Having spent time studying papers on hybrids, and catching some of the strangest fish around this season, and discussing the many issues with Andy, I find it worrying that the BRFC appears unable to move forward. There are several issues here.
1). The BRFC does not yet appear to have grasped that a procedure could now be set up for DNA testing of specimen fish. It would take some effort but with guidance, it can be done. Determining true ?pure? fish from photos is difficult for several species especially roach, rudd, silver bream, crucians, brown goldfish and seatrout. For other species, it is less of a problem; provided a chub is a chub not a grass carp etc, or that a roach/bream hybrid is unlikely to challenge the bream record.
2) The provision of photographic evidence must help any record claim in verifying that a fish of the approximate size has been captured. It is possible to fake photos. I edit photos for use in my articles (only some of them!) without any special expertise or expensive software, and this applies to digital and negative/slide film. As Andy says, it is possible to check the original digital image and detect fakery.
3) Obtaining reliable witnesses is always a problem. All you can do is take statements and cross-verify them. Like Ron, I have caught good fish without witnesses to the capture. With small species like dace or roach, there are circumstances where, with a bit of organisation, I could get a fish alive to a commercial aquarium or to the fish labs at Winfrith. But it would rely on having a keepnet and phone, and would be impractical for larger species ? would you want to try and retain a record carp or barbel? If someone is determined to gain a record under false pretences, it can be difficult to find out the truth though vanity usually lets the cat out of the bag! Verifying that a record was even caught by fair angling is difficult in itself ? witness the rainbow record that was found dead.
4) Getting the weight right. Another minefield. Remember the very old perch record of 5-14-6? That was a six pounder weighed on scales calibrated in 4oz divisions that were weighing 0-1-10 (ounce and ten drams) out, hence what appeared to be very accurate weighing. In a case like that it would be more sensible to round down to the next calibration after taking into consideration the inaccuracy, i.e. 5-12
As Andy says, several of the current list struggle on at least one of the four criteria that I have outlined, an abysmal state of affairs that ought to be rectified.