Barrie Rickards' Angling

COUNTERING THE ANTI-ANGLING ARGUMENTS

Now that the dust has settled on the latest anti-angling farce I though it might be a good idea if I listed some of the arguments in favour of angling and had a go at answering some of those anti-angling charges. Perhaps I can also include some of the quite reasonable questions that a non-angler might wish to know the answer to. You can then use some of these arguments, adding your own, mixing and matching to the circumstances of the challenge, be it verbal questioning or a loony letter in the press.

Messrs Salter and Morley

Before I do that, however, I want to do my usual trawl through the sometimes crazy happenings related to angling. Did you see the latest Martin Salter episode some weeks ago? He is the pro-angling MP who seems to me not to quite get things right - with an alarming consistency.

In this latest episode he raised the cormorant question in the Commons. (Incidentally, that's the phrase always used: “cormorant question”. Is there really any question about cormorants?). Martin seemed to be ecstatic that “DEFRA ministers are prepared to work with anglers” and that Elliot Morley (Urgh!) said “We are willing to work with the angling world to find out how we can deter cormorants from eating its fish”. But Martin seems to miss the real issue.

The really crucial point in the Elliot Morley quote is that he ADMITS that cormorants in freshwater are a menace. It's the first time he has done this. And what does Elliot Morley mean by 'deter'? You cannot deter cormorants from eating fish. If you did so they'd all die. I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that the people representing angling on the 'cormorant question' are a bunch of loonies. At the end of this piece you'll find a letter that the magazine 'Waterlog' couldn't find the space for…. And another letter, not on cormorants, that they couldn't find space for either. (I understand the editorial problem. I'm not criticising).

Have you seen the booklet 'Angling Today' produced by the National Angling Alliance, written by Dr. Bruno Broughton? It's a super publication really putting modern angling in perspective. There's plenty in it to add to the list of points I intend making below.

Okay, so what about the points in answer to the regular bludgeoning that anglers get? Let's begin with a letter from a Mr Anthony Hyett of Sevenoaks, published in the Telegraph. He says, “Whether fish feel pain or not is irrelevant. They certainly feel extreme terror, otherwise they would not fight so desperately to escape”.

Point 1. Wrong Mr Hyett. Consider a pike that has grabbed your small roach as you were reeling it in. The pike gives you a real run around, tugging and pulling, apparently, in Mr Hyett's words, trying to escape. So why does it not do so? All it has to do is open its mouth. It isn't hooked at all, nine times out of ten. It's just pulling for its supper as millions of years hunting in weed beds has conditioned it to do. Many other fish pull for their suppers too and, like the above-mentioned pike, they only realise something is amiss when they get nearer the bank and see the angler's silhouette against the sky. Even then they only do what genetics tells them to, and that is make themselves scarce.

Point 2. Again we can use Mr Hyett as an example, and once again he is wrong when he says it is “immoral to hunt fish only for food. Of course, you can eat some of your catch, as many game and sea anglers do (and coarse fisherman in other lands) but who is to know that the next fish you catch isn't undersized? What do you do Mr Hyett? Kill it? How unnecessary. Or the fish may be oversized. Same question Mr. Hyett. Or the fish may be an inedible species. Same question Mr. Hyett. Or the fish may unsatisfactory in culinary terms, in some other way. Same question Mr. Hyett. There's an awful lot of killing in your world Mr Hyett, and I don't think anglers want any part of it. Trawler men, forced by daft European regulations, may have no option than to be lots of Mr. Hyetts. But anglers do have the option, and they choose common sense. And, of course, the fact is that any coarse angler could feed himself and his family if he wanted to - as happened more frequently during the Second World War.

Point 3. The Medway Report (RSPCA supported) proved that fish feel pain. Wrong. The Medway Report, frequently misreported by anti-anglers, emphasized that there was an element of doubt and decided to give fish the benefit of that doubt. The doubt was caused by a certain Professor Kelly linking nerve endings in fish to pain reception, a deduction he later withdrew from. This kind of thinking is not a million miles from the 2003 report from researchers in Edinburgh University. And it is just as flawed in its logic. When the antis get going on either of these bandwagons mention these points, and at the same time draw attention to much more substantial studies which refuted them, namely the 2003 research of Professor Rose from the USA and, perhaps even more importantly, that of Dr. T. G. Pottinger entitled 'Fish Welfare literature Review'. This last work is an 83 page tome which looks at the world literature on fish welfare, including pain. It is based upon a study of 208 scientific papers (compared with 30-ish papers in the RSPCA report) and it concludes that not only is there no evidence that fish feel pain, but that it highly unlikely that they do so.

