What would happen if...

The new Roach record got me thinking and I wondered what everyone thought might happen if...

An angler caught a record fish of any species and had it properly weighed, varified and photographed and then publicised the capture either through the weeklies or the net.

The said angler then decides not to claim the record (out of some belief or principle)

Would that fish then become an unnofficial record, when people thought or talked of that species record surely the largest authenticated fish would sit at the top of the list making the current listings defunct.

If a few anglers did this over the course of a couple of seasons could they in effect destroy the current system and make its very existance meaningless ?

Just a thought.

Mark,

Something similar happened with the Yates carp where at the time (1980?) you had to produce the body. That led to the NASA list.

The trouble is that when you start to get unofficial records that haven't been verified completely it is not long before all sorts of dodgy characters are claiming to have caught records that would get short shrift as records if the BRFC were to vet them. It's bad enough with the BRFC list in that from time to time we do get fake records, last one discovered was the rainbow record which was found dead, and one or two others even on the list today have had doubts cast on them. Take that pike story t'other week! Would you want a fish like that as a record?

Mark

what if the fish was varified correctly, correct witnesses who could varify capture and the ensuing auditable evidence trail and continuity were spot on, AT turn up take the piccy's, a DNA sample is taken, the scales are tested by trading standards and it could even be a known fish. What then ? Like I said we are talking about an angler who decides not to claim the record once the capture is fully authenticated.

Could a few like minded anglers start a revolution ?

What you would then have is the "Angling Times Record fish list". Its general acceptance would depend on how scrupulous whoever ran it were in verifying the details. Similar lists existed over 50 years ago with The Anglers News and The Fishing Gazette, then the BRFC evolved, including representation from AT and others, the NFA tried running it, then it became something like today.

You end up needing a committee to act as judge and jury somewhere along the line with a set of rules, even if it is an alternative one. Part of the problem is that at some stage there is an element of trust which is where the claiment states that he/she is telling the truth. Not all records are witnessed being caught even if the fish is verified later when witnesses are summonsed.

If at some time in the future it was generally felt that the existing BRFC were making too many mistakes then there is nothing to stop anyone creating their own record fish committee but it needs a certain amount of gravitas and expertise behind it. Otherwise it too would quickly make exactly the same mistakes.

But it is the fish that is the record --NOT the angler ....

I suppose your right, someone would always try to control the list, whether official or unofficial, but if such record fish are captured and no record is claimed, whether authenticated or not it would have the potential to destroy the current ethos of specimen angling.

For example. if I were to catch a 12lb eel tommorrow (highly unlikely I know, especially as i'm at work but bear with me)I and so would the rest of the angling world would still regard the secret 13lb fish from last year as the bench mark to be surpassed.

Maybe a shake up is on the cards, with the reapeat captures of the same fish one or two ounces heavier, publicity bans on waters preventing records being claimed, false captures being reported (I think the press do have some responsibilty in this area)I think maybe a revolution might just be what the doctor ordered.

I know that I have tired of reading about what I considered ethically false record captures where nothing groundbreaking was achieved in the capture of a known fish. The record roach (the first one from across the water) was the first record fish since the days of Yates carp, Wiltsones tench, Edward's pike that has made me sit up and take notice of a fishes capture that really did make a difference.

Ed,

You're right in that it's the fish that's the record but it only becomes a record when an angler catches it! That was the problem with the rainbow record. The fish was big enough all right but the angler never caught it.

A record is not a fish it is the details of the capture that are listed by the BRFC i.e. Species, weight, date, captor etc.

The Rudd record is shared by two captures by the same angler of two different fish of the same weight from two different waters in Northern Ireland.

"A record is not a fish it is the details of the capture that are listed by the BRFC i.e. Species, weight, date, captor etc."

The actual 'record' is the WEIGHT of the fish

Mark H, are you suggesting that the BRFC could become redundant if anglers chose to go down that route? I Agree, if you are!

It's time the BRFC stopped dragging it's heels and got up to date with things.
From what I have been lead to believe, DNA is almost indestructible, a fish scale would prove beyond doubt it's originator?

Come on guys, lateral scale counts are fine, as are fin alignment, lips etc. etc.

DNA is indisputable, that just leaves weight verification and witnesses!

Steve the wheels of the machine move ever so slowly, but they are moving re BRFC.

Records do not belong to the captor or the BRFC, they belong to all of us. They are part of our history which is why they are important.

If a record is accepted and the captor decides he no longer wishes to be associated with it then fine, at least as far as I'm concerned, delete his name from the record, for that is an unimportant detail anyway. But the fish should stand.

