Barrie Rickards’ Angling – Decisive Comment

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.

Crays, the nation’s health, weedy waters, eels, fish fingers, barbless hooks, cooking pike, and Martin Salter and the Countryside Alliance – Barrie has his say

Save the British crayfish!

I SAW RECENTLY a welcome report into efforts to save the British crayfish from the American one. Welcome, that is, until I came to a paragraph that stated that the actual site of release of the rescued crayfish was being kept secret because anglers used them as bait and would target them. When did you last hear of our chub anglers collecting English crayfish for use as bait? And why would anglers wish to break a law that they agree with, namely the protection of the English crayfish. Everyone wants to see it restored and the plague-carrying American (signal) crayfish removed. Some hope. But everybody wants this and it is outrageous that anglers have been judged – ill judged – on no evidence whatsoever.

Angling is important to the health of the nation

An article in the Countryside Alliance magazine outlined how important angling was – is – to the health of the nation. It seems that official organisations (like government!) are slowly realising what millions have known for hundreds of years. After all, there have been millions of anglers for a very long time so they must know something that the Johny-cum-latelies are only just realising.

Or is there political mileage in it for someone, perhaps? There was a fuss recently when the E.A. attempted to encourage racial minorities into the sport, apparently using E.A. funding to this end. Richard Wightman, EA Development Manager said “I think once people realised we weren’t spending the entire agency budget on attracting new people to angling they calmed down.” Wrong Mr Wightman, you seem to have missed the whole point. The point, quite simply, is that there is nothing on earth to stop anyone, whether of a religious minority or not, from taking up angling. There are no doors closed. No barriers. You just have to want to do it. And many people in religious minorities have shown little inclination to do so. Indeed as I reported last year, a small interviewing survey suggested that many were totally opposed to going anywhere near the countryside. All this is a pity really, but even so we should not spend a penny trying to coerce them. Angling is out there for everyone. They know that. It’s entirely up to them. Those that have taken it up enjoy it and some I know already contribute well to the sport of angling. More are welcome, but no special favours please with what is our money.

Am I being too cynical? The E.A. is encouraging people to take up angling and working quite hard at it: the above policy is only one example, but that means more licences, doesn’t it? And more money in their coffers at a time when they seem to have had half a million pounds unfairly docked off their budget. There have been times when the E.A. has not really seemed to be pro-angling at all: you’ll remember that serious anti-angling jibe by one of their officers a couple of years ago. Now, suddenly, we’re all sweetness and light. Be wary, anglers. Be wary. I am largely pro the E.A. as many of you will be aware, but one has to ask questions about them from time to time, such as where were they when the cormorant problem arose (now fifteen years ago)?

Fishing weedy waters

I recently read an excellent article in Carp Talk by Tim Childs on fishing very weedy waters. Having done much of my early fishing on such waters Tim certainly rang bells with me. I wonder if he is correct, though, when he considers that waters are becoming weedier these days. I honestly don’t know whether that is true, but my intuition – often wrong – is the opposite. The killer weed in my experience is silk weed or cotton wool algae. It’s almost impossible to fish in waters choked by it. Of course, if it forms a layer on the bottom then you can sink a bait very slowly on to it. But if it grows up and reaches the surface in great gas-supported gobs, then it’s very hard.

Most other weeds can be fished through and what appears thick at the surface often thins out towards the bottom, rather like the jungle canopy cuts out growth at ground level. So if you use a heavy lead, heavy bait, or a PVA bundle of groundbait attached to your bait, you may be able to punch your way through to clear water. And if you do so the rewards can be excellent. Some weeds, such as lilies and pond weeds, I would actually target, chucking my lure into the middle of the weed bed – usually a spinnerbait. It’s exciting to get big pike out of the middle of lily beds.

Eels all lined up – how?

John Currall’s eel catches are staggering and, as he implies in a recent debate, he’s another John Sidley! I’m sure he looks after his eels well, whatever his knockers say, but I do have one question for him: how, in that recent dramatic photograph of 17 or 18 big eels, did he get them all to lie down in straight lines, with all bar one facing the same way!? The mind boggles. I know how to get one or two decent eels to lie still, because I’ve handled a few in my time, but seventeen?

