Steve Spiller
Well-known member
Mark, we are talking fish, not criminals.
But then I suppose some people would go to any lengths to claim a record.
But then I suppose some people would go to any lengths to claim a record.
M
Mark Hodson
Guest
Believe it or not Steve if this is going to happen the same rules would have to apply, after all this step would be taken to take all the uncertainty out of record claims, just as it takes all the uncertainty out of criminal cases.
Steve Spiller
Well-known member
I can see what you are saying Mark, but at the end of the day the whole point of DNA is to ascertain if the fish is a hybrid or not.
After that, witnesses and a scale check have to be proven to be true.
So surely DNA has to be the way forward?
Lateral scale counts, fin positioning and lips, would become redundant.
After that, witnesses and a scale check have to be proven to be true.
So surely DNA has to be the way forward?
Lateral scale counts, fin positioning and lips, would become redundant.
Mark Wintle
Well-known member
Mark,
We have a clear idea of what is required.
There are differences between forensic DNA testing and the sort we are advocating. The main one is that the type of tests we are advocating need relatively large amounts of DNA. This is because the technique is simplified and does not involve amplification which is how forensic DNA tests get results from single hairs and less etc. Also forensic testing involves more markers "alleles" as it is trying to prove identity of an individual or relative. Where amplification can come unstuck in contamination which is where the amplification focuses on the "wrong" DNA.
But it is clear that the sample taken must be verified as coming from the actual potential record.
Steve,
The robustness of DNA varies according to the type of sample, at least from our work. A scale is robust by any standard - we tested dried scales with no problems. Certain less robust samples might be destroyed by oxidisation for example.
We have a clear idea of what is required.
There are differences between forensic DNA testing and the sort we are advocating. The main one is that the type of tests we are advocating need relatively large amounts of DNA. This is because the technique is simplified and does not involve amplification which is how forensic DNA tests get results from single hairs and less etc. Also forensic testing involves more markers "alleles" as it is trying to prove identity of an individual or relative. Where amplification can come unstuck in contamination which is where the amplification focuses on the "wrong" DNA.
But it is clear that the sample taken must be verified as coming from the actual potential record.
Steve,
The robustness of DNA varies according to the type of sample, at least from our work. A scale is robust by any standard - we tested dried scales with no problems. Certain less robust samples might be destroyed by oxidisation for example.
Mark thankyou very much for the links I've read as much as I could. Why does such stimulating debate not seem to happen now in the fm forums?
The speculation and controversy that seem to accompany any possible record capture would I speculate not be alleviated by Dna testing unless 'continuity of evidence' is maintained. Mark Hodson obviously as myself has experience of this kind of procedure.
In the original debate this was one of the only references I could find to the possibility of fraud in the process of DNA testing
'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.'
In reality the prospect of someone being able to attend from the BRFC in every instance of a claim is remote.
Having said that iam in favour of the prospect of DNA testing being pursued.
Just pesimistic of the realities of the practicalities of implimentation.
The speculation and controversy that seem to accompany any possible record capture would I speculate not be alleviated by Dna testing unless 'continuity of evidence' is maintained. Mark Hodson obviously as myself has experience of this kind of procedure.
In the original debate this was one of the only references I could find to the possibility of fraud in the process of DNA testing
'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.'
In reality the prospect of someone being able to attend from the BRFC in every instance of a claim is remote.
Having said that iam in favour of the prospect of DNA testing being pursued.
Just pesimistic of the realities of the practicalities of implimentation.
Mark Wintle
Well-known member
Matt,
It is worth pointing out that the ideal would be attendance by an accredited representative of the BRFC as opposed to attendance by a member of the BRFC. This would hopefully increase the numbers substantially and also increase the geographic coverage. Achieving this aim is another matter.
Apart from authenticating a DNA sample there are other obvious advantages in that the weighing procedure is supervised etc. Several current records were effectively witnessed by the sort of people that might well be considered accredited. The likelihood of a fraudulent claim (fortunately rare anyway) is reduced as well.
It is worth pointing out that the ideal would be attendance by an accredited representative of the BRFC as opposed to attendance by a member of the BRFC. This would hopefully increase the numbers substantially and also increase the geographic coverage. Achieving this aim is another matter.
