The future of our record lists

Following last week's resignation of Specialist Anglers' Alliance British Record Fish Committee representatives Marsh Pratley and Phil Smith Angling Times has to ask: what does the future hold for our British record lists?
Last week the BRFC strayed away from its own procedures to pass two coarse fish, one of which Marsh and Phil never saw, and the other which they had legitimate concerns over.
Without going into too much detail, the new 9lb 2oz record has split angling, with large numbers of experienced anglers left in massive doubt about its authenticity. No one is calling the captor a liar. However, from the evidence submitted to committee members and reported in the angling media, there could well have been a mistake made in the weighing process brought to light over the claimed length of the rod butt the fish was photographed alongside. If you can't measure a rod butt correctly, what chance you can weigh a fish properly?
What it boils down to is how to process claims when there is 'reasonable doubt' over all the details supplied by the captor when he makes a claim. The record verification procedure must be peer reviewed - that is the only way of ensuring their is a safety net to filter out dodgy or mistaken claims. Otherwise the list will have no credibility and will inevitably end up full of illegitimate records. Without peer review it would be simply too easy to make a dodgy claim.
So waht does everyone think is the answer?
We can't kill the fish. Fact.
Can a national network of big fish anglers be organised to help accurately witness, weigh and photograph record fish as in the past? It would be inevitable that Joe Bloggs would still catch fish and not know who to call. In that event a record could be caught but refused.
In short, what do we need to do?
Personally, as an angling journalist who has had plenty of experience dealing with the present regime (including being invited to attend an annual meeting early last year), I have very little confidence in it. Mark you, that is my opinion not that of Angling Times.
What does everyone else think? Where is the BRFC going wrong and how can we best process claims? Please post your replies. Let's get this debate going.

Two independant witnesses,photographs,tape measure included within the photo's and DNA samples if doubts about species that are known to hybridise..

or

Who cares?

OK Greg here?s start: -
You have ex number of officials scattered around the country who?s job it is to weigh, measure, remove a scale, photograph and collect a signed statement from the angler and or any witness.
The above person will have provided by BRFC a digital camera, scales, tape measure, test tube and preservative for scale retention along with all the necessary forms.
The inspectors, for want of a better name, will telephone the claimant and inform him or her what the existing record is, pointless turning up to weigh something that?s a non-starter to begin with. If the claim is genuine, inform the claimant how long it will be before he or she can get there to record the catch.
After photographing, measuring and collecting statements he/she will remove the memory card from the camera and along with the fishes scale, weight and captors/witness statements, post via a prepaid envelope back to BRFC within 12hrs of the statements being collected. At a later date the inspector will have his scale?s calibration verified and post the certificate off to BRFC.
BRFC via the scale sample will verify the species, and download the pics from the memory card and when verification of the weigh scale calibration has been received make judgement on the claim.

Now before you all start jumping up and down re the cost of all this, just remember there are over three million anglers and it?s not every week that one is likely to be asked to witness a claim.

All this of course goes along with a campaign to inform the public what he or she must do to make a claim, along with advice on how to retain the fish while waiting for the above said person to turn up and witness the record claim.

John, the first two paragraphs of your post are almost word for word what was proposed to the BRFC earlier this year. As far as financing such an operation is concerned, a fairly substantial sum of money was offered and refused.

There will be an article on this website from Andy Nellist in the very near future. Other than the BRFC Committee, nobody knows more about the BRFC and the recent goings on than Andy.

Greg,

You've got my blueprint for a totally new BRFC. Andy saw the draft version, and we've discussed it since.

