Record fish list,

R

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
6
Location
Herts
Well I see that the BRFC have had a few known Anglers have a pop at them regarding DNA testing, and some calling for the list to be scrapped, only to start again.

Having been through the system myself, i can only say that those having a pop are talking rubbish.

Lets start with the DNA,
Roach, Rudd and Crucian Carp need the DNA test to make sure they are 100% the species being claimed, Barbel, Bream, Tench etc don't, its easy to tell what they are.

Scrap the list? why, thats angling history, and the BRFC wouldn't be able to handle all the claims that anglers would start to make. If there is one thing I think the BRFC need to do, and thats sort out the claims quicker.

DNA for the three species as I have said, the rest, just carry on as before.
Anyway thats my opinion, whats yours?
 
S

Stealph Viper

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
5,233
Reaction score
7
Location
Just Floating Around
Should there be a record also for Hybrids?
Bream Roach Hybrids
Roach Rudd Hybrids
F1 Carp are a Hybrid between Crucian Carp and Common Carp
It would help cut out some of the false Roach, Rudd claims and still give them a chance to get in the Record Books.
But don't scrap the genuine records as some are really old records, if any records are in doubt then without solid proof just leave them as they are.

Tight Lines
 
preston96

preston96

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
2,107
Reaction score
8
I with you to Ray.....who are those that are having a pop?

Stealth.........no, there should not be a separate record list for hybrids.
 
R

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
6
Location
Herts
Kieth Arthur is saying scrap the list, but then he would.

John Wilson wants BRFC members to go out and weigh the fish on the bank, can't see that happening again.

Greg Whitehead knows more, and our Graham Marsden also knows about it, Graham is saying much the same as I am, but then Graham has been saying it for years.
 
S

Steve Spiller

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
15,191
Reaction score
4
Location
Bristol
I'm with you Ray, totally agree.

Are the ones stiring the sh*t involved? By that I mean, do they have a vested interest?

The roach record would be one in doubt, did you DNA? Did he?

Whatever happens DNA as I'm aware is conclusive, without it, it's up in the air, but I think it's the way to go forward.
 
S

Stealph Viper

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
5,233
Reaction score
7
Location
Just Floating Around
So, Paul, Hybrids should not be included on the record list of fish.
Why not, are they not a fish?

As for DNA testing, great it's a definate conclusive way of testing whether or not the fish is a genuine species, but who is going to pay to have these tests done?
The person applying for the Record or all the Rod License holders, the majority of will never be applying for a possible record Roach or Rudd or Crucian Carp to be DNA tested.

Keep the record books as they are, in the future if there is any doubt about a possible new record fish where the possibility of hybridation is called in to question then by all means have a DNA test done. Just be clear as to who is footing the bill.

Tight Lines
 
S

Steve Spiller

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
15,191
Reaction score
4
Location
Bristol
Stealph, how many new records would be created if hybrids were included?

Roach/bream...bream/roach? How would the percentage of hybridization be measured? DNA? Can you imagine the number of new claims being made and the hours spent by the BRFC trying to sort them out?

It wouldn't work...
 
R

Ray Daywalker Clarke

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
12,106
Reaction score
6
Location
Herts
As I understand it, the BRFC would cover the cost of DNA testing. The other thing is the weighing of fish, is it done in the correct way? and how many anglers know how to weigh a fish in the correct way?.
 
S

Stealph Viper

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
5,233
Reaction score
7
Location
Just Floating Around
Hi Steve,

Yes, ok i can see your point about the amount of fish being put forward to the BRFC, so perhaps for now maybe not.
I just thought that if they did scrap the current list of records to start a new list, wouldn't there also be a influx of new record claims.
Who actually knows how to make a claim for a new rod caught british fish record?

Tight Lines
 
Graham Whatmore

Graham Whatmore

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2003
Messages
9,147
Reaction score
9
Location
Lydney, in the Forest of Dean
DNA is conclusive so why get rid of it, I don't understand why they (whoever they are) would not want a foolproof system unless of course they have an ulterior motive. I know there are theories that there is no such thing as a pure roach/rudd etcetara and who knows, they may be right they have been existing together for hundreds if not thousands of years so they are bound to be a bit of a mixture I would think. Who is to say that what we consider to be a pure roach is actually pure bred or just a marker we use at this present time?

One thing I would like to see though is a means of weighing the prospective record fish independantly on scales that are checked regularly by people who know how to weigh fish. Three or four people who are able to get out at short notice (by area of course) with the appropriate scales and know how and paid by the time they are actually away from home doing the weighing and taking the samples required.

The biggest problem for the angler is the retention of the fish which may have been caught by accident so to speak, in other words he wasn't a specimen angler intent on catching a record which would probably be the majority of claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top