Apart from authenticating a DNA sample there are other obvious advantages in that the weighing procedure is supervised etc. Several current records were effectively witnessed by the sort of people that might well be considered accredited. The likelihood of a fraudulent claim (fortunately rare anyway) is reduced as well.
M
Mark Hodson
Guest
Mark W
Just out of interest, where would you get your control samples for each species for the database, would they come from a EA fishfarm or a water thought to contain a true strain of each species in question, or even samples from the natural history museum ?
Also how would genetic mutation or other oddities of nature be taken into account, for example, it is quite possible that there is a roach record swimming around out there that looks more like a rudd due to natural disfigurement or other quirkes of nature. This fish would carry the exact DNA profile of a roach (like a disfigured human would carry the human DNA profile but look nothing like the rest of us). I take it if we went down the DNA route there is the possibilty that we could end up with a roach record that looks more like a rudd and a crucian record that looks like a hybrid. This is often the case in extremes of all species, the largest and smallest have deformities or traites that set them apart from the rest of their species but in DNA terms they are still true members of the species. Such a fish could cause quite a stir and another debate in itself.
One last question, would there be any testing on a historical basis, are there any samples from fish that were deemed not to be suitably identified for record status at the time but samples were kept that could now be tested and history potentially re-written ?
I'm all in favour of DNA testing and having some certainty instead of the system we currently have, I just curious as to how it would unfold in the passing of time.
One last thing and I aplogise if this has already been mentioned, I take it you are looking at scales being the sample used for the DNA testing ?
Just out of interest, where would you get your control samples for each species for the database, would they come from a EA fishfarm or a water thought to contain a true strain of each species in question, or even samples from the natural history museum ?
Also how would genetic mutation or other oddities of nature be taken into account, for example, it is quite possible that there is a roach record swimming around out there that looks more like a rudd due to natural disfigurement or other quirkes of nature. This fish would carry the exact DNA profile of a roach (like a disfigured human would carry the human DNA profile but look nothing like the rest of us). I take it if we went down the DNA route there is the possibilty that we could end up with a roach record that looks more like a rudd and a crucian record that looks like a hybrid. This is often the case in extremes of all species, the largest and smallest have deformities or traites that set them apart from the rest of their species but in DNA terms they are still true members of the species. Such a fish could cause quite a stir and another debate in itself.
One last question, would there be any testing on a historical basis, are there any samples from fish that were deemed not to be suitably identified for record status at the time but samples were kept that could now be tested and history potentially re-written ?
I'm all in favour of DNA testing and having some certainty instead of the system we currently have, I just curious as to how it would unfold in the passing of time.
One last thing and I aplogise if this has already been mentioned, I take it you are looking at scales being the sample used for the DNA testing ?
Mark Wintle
Well-known member
Mark,
The first point is done by taking samples from a wide variety of waters (typically 30 waters, many samples) and checking the physically characteristics as identifying say true roach and getting the range from DNA samples of those. In doing so you may turn up the odd F1 or F2 fish but these will be apparent.
Secondly, gigantism could throw up a "doesn't look like a real one" fish that would pass DNA. If so then so be it.
Historical fish. This happened with a River Wear seatrout that was in a freezer 20-9, that had PASSED physically tests back in early 80s. It was elctro phoresis tested and found to be a salmon, which is why I alway mention seatrout as being one species that must be DNA tested. I don't know of any fish that exist that might qualify though it's possible that a stuffed crucian or silver bream could turn up and be tested. The last silver bream that I saw in a glass case was so obviously a bronze bream it was laughable. But there is no reason why history could not be re-written, did happen with the Tryon barbel. The Sanctuary grayling from 1888 might also turn up one day!
As for the sample method that might be adopted; this will be on the agenda for our meeting with the BRFC and is a complex subject, and it would not be fair to comment so close to the meeting.
The first point is done by taking samples from a wide variety of waters (typically 30 waters, many samples) and checking the physically characteristics as identifying say true roach and getting the range from DNA samples of those. In doing so you may turn up the odd F1 or F2 fish but these will be apparent.
Secondly, gigantism could throw up a "doesn't look like a real one" fish that would pass DNA. If so then so be it.
