Barrie Rickards’ Angling – Politicians…….

Professor Barrie Rickards is President of the Specialist Anglers Association (SAA) and President of the Lure Angling Society (LAS), as well as a very experienced and successful specialist angler with a considerable tally of big fish to his credit.

He is author of several fishing books, including the classic work ‘Fishing For Big Pike’, co-authored with the late Ray Webb and only recently his first novel, ‘Fishers On The Green Roads’ was published. He has been an angling writer in newspapers and magazines for nigh on four decades. Barrie takes a keen interest in angling politics.

Away from angling Barrie is a Professor in Palaeontology at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of Emmanuel College and a curator of the Sedgwick Museum of Geology.

Suspicious of Politicians

I think I share the suspicions most people have of politicians, and where politicians and angling is concerned I’m always doubly suspicious, so I noticed with interest Mike Heylin’s recent “support” of Labour, praising the “work” they have done for angling. Now, I don’t mind Martin Salter, the Labour MP, doing things for angling, even though I do not think the man has his basic principles of angling anything like right, but I do object to his recent hammering of the National Union of British Anglers led by Alan Suttie and with Keith Arthur as President.

Martin Salter is quoted as saying, of Alan Suttie’s recent letter to MPs; “Alan Suttie clearly knows precious little about how our political system works and is in danger of making a mockery of angling. There are very few MPs that (sic) have the time to read such a lengthy document of incoherent rambling and even less that would dignify it a reply. Well, that tells you plenty about Martin Salter and politicians. Never mind that Alan Suttie might have something important to say: if it ain’t written in three lines Mr Salter won’t give it a thought. It’s a good job the public didn’t think the same about Shakespeare’s plays.

My own experience of writing to politicians

So let me tell you of my own experiences, over several decades (before Mr. Salter was around, and since) of writing to politicians on behalf of anglers. All my letters have been short and to the point, because I do realise that many politicians cannot or do not read. With one exception, every single letter to a labour politician has remained unacknowledged and unanswered. That is a fact. I’ve written only a few letters to Liberal politicians, but those met with the same fate. So the length of the letter doesn’t matter Mr. Salter. Labour politicians don’t really give a stuff about angling and will not unless it turns out to be convenient for them.

The one exception concerned Baroness Mallallieu, who always replied promptly to letters. Of course, she’s a Labour politician but one of the Countryside Alliance bods, so Mr. Salter wouldn’t approve of them anyway. When I suggest to Ann Mallallieu that she might consider addressing the AGM of the NFA she responded positively, and did so (and made quite an impression too). Conservatives have a much better record as far as I’m concerned, whether in power or out of it. Every single letter sent to one of their MPs has been answered promptly and properly. The longest I have had to wait has been three weeks, in John Major’s time, and even then I received an acknowledgment in a matter of days. All this is fact. For someone of my background it would be much better if Labour were a lot better than they are, but they are abysmal.

No link between otters and cormorants

I was slightly surprised to see Keith Arthur linking the demise, half a century ago, of the otter with the arrival of cormorants. He writes “…was the decline caused by lack of natural resources with the advent of cormorants and decline in eel stocks…” Maybe I misunderstand him somehow, but I fished a lot in the 1950s and otters had already gone. The cormorants didn’t move inland big time until the early 1980s.

Save the eel? Not if you’re French

Did you see this headline? “Eel stocks are down 99% but French kill off plans to save them.” Quite.

Another victory of efficiency for the EU. Only the previous week anglers Europe-wide were pleased that the EU planned to put in measures to save the eel. Fat chance. In this case the French representative is said to have many commercial eel fishermen in his particular region, so tough for everyone else. Our Mr Bradshaw was on the receiving end of this failure to progress, and we on this side of the Channel always will be. We could save our own eel fishing, eel populations and eel fisheries, so I suggest it would be better if we set about doing that. Nuts to the Europeans, let them stew in their own juice.

It’s of interest too that many people still seem to think that inshore eel fishing destroys inland eel fishing. It doesn’t. Eels migrating to these islands as elvers from the Sargasso either settle in coastal waters and estuaries, or they go inland to rivers and lakes. If they decide on the latter they stay there. It is highly unlikely that they ever migrate back from stillwaters and there is no evidence that they do so from rivers. If the authorities took the trouble to read the research by Japanese scientists they might well see a way of replenishing our fresh water systems. Isn’t it amazing: in the 1950s and 1960s, we loathed the superabundance of bootlace eels, now we miss them. As do the otters.

Why do those in favour of a Close Season heap personal abuse on those opposed to it?

Every year at this time we have the lively debates about the river Close Season: to be or not to be, and the same old arguments are aired. Partly this is because some anglers haven’t thought about it before, hence haven’t read about it, and we all have to put up with their learning process, but the last couple of years has seen a thread emerge which I find a bit nauseating, namely the frequency with which those in favour of a Close Season heap personal abuse on those opposed to it. I haven’t seen it the other way round. Can anyone seriously believe that an angler of the calibre and contribution of Des Taylor would put his business before the welfare of fish. It makes no sense. The welfare of fish is Des Taylor’s business. He and other like him, are extremely experienced anglers, in many spheres of angling and in the interest of a good debate they should be listened to. Perhaps then we would not have such unsubstantiated statements about anglers on the bank disturbing nesting birds or not allowing the vegetation to “recover”. It’s too late this year, but next March I promise I shall write the definitive piece, for Fishingmagic.com, on all questions to do with the Close Season.