Barrie Rickards' Angling

Debate about unifying angling rumbles on
It is interesting that the debate rumbles on about the moves to unify anglers under the banner of Angling and Fisheries Alliance (AFA). When I left you in the last article you may recall that I was dreading it being called the NAC - thank Heaven for small mercies. The row has recently arisen because Keith Arthur has upset Mike Heylin of the Specialist Anglers' Association by saying that those who seek to help angling (by working on committees) are getting on a gravy train. I have to say that of all the committee men I know - whether NFA, NFSA, S&TA or whatever - I have never come across one that was out to line his pocket. Some have serious ego problems from time to time, some are incredibly inward looking, but all are doing what they can for angling. I have to agree with Mike Heylin that I, too, have never once come across Keith Arthur at any one of the hundreds of meetings I have personally attended. It would be nice if that changed, because he is a very experienced and active angler.

Mike Heylin is right too when he states that we really do need a central organisation. I have always argued this myself; my main worry has always been that some members would be so inward looking and self-seeking that they would only look towards the needs of their own organisation. So it was with a little sigh that I read last week that the constituent member organisations (NFA, etc) would not be put under threat. Well, of course not, but it does sound as if, once again, someone has been threatening to take his bat home. Presumably it was similar thoughts that prompted Colin McHardy to write a scathing letter recently to Angling Times accusing participants in the new body of “empire-building, nest feathering and cronyism”. This is going too far, but when he says that “…it is going to be administered by the same mediocre groups that failed to harness the underlying enthusiasm of the average fisherman in previous incarnations,” then I have to agree with him (if we remove the word mediocre) because these are the only guys trying.

You can think what you like about Ken Ball or Mike Heylin, but they are working hard. And I know they'd be overjoyed if others came along to help them. Of course I have a little sympathy with Keith Arthur's worry about wasting money. £310,000 is money angling has never had before (and doesn't have yet as it happens) and, as always, undesirables are likely to be attracted. I must say that, personally, I'd much rather see the organisation put in place, working for all anglers, pay for the administration itself, but not per diems and mileages - after all, we've got on without those perks for long enough so we can last a bit longer. Then eventually, when the system had proved itself, we could think about paying per diems and mileage to those that had proved they were worth it. It is a fact that people work more professionally when they are paid as professionals, and when more checks and crosschecks are in place. There is one other worry I share with Keith Arthur, and I have written on this matter in the past. I do hope the new organisation penetrates right “down” to the average angler. Harness his enthusiasm - and nobody has ever done so before - and you are home and dry.

Peter Collins and longlining for zander
There was a bit of a controversy recently when Peter Collin, a famous fenland angler and a past assistant editor of Angling Times, admitted longlining for zander and killing the fish. Now, I have a soft spot for Peter. In the late 1960's Ray Webb and I were trying to find a publisher for our book 'Fishing for Big Pike'. We had written to Bernard Venables, thinking he was a knowledgeable man in the world of publishing, but we never received the courtesy of a reply. Then I bumped into Peter Collins at an angling meeting, and I have to say that he could not have been more helpful, suggesting a contact in A & C Black, the publishers of Who's Who. He recommended them as a good and reliable publisher, and so they proved.

In a way, Peter's help was very interesting because he was seriously anti-pike, and anti-zander, and, of course, it is his dislike of zander that has got him into trouble now. It seems he has been waging a one-man war on them! This is, really, a complete waste of time, because removal of a few decent-sized fish will only lead to a further population explosion. The answer, in whatever situation we find ourselves with zander, is to leave them alone. In the end, after about ten years or so, they'll settle down into something of a balance with the prey and other species. I would not advocate putting them in your own river system, but once they are there you cannot get rid of them so might as well conserve energy and finances and forget about them. I do hope Peter doesn't come a legal cropper with his antics, but he may well do.

Latest news of Peter Collins
Further news on the Peter Collins matter and 'longlines'. Anglers Mail had a full exposé, with PAC's Denis Moules presenting the evidence. After much media coverage it might be difficult to make a charge stick, despite his apparent admission of guilt. There's a rather obvious defence line! However, Peter's actions have been roundly condemned by all the great and the good, some of whom have pointed out, quite rightly, that fish other than zander would be killed, and possibly fishing eating birds too. Peter really is wrong on this predator issue and I'm sure Denis Moules has put a stop to his activities, whatever the legal outcome and he's probably discouraged other law breakers too.

The National Angling Show
I'm just back from the National Angling show at the NEC. In the past this has been in decline, or so it seemed to me, but this year, with EMAP (Angling Times) at the helm, it really has proved a great success with many firms and organisations present. I didn't have as much time to look around as I should have liked (having to do duty on the Shakespeare stand) but I managed to visit the additional hall laid on for specialist anglers - it was absolutely packed, both with anglers and stalls. It's a good place for meeting old friends, seeing your heroes (even Chris Yates was there for two days!), not to mention renewing your tackle at very reasonable (reduced) prices. It's a must for any keen angler, of whatever persuasion: this year it was for upwards of 30,000!

Fish thieves
We all have to keep our eyes open for the foreign fish thieves. In the part of the world where some of these people come from the fish are in waters for one reason only - human food. Be particularly observant in the Closed Season as the weather warms up. The EA have, in the past, been a little slow to get out and deal with malefactors, failing to catch them in the act. On three past occasions I have caught 'anglers' fishing rivers and drains in the Closed Season, quite blatantly.

On the first two occasions the EA failed to appear and hence failed to catch the culprits. On the third occasion I rang Pat Noble and despite the fact that he was at his Sunday lunch he came out and dealt with the culprits - four highly offensive and aggressive individuals who claimed they were eel fishing (as if they were allowed to do that on a club water, using float-fished maggots!). My advice to clubs is that they should patrol their waters during the Closed Season because that is when the baddies are out there. If you are not careful you'll have illegal eel trappers on your waters not to mention the Continental origin longliners. And you also need to keep an eye on the activities of the green welly brigade, because they also will be eyeing your waters when you are not there.

Weird proposals from Europe
Maybe you noticed the latest weird proposals coming from Europe, that use of barley straw bales to keep down algae in angling waters, would be banned. Brilliant. I've used barley straw, as bales and 'tubes' in the past, and very effective they are too. As far as I'm aware they have no adverse side effects. On the contrary, everything about them seems beneficial. You can also use them as a filter, to take out excessive clay particles flooding in off the land - in other words reduce the colour in a water and hence eventual siltation. They are not as effective at this as they are in removing unwanted algae blooms, but the trick does work, nevertheless. So my attitude to this European edict is to ignore it or tell them to get stuffed, until such time as there is a very good reason for heeding their advice - much the same as my attitude to most everything else coming out of Europe.

Fuss over pheasants
And maybe you noticed the fuss about pheasants being shot on the Sandringham estate at a time when it could be witnessed by children in a school playground and their bird-watching schoolmistress. For the first time in over 60 years of being involved in the countryside I heard (pheasant) shooting being described as 'hunting'. The interviewed children used the word several times and most certainly the BBC did in its coverage of the incident. It is true that on the Continent the term hunting covers everything (except fishing) and you will often hear shooters referred to as hunters. However, there is good reason for this, because the shooters in this case will be shooting almost anything, bird or not, including wild board and deer for example. In the UK shooters shoot birds in a shoot. They don't hunt them. Deer shooters are deerstalkers, not hunters. So, the question is why was the word used in an incorrect context in this way? I think the reason is that hunting is an emotive word, especially for urbanites, and it helps to bracket shooting with (fox) hunting. It will be a very small step for the same people to bracket angling with hunting in exactly the same way. We have perfectly adequate terminology in this country, to describe/define various countryside sports and pheasant shooting, the operation of a shoot, is not hunting. I hasten to add that although I have no interest whatsoever in (fox) hunting I am not opposed to it. It may be that children brought up and brainwashed so as to be upset by seeing birds shot is now part of our culture. But it doesn't make shooting pheasants wrong. Squeamishness is an odd emotion: I could not, nowadays, watch a pig being slaughtered (though I did as a child, on a farm) but I'm not going to give up bacon mate.

Big eels from down under
I enjoyed recent pictures of giant freshwater eels caught in Australia, fish of around 20lbs± caught by Pete Drabble and Barry McConnell. (Anglers Mail got the scientific names wrong, of both the Australian and British eels!). I had a go at this in the 1980s and early 1990s but failed miserably, catching only river black fish, a much-underrated catfish-like species. Given half a chance I'll have another go because those two have encouraged me. When I tried myself I was the only person doing it, and information was seriously scarce.

More on Peter Collins!
Yet more on the Peter Collins saga! A letter in Angling Times from a Mr. Eddie Gammon claimed that zander would not eat a 1lb bream. Whilst I agree with most of Mr. Gammon's letter he needs to wise up to what zander will do with bream. There is ample evidence in the literature, of which Mr Gammon seems unaware, that zander will kill bream up to 4lbs in weight. I have witnessed this myself so I know it to be true. Zander dissections have revealed scales in zander stomachs from bream in the 4lb category. Now they cannot swallow a 4lb bream Mr. Gammon, obviously, but what they can do is eat them when they are going soft. I think that is why zander attack large fish - to eat them later. Fish and fishing if funny. Fings aint always what they seem. Keep an open mind.

Ending on a 'cheerful' note!
Finally, lets end on a cheerful' note with Europe again. Europe isn't going to go away for anglers I'm afraid, and they really do need to get wise to the dangers. The latest idea, resulting form serious overfishing in Eastern Europe of freshwater fisheries (now there's a surprise!) is to subject inland fisheries to 'conservation and management' of resources. You know what that means I'm sure: angling will be banned on a selective and time-related basis, and it will be the tip of the iceberg.

We do not need European bodies interfering in any way with our freshwater fisheries. (If they did the same as they have done with the North Sea and adjacent fisheries it could be the kiss of death). To be fair, the UK speaker, Struan Stevenson, at the conference on 'Prospects of Inland Fisheries in Unifying Europe' in Warsaw (Poland) on 1st March 2004, warned against trying out such ideas in the UK, predicting opposition to them. He's dead right on this, and the SAA as well as other groups have already come out fighting. If we do have this single body representing angling then here's something they ought to be able to deal with. I know keep saying this, but the Continent of Europe is a real danger to UK angling, in many ways, and the quicker we get permanent barriers up the better. Now don't get me wrong: I'm not opposed to France or Spain or wherever, and certainly not to Poland, which I love. And I fish there, on their terms, and enjoy. But they are part of an organisation that is basically loony.