Hybrids

That the SAA provide ?3000 of sponsorship (?1000 per year for 3 years) to part fund a PhD student whose research project would be to identify the genetic markers that uniquely identify the cyprinid species. With sponsorship from a recognised body such as the SAA the student should be able to obtain a NERC grant for the research.


Without having seen anything wriiten down, I cannot see this idea as a goer at all.

Firstly, I would have thought that with modern molecular techniques, developing a method to allow cyprinid hybrids to be identified would be a piece of academic work that is almost trivial. I cannot see it forming the basis of a PhD thesis. Given the right support, a bright student could probaly have a good stab at it over the summer vacation. There may be huge complications that I don't know about, but I would be interested to see the proposal.

Secondly, NERC studentships are not easy things to come by. There is a huge literature on hybridastion in fish - some very interesting studies of hypridisation amongst wild Telapeid fish in Lake Victoria were done by British Fisheries Scientists back in the days of Empire.

To have any real chance of success with NERC, a propsal would have to demonstrate detailed knowledge of this early work and stress why the applicants feel it is important to undertake further studies. There would have to be a clear objective that is of real importance to the scientific discipline as a whole. Simply being able to identify hybrids is very unlikely to be considered worthwhile. I am sure Barrie Rickards will agree with me, that most professional academic scientists find it very difficult to write good proposals, it is a huge task that requires much effort and a substantial background experience. What's more, the lack of money means that many (if not most) good proposals are not funded simply on financial ground. It is not that unusual to spend 2 - 3 months putting together a good proposal, for it to receive excellent support from all of the external referees, but for it to fail simply because the agency does not have the money to fund all alpha rated projects.


Given this situation I would be very surprised if a project based upon devloping a technique to allow hybrids to be identified by a Record fish commitee would every recieve a high enough priority score to be fundable. I would have thought that such a propsal would have to include a substantial comitment to study (for example) the impact of hybridisation on the environment; its significance to the the evolution of fish; or (possibly more interesting) understanding why fish such as Roach / Rudd / Bream which can have been able to remain as separate species. I know hybrids are generally sterile, but surely the odd fertile one must be produced.

Sorry - think it's a dead horse.

I agree but for a different reason.
Imagine this.
25th December 2002 I catch a record Roach. All the research has been done and I phone Phil Smith who tells me how to get a sample for DNA profiling.This I do and all goes well.
On the 25th January A.N Other catches a record Roach from the same swim , same venue.He rings Phil Smith who tells him how to obtain a sample of tissue for DNA analysis.
The analysis goes well and in fact is able to say that it came from the same Roach that I caught on Xmas day a month earlier.
On the 25th Feb it is caught again etc etc etc.
Then again the first reading tells us it is a hybrid.Result all the anglers go elsewhere leaving one very miserable fishery owner, does he have the option of further testing to prove or disprove the earlier findings.(Human Rights Act right to earn a living).
How on earth can we trust anyone to take a specimen of tissue correctly, what are the safeguards against fraudulent claims.
Who authorises the use of DNA techniques , who is the person who holds the purse strings ? Where does the money come from for every sample that is tested?
In my line of work it is ?3000,(minimum) every time I require a DNA reading .
Could misuse be a problem ? Imagine fishing a water that produces a fair number of big 3lb Roach and being mates with the holder of the purse strings.Do you test the fish before a record comes out or do you wait to be potentially frustrated that 10 years of effort has been wasted ?
Come on guys it is a non starter as has been said.

Why such a negative attitude?
A previous thread where this subject was discussed was very much in favour of the idea.
Andy Nellist who I confess I don't know personally, seems to have a good grip on the subject. It was he who proposed the study in the first place.
I accept that I may be corrected here but why would a guy who has plenty of experience in this field suggest such a project if it won't get off the ground?
Don't forget that there is money available from FM towards this research so why shouldn't it stand a chance?
Surely the identification of pure strains of a species is a valuable item of knowledge.
As for the Human Rights Act (or as its better known the Legal Mortgage payment system), what a load of old twaddle!
Of course he has the right to further testing but the HRA? That has so little to do with the subject that its laughable! I presume that the comment must be tongue in cheek.
Lets take it a step further. If a fishery owner is selling tickets for his waters and not denying the general belief that it is possible to catch a record Roach there, can you then get the local trading standards on to him for offering goods which he doesn't possess? Is this fraudulent trading? Of course not! If it turns out that his record fish are hybrids then thats just tough luck on him. I for one hope that the previous two postings are just a pair of people who are looking on the glum side of things.

I have spoken to Andy several times about this issue of DNA testing, and I agree with him totally that without doubt something has to be done to establish whether a roach of alleged record weight is indeed a true roach that is should one ever be caught. However if it is left to the angler to collect the sample for DNA testing who is to monitor which fish it comes from. Maybe im being a bit thick here but should someone be unscrupulous and catch a hybrid over the record and a true roach of 2oz how does DNA show that the sample was not from the 2oz fish, therefore we are back to the honesty and integrity of us as anglers and that in my opinion is no different to the issue of roach or hybrid identification from photographs. As i say maybe ive missed the point on DNA testing here. I can see it working if a member of the BRFC takes the sample from the fish then I feel that it should be done once all other possible tests have been carried out and doubts still exist, but maybe if doubts still exist it should not be a record anyway.

Stuart

The purpose of the phd would not be to identify the genetic markers but clearly it would be necessary to carry out this task as a pre-requisite to any new research into the extent and effects of post f1 hybridisation in UK cyprinid populations.

What is being proposed goes far futher than the precis on which you have based your comments and has the support of a proffessor of genetics at a red-brick university and an academic who has published a number of papers on UK cyprinid hybrids.

If you want to know more e-mail me.

David

you said "Do you test the fish before a record comes out or do you wait to be potentially frustrated that 10 years of effort has been wasted ?"

My response would be that if Anglers knew any record claim would be verified it would come as no surprise to me if they become more careful to check the pedigree of the fish that they fished for. At the same time it would be possible to accept Record from any water..... even Pitsford.

You said "In my line of work it is ?3000,(minimum) every time I require a DNA reading ." I understand the cost in relation to checking fish is much lower and will continue to fall over time. My suggestion in any case at the momet is that we know in future checking DNA from scales will be possible cheaply and therfore we ought TODAY to be insisting on obtaining scalkes from record claims for the affected species.

You said said "How on earth can we trust anyone to take a specimen of tissue correctly, what are the safeguards against fraudulent claims." That is clearly something the BRFC will be considering but it has already happened with the Irish Roach Record which went back alive.

I'm not qualified to comment on the feasibility of DNA testing and research into genetic markers, etc, which is why Andy Nellist is spokesman for FM on these matters. So I can't comment with any authority on the remarks made by Stuart Wilson.

As for fraudulent claims, this is what was said at the end of the news item to which this thread is linked:

"We also believe that there should be a system in place where a potential record claimant can be visited at the water by an officer of the BRFC so that this officer can expertly remove the scale from the fish. This will ensure that fish are subject to as little damage as possible. The replacement of scales is something that fish do naturally many times in their lives."

If an officer of the BRFC removes the scale it not only safeguards the fish?s health, it also precludes fraudulent claims. As for fisheries being deserted if their fish turn out to be hybrids then that's tough. I?m sure they have no qualms reaping the benefits while hybrids are caught and claimed as true species.

But let?s get real, potential records of the same species caught in December, January, February, etc? Human Rights? Come on!

One thing is for sure though, the BRFC need to place identification of certain species on a more scientific footing than the present set-up, so whilst I welcome constructive criticism of the current proposal, suggestions of how it can be done better are also welcome.