Historical fish. This happened with a River Wear seatrout that was in a freezer 20-9, that had PASSED physically tests back in early 80s. It was elctro phoresis tested and found to be a salmon, which is why I alway mention seatrout as being one species that must be DNA tested. I don't know of any fish that exist that might qualify though it's possible that a stuffed crucian or silver bream could turn up and be tested. The last silver bream that I saw in a glass case was so obviously a bronze bream it was laughable. But there is no reason why history could not be re-written, did happen with the Tryon barbel. The Sanctuary grayling from 1888 might also turn up one day!
As for the sample method that might be adopted; this will be on the agenda for our meeting with the BRFC and is a complex subject, and it would not be fair to comment so close to the meeting.
A
Andy "the Dog" Nellist (SAA) (ACA)
Guest
Mark H you said:
"Just out of interest, where would you get your control samples for each species for the database, would they come from a EA fishfarm or a water thought to contain a true strain of each species in question, or even samples from the natural history museum ?"
I'd suggest you read:
http://www.hull.ac.uk/molecol/pdfs/Hanfling et al 2005 FreshBiol.pdf
If you trawl through the scientific papers on this subject I don't think you would have made your mutant comments. It is clear that there can be very wide variation as to how fish of one species appear even from a single water. However, the species identification problem comes from hybrids that look similar to a true specimen or a true specimen that has a characteristic that falsely suggests it might be a hybrid but both will end to look like true specimens.
"Just out of interest, where would you get your control samples for each species for the database, would they come from a EA fishfarm or a water thought to contain a true strain of each species in question, or even samples from the natural history museum ?"
I'd suggest you read:
http://www.hull.ac.uk/molecol/pdfs/Hanfling et al 2005 FreshBiol.pdf
If you trawl through the scientific papers on this subject I don't think you would have made your mutant comments. It is clear that there can be very wide variation as to how fish of one species appear even from a single water. However, the species identification problem comes from hybrids that look similar to a true specimen or a true specimen that has a characteristic that falsely suggests it might be a hybrid but both will end to look like true specimens.
M
Mark Hodson
Guest
Andy I like the majority of anglers out there don't have the time or in depth interest you have to trawl through such papers, thats why I asked the question/s. Get used to it, I will be but the first of many to ask the same questions on the same subject. I suggest you prepare answers to these questions that the average angler can understand and relate to.
Mark W answered the questions in such a manner and as a result I now have the answers I needed and it further supports my belief in that the correct way forward is through the DNA testing route.
Do not point them in the direction of scientific papers or treat their views or questions as those of uneducated or ignorant fools, as you will require their support in the long run if you are to succeed in you aims.
I wish you well in your meeting with the BRFC.
Mark W answered the questions in such a manner and as a result I now have the answers I needed and it further supports my belief in that the correct way forward is through the DNA testing route.
Do not point them in the direction of scientific papers or treat their views or questions as those of uneducated or ignorant fools, as you will require their support in the long run if you are to succeed in you aims.
I wish you well in your meeting with the BRFC.
A
Andy "the Dog" Nellist (SAA) (ACA)
Guest
Mark
I was trying to be helpful - the paper I referred you to is just 15 pages long and available from the link I included as a pdf document. I have previously summarised what it said in numerous threads. Why not try reading it ?
I was trying to be helpful - the paper I referred you to is just 15 pages long and available from the link I included as a pdf document. I have previously summarised what it said in numerous threads. Why not try reading it ?
M
Mark Hodson
Guest
Andy I did read it, nearly lost the will to live half way through, and like I said Mark W's answer gave me all I needed to satisfy my initial queries.
I'm not knocking your argument or your methods of getting there or evidencing it, I am impressed by the way yourself and Mark have championed the DNA cause. My concern is now that the likes of Matt Hayes (probably the most influential angling figure aside from John Wilson and Keith Arthur in the UK today) have expressed their negative attitude towards DNA testing, you will need more than a handful of scientific papers to convert the majority.
Again, I wish you well in your endevours with the BRFC.
I'm not knocking your argument or your methods of getting there or evidencing it, I am impressed by the way yourself and Mark have championed the DNA cause. My concern is now that the likes of Matt Hayes (probably the most influential angling figure aside from John Wilson and Keith Arthur in the UK today) have expressed their negative attitude towards DNA testing, you will need more than a handful of scientific papers to convert the majority.
