For as far back in time as I can remember, the angling press has carried reports of anglers who for various reasons have missed out on British record status. In the early days, the vast majority were the result of mistakes such as returning a fish or eating it without realising it was a potential record until after the event. The first example I can recall of someone deliberately withholding a claim on the basis of disagreement with the rules, was a refusal to claim by legendary freshwater angler the late great Dick Walker.

Having already followed the same rules to the letter with his earlier British carp record (a fish kept alive and donated to a public aquarium), Walker later refused to claim the rainbow trout record. I don't recall the exact circumstances. But I do recall him saying that as everyone knew he had broken the record why should he then have to claim it. I have some sympathy with the BRFC in not accepting that argument. Ironically it was when Walker's carp record was eventually beaten by Chris Yates that the writing really started to appear on the BRFC wall. Yates also refused to make a claim, but this time on the grounds of risk of stress or damage to the fish.

In the early days of dissent, challenges to the BRFC came mainly from freshwater specimen hunters. As most marine species are edible, and with less of a reluctance to kill them, the sea fish record list remained a good reflection of what had been achieved by sea anglers around the UK. That unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at things, is no longer the case. Unfortunately, because the status of being a British record holder is now devalued by true record fish not being claimed. But fortunately, because in these times of declining fish stocks, quality in-edible fish are no longer being killed as a matter of course to dangle from a set of scales.

In our current enlightened times, even some of the routine aspects of boat fishing have embraced the conservation message, with many boat competitions these days being decided by individual fish, allocations of points, or by specie counts, placing an ever increasing emphasis on preventing or minimising numbers of fish killed. Gone are the days when piles of tope and other discarded fish were left on the quay after competitions. Today, many anglers and boat skippers now see no justification for the killing of even a single tope, and rightly so. Other species too are reaping the benefits of careful catch and release tactics. So why are the BRFC not reflecting this change in angler attitudes?.

Clearly there has to be an acceptable alternative way of describing a big fish other than simply by body weight. To some extent I can see the argument behind wanting to keep weight as the deciding measure. In the days when nobody batted an eye lid if you killed a fish, particularly to claim a record, weight was a good barometer and we have become used to using it. I can see the argument too for wanting to keep it for say line class records where the ratio of body weight to line breaking strain is seen as the sporting challenge. But why necessarily for other categories of record where the tackle used other than in its compliance with the basic rules of angling, plays no other part in making the claim.

Why stick with a system which almost inevitably hands out a death sentence to the fish being claimed. BRFC rules don't actually state that a body must be produced on every occasion (only those where identification difficulties might arise). But what is said is that any potential record fish must be weighed on land due an inability to get an accurate reading on a moving platform such as a boat, which is not an un-reasonable stance to take. This however raises one important question. How does the BRFC propose that someone bring a common skate, shark or tope taken many miles from base to the scales in a manner in which it can later be released. And what then if it just misses the record weight and has died for nothing. Are we so short sighted that we can see no alternative to the need to weigh fish?.

The November 2004 issue of Boat Fishing Monthly carried the story of Alan Deeming who caught, photographed, tagged then released a thresher shark conservatively estimated at around 320 pounds. The record at the time stood at 323 pounds. A marginal decision perhaps which could have gone either way had the fish been killed, but an increasingly common dilemma, and one not always based on estimated weights. Over the years there have been several tope caught and released well in excess of the record which currently stands at 82½ pounds. Two I am most familiar with are both fish caught aboard Ian Burrett's Drummore based 'Onyermarks'. The first was by Paul Hunter in 2000 which came out of a length-girth estimation formula at 88 pounds, then in 2007 one of Ian's clients had one that came out at 106 pounds.

Ian and his other two skippers Spike and Malcolm have taken catch and release one step further by insisting that all inshore fish caught aboard the three boats are returned. If you don't like it then don't book - it's as simple as that. Increasingly conservation is becoming a big issue amongst boat anglers, and rightly so. The 'Onyermarks' boats have seen no decline in business as a result of this policy, and several other British and Scottish records, some of which were edible, have also been released by Ian. In 2004 while I was fishing with Ian and Allan Everington they released three line class world record pollack. In similar vein, Northern Irish skipper Hamish Currie encourages across the board catch and release, often leading by example returning big turbot and other high value edible species.

Scottish common skate fanatic Davy Holt and Bill Little have put a lot of effort in to producing a very effective weight estimation chart based on nose to tail length, wing tip to wing tip width, and sex (female skate grow bigger than males), which has become an essential piece of kit amongst serious skate anglers north of the border. Common skate are no longer weighed there, and if a fish coming out of the formula in excess of the 227 pound record were to be caught, I trust that too would be treated in the same manner.

That however would be a matter for individual choice. Over in Ireland it's a different matter altogether. It is against the law to kill Common Skate in Eire. Does this then mean that the last record skate to be put on the scales will be the Irish record forever?. Perhaps they too are looking at more novel ways of accurately quantifying the size of a fish. Or maybe the species either has been or will be removed from the record list on conservation grounds. A closure precedent has already been set in the UK with the Schelly (a rare freshwater fish I used to specialise in catching). Its record slot is now closed to claims under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act.