In reply to the suggestion that a scale from a 2oz fish could be used to back up a fraudulent claim, I would ask if it is possible to determine the approximate age of a fish from its scales? Something along the lines of the growth rings on a tree.
If this is possible then surely this would prevent fraudulent claims as I'm sure that a 4lb+ Roach will be a hell of a lot older than a 2oz one!

Twainy I read somewhere recently (can't quite recall where as I read that many publications) that the growth "rings" on a scale only occur for the first few years of a fish's life, until sexual maturity I think but am not absolutely certain.
Can anybody cast any more light?

Tony

I don't think shaun realised that the proposal was to get the DNA from scales. the scvales would indeed indicate the age of the fish but more importantly big roach have big scales. The requirement to provide scales would therefore make it difficult to fake a claim since you would need scales from a very big true roach. Add to this hte fact that it is being suggested that the scale would actually have to be removed from the fish by someone sent by the BRFC and the opportunity for fraud or mistake becomes very small indeed.

I, for one, would not dream of removing a scale or fin clipping from an otherwise healthy fish just so a potential record claim could be verified. These fish might be caught several times at near record weights and end up having several scales pulled off or having their fins snipped to bits by different anglers seeking fame.

How anybody can suggest mutilating a fish as beautiful as a 4lb+ roach simply for the glory of claiming a BRFC record is totally beyond me.

I think the BRFC should concentrate a little more attention on the correct identification of the current 'rudd' record before turning their attention to roach ID.

Just my penny-worth

I see Dave Will's point but think having someone turn up would be a safeguard.

But there's an obvious logistical problem with this though.

What if (say...) you catch a potential record roach on the Yare and the nearest BRFC-accredited scale remover chap is in Birmingham..?

Would you have to retain the fish for hours..?

I think you'd need to set up a network of witnesses around the country to make the whole thing completely above board.

Maybe it could be done, I don't know.

Now that we collectively have forced the debate this far - probably the first time a website has emerged as the key media in a debate off this significance - we owe it to ourselves to make sure the system is credible.

I must admit my heart says Keith has a point which will strike a chord with a lot of people (above).

Please don't think I'm trying to pour cold water on the idea, because fishingmagic first forced the issue into the public arena - despite being rubbished at first by the print media.

I just think having got this far, we owe it to ourselves and the spirit of the site to get it right and be completely above any criticism, which will surely follow if the system isn't completely transparent and above-board.

We question a lot of things on here - we need to make sure we're above question on this one.

Keith

How many half decent claims have their been for Roach and Rudd in the last 30 years ? We are talking about getting a professional to remove a couple of scales from 1 fish every few years at most!

Historically it has (with the exception of Linch Hill) been extremely rare for big Roach to be recaught. These fish are usually near the end of their lives at at the peak of a cycle. Startops is a classic case in point where the largest Roach at 3-13-0 came to Alan Wilson during the winter of 89-90 when the Roach peaked. That fish like most very big Roach was never seen again.

The debate is about all the hybridinsing species and particularly Rudd and Crucian Carp. the present Rudd records (2x 4lb 10oz fish by the same angler) were accepted by the BRFC on photographic evidence whent eh BRFC were totally aware that such evidence could not prove that the fish were in fact true Rudd.

Chris

I for one woul dput the instructions for how to claim a record on every Rod Licence and in the age of mobile phones being used to give instructions for saving lives I am sure an independent witness could be talked through the process of removing a couple of scales.

As anglers we are quick to knock an idea but slow to embrace it and make it work )

The 2 ounce roach comment was said slightly tongue in cheek, however the problem with scale removal is serious one should we really be disfiguring a fish just to prove a point? Is a record worth that? I personally would rather not claim the record than do that to the fish of a lifetime.

In saying the above, I am in favour of some serious research into the full effects and spread of hybridisation, after all if our knowledge of the problem is enlarged then so is our ability to make a rational decision about any fish caught.

