Death of an old warrior
It's always sad when an old warrior goes, and so it was when Ken Ball, past President of the NFA, died recently aged 75. Ken and I were friends for many years and worked together on lots of different bodies - consultatives, regional NFA bodes, Environment Agency committees, old Water Authority bodