Barrie Rickards’ Angling – Intolerant Bailey

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.

I made a note of a Minister’s comment recently about a rather contentious issue – nothing to do with angling – in which he said “there are clearly two strongly held, opposing views on this issue, and under these circumstances we would not wish to impose one of them”. Really! Makes you think doesn’t it. What about foxhunting then? And when it comes to keepnets or no keepnets there are two strongly apposed views too. When someone tries to impose a keepnet ban let’s remind them of the above quote. The same applies to quite a few other issues in angling, and it serves to remind us that we need to be tolerant of other anglers’ needs and aspirations, especially if they happen to be the opposite of our own.

Which brings me once again to my old friend John Bailey. I don’t know what it is about him but he seems to get on his high horse all the time these days, the latest in the ACA review or annual report for 2005. Lots of anglers read the ACA documents and many of us supporting the ACA have been life members for a long time. The ACA itself should realise that a great many anglers do not share John Bailey’s downside view of the sport. I’m not arguing that there are no problems – heavens, I’ve spent my angling life fighting them – but he must learn to be more tolerant. I can appreciate that he does not like keepnets, and I very rarely use one myself as it happens, but he should not condemn anglers who do use them, if they use them correctly. You cannot legitimately condemn keepnets because some anglers use them wrongly. This is the favourite tactic of those beating some drum or other: I know a couple of dry fly fishermen who I wouldn’t give house room on any water I controlled, but I don’t condemn dry fly fishermen for God’s sake.

In the article, which offends me a little, he writes, “whilst fish…have been my life, it wouldn’t absolutely gut me not to catch one again.” I suppose this equates with the rumour at one time that John nearly gave up angling totally to pursue mountain climbing; and haven’t fish been more than your life John? Haven’t they been your livelihood too? John has quite literally “Been there, done that,” and now he seems to have had enough. Perhaps he’s getting old. He then opts for perhaps five or six fish a year that would satisfy them. Well, you may not have noticed John, but a lot of anglers hope to catch more than that, and actually enjoy succeeding at catching fish, whether it’s for food or not.

John talks about preferring to fish with the hook cut off at the bend, preferring just to see the bite. Well, it takes all sorts I suppose, but then he goes on to say that his fish, so observed, is a ‘puzzled’ fish, rather than an ‘alarmed’ one. There is simply no evidence that a hooked fish is alarmed at all. It’s all in Johns mind; he’s oversensitive and guilty of imbuing fish with human emotions. Hooked fish know that things ain’t normal exactly, but even to describe them as puzzled is stretching credulity a little too far.

I can agree with John about some of his dislikes; greedy people, people who have to catch more and bigger fish than anyone else (how many of them are there John?); people who maltreat fish, and so on. Of fish, he writes “..but they aren’t stupid and they don’t like being caught.” I don’t even think that fish can think as far as that.

Take a pike I caught on a spoon whilst wading out from the margins of a lake. It weighed, I suppose, around 8 lbs. I played it to my left hand, lifted it slightly out of the water, stuck the rod butt between my legs, and then took the spoon out of its jaws with the forceps. I lowered the pike into the water by my waders; let the spoon swing out to the rod tip where it then dangled in the water. The pike, meanwhile, horizontallised itself, and promptly hit the spoon at high speed, fetching my crutch a fair crump as the rod butt came up. I played the pike in again, to my left hand, unhooked the spoon again, but this time I held the fish a moment before taking the rod in my right hand and working the spoon up and down with the rod tip. I released the pike, it levelled itself, and shot up and down chasing the spoon as fast as it could. I only narrowly avoided catching it a third time. Think on this John. Was the pike ‘alarmed’? Hardly. Was it ‘puzzled’? Who Knows? Was it stressed? Surely not. Was it hungry? Yes. Apart from the last question all these considerations are irrelevancies. When it comes to fish. They do not think as humans. They do not experience and feel as humans. Much of what they do is instinctive, like feeding. When a pike picks up a spinner or plug lying static on the river bed (as they do, on occasions) they are not thinking about anything at all. They are just deceived into considering it a food item, probably because it does not look like weed or a stone.

John’s description of keepnets outside a match situation: “It has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt these things (ie, nets, do nothing but physical and mental harm to the fish and must in a sane world be abandoned”. What complete nonsense. Keepnets properly used do no physical damage to speak of, and the ‘mental’ harm idea is a total irrelevancy. If they were mentally stressed (as they cannot, in fact, be) then they wouldn’t feed in a keepnet. He’s completely wrong on this ‘mental’ aspect of fish, and he really ought to give up the ideas he has related to it.

Some of the other dislikes he lists in the ACA article simply show his intolerance of other anglers’ ideas and needs. If anglers are behaving properly with respect to fish then they should be allowed to continue without being berated by John Bailey. He may not like treble hooks. I do. I could do things incorrectly with a treble hook. I prefer to use them properly. He criticises editors for using pictures of bags of fish, and he does so in a very unfair fashion. Fifty years ago his points might have been valid, but they are not now. He reckons “.. I have a right to say it (ie, say these ‘controversial’ things) because of how long I’ve fished and because of how much I’ve witnessed.” He does have a right to say it, but he should realise at the same time that his many unjustified criticisms of angling practices, usually pertaining to a small minority if valid at all, are taken up by others and used against angling. Towards the end of his piece he writes, “I also say this here and now because we all know that in these post-hunting days, all field sports will come increasingly into the spotlight.” Quite so. And your writing John, is giving ammunition to the antis, and quite unnecessarily so.

