| PROFESSOR BARRIE RICKARDS | |
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 reader in Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of Emmanuel College and a curator of the Sedgwick Museum of Geology. |
Some sections of this article are not easy to write because there is no consensus on them and I have good friends who take a different standpoint. Even so, I put some thoughts forward in the spirit of debate, because there are some matters on which I feel we ought to have a debate: not a slanging match, such as happened in some quarters in the close season “debate”, but a discussion without acrimony.
‘SPECIAL POWERS’ FOR COUNCILS
But let’s begin on an easy note, if a puzzling one. No doubt some of you saw a news item recently about an elderly lady, in her 80s, dive-bombed by seagulls. So serious was the attack that she needed stitches in the top of her scalp. So the local council took it upon themselves, not unreasonably, to cull the gulls, using special powers available to them. What special powers precisely? I’m sure that some gulls are protected birds, but the species involved was not identified. Are the “special powers” only applicable when the wild creatures are causing human damage, or what?
If messrs Read and Martin have not already looked into this, perhaps it might be a good idea to do so. Mind you, I don’t think I’d go to my council and ask, “do you have special powers to kill birds?” I’d be a bit craftier than that. And at the very least we’d like to see the written word on the subject.
ANIMAL RIGHTS: ARE WE NEXT?
Changing tack now, in the confident knowledge that messrs Read and Martin will sort that out, I noticed a brief remark by one of the Angler’s Mail reporters (no name, I’m afraid) in which he said some people were trying to panic anglers into thinking they’ll be the next subjects of the “animal rights” people’s attacks, when there wasn’t a shred of evidence for this.
Well, it seems to me the evidence is overwhelming: every single “animal rights” group has stated categorically that they are opposed to angling and that angling / shooting or shooting / angling (depending on the spokesperson at the time) will be next. And, just in case that reporter hasn’t noticed, angling has been attacked already, often! We simply cannot bury our heads in the sand and think the enemy will go away, because for the next couple of decades the enemy will be there.
As it happens I agree with Dr. Bruno Broughton that we shall deflect them. But that is not to say there will not be a battle, nor that we shouldn’t be prepared for it. I believe in forward planning and, quite possibly, the Angler’s Mail may do too (time will tell).
Of course, the AM reporter was merely toeing the party line of his newspaper, which always, but always, takes the opposite stance, on any issue, to their rival, the Angling Times. AT has come out fairly strongly in favour of the Countryside Alliance, so AM takes the opposite stance. They are perfectly within their rights to do so. I notice, however, that as with all good editors they have published in their letters page both pro and anti-C.A letters. No editor I have spoken to has suppressed viewpoints of either side. It would not help angling one jot if they did so, and it would be a betrayal of their profession of journalism.
So, for the last two years, I have been monitoring all the letters on the subject which have appeared in the angling presses. In brief, whereas two years ago the letters were split 50:50, pro and anti the C.A, now the “voting” has swung so that it is 25% anti-C.A, 75% pro. I cannot say that I’m surprised by this, because slow though anglers are to appreciate, or at least to respond to dangers (witness: swans and lead shot) they do get there in the end.
Like the NFA President I have closely watched the C.A (because I did not like their predecessors at all) and later became a member because I could see that their commitment to angling, as to all countryside matters, was real and it was deep. They have already put much funding into angling, partly through their angling wing fronted by Bob James and Charles Jardine. Now there’s a point worth noting too: can anyone think of many more thoughtful, caring, and creative anglers than those two? C.J’s contributions to game fishing are legendary, and B.J did “Passion for Angling” for heaven’s sake. They can see the value and commitment of the C.A, as, presumably, can the A.C.A. So I will say again, the C.A. is NOT about fox hunting, if it were I would have no need or interest in being a member.
It’s about countryside issues, whether you are an angler or a willow basket maker. If you don’t believe me – and that is your right, as I implied at the beginning of this article – then find out for yourself. Go to a meeting or two, or go to a march (the next one) or rally.
I attend the Eastern Region of the C.A. and I can tell you that fox hunters are seriously outnumbered. However, I want to be perfectly honest with you: I believe in people having the freedom to carry out all legal activities without hindrance and without aggro, being subject only to logical argument and persuasion. And I believe in that freedom for fox hunters as I do for anglers.