Again, I wish you well in your endevours with the BRFC.
A
Andy "the Dog" Nellist (SAA) (ACA)
Guest
I've finally had a chance to read Matts comments this evening.
The expert on the BRFC who identifies freshwater fish is Nigel Hewlett of the EA. Matt ought to have remembered that as he filmed a piece on Crucian identification with Nigel for one of his programs.
If Matt thinks things should stay as they are then thats fine by me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
However I don't agree with Matt's reasons for his position when he says we should "stick to the system that has served us so well for years". That quite frankly is rubbish.
There have been loads of problems with identification over the years but until now the BRFC has been unable to find an accurate identification method that is acceptable for anglers.
By coincidence earlier this evening my girlfriend asked me whether I wanted to keep two copies of the Guiness Book of Records she had found earlier in the afternoon whilst tidying my loft. They are for the years 1968 and 1989 and contain the Freshwater Fish record lists for those years.
Many of the records in 1968 were actually higher than they are today:
Silver Bream 4lb 8oz
Crucian Carp 4lb 11oz
Chub 10lb 8oz
Grayling 7lb 2oz
Perch 5lb 15oz 6dr
The 1989 list records that it is the NASA list NOT the BRFC list:
Silver Bream Not Listed
Crucian Carp 5lb 10 1/2 oz
Rudd 4lb 8oz
A footnote states that the NAC recognise a larger 4lb 10oz fish as the record Rudd.
The fish was rejected by the NASA
committee even though it had been classified as a Rudd following a post mortem examination. Eventually the fish was confirmed as a Roach x Rudd hybrid.
In the last few weeks we have seen two Roach over the record which has reignited the identifcation debate.
If a scale had been obtained from each fish I wonder if anyone would have been prepared to bet ?10,000 on either fish being a true Roach prior to a DNA test being carried out.
Problems with identification have plagued the list for decades. What is being proposed will finally put an end to uncertainty and put the BRFC List at the forefront in terms of identification.
The expert on the BRFC who identifies freshwater fish is Nigel Hewlett of the EA. Matt ought to have remembered that as he filmed a piece on Crucian identification with Nigel for one of his programs.
If Matt thinks things should stay as they are then thats fine by me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
However I don't agree with Matt's reasons for his position when he says we should "stick to the system that has served us so well for years". That quite frankly is rubbish.
There have been loads of problems with identification over the years but until now the BRFC has been unable to find an accurate identification method that is acceptable for anglers.
By coincidence earlier this evening my girlfriend asked me whether I wanted to keep two copies of the Guiness Book of Records she had found earlier in the afternoon whilst tidying my loft. They are for the years 1968 and 1989 and contain the Freshwater Fish record lists for those years.
Many of the records in 1968 were actually higher than they are today:
Silver Bream 4lb 8oz
Crucian Carp 4lb 11oz
Chub 10lb 8oz
Grayling 7lb 2oz
Perch 5lb 15oz 6dr
The 1989 list records that it is the NASA list NOT the BRFC list:
Silver Bream Not Listed
Crucian Carp 5lb 10 1/2 oz
Rudd 4lb 8oz
A footnote states that the NAC recognise a larger 4lb 10oz fish as the record Rudd.
The fish was rejected by the NASA
committee even though it had been classified as a Rudd following a post mortem examination. Eventually the fish was confirmed as a Roach x Rudd hybrid.
In the last few weeks we have seen two Roach over the record which has reignited the identifcation debate.
If a scale had been obtained from each fish I wonder if anyone would have been prepared to bet ?10,000 on either fish being a true Roach prior to a DNA test being carried out.
Problems with identification have plagued the list for decades. What is being proposed will finally put an end to uncertainty and put the BRFC List at the forefront in terms of identification.
Steve Spiller
Well-known member
Good luck Andy and Mark, and well done for your hard work. One list, DNA has to be the only way forward.
Like I said, I am/was amazed at the comments from Matt H, there is only one way to go, DNA must be it!
Like I said, I am/was amazed at the comments from Matt H, there is only one way to go, DNA must be it!