Barrie Rickards' Angling - Sept 06

Rats to you! Sorry, didn't intend to be rude but I was out lure fishing in the 90º yesterday, deep in the countryside when I saw a brown rat scuttle along the bank in front of me. He was an immaculate big fellow, with shiny fur and the very picture of robust health.

The problem is that he probably pees in the water, and if you have any doubts at all about the grossly unpleasant Weil's disease, then I suggest you talk to those anglers who have suffered. You can start with John Tate and Bill Chillingsworth. They survived so can tell you. Listening to John on this subject is not for the faint-hearted.

Whether or not humans can be blamed for rats being carriers of this disease I don't know, but we certainly can be blamed for the lifestyle that most rats lead - Namely in rubbish tips, sewers and some unclean farm yards. I suppose it is likely that deep in the countryside there are pockets of perfectly clean, healthy rats.

Indeed my rat of yesterday may have been one such specimen. But we can't take chances now, can we? I always used to rinse my hands in the lake or river I was fishing, before eating. Wrong. Now I just wipe them on my angling towel - not exactly hygienic, but not carrying Weil's disease either.

If you fish water deep in the countryside and rats arrive, as they surely will, how can you tell? Well, on my lake it is easy. You find swan mussel shells high on the bank, with rodent teeth marks on them. On finding these, I inform the gamekeeper and he gets rid of the rat. Living in the countryside, with no rubbish tips or open sewers to go for, they live on their natural diets (the farmers crops and swan mussel included).

On my lake I clear up all the swan mussel shells (wearing rubber gloves) and then I can tell if the aliens have returned. So the rats get a bad press and if we humans were cleaner they might not deserve it. We'll probably eliminate ourselves eventually, and then they can assume their rightful role in life, on earth!

There have been some hot debating topics around recently, not least being the hoop scans which are supposed to count and weight fish passing through the loop, as long as each fish has a microchip implant. It may do away with keep nets apparently. Presumably all fish not carrying a microchip (tiddlers, fry, etc.) won't have the honour of being counted in matches! So fish, presumably carp, will have to be licensed to take part in matches! I'm sure they'll like that. Makes them a superior species, Right? No, Keith Arthur has it spot on.

It's a load of nonsense that can only work in small commercials, containing only the micro chipped carp, and nothing else. And of course, they mustn't have sex, must they. I really do think that some anglers would be happier if the fish were on a snooker table, or in the bath, or the sink or something. Fish are wild creatures, in the wild. Let's keep it that way.

I can think of a use for the invention though. Let's have a government law that all anti-anglers should be micro chipped. Then we could put all them through the hoop. Of course, the voltage could be varied…

I suppose I'm against introducing barbel into stillwaters because, as the Barbel Society spokesman said recently, there's no point. I like diversity and if I want to catch barbell, I'll go to where they are, in the rivers. However, if you are running a campaign, then your sporting facts and logic need to be good.

Take a quote recently from the above spokesman: “…where it cannot thrive by growing and breeding as well as it would in the wild” Paul Owens, A.T. July 18. This looks like an admission to me that barbel can breed in stillwater, which could be true as I have said before.

So where do we draw the line here? You could argue that a fish species living in a particular water, will not thrive as well as it may in another, nor breed as well either. Using the logic of that quote, we could eliminate the least successful. Surely the prime argument should be that barbel in the UK are not naturally still water fish, and that therefore, in general, we shouldn't force them into still waters.

This wouldn't stop a commercial fishery owner putting some in his lakes (with EA permission) and he would then be obliged to care for them. If you or I don't like this, then we simply don't have to fish there.

Recent research has shown, it seems, that in still waters, barbel cannot compete with carp. Again, it doesn't seem to me like a useful argument to use, because so many species cannot compete with carp (tench and pike for starters), at least if the carp are too numerous that is. Does that mean that these species will also have to go?

And finally, there's the little question of what we regard as “wild”. Certainly I wouldn't put a small, commercial, heavily carp-stocked water in that category. But once again, where does one draw the line.

Eels again. These remarks are in direct response to something I read recently by Keith Arthur in which the had a theory that stillwater eels never migrate to the sea. I've been saying this for years now so naturally it's good to have such serious-minded support. There is, in fact, a detailed research paper on this, by the Japanese working in UK waters (I can't lay my hands on it as I write), which strongly supports the arguments used by Keith and me.

The only eels that migrate from the UK are, it seems, are those, or some of those, living in the estuaries or lower reaches of rivers, and those living in a marine environment around our shorelines. Those that travel as elvers (smaller than a lobworm Keith!) deep into the hinterland of upstream reaches, and lakes and ponds, stay there until they die. That is why they can grow big (and old) as Keith rightly says.

The reason we can prove that they never migrate overland is because they're never ever, found squashed on the roads. So in his fine “Book of Eels” Tom Fort is wrong on this one. I was drawn into this debate quite recently again, whilst helping a geographer/historian investigating an ancient eel fishery near Ely (Ely got it's name from eels, of course; But in those days they could take thousands of eels per annum out of a fishery, and still have plenty left, as they were augmented by incomers).

I bumped into an RSPB bird the other day! The first words she said to me were “The bloody cormorants! They should be culled. Why aren't you anglers doing anything about it?” As you may imagine I was somewhat taken aback! I wondered if my ears were playing up on me.

Then very politely I explained that people higher up than she was in the RSPB had been failing to cooperate with anglers for over fifteen years on this issue, and that only now was there a chance, a slight one, of shooting a few. I told her of John Wilson's views that a national cull was needed and she agreed whole-heartedly. So do I.

We could have done with a few more people of this ilk more than a decade ago. But it is, as I have often said, the people on the ground tend to have a little more sense, not to mention a little more knowledge, than the pen pushing politicos at the top.

The Australian carp “problem” has raised its head again, as reported in Anglers' Mail recently. I have commented on this before so will be brief. Many anglers do not think the carp in Oz can reach the sizes claimed. In this they may be wrong, because years ago, I was shown very convincing pictures of 50lb plus commons, from Victoria. I know the lake south of Adelaide where the current batch is supposed to come from, although I personally am not aware of any giant carp from there.

But I agree with those anglers who say we don't need them. I cannot see the point as we have a great many carp waters now, carp waters of quality too, that fit into our natural ecosystem. I don't think myself that there's a great risk of the Oz carp bringing disease with them, but as we shouldn't be importing them anyway, that question shouldn't arise.

Of course, if they are imported, some people will fish for them, there's always a demand for big fish at any price. And no doubt some people will make a bob or two. There's no harm in that, in principle. The only question is: does our current ecosystem need them? The Environment Agency should lead on this.

I saw an advertisement recently which I think was something to do with pensions although, as so often with modern advertising, it isn't always easy to see what they are selling. Anyway, the accompanying picture purported to show an angler, possibly a fly fisherman in the sense of his dress and his rod.

He had on the hat reminiscent of Fonda in “On Golden Pond”, but apart from one fly, it had plugs stuck in it! I kid you not. He had a box of flies in his hand, and a nymph stuck in the fluff on his jacket, but the only visible reel was a multiplier. And there was a tray of big spoons. It looked to me as though the hat had been added electronically, as well as the office backdrop to the scene.

If these ad. men realised just how many anglers there are out there, they might just try to make anglers in their ads look less crappy! I don't think I have ever seen an ad. which includes angling which would not put off any angler from buying their product!