TOWN VS COUNTRY
Leading on now… I read through the full list of general election results recently (insanity creeping in with old age!) What staggered me, although I was aware of the general argument, was that almost every labour seat is in a town; and almost every Conservative seat is in a country constituency. There really is, today, a huge gulf, even at the national power base, between the town and the country. It can only lead to trouble of one kind or another. If you are a townsperson fishing in the countryside, just remember that you are now in an alien land. That’s not intended as a criticism against townspeople, simply a statement of fact. (I mentioned polls in a previous piece. I’ve just been asked twice to take part in a poll. Where was I asked? In a shopping mall, in a town, where else? In my life I guess I’ve been invited to contribute to a poll perhaps 50 times. Not once has it been in the countryside or a village).
Talking about the election…some people were surprised to learn that Kate Hoey had been replaced as Sports Minister. After all, she did a good job, and was strong on ‘minority sports’, and forged good links with angling bodies. I wasn’t surprised at all that she was replaced for two reasons: one, she forged good links with anglers and two, she believed in freedom and supported fox hunters.
The first reason is not a silly remark. For my sins I move in a few corridors of power at times and I am painfully aware of how the so-called great and the good view angling. Basically they are indifferent, at best, or they look down their noses. People seem to think that with angling now more or less unified we’ll get megabucks from the lottery and other funding agencies. I would dearly love to be wrong about this one, but I think such people delude themselves. Reasons will soon be found for refusing us more than a few scraps, because the powers that be are simply dismissive on angling.
It seems that the man looking after angling these days, in the corridors of power anyway, is one Elliot Morley. Now, I learn that he is somewhat of a name in the RSPB. That is all we need! It explains to me some of the hitherto inexplicable remarks he made at the time of publication of the Review of Angling. And remember, the head of the Environment Agency is a past RSPB council member. Do you guys get funny feelings? (Mind you, her address in a recent E.A. publication was very positive about angling. Time will tell whether her words are worth much).
So it is intriguing to read that the NFA are so confident of their ability to raise funds for their national disabled team that they can turn down £ 8,000 from the C.A. for the same purpose. Ken Ball should try harder to convince his council that an organisation run by Bob James and Charles Jardine must be regarded as pro-angling. Even if some sponsor does stump up the (now) missing £ 8,000, presumably they’d have been willing sponsors anyway, so it’s really £ 8,000 down the drain.
Poor old Ron Clay took a drubbing for his foot and mouth remarks in the Angling Star, the implication that he’d put his foot in his mouth. I must say that I thought he was largely correct. In fact, I recall differing from him on only one point. Ron honed his ability to wind up people back in the 1960s, and he’s lost none of it. All he has to do, of course, is put forward what he believes is the truth, with a few new slants on the philosophies. I have the same problem from time to time. In relation to F & M let me tell you that I received, throughout the worst of the crisis, a constant stream of factual information from the C.A. This was vastly more helpful, and timely too, than anything I received from any angling body.
KILLING THE CATCH
And so to something else… killing fish. This is a highly emotive subject. Most anglers, including myself, return our fish to the water. What is more, anglers with just a little experience return the fish in good condition. Where I differ from some, including some of my friends, is that I can see nothing wrong in taking a fish for a meal. Within limits, of course, it wouldn’t help matters if every decent-sized bream was taken for the table – or every pike, or every, wild, trout for that matter.
In times past, including the last war, fish were taken for the table on a regular basis. In some places the quality of fishing may have suffered, but in general it did not, because sensible removal was the order of the day. Put it another way: I have been in many parts of the world, working, where the capture and removal of a meal for the family to eat is enshrined in the philosophy of the people. It seems to me that the only individuals who can take issue with this principle are vegans.
Of course, in practice, we are sensible. I take a few trout each year, for the table, because I do like a fresh trout. I’ve taken sea fish in the recent past, and coarse fish (eels, pike and perch mostly) in the more distant past. But almost always, I return my catch safe and well.
It is that last sentence which is indefencible in mainland Europe, at least in some countries. They argue that because the fish suffers and feels pain (both of which we can easily refute on a vast array of scientific evidence) the only justification for fishing at all is for a meal. So fish caught in matches in Germany have to be killed. The argument is weak, and not only because of the scientific evidence but because a fish returned properly has a good long life before it! And we wouldn’t want to kill immature and / or inedible fish would we? What for? It’s bad enough with silly EU quota laws insisting on the death of many millions of small fish in the sea. Indeed, it contributes to the sea’s problem of stocks.
So whilst there is nothing wrong with eating fish, there is everything wrong with killing all fish caught. There are other arguments as well, but let’s leave them for the moment. I was going to go on and discuss barbless hooks! I know that Stewart Hurst, and others, disagree with me on that / those issues, but I’ve run out of time and space, so for the moment, I’ll let them both off the (microbarbed) hook.