There is just one area in John’s recent piece where I can go along with his criticisms of angling, and that is when he comes out against anglers taking too long to land fish, by using inadequate tackle deliberately. Keith Arthur is a highly respected angler, not least by me, but his recent description of a tarpon battle taking 3 hrs 10 minutes on 12 lb class tackle made for disturbing reading. Is this really good angling? It can happen accidentally to any angler, naturally, but deliberately? Most anglers use the right tackle most of the time, and I’m sure Keith is no exception. Possibly the tarpon was accidentally hooked and was not being fished for. But line class tackle whilst a useful description of the strength of the gear, and therefore a guidance to its user, should never be translated into that foreign concept of line class fishing in which anglers pursue fish on inadequate tackle to prolong the fight. This is wrong. At all costs we must resist in this country the whole concept of line class records. Unlike John Bailey I reckon this is about the only thing that angling can be criticised for. But not in this country yet.

Bass and Sea Bass

I’d like to begin this piece on a couple of cheerful notes. Firstly, I was exceedingly pleased to a see a letter in the Daily Telegraph circa 22 November whinging, as I have done, about the use of the term “Sea Bass”. In this case it was in a report which looks as though the anglers’ views on protecting the bass will be supported. But, as the letter writer points out, anglers will be wondering just what Sea Bass are! There’s only one bass in these islands and it lives in the sea. We don’t talk about sea cod and sea haddock do we? So why do restaurants (as well as official reports) refer to Sea Bass? It’s an affectation stemming from the USA where it is necessary to distinguish bass from the sea from those in freshwater such as the large and small mouth bass.

I was slightly surprised that the letter writer was not impressed by the eating quality of black bass, although I bow to his superior knowledge, having only eaten one once. Of course, freshwater bass occur in parts of Europe (and, once upon a time, in a lake in Hampshire) but they ware not exported. Those bass that we import, and it’s really terrible that we should have to do so at all, are marine bass. A final point made by our Swiss chef in College: he’s like to see a distinction in restaurants between farmed bass and wild bass. That apart, can we have a campaign that every time we are in a restaurant that advertises ‘Sea Bass’ we point out that it should be ‘bass’, no more, no less. Eating places have affectations enough as it is.

‘Richard Walker: biography of an angling Legend’

Secondly, can I thank all those many anglers who have got in touch with me re my biography ‘Richard Walker: biography of an angling Legend’ to be published by Medlar Press hopefully 2006. The response from anglers has been quite staggering – letters, tapes, artefacts, stories – and it really does show the high affection in which RW was held. I have replied to all contacts and all will be thanked in due course in the book itself.

Don’t be a Jerk, be Considerate!

A subject that does crop up from time to time is in the news at the moment and being debated in letter pages, and it concerns the disturbing effect that lure fishermen can have on anglers pursuing quieter and less mobile activities. As a lure fanatic of well over fifty years standing now, can I appeal to lure fishers to show the utmost consideration for others? After all, chucking a large jerkbait around does cause a fair bit of disturbance, which is the whole point of it, naturally. I don’t really think that a large jerkbait hitting the water bothers fish very much, but if it spoils the peace of the day for another angler, then it’s too much. Give other anglers a hundred yard berth if you can. Pikers, in general, need to be careful, not just lure fishermen. Sometimes, you almost literally, bump into a quietly concealed roach angler, but that can’t be helped. Apologise and move on.

The Importance of an Uptrace

On to a different matter now, but still one related to fish welfare. I’ve noticed several articles in recent years covering legered or float legered deadbaits for pike. The tackle illustrated often fails to include an uptrace. I’d like to hear the views of experienced anglers on this one, because my own (long) experience is that deadbaits can and do flip back on the cast occasionally and hence can fetch up on the nylon or braid mono. It’s easy to use an uptrace when deadbaiting, just as easy as when livebaiting, so there is no earthly reason why it should not be adopted universally. Even if you think it unnecessary, it cannot do any harm and may well do good. My view is that it does good. The only style of piking that I do nowadays without an uptrace, is lure fishing and fly fishing.

Targeting Known Fish

Another subject hotly debated in recent times is that band of people who target known fish; chasing big fish in waters as soon as the water becomes ‘known’ and who often fish deliberately for recaptures of someone else’s big fish. Here again, whilst putting fish welfare first, as always, we need to be more tolerant. I don’t do this myself, at least in the manner just outlined, but where does one draw the line? After all, we sometimes try a water new to us because someone has recommended it. Ditto a swim on a water – often the bailiff will help you if you are new to a water, or a friend might. It’s all a matter of degree. I have no interest in fishing a water to catch a 30 lb pike that someone has just captured and turned to the water. I’ve had six thirties in my time and all six came on waters I had discovered myself, or in conjunction with Ray Webb. Two were discovered following hunches. But if anglers want to chase a named carp, and it gives them pleasure, without harming the carp, then who are we to judge, because we prefer it differently? It does take all sorts to make up this angling brotherhood of ours, and whist we might bicker among ourselves as brothers, what we should not be doing is giving out signs of disunity to angling’s enemies.