Point 4. The previous point leads me now to the quite reasonable questions posed by non-anglers: surely fish feel pain from the hook. What we need to remember here is that most fish, perhaps all of them, feed upon food items which are often far sharper and more 'damaging' than the angler's hook. Chub eat crayfish. Pike eat perch. Baby pike eat sticklebacks. Cod eat crabs. Carp eat crayfish. This isn't an occasional thing. They do it all the time, everyday more or less, because it's their food! Now, any human who has handled a crayfish or a perch will know just how sharp they are! You could not chew one in your mouth without damage and pain. But a fish does. It has no hands to manipulate the prey: it has to grab it and scrunch it. Its mouth gets lacerated, certainly. But are you telling me that eating food is painful to it? It simply makes no sense at all. All that the scientists have shown, in my opinion, is that fish have nerve receptors which tell them that they have tissue damage, opiates simultaneously block any pain, and the body then gets on with repairing damage. This must happen in a very short time if the fish is to continue feeding effectively.

Point 5. But a fish must be disturbed, surely, if it is placed in a keepnet? Why? Any experienced angler knows that fish in a keepnet will feed. I would argue that the keepnet is simply another aquatic environment to them, and provided the keepnet is used in recommended fashion as in the Code of Conduct, fish really come to no harm in them. I don't think fish in a properly utilised keepnet care a toss. If they did they wouldn't feed. The worst case scenario I can think of is when you put large fish in a keepnet: they are suspicious of their surroundings, and will not usually feed. It's rather like putting sheep in a pen for a while.

Point 6. But surely fish are disturbed by being captured? Again, this seems reasonable on first thinking about. And yet, as I have shown above, fish in a keepnet can hardly be very bothered if they continue to feed. And, let's face it, if you are catching small fish and return them to the water, you can catch them again not long afterwards. I once caught the same perch three times in a couple of hours. It is logical to suppose that that perch wasn't much bothered by being caught. I once caught a pike on lure that immediately attacked the lure as soon as both were in the water together. I released it again, and just to prove it was no fluke I got Tim Cole to witness the same pike chasing the lure about for a third time. It is simply common sense to suppose that that pike was undisturbed and was never at any time in pain. Indeed, I am certain that my hooks that day were much blunter that the spines on the perch that the pike normally feeds on.

Point 7. Let's return to another aspect of Mr Hyett's argument of my first point. Many people suggest that the fish tugging the line is in 'terror' or in pain. We have dealt with the first of these, but the second is easier to deal with. If the fish felt pain from being pulled, then it would come gently towards the angler, not pull in the opposite direction. This is the principle behind the choker collar for dogs or the breaking in of horses. They soon give up if pulling causes pain. A fish does not ease off at all, hence it is highly unlikely that it feels pain. And, used in conjunction with the arguments I have outlined about, it is quite clear that it cannot feel pain. The problem with these arguments, this logic, is that they are counter-intuitive to a non-angler and so they need to be carefully explained.

Point 8. Another remark you will often hear these days - and I have drawn attention to it before in FISHINGmagic - is that to return fish to the water alive is cruel; that you are only fishing for sport; that the only justification for fishing is for food. This is the argument that has prevailed in Europe in places, and which has led to the rule that all fish caught in matches must be killed. I have already dealt with some aspects of this question in point 2 above, and have pointed out that it is quite unnecessary to kill fish that are caught 'accidentally'.

For example, the trout angler will catch an undersized fish, and the salmon angler a spent fish. You kill these just because they have been caught is political correctness gone mad, and is wasting the resources of the ecosystem just as badly as overkill by commercial activities. And if the fish are not suffering any pain, are not particularly discomforted, and will resume feeding within minutes, where is the rationale in killing them? To return fish is to aid conservation; to have the ability to catch them means that the human being still has the skill to survive in nature. Do you recall an SAS sortie where trainee SAS men nearly died of starvation in a mountain gorge? Yet they were beside a river full of fish. (Mind you, if you'd seen the SAS angling survival kit you'd die of laughing, not of starvation). During the last war many country people caught perch, pike, eels and bream for the table, and I dare say that food was very welcome. But had they not had the ability, what then? Of course, you can argue that anyone can go to Tesco. To that I would say spend a month in the Amazon jungle, as I did, surviving on the fish I caught, and see if you hold the same viewpoint on your return.

