of money for doing so anywhere in the world, the ultimate prize is the Large Mouth Bass.

The current record was caught in 1932 in Georgia - Montgomery Lake by a 20 year old at the time by the name of George Perry. It was caught on a Plug.

It weighed 221/4 lbs.

There is some evidence of a bigger fish being taken my a woman quite recently of 221/2 lbs, but she returned the fish.

A prize of one million USD is on offer for the angler to beat George Perry's fish, caught anywhere in the world.

Apart from the American Deep South, there are some mighty Large Mouth Bass to be found in reservoirs along the KwaZulu Natal coastal area. Fish of up to 18lbs have been taken. Such an incentive would make me, if I was younger, have a try. I know of waters down there that have some monsters in them.

"And maybe they should also record fish that were not taken on rod and line."

I thought about saying something along those lines, but thought it might dilute my previous comments.
Definitely yes.
If we are listing a fish with it's highest obtainable weight, then rod and line caught should go hand in hand with netted, found dead etc, even if it's just a side note.
Mind you, you'd then run into difficulties with dead fish with osmosis (e.g. recent 22lb bream, 70lb carp etc), but still something that I feel should be noted.

I once lifted out with my landing net a huge roach from Thrybergh Reservoir in Rotherham. It weighed 3lbs 12oz in my landing net. The net section weighed 9 oz.

But the poor fish had obviuosly been dead for some time and as well as decomposing, had taken on water.

Rik is 100% spot on. Records should mean fish taken by any method. I read somewhere where a 97lb cod had been taken on a pirk, by a commercial fisherman on the North Atlantic Grand Banks. Should fish taken this way be counted as a record?

Perhaps they should.

I've heard of cod to over 200lb by commercials.

i've seen that 22lb bream and it's still absolutely bluddi enormous. no matter what the actual weight when it was alive.

whose going to pay for the DNA test the brfc or the angler, if it's the angler then you get into the farcial state where a record doesn't stand because someone doesn't want to pay for a test.

i don't like the fact that phil and marsh won't consider a record unless they think the venue is capable of producing a fish of that size.
this means that once you tell them they go and fish the venue and if they can't catch something decent from there they will look on the capture badly.

they are both decent anglers but do they really think they can assess a venues potential from one visit, I cant.

Some excellent comments coming out so far. Andy has done a lot of work in the background on DNA testing and how it could be put in place at very little cost to BRFC by using research facilities at a university.
This work has and can establish true species.
Agreement on Irish situation.
Amazed at Jason's comment re water potential.(I don't doubt you at all, Jason, but it's worrying as it implies subjective judgement of capture rather than objective)
I agree with Jeff's comment on committees slowing process, though not sure how to get a smaller, simpler body.
My stance is towards simplification not vice versa hence I would not be bothered about recording non rod caught fish though this could be something the SAA might like to consider as others have done in the past.

Finally, how did the S.A.R.F.C. get into this debate, Ron?

Keep 'em coming!

Anything to do with South Africa can get into any thread on here as long as Ron's around. )

Difficult to cut down the size of anything once it is established. People don't want to relinquish their powers and to some this is the ultimate power trip.

Was there not some talk of the good people of Fishingmagic/SAA putting money into DNA research?
I'm only surprised that some on the committee have had the patience to flog a dead horse for so long, but for how much longer? As 'Hatrick' says, check out the weekly papers next week.

what's mr gaunt up to, that's twice next weeks weeklies ahave been mentioned.

Billy Barbule (whoever you are) the EA has already done part what was being proposed by Fishingmagic with Crucian Carp. The research looked at developing a molecular approach (eg looking at DNA) to detect hybridisation between Crucian carp and non-indigenous carp species and the report was was published over a year ago by the EA.

That research established a number of things that should have be sounded warning bells at the BRFC.

1. The EA found fish both of whose parents were themselves hybrids.

2. They found backcrosses ie one parent was a hybrid.

3. Some fish that were identified as Crucians by looking at them were found to be Crucian x goldfish when their DNA was tested.

The BRFC then appointed Nigel Hewlitt of the EA as the new freshwater fish identification expert and he then appeared was on Matt Hayes's programme on the Discovery Channel in his new role and after publication of the report saying that photographic evidence was good enough.

Sothe EA's commissions a report that makes it obvious that they only accurate way to determine if a fish is a cruican is to check its DNA and they developa way of doing this using scale samples. The BRFC appoinbt one of the EA's top fish scientists and he goes on TV saying photo's are good enough.

Personally i reakon for the hybridising species we should have two records. One fo fish that are genetically tested and one for fish that are not. i reakon that in the long term the genetically tested list would have far more kudos.

On the subject of weights the problem is a very simple one. The BRFC use a rounding method that is simply wrong. Example: Two anglers can catch a fish of exactly the same weight eg 5lb 9oz 8dr and weigh it on scales that are graduated in ouces. On one set of scales it registers 5lb 91/2oz and on the other 5lb 12oz. The first fish will be rounded down to 5lb 9oz by the BRFC because the scales weigh in 1oz division and as the scales will prove to be accurate the weight will be recorded at 5lb 9oz. The first second fish will NOT be rounded down and when the scales check shows the scales are out by 2 1/2 oz the weight will be taken 5lb 9oz 8dr. That is weher the mistake lies. The BRFC should take the fish as the maximum weight they would have recorded IF the scales had been accurate.

There is a lot of apathy amongst anglers over this area. if anglers were inb charge of the history books we would probably record buzz aldrin as the first man on the moon and mark spitz as the first man to break the 4 minute mile. personally i think if you are going to keep records you should strive to ensure they are accurate.

I also think that when NASA ran the list it had a lot more credability than it does today. the reason it was taken over by NASA was the BRFC being over zealous about fish identification rules now we seem to have the total opposite. How times change.

I reakon its time the SAA should take it back.