In a nutshell:
1. Proper financing.
2. Better procedures.
3. DNA (authenticated sample) for roach, rudd, crucian, silver bream, seatrout.
4. Revamp of current list to remove records that shouldn't be there.
5. Leave all Irish fish to the Irish RFC.
6. Proper publicity, PR, hosted web presence.
7. The right people for the job; ability to catch big fish is a good start in that there is experience of what big fish actually look like, where might produce them etc., but added to that ability to investigate claims properly which is a very different skill. Proper leadership, too. I did fraud investigation years ago on claims and just because the paperwork is OK is not always enough!
8. Possibly the most difficult challenge - getting the EA to put a small box of who to contact if you've caught a record fish on the rod licence.
9. Some research into weight/girth/length, possibly aided by the specialist groups, to help verify claims.

I look forward to reading Andy's article, he does seem to know how to put things into simple terms (for us thickos ;o))

The whole thing needs a rethink, with the technology we've got at our fingertips these days it shouldn't take a genius to work it out.

Some problems to overcome:
1. How can someone claim a record from a fishery where keepnets, sacks and other fish retention methods are not allowed? These may still be specimen fish that need recording.
2. Do we have separate lists for stillwater and river fish.
3. Which do you class as imported fish?
4. What about waters that are not open to the public. I understand there are several waters where less than half a dozen people are allowed to fish. It's bit like fattening the calf in your own back yard.
Sorry to be negative but the main rules are easy to sort out, it's these difficult areas where the main problems will be.

Terry

If the fish has grown to a certain size in British waters and is caught then it is a record whether 5 or 5 million anglers can access it.

IMO we should only have one list per species for both stillwater and moving water results.

Imported fish present a problem, as was the case with catfish, hence they were removed from the record list. "Foreign" carp might be a problem in the future as they grow but again IMO if they add weight over a period of years in this country after legal importation then they should probably qualify as a record, even if their brood stock is not available within the UK. I would be interested to hear what others think might be the best solution to this potential problem.

Good time for the debate Greg.

Greg et al, afraid I know little of the politics surrounding the authentication of records, but as an ordinary angler I would just like to have a modicum of confidence in the list and those who ratify claims.
At present I have neither and clearly there are plenty of others who share my reservations.
If neither the NFA or the BRFC are deemed fit to adjudicate who then can we trust?
It is a truism that organisations themselves are rarely flawed, merely the individuals that control them.
Stick with the NFA and the BRFC but lets press for a new broom with an overseeing body to deal with appeals and disputes.
And Angling Times should save their biggest front page headlines for those who try to cheat the system!

Peter B with respect it is the two bodies you state have brought about this mess!

I for one wouldn't allow them anywhere near historical records ever again.

Why did the gang of three, never have a meeting of the four coarse reps to ?unanimously? agree on the two record claims, as they always have done in the past?

Why didn't the others members of the BRFC not ask the gang of three whether the two big fish rep had seen both record claims and what comments they'd made?

No Peter both bodies are culpable of total incompetence in my view.

Michael, I for one would not accept a fish as a record that was 'grown on' in someone's own garden pond, no matter how big their pond was. That's the point I was trying to make. If you're not willing to differentiate on this type of water then there's no need to differentiate between river and stillwater fish is there. I mean, some of the lakes I fish have more flow from undertow than some rivers in flood.

Terry

I understand your point but the record is simply a record of the size the fish can attain in British waters, not of angling skill, accessibility or anything else.

There is certainly a potential problem where someone choses to grow a fish on simply with the intention of claiming a record. It might be recognised in the list but probably not by most anglers, once the circumstances of its growth and, I imagine, capture came to light.

You highlight one of the problems that Marsh and Phil were needing to deal with on a regular basis in assessing fish for record claims, hence their concerns over "beyond reasonable doubt". That is why the BRFC needs to be most rigorous in assessing claimed fish.

Sorry perhaps my previous post was not clear. I meant we should have one list including fish from both stillwaters and flowing waters, not a separate list for each type of water. Apologies for any confusion I may have caused through poor sentence construction.

Some claims need scrutinising far better than they have been. Others, like the barbel record, needed to be passed far faster. Why does Nigel Hewlett need to see a photo of 'The Traveller' for the umpteenth time to confirm that it is actually a barbel and not a mutated gudgeon?! Such silly practices slowed down the processing of nailed on records that no-one ever had any doubts over!
Take a look on the BRFC list on the NFSA website (can't remember what it is, Google it). How out-of-date is that? It's a farce!
As a journo I have got sick and tired of chasing, chasing and then chasing some more for information and confirmations. And that's before you mention outright lies and deceit!
It's not bloody good enough and must change now. We all make mistakes in life - the key is to only make them once and then learn from them!

Sounds like we may be getting somewhere. Now we just need the right people to make it so.

It really is quite simple!
You just set up a system that can confirm the record claim when a 14yr old lad catches a record size fish and gets a passing pair of dog walkings to act as witnesses to capture and weighing.
Of course they must be able to sort out the case where a 14yr old lad does not catch a record size fish but gets a passing pair of dog walkers to witness a modified weighing and capture. In both cases the pictures were taken but poorly framed all being they did show a nice fish of the species being claimed.

The profile for suitable candidates would probably include:-
1/ Aged between 30 and 50 with well established track record of catching big fish [not neccesarly monsters].
2/ A very well developed sense of disbelief. Start off by saying 'I don't believe it, go on, prove it to my satisfaction.
3/ A thick skin, knives and arrows come thick and fast.
4/ Lots of energy and enthusiasm to keep them going against all the odds.
5/ A good disregard for what other people are saying, but the willingness to listen in the first place.
6/ A sense of humour - they will need it.

Phil, the point I was trying to make is that it is not the administrative body itself that is at fault, rather those who control,administer and operate the processes of the organisation in either a professional or voluntary capacity.
If the constitution of both the NFA and BFRC is deemed inadequate fine, well modify it and start again with new faces at the helm.
Create another totally different organisation and the bun fight over records/titles will end up like boxing with each different body awarding their own titles( or in this case records).

Peter, your post contains the rub.These bodies and their committees are not operated in a "professional" capacity at all as far as I can see.If we want an efficient record fish system are we willing to pay for it, and if so via what mechanism?

Some points;

We still have one 'imported' record - walleye!

Growing a fish on in a garden pond is much easier said than done though a one time silver bream record was close to this definition, and at one time rainbow trout records weren't far off in that they were released at record size from the stews into a water.

The current setup has got to the stage that it is losing credibility (I'm trying to be diplomatic). Some of those involved don't meet Phil's criteria never mind mine. I'd like to say that Phil's contribution to record verification has been outstanding over the years, and a very hard act to follow.

The scientific advice/procedure has been flawed for decades; quite why I don't know but we need someone that can bridge the gap between the science and the angling.

It is now clear that the procedures being followed were confused, incomplete (is there a written point of order over sub-committee/full committee? Apparently not), inflexible (Greg's barbel example), not always followed or understood, and in some cases plain wrong (there has been evidence for 40 years that you simply cannot determine true seatrout, crucians, rudd or roach from photographs alone)

Several current records were caught from waters with very limited access ie syndicate water - grayling, the Stour roach etc.

The history of the BRFC over the last 50 years shows this situation is far from new.

Another qualification to add to Phil's list is having the time (and expenses) to investigate fully the claims, travelling to interview witnesses etc.

Nigel, your point is well made and accepted. Afraid I don't know enough about the machinations of the NFA or BRFC to fully concur.
I was merely trying to cite the example of other sports-such as boxing- where confidence in one organising body became so low it led to fragmentation and several rival organising bodies, and a chaotic list of champions at the same weight division.
Somehow, I dont think the current top dogs at the NFA or the BRFC will do the Turkey bit and vote for Christmas, so what is the alternative?
Set up another organisation to restore confidence in fish records?
Better to try for a clean sweep within the existing bodies, set firm ground rules in place, and make the existing organisations operate in a more auditable and professional manner.
How, and by whom, that is done is the bigger question.