Point 9. I've just had an interesting experience to do with herons which has some relevance to the claim that anglers frighten fish. My garden pond is full of fish and is frequently visited by herons. I don't begrudge the heron the odd fish, but it is the response of the fish that interests, and puzzles me. After every heron attack the fish disappear for two days, sometimes three, and they simply will not venture into open water. They stay in thick weed or in the sunken refuges that I have in the pond. Why does it take these fish (rudd, tench, orfe, roach and bream) up to three days to come unscared? If I catch one and return it to the water, or otherwise spook the fish during gardening, they will all be actively feeding in open water within the hour. After a heron visit I can't get them to feed on even the best of trout pellets, let alone sinking flake. What's going on here? Do the fish recognise, genetically, their real enemies? Or what? There is no doubt that these twenty or so sizeable fish are seriously spooked by herons and are not spooked by human activities to anything like the same extent. I have since discovered that several of my neighbours have noticed exactly the same things, so now we are monitoring carefully the visits of Sir Herne.

Point 10. If you are really serious about combating the anti-angling loonies then I suggest that as well as reading the abovementioned literature, you also try two other sources of information: one is an article entitled 'Fishing for Theories' by Stuart Derbyshire (www.spiked-online.com) and the other a book by Lawrence Catlow 'Memories of a shooting fishing man'. Both are brilliant on the idea of fish having feelings. Derbyshire points out that fish do not have awareness, or feel sorry for themselves. As he says, if they did they'd have teamed up with piranhas and attacked humans eons ago. The reason they do not take such actions is because they are not aware, anymore than the fish in a keepnet is not aware of where and why it is there. He also points out the great muddle in the thinking of the Edinburgh scientist. And how - Read it. Catlow demolishes the concept that fish have 'rights'. Again, it is a well-ordered discussion that the anti-anglers would struggle with. The points raised by Derbyshire and Catlow, and by others mentioned above, present anglers with a watertight case on all these questions. We really need to generally wise-up; to the arguments available to us and to use them. In the future I'll try to make a list of attacking, as opposed to defensive points.

Letter 1

In an article some months ago, in Waterlog magazine, John Bailey blamed two-tone fish on anglers. I seem to remember that he said they turned into two-tone fish in keepnets (or was it landing nets?) Or was it during playing?

I wish to be charitable and suggest that John Bailey is mistaken in his interpretation of two-tone fish. His supposed observations simply do not fit all that is known about two-tone fish. More importantly his continued denigration of angling, directly providing (dubious) information to the antis, is quite deplorable from someone supposedly experienced. And I'd like to quote John directly: “Now I would defend fishing to the hilt on a hundred solid grounds…” When, exactly, John? When have you taken on the antis on radio, TV, or wherever? Tackling the antis, dealing with the mess that people like you cause, is by the Ken Balls, the Bruno Broughtons, the Dave Birds, the Chris Burts, the Keith Barkers, the Charles Jardines, the Bob James, the Tim Marks, and others. Not by the John Baileys of this world.

Letter 2

Sir

Cormorants again. But bear with me. Some years ago I persuaded a prominent Cambridge Hydro geologist to calculate for me the non-drought, non-flood, standing volume of water in East Anglia. It is 68 million cubic metes. I then calculated the mean biomass for East Anglian waters. This information it contained in the Anglian region's detailed fish surveys going back twenty years (My files on this form an A4 pile almost 3 metres high).

The mean biomass (which took me three weeks of analysis) is 21 grams per cubic metre. Given the known volume, the total biomass in East Anglia comes out at 7,394.5 tons. You can work this out yourself in two minutes. So how many cormorants were there in East Anglia when I did the figures? Official sources led me to a very conservative figure of 10,000 (some official documents gave 16-20,000). So how much per day does a cormorant eat? Well, I took a low figure of 2 lbs per day (many authorities agree on this, but I have seen them eat much more in half a day). To calculate the effect of 10,000 birds on 7,394.5 tons divide the tonnage by 20,000 (i.e. 10000 x 2lbs per day).

The answer is 156.2 days, that is less than six months.

In the early 1990's that is what happened to our fisheries: some were cleaned out of cormorant food-sized items in less than six months; others took a little longer. But anyone who has had serious cormorant predation on a moderate-sized water, as I have had, will know that the water will be devoid of 2oz-16oz fish in six months at most. It is my opinion that some EA biologists did some tests on small covered and uncovered waters and proved the essence of my arguments. I think that that work was sidelined - to put it politely.

Barrie Rickards