In more recent times (see Boat Fishing Monthly May 2004 bass supplement) I myself produced a weight to body length estimation chart for bass. Similar charts for other popular fish species could easily be put together by enthusiastic anglers. The mechanics of producing the different variations on charts, tables, or even record alternatives involves nothing more that the most elementary maths. Nobody is saying that weight estimates based on measurements are totally accurate, though in the case of my bass chart, statistical analysis of the data gave it a 91.2% probability of being right which has to be more accurate than actually weighing a fish in a boat, and far less traumatic for the fish concerned. If we all use the same alternative, as with weighing, then it's a level playing field for everyone.

I am not suggesting that we take estimations of weights as records, or that people turn their backs on record keeping either. What I would like to see is an alternative approach to record keeping for those who are unwilling to kill large and/or inedible fish for a few moments of glory. This could be run alongside the current record weight system allowing those who already have weight records to keep them, and of course those who still see favour with the existing system to stick with it, while at the same time accommodating the ever growing numbers of dissenters. Perhaps the BRFC should run a parallel list of "sporting species". Fish such as sharks, tope, skate, smoothhounds and bass which anglers are inclined to return as a matter of routine.

Body weight could be substituted by a score based on say girth immediately in front of the dorsal fin multiplied by body length (both in millimetres for greater accuracy) in the case of round fish, and distance between the wing tips multiplied by body length for skate and rays. In all cases a plasticized dress makers tape and not a builder's retractable steel tape would need to be used to follow the fish's body contours accurately. The fatter and heavier for example a tope was, the greater its girth would be giving it a higher score which would relate to its actual body weight anyway. All the usual safeguards of having witnesses and identification photographs would still apply. Photographs of the fish with the tape measure in place could be made mandatory. Boats which regularly fish for these species might even want to make a scaled up measuring board of the type used in competitions to check for undersized fish.

HOW TO PRODUCE ALTERNATIVES TO WEIGHING
Just how a chart or alternative record list should be drawn up depends on what the person creating it is looking to get from it. If you simply want a good estimate of weight based on body length for no other reason than personal satisfaction, or for use in club competitions as a substitute for fixed points allocations, then length and weight are the only two pieces of data that need to be collected. For my bass chart I used a computer package called Minitab. I simply fed the weights into one column and the corresponding body lengths into the next, then clicked on regression analysis. This produced a graph from which a table of size estimates could be drawn up. Minitab also predicts the statistical accuracy of the graph (R2 value) which in my case as stated earlier was 91.2%.

Using the Holt & Little common skate weight estimation chart requires the taking of two separate measurements. However, at the setting up stage, a large cross section of fish would also have had to be weighed. Accurate measurements of nose tip to end of tail (or fork of tail for round fish), distance between the wing tips (or body girth for round fish), and weight will have been recorded, but no major calculations or statistical verification would be required afterwards. Body lengths are put in ranked order in the first vertical column of the table with the greatest at the top, and the girths or wing tip measurements along the bottom horizontal row starting at the same point. Where the two columns meet or cross is where the weight is put in. When all the possible entries have been made you can then use the table as a reference for future estimates.

The problem with compiling guidance tables such as these is that you not only need data from the whole potential size range of your chosen species including both maximum as well as minimum sizes, but you also need plenty of it. The more fish you measure and weight, the greater the accuracy of the estimate. Any number of fish of exactly the same length and girth when put on the scales is almost guaranteed to give as many slightly different body weights. These will need to be added together then divided by the number of fish producing them to get a typical average weight for a fish of those dimensions. The more fish used to arrive at a typical weight, the more accurate that estimate will be. One thing any research scientist will always tell you is that you can never have too much data.

All of this said, if you simply measure a fish's length and girth then multiply one by the other, you don't need any previous data, tables of comparison, or statistical analysis packages. The score you get can then stand on its own. Using the same procedure for all subsequent fish will produce individual scores which will be either greater or smaller, and the fish producing the highest score of all will be the record. It's as simple as that. This could be a national record, a club record, or simply a figure to work with for boat competition purposes as an alternative to fixed allocations of points per species, or trying to weigh a fish in a pitching boat. The recording official notes the length and girth of each fish and either taps the figures into a calculator there and then, or waits until you get back to the clubhouse or pub. For competition purposes, each anglers scores are then added together to give an overall score for the day.

One potential drawback here, but only for competitions where anything and everything counts, is that the winner had all the fish been killed and weighed on shore would not necessarily be the same as the winner based on measurements taken in the boat. It depends on the variability in body profiles of the species being caught. So long as everyone understands this there can be no argument. What it might do is encourage competitors to switch their emphasis from one target species to another to accumulate points more quickly. For single species competitions and records comparing like with like such as the BRFC national record list, this is not a problem. The result is potentially just as accurate as body weight - both are representative numerical scores. The difference is that this way you can now have you're your cake and eat it - you get your moment of glory and the fish gets to swim away afterwards.

FOOTNOTE: See also fish weight estimation article