Wintle’s World of Angling

What is a Record Fish and why do we need a committee?
Simply the heaviest fish of that species caught by fair angling, in season, and identified as a true specimen of the claimed species, with a verified weight. It does not necessarily represent an amazing feat of angling, though an individual capture might be recognised as such.

Official recognition of such captures goes back a long way, and formerly angling newspapers such as “Anglers News” ratified record claims. Angling Times took up the gauntlet in the fifties, setting up the BRFC, and in 1957 the current set-up evolved. It has changed slightly over the decades with the incorporation of new organisations, and less involvement of the angling press.

Who are they?
Given the flack that they get, and its voluntary basis, it’s a wonder that we have such an organisation at all. But, give credit to those that do put the time and effort in, we do have an organisation, the BRFC, under the wing of the NFSA, with representation from the NFA, NFSA, SFSA, WFSA, STAA, SAA, supported by the EA (freshwater) and Natural History Museum (saltwater) for fish identification (previously Mr Alwyne Wheeler). There is no doubt that over the years, Phil Smith and Marsh Pratley are to be commended for doing sterling work on the freshwater side.

For information – the current BRFC
Chairman
Mr Bob Page
Scientific Advisors
Nigel Hewlitt of the EA
Oliver Crimmen of The Natural History Museum
Secretary
Mr David Rowe
National Federation of Anglers
Mr Colin Scull
National Federation of Sea Anglers
Mr Colin Bond
Specialist Anglers Association
Mr Phil Smith & Mr Marsh Pratley
Salmon and Trout Association
Mrs Maggie Simms
Scottish Federation of Sea Anglers
Mr Paul King
Welsh Federation of Sea Anglers
Mr Vic Pearse

Now, Let’s take a much closer look..
At first glance, all seems well….

The good side of this is that we have a well-established and respected team in place, with a tried and tested process for making a record claim. Where fresh evidence has been uncovered, it has been considered, and mistakes rectified.

But when we start to dig much deeper…

But, as I will explain, there is room for improvement in just about every area, from the actual make-up of the committee, to its procedures for establishing record weights, and in particular, how it goes about identifying hybrids. Furthermore, the current procedures may be making it even more difficult to rectify mistakes.

By far the biggest challenge facing the committee is identifying the correct species in those cases where there might be doubt, principally caused by hybridisation. At last, there is a method available yet the BRFC is unwilling to use this method (DNA testing). The principal argument from the BRFC previously was that you couldn’t do the test on a single scale. When Andy Nellist proved that you could, the stance now appears to be that arranging for removal of scales would be either impractical or unacceptable. It is essential that it be proved that the scale submitted did come from the claimed record fish.

One would have thought that with so many years of experience behind them that mistakes would by now be very few and far between. Andy disagrees. He thinks that they are making as many mistakes as ever especially in the case of crucians and rudd. The problem today is that it is now far harder to prove that the BRFC have made a mistake as in many cases the only physical evidence of a capture is a photograph. Reliance on photographic evidence to identify “pure” fish has a track record of allowing hybrids through the net. What is now allowable with digital photographs will widen the mesh still further. In Andy’s view, either you go the DNA route or you should drop the records for roach, rudd and crucians (and possibly silver bream and seatrout).

Record barbel: click for a bigger pic

I can’t help noticing that the committee is heavily loaded with sea and game anglers, yet the area that has the hardest job is the freshwater side of things.

In Andy’s view, the Freshwater part of the committee should be largely autonomous. The rest of the committee appears to have achieved nothing as regards improving the speed or accuracy of the records.

Because of the voluntary nature of the committee, meetings are infrequent; frustrating for those that have made a claim, indeed, some have waited so long that by the time they get recognition their record has been broken.

Overall, there have been a number of requests, on this website and in the angling press, that the whole procedure needs to be done well, accurately, quickly and consistently.

Our areas of concern
Hybrids and DNA, and other sundry identification challenges.

Certain freshwater species present special problems of identification due to hybridisation. The worst culprits are rudd, roach, crucian carp, silver bream and seatrout. Others that could cause a problem include bleak and brown goldfish.

Recent advances in the ability to identify a pure specimen from a small sample mean that it is now possible to use a single scale to use as a DNA sample with sufficient accuracy to remove the doubt that arises from other methods. This is vital with all of these species. Crucians are one of the trickiest in this respect with their hybrids with brown goldfish, and the possibility of F2 backcrosses. Even the ‘pure’ fish of Summer pit and the Stock pond have yet to be subjected to a DNA test though RMC angling boss Ian Welsh did hope to get such a test carried out at some time.

Rudd – Was the evidence good enough?
Andy Nellist makes the following two points. The first concerns the current records (two rudd of 4-10-0 caught by the same angler from two different lakes in Northern Ireland share the record) that were accepted by the BRFC on the basis of photographic evidence alone. It is his strongly held view that the lessons from the Pitsford fish have not been learnt. A record for rudd should not be accepted without DNA testing and if this is unacceptable the record should be removed. Without testing, the possibility of a hybrid being accepted renders the record worthless.

