BRFC Press Release

You?ve read what Andy has to say, now it?s your turn. What do YOU make of this recent press release by the BRFC?

absolutely crazy. i've just caught two-tone at 71lb, mary and clarrisa. i've got the photo's to prove it!

ps. nice barbel graham!

Thanks Dave. I've just included the unedited picture for comparison.

Just shows you how na?ve some of the scientist can be. Even film photographs aren’t safe now. All you need do is modify the digital image then photograph the digital image onto film. The only way is DNA and a witness to verify the weighing and the fish’s release. Maybe video is harder to fiddle than an individual image? Another way may be to buy one of these throw away cameras where you have to send the camera away with the film to get it developed, maybe this is a way forward photography wise? Or may be I’ve just made that up, never having used one of these throwaway cameras, but you get the gist of it?
What do you think of holding the fish in a carp sack or Barbel tube, then ringing someone to come and verify the weighing and it’s release?

anybody altering photographs for unlawful gain should be charged with criminal intent.a reliable witness should help to verify a photo and i dont know many people that would do that sort of thing.

problem is, how do you define a "reliable witness"???

B.R.F.C.,Outdated, out of touch,out of order.

Think about this one. If you caught a record fish, other than a trout, salmon (some hope) sea species or well, perhaps a carp!!! (no shortage of them), where its ok to kill the fish; and you were totally alone, what would you do?

Andy,
I'm more than happy with the 8lb 14oz chub, don't worry about the 8drm mate. haha

Who put the BRFC there ?
Could I start a list ?(not that I want to )

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.

Who cares about records anyway. They are of no interest to me.

bet it would be if you caught one...

Not only that I can't get the darned needle of a set of Avons to stay still when I am holding the blinking fish.

Thats why all the fish over 10 lbs that I weigh are to the nearest 1/4 pound downwards.


And now for something that is bound to get a few of you a bit irate.

I truly believe that if you catch a record fish it should be killed and produced before proper authorities and witnesses.

The reasons are simple.

1: Proof that the fish and it's weight exists will be beyond dispute.

2: The true species can be fully verified by dissection.

3: It will prevent such a fish being persued relentlessly for a repeat capture.

4: The fish should be set up by a top class taxidermist so that everyone can have the pleasure of seeing it.

Let's face it such fish are near the ends of their lives anyway. A mounted record will remind everyone of just what that species is capable of weighing.

If you don't agree with killing the fish, put it back, take a photo and leave it at that.

As ever, the angling bodies are streets behind the average guy on the bank with regard to both their grasps of the issues involved and possible solutions.

So then chaps. Should some of us decide to send in some dodgy records claims with edited photos?

Is that a 15lb chub you are holding in the photo Rich?

Yes Dave, exactly the same weight as yours.
It was weighed on the same make of scales as well.
Can't you tell from the photographic evidence?

My friend John Cadd caught a brace of twenty pound chub last week.

Really Dave? Nice fish though they undoubtedly are, I reckon I spotted one fish in a small group of low doubles in a weirpool last week.
Must have been knocking on towards 25lb easily!