The capture of it remains a fact. No one can say something like, "I was responsible for that piece of history happening but I've now decided it didn't happen."

So the answer to Mark is that once a record has been accepted and gone into the record books (or is waiting to be entered into the record books pending investigation) it remains a record until a bigger fish of the species is caught. No one can decide something that did happen, never happened.

If, on the other hand, a number of anglers proved they had caught a record fish but had not claimed them, then we are left with a similar situation to what we had (have) with the 13lb eel caught fairly recently and it would indeed cause chaos.

Which is why I was so strongly against what the 13lb eel captor did. He should have claimed the record or kept quiet.

I agree graham he should of kept quiet but if you catch a 13lb eel you can't keep quiet, even the most disciplined of people could not under those circumstances. As a result you have an unvarified, unauthenticated fish that if you asked most anglers what the record eel was they would say "that secret one that weighed 13lb". Thus already one line on the BRFC might as well not be there in effect.

Imagine if this scenario is repeated a couple of times this season, someone say catches a record Zander from a stillwater and wants to protect the fish so has his two mates from the Secret Squirrel angling society witness the capture then sends the story and photos to Fishing magic for publication but does not claim the record as to further protect the water. Every angler from there onwards would class the fishing magic fish as the standard to beat. That then would be two lines on the record list that wouldn't be worth reading. Within a season a small group of anglers with a few significant captures could make the BRFC list a thing of the past.

By the way I am from this day forward patenting the "Secret Squirrel Specimen Angling Society" anyone want to join, one rule only and that is you can't talk to anyone about anything.

I'm a bit surprised Matt Hayes (A.T this week) has come out against DNA testing, for the fear of two record lists.
Surely if DNA testing can prove beyond doubt if a record claim is genuine or not, what is wrong with that?
Or is it just that Matt doesn't fish for roach and crucians?

Ought to read the paper Steve (doh!). Having now done so, I have to admit that I'm surprised by Matt's stance too. He seems to think the BRFC works perfectly well!
Mark H raises a very valid point. Martin Bowler has told me that if he catches another record he won't claim it due to being disapointed by the committee over his two previous claims.
Now if he catches another record it will be reported in AT - and will satisfy all the criteria required by the BRFC no doubt. Therefore it would be a record in the eyes of British anglers (or all those anglers that read AT).
In this respect it would not be like the 13lb eel, which IS actually fiction. No photos means it was never caught. FACT! It never existed. A myth. Just forget you ever heard about it. Don't care who claims they saw it on the bank, if the rest of us don't get to see it then it's a lie. (Well that's my take on it anyway)
I haven't got a photo of any of my pbs. Which is why I don't claim them except among friends (who quite rightly always take the p**s out of me about when I do mention them!)
Record claims should be verified within two months (assuming the claimant successfully satisfies the criteria). Anything else is a joke in this day and age and is woefully unsatisfactory. My understanding is that the BRFC only verifies claims once a year at the moment (but I might be wrong). They didn't verify Grahame King's barbel last February because they'd had to send off the photo to verify that it was a barbel (and it's the same fish as has held the record for the past five or something claims!). It might be a gudgeon after all!
And any hybridizing species should require a witnessed DNA scale sample which would solcve all the problems there too.
The question is, how long are specimen anglers willing to wait for these issues to be resolved. It's been a while now hasn't it?

Introducing DNA sampling into record verification is not a cure all. Who safeguards the sample after it has been taken ? How is it monitered from the sample taking to the submition for testing?
Surely a record would have to be kept of its location and steps taken to ensure the sample could not be tampered with.

In effect the sample would have to be treated in the same way evidence is gathered to ensure it is admissable in a court of law.
In effect its authenticity must be protected beyond doubt

Matt,

I would suggest you read some of the many articles that Andy Nellist and myself have done on DNA testing and procdures.
Try
http://www.fishingmagic.com/news/article/mps/UAN/3839/V/5/SP/

and try some of the other links as well.

Beyond that it is not pertinent to comment as we are due to meet the BRFC in the fairly near future.

Isn't DNA almost indestructable?
That is what I have been led to believe, so all that is required after that, is witnesses and an accurate scale (as in weight) check.

Or am I wrong?

Continuity of evidence would be paramount in the proving of fish identification via DNA (as it is in criminal investigations). Unless you get a trained scenes of crime officer or the like to attend to take the samples to ensure there is no cross contamination or scene contamination, and the DNA as an exhibit can be accounted for at all times (this includes transport to and from labs, holding freezers etc) then you could shoot holes in any claim.

Mark W, Andy, if they are going down the DNA route please ensure it is done properly from the beginning or else we could end up with a bigger farce than the one we have already.