Kids eat fish fingers with alacrity

Both our editor and I know someone who had an interesting experience recently and one that raised odd questions of the time we live in. Her husband, essentially a non-angler, took the kids fishing off the beach (using an old rod he’d borrowed). Against all predictions he caught a nice bass, which pleased the kids. Well, it pleased his kids. It didn’t seem to please nearly hordes of kids who crowded round shouting at him not to kill it. As it happens he didn’t intend to, and having removed the hook returned it to the water. (His kid – grandkids actually – wanted him to take it home and put it in a tank!) But what is going on here? You can bet your last Euro that all these kids eat their fish fingers with alacrity. Do they think they grow on trees or something?

There are two factors involved here. One is that most small kids like to see things live (of course, a few pull the legs off frogs, etc). The second is that in primary schools many teachers grossly misinform children about wildlife. With angling getting into schools more, as a result of great efforts by some people, it is possible this second problem might go away. Let’s hope so.

That thorny problem of barbs again

I saw an interesting letter not so long ago from Natty Thomas of Brighton, about caring for fish. It was written with the best of intentions and contained some good points. But it also contained some dubious arguments. One was his preference for using barbless because they are easier to extract from the fish. Well, barbed hooks are not exactly a problem to unhook for heaven’s sake, and they don’t penetrate too deeply, possibly penetrating the heart of the fish, and they don’t move around during the fight. I would have thought these were more important issues with respect to fish health.

He also suggests not bullying a fish during playing because this leads to damaged mouths. I’ve never seen this in my life, and I always bully fish into the net because I don’t want them tired on the bank. Damaged mouths are caused by some other factor to do with the way some anglers unhook fish. How they manage this has always been a total mystery to me. Prolonged playing of fish, which you see quite often, is not a good idea; if the fish is lively on the bank it will be lively when you put it back.

One thing you might have more information about than I have concerns the use of antiseptics – a point also raised by Natty Thomas. I can’t see the point myself because within seconds of the fish re-entering the water it will surely all wash away, won’t it? A cream or jell perhaps? The fish I return don’t seem to need it. Is it really necessary? Or is it, perhaps, just a good attitude to have?

Rick Stein cooking pike in France

I wonder if anyone saw the chef Rick Stein cooking pike in France. His is always an enjoyable programme and this one was no exception. What was amusing s that they couldn’t catch fish. They tried, with local help, but not a zander, pike or catfish came their way. Odd that Rick should think the zander a cross between pike and perch! Where have I heard that one before? And that zander spent their time topping like dace. In the end they were given a pike of, about, ten pounds. If you have a slightly bigger fish, say 15 lbs, then you can get two good fillets off it, but 10 lbs is a bit near the lower size for big fillets so he elected to bake it whole. No mention of muddy flavours, thank god. He cleaned it and scaled it and then baked it in sea of vegetables and a bottle of red. I think people in this country would have been surprised at the thick, white flesh of a cooked pike. Pike is good eating and I have never been opposed to the occasional fish being taken for the table. I should, perhaps, have said that smaller fish seem bony because filleting them ain’t easy. Oh, and Rick Stein left the head and tail on. I’m not sure why chefs do this. For a start, he needed an extra long pan! With the head and tail (and fins) off he could have chopped it into two smaller pieces. It would have tasted just as good!

Martin Salter and the Countryside Alliance

Finally, I see Martin Salter is at it again knocking hell out of the Countryside Alliance, a body he equates with fox hunting (which, unlike quite a lot of anglers, he abhors). Quite why he goes on about the C.A. so much I don’t really know. Could it be that he knows he’s wrong? Is he protesting too loudly? Many anglers, pro-CA or not, pointed out that once foxhunting went then shooting and fishing would be next. That is exactly what is happening despite M.S’s claims to the contrary.

I think what concerns me about these potentially murderous attacks by the masked hooligans, is that some tough angler will respond physically, and thump one of them. Then, guess who will be prosecuted by the police? I’m not anti-police on principle, but it might be good to hear from policemen/policewomen who are anglers – why it is that the police are telling anglers to protect themselves. Do we not have a police force, with new laws behind them, to do that?