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.
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.