| The BRFC press release last week announced some new records, changes to the members of the committee and changes to the methods used to verify records but are they finally on the road to restoring the reputation of the record fish list? The legendary Alwyne Wheeler has retired and in his place are two new scientific advisers. Nigel Hewett, Senior Fisheries Scientist of the EA takes responsibility for freshwater species, and Oliver Crimmen, curator of fishes at the NHM for saltwater species. Of the new advisors the press release says: “They will work together with the Committee to ensure that the credibility of the British Record List is maintained.” Clearly the major role of the freshwater adviser is the identification of true specimens from hybrids. Identification of the hybridising species has always been a major headache as far as record fish are concerned. In commenting on the possibility of record fish in the coming season Dick Walker wrote in the Angling Times on the 18th June 1954 “About crucian carp and silver bream there is not much to be said. Such confusion has existed in the past, and enough exists now, about identification of these species that until anglers are generally better-informed it is best to forget these fish.” The press announcement included new records for both of these species. Given the appointment of the new scientific advisers, the SAA in principle supporting DNA testing and past mistakes by the BRFC over identification of crucians from photographs I expected to see a few changes made or a least the announcement of a review. Indeed, we now had an EA scientist on the BRFC committee advising on identification of freshwater fish, research earlier this year sponsored by the EA had identified an accurate way of identifying crucians using scales and the BRFC were considering a record crucian. Fantastic I thought, and read on hoping for more exciting news…. DNA testing was not mentioned in the press release. Instead the BRFC announced a staggering move forward in improving their fish identification methods: “An information sheet has been produced and adopted by the Committee as providing sound advice on the photographing of fish for future claim purposes and this is attached to this release for further information.” That might make sense if the BRFC’s past mistakes in identification were caused by photos that were not good enough. The truth is a lot simpler, you simply cannot tell some hybrids from the real thing by just looking at their shape, colouration, fin ray counts and scale counts. What is amazing is that the BRFC don’t seem to have understood this despite their previous blunders. I always found it strange that Alwyne Wheeler was prepared to identify record fish from photographs when he had clearly recognised the limitations of identifying fish from their external characteristics decades ago. For example with roach in 1975 he had concluded in a paper: “In a population in which both roach and rudd occur, the presence of hybrids is to be expected and no external features will permit correct separation of all the roach from hybrids.” The use of external characteristics is ineffective because it relies on the hybrid having an intermediate form between that of its parents. What Alwyne found nearly 30 years ago was that this was not always the case and that some hybrids looked far more like the species of one parent. The fallibility of using external characteristics was further demonstrated by the discovery of post f1 hybrids (fish with at least one hybrid as a parent) during the EA sponsored research earlier this year. Having decided to stick with photographic evidence the BRFC then appear to have lost the plot completely. Whereas previously the BRFC would not accept digital photographs as evidence, now they are apparently prepared to accept them but only as a printed photograph. They don’t want the digital file! In the past the BRFC didn’t allow digital photo’s because you could manipulate them. The fact is that you can manipulate any photograph these days but it’s possible to check if there has been any tampering if you have the source image file, negative or transparency. The approach adopted by the BRFC will mean they will not be able to audit digital photographs. Whilst photographs are not an accurate way of weeding out all hybrids they are useful in determining the size of the fish. However to do that the BRFC need to check that the photo has not been tampered with. Just to show you how easy it is to change the size of your catch Graham has done just that in the example below.
Another area of concern was that we again had record weights which included drams. The reason for this is not that they had special scales but that the BRFC take the weight calculated by weights and measures. However there is a fundamental problem with doing this since the BRFC rounds down the reported weight before it goes to weights and measures but not when it comes back. Example: Bill records his fish at a shade under 8lb 15oz. Harry records his fish at exactly 8lb 15oz. Both weigh their fish on scales with 1oz divisions. Weights and measures find Bill’s scales to be accurate but as they only have 1oz divisions his weight had already been rounded down to 8 lb 14 oz by the BRFC. Weights and measures find Harry’s scales weigh over by 8 drams giving a weight of 8 lb 14 oz 8 dr and this is the weight recorded by the BRFC as they do not round down the weight given by weights and measures. The BRFC would record the fish as weighing as follows: Bill: 8 lb 14 oz. Harry: 8 lb 14 oz 8 dr. Whilst Bill caught the largest fish and had accurate scales Harry takes the record. Now I hear you say “Nothing like that could really happen could it?” Well I’m not sure, but it may have. The record Perch was weighed at 5 b 12 oz but the scales were found to be out by 2 1/2 oz and it was rounded down to 5lb 9 oz 8 dr ousting John Shaylers record of 5 lb 9 oz. Makes you think doesn’t it? The answer if you catch a record fish is to weigh it on some digital scales in grams but I’m not sure if the BRFC allow digital scales! The BRFC state as two of its aims: To establish and maintain accurately a list of British fish, marine and freshwater, of record size and to publish this list  When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission, which supports our community.
|
Welcome!Log into your account