In 1987, a fish from Pitsford reservoir also weighing 4-10-0 was accepted onto the list as the Rudd record after an autopsy. After concerns were raised that the fish in the photographs was a hybrid, a second autopsy was carried out and the fish was removed from the list. As with the Pitsford fish, suspicions exist about the identity of the fish seen in the photos of the record fish but there is no way to challenge the committee’s decision.

Unlike the BRFC, their Irish equivalent won’t accept either of the existing record fish as the record because they insist on DNA testing Roach and Rudd because of the high incidence of Roach/Rudd hybrids in Ireland.

Seatrout – another tough one
The same problem arises with seatrout. Research has shown that as many as 9% of fish over 10lbs are salmon x seatrout hybrids yet how many experienced game anglers could accurately identify one? Even Buller and Falkus’s definitive work “Freshwater Fishing” has a picture of a one-time record seatrout (page 308) that quickly arouses suspicions when one follows Falkus’s instructions (page 303) on telling the difference between salmon and seatrout.

For those of you scoffing that it’s easy to tell the different species apart using photos, try these. Our guesses are at the bottom of the article.

Specimen A: click for a bigger pic

Specimen B: click for a bigger pic

Specimen C: click for a bigger pic

Specimen D: click for a bigger pic

For the more straightforward species, such as bream and barbel, then good photographic evidence should suffice. Like Andy, I am wary of digital photographs – bear in mind I work on fishing photos for this column every week and often clean them up a bit, and I’m not even an expert.

Proposals
Simplification.

I can’t help thinking that the inclusion of trivial and exotic species in the record lists does nothing to reduce the workload of the BRFC. Many of these minor species have nothing to do with angling in this country.

So, let’s get rid of the non-sporting and exotic, the escaped ornamentals and the obscure. Goodbye and good riddance to minnows, sticklebacks, bullhead catfish, pumpkinseeds, golden orfe (we only got a record in the first place because someone tried to claim a roach record with a strange pink roach more than thirty years ago!), walleye, and I’m tempted to say, brown goldfish. The endangered species have already gone. Let’s concentrate on the fish that are the traditional sporting quarry of freshwater anglers.

In my view, the anomaly of fish caught in Northern Ireland counting for two record lists should be removed. Let the Irish Record Fish Committee deal with the Northern Irish fish (no change there anyway), and settle for England, Scotland and Wales.

Better Procedure for photographic evidence
The changes made last year regarding photographic evidence appear to be detrimental rather than the opposite. But all is far from lost. Photographic evidence has its place but for digital photographs, the BRFC must insist on the original unaltered data files.

DNA
If we wish to maintain the integrity of records for crucian carp, rudd, roach, silver bream, and seatrout then DNA tests are a must.

Because of doubts expressed in various quarters, I’d like to see the evidence re-examined on the current rudd and seatrout records, and DNA testing completed of the Summer Pit/Stock Pond fish (of as many samples as possible), if only for peace of mind.

Weight and Scales Verification
Andy’s view on the current method of verifying weights is one of astonishment. He feels that whilst they are responsible for verifying the accuracy of weights, the BRFC is unable to understand the concept of rounding down of weights resulting in some fish being recorded at incorrectly high weights.

The weight recorded is rounded down according to the calibration of the scales, then the scales are tested by weights and measures, and the variation made on the final weight. This has given rise to some strange anomalies in the past; like the perch claimed at 6-0-14 on a crude balance calibrated in 4oz steps weighing up to 8lbs. These were then found to be one and a half ounces out hence a final weight of 5-14-6, giving the false impression that the fish had been weighed on scales accurate to within two drams (Angling Ways – E Marshall Hardy). This procedure needs thorough review. It is complex, and not helped by inaccurate and poorly calibrated scales.

And Finally – A Little Shake-Up
I should like to see more representation from the coarse fishing world, proposing two more representatives. I have two in mind; whether they’d accept or be accepted is another matter, but their background and suitability should not be in doubt. Certainly, it needs people on the committee who are a little more sceptical, more outspoken and more likely to make change happen.

Now, it’s your turn
Are Andy and me taking this all too seriously? Are there bits of this article you agree or disagree strongly with? If there is good support, I shall endeavor to bring it to the BRFC’s attention and draw a response. I have no personal axe to grind, apart from ensuring that truth should prevail.

What did you guess?
A – It may be a very rare but entirely conceivable triple hybrid – even Andy is stumped with this one (My guess is rudd/roach/bream, he’s guessing ide/bream); there is some bream in there, and the colouration suggests roach and/or rudd but the small scales may indicate ide!

B – Crucian (DNA tested).

C- Crucianxgoldfish (Also DNA tested)

D – RoachxRudd