Andy I,m not knocking the idea I think it is very credible and your point on the number of record claims is very valid but would it solve the problem or just cause a set of new ones? Surely it would require suitably skilled people to be available with any required equipment 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. Is this practical? What if after the sample is taken it becomes degraded or contaminated what happens to the record claim then?

I realise that I'm almost arguing against myself here but I photographed several big Linch Hill roach last winter (including a 3lb 8oz fish)and they are far too impressive to be disfigured by removing a scale for DNA analysis.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the 4-10 'rudd' photos. Those pictures were NOT clear enough to rule out hybridisation, so the claim should have failed. Indeed the more recent pictures are clearer than the first set and look even more suspicious to me!

Look at the shots of Phil Smith's 3lb 13oz+ roach from Linch Hill two years ago. Crystal clear shots of perfect winter roach. That quality of shot should be required as the minimum baseline for roach, rudd or crucian record claims before we even consider using DNA.

Do we really know how long a roach lives? Another cyprinid, the barbel, has been proved to live for over 25 years. Carp live even longer. Just because these fish have reached a near record weight doesn't necesarily mean that they are about to die.
Very few creatures simply die after reaching their full growth potential. I was 6'3" when I left school and I've still got a few years left in me, I hope.

A few years ago barbel were thought to grow to about 15/16lb. If the same arguements were applied then, we might never have discovered that some fish could reach the 19lb+ that we now know to be possible.

I'm not suggesting that a 4lb 4oz roach caught now, would grow on to 5lb+.... but if we start pulling bits of every record fish for DNA I doubt that we would find out.

What kind of ammunition are we going to give the anti-fishing nutters when they hear that we've started to pull bits of living fish to win prizes in the angling press???

Now, IF a DNA test could be developed that required a simple slime sample or mouth swap (like the ones used by the police already), THEN we'd be on the right track.

For what it's worth I'm with Keith on this one.

Do we fish for pleasure or for fame, and how many that fish for fame would actually admit it.

I for one will never have a record after my name, I don't put the hours in or fish the venues likely to produce a record, but if that fish of lifetime came along I think I'm mature enough to live without my 5 minutes of glory.

Just putting u guys in the picture (some may be aware) Phil is away at the mo chasing Cats in Kazakhstan. I'm sure he will be delighted (maybe) to reply to this thread (with his views) in due course.

Keith

What do you do when Linch Hill produces a 4lb 4oz ?

If the welfare of the fish were as paramount as is being suggested who would ever fish Linch Hill where the fish are being subjected to very heavy angling pressure ?

If the welfare of the fish is so important then don't claim the record.

Personally I practise what I preach. the pb Bream in my photo was photographed and returned in the dark. But... if I was fortunate enough catch a record roach then taking a couple of scales to ensure the integrity of the record list which millions of anglers use as a yardstick would not unduly concern me.

The reason it is necessary is plainly illustrated by the debate that raged over Alan Wilson's fish of 3-13-0 from Willow. Several people declared that they were certian that Alans fish was definately a hybrid and then declared Phil's 3-13-8 to be a true Roach... but when I checked it turned out they were the same fish (If you doubt me look at the archives on fishing magic)

I have yet to hear anyone who fishes Linch Hill speak fully in favour of testing... and therein lies the problem. This issue needed to be dealt with a long time ago and now we have a water that may or may not contain true record roach and no-one knows !

If the big Linch Hill fish are Roach then fantastic and if the fish holding the Rudd Record were Rudd then great and if the last crucian rejected by the BRFC wasn't actually a Crucian then phew. The problem is that "ifs" are not good enough when you are dealing with record lists. There is a simple choice... keep accurate records or don't keep records !!!

"The problem is that "ifs" are not good enough when you are dealing with record lists. There is a simple choice... keep accurate records or don't keep records !!!
"

But surely the records ARE being kept (at this point) to the best knowledgeable records they can be?