Barrie Rickards' Angling

A unified panning from anglers for the Green Party
The Green Party has just witnessed one of the justifications for unity amongst anglers following the condemnation of angling. I don't think I've seen such a unified panning from anglers ever before. Not only in this column and FM's Forum where it all kicked off, but officials of several angling organisations have come out fighting. Clearly the Greens are rattled, seeing two or three million votes going down the drain. They have issued explanatory statements under the title 'Greens Just Want Anglers to Quit', the author, Philip Booth, an official press officer of the Greens. The problem is that his explanatory reasons, the supports for their political stance, are rubbish. The Specialist Anglers Association has already pointed this out, and no doubt they'll do so again, but it does no harm to deal with the issues here. Booth states “It is true that some anglers do good work monitoring waterways…” Get informed Mr Booth. For several hundred years, and especially for the last 100 years, anglers are about the only people actively looking after the waterways, not to mention the stillwaters. The Greens have done nothing and continue to do nothing, especially for waterways. It's not just 'some anglers' but the whole organisation of angling, and they do more than monitor the waters: they act in their defence.

Then Mr Booth says, “contaminated maggots have proved fatal to wildfowl”. Really? On whose say-so? When? This is a nonsense only the green welly brigade could fall for. And then “excessive groundbait pollutes…” This is a deceitful statement because anything in excess is not a good thing. Anglers do not use groundbait in excess, and the scientific research into groundbait use on several heavily fished waters proved conclusively that it did not pollute. All it does is feed fish and other creatures. No angler uses groundbait “in excess” not least because of the costs. I can think of a few circumstances where excess bait or groundbait might go into a water, but this is so rare as to make completely unjustifiable Mr Booth's statement.

Mr Booth also states “increases in genetically manipulated fish puts existing stocks at risk.” Are you on the same planet as the rest of us Mr. Booth? When has this occurred and where? Commercial fisheries have tried genetically modified trout in the past, and they may be used in fish farming, but this is nothing at all to do with anglers.

Mr Booth's next port of call is “..tackle left behind injures many birds each year.” Wrong again, Mr Booth. It injures a very small number of birds each year, all of which get into the press. Anybody of any angling experience whatsoever knows that very few birds are killed by anglers in this way. Too many, but still very few. Some tackle is lost by accident, but not by negligence. Those opposed to angling always imply that tackle loss is by negligence, and Mr Booth makes the same implication in his statement.

Next up is a totally ludicrous claim by Mr Booth: “Reports by the RSPCA show millions of fish suffer and many thousands die as a result of their experiences at the hands of anglers.” It seems outrageous that a man in his position, and a national politician spokesman (even of a puny party) should make such an incorrect statement. All the serious scientific research in the world has shown conclusively that not only is there no evidence that fish suffer, but that it is highly unlikely that they are able to feel pain at all. As for fish dying, the fact that repeat captures are often the norm proves him and the RSPCA wrong. The Dutch 'scientific' research, as the recent Scottish research is, in my own eyes as a scientist, completely discredited by the methods used in the 'experiments'.

The rest of his remarks on the Greens and animal welfare are completely irrelevant to the discussions on fish and his claims even in regard of other animals are, in my view, dubious in the extreme. So now we know quite clearly and unambiguously where the Greens stand. They may want anglers to give up angling voluntarily but they are clearly determined to misinform everybody about angling activities. Let me just lay it on the line for latter-day, so called environmental like Mr Booth and his clique: were it not for anglers there would be no clean waters in this country, with fish in them, and birds in and around them. Certainly the Greens would not have us where we are now, nor would the RSPCA or the RSPB either. So do another 100 years work Mr Booth and THEN tell us what we have done wrong.

Finally, remember that the Greens in Europe are not the piddling little party they are in the UK. There they have done damage to angling and to fisheries. So think long and hard before you vote for the Greens or for Europe.

Too much meat?
The meat/luncheon meat debate is with us once again, particularly in respect of too much going into some fisheries. It's worth noting, in view of my comments above, that if this is a real problem (and Dr. Bruno Broughton thinks it may be in some areas) then anglers will put the matter right. It seemed to us all that using luncheon meat did no harm at all, but the fact is such products cannot be digested by fish, so Bruno tells us. Possibly it is a question of quantity because the only waters affected are those rather intense, small, commercial fisheries. But if fish cannot digest fat and protein two questions come to mind: one is that fish eat fish and fish have both fat and protein (perhaps different to animal proteins - land animals that is); two, is that my observations over decades that fish do not eat birds is perhaps explained! I was aware that fish could not digest feathers, but I hadn't realised they could not digest bird flesh. Maybe our editor could chase Bruno Broughton on this matter, then we could be advised more fully.

That Close Season again!
Lastly, I don't want to keep harping about the Close Season debates - for want of a better word! But there is one concept the logic of which completely escapes me. On this occasion it is encapsulated in a letter to Angling Times by a Mr Kebray of Slough, in which he says “It struck me that if we as a club had continued fishing from March to June, none of the birds would have had habitats for nesting because constant movement would have deterred them in the first place.” Mr. Kebray's heart is in the right place but his logic is bad. Firstly, just because anglers are off the water does not mean that walkers, runners, dogs, boaters, cyclists, 'greens' etc, etc, are off the water. They disturb birds far more than anglers do. Secondly, all that birds do if disturbed in their nesting plans is move slightly further away. If anglers are on the water they simply nest in the area between angling swims. Remember that birds do not stop nesting on 16 June. If you turn up on a pre-season work party you are far more likely to disturb actual nests than if you had been there all the time. Even more so if you hack down rushes and reeds on 16th June. Thirdly, the birds in my garden are 'disturbed' daily, but they nest there successfully anyway! No, Mr Kebray's worries are groundless. Birds are far, far safer if anglers are present.

There was so much to cover in this article that I just did not get around to dealing with what I consider to be the greatest threat that there is to angling, I'll do this next time when I deal with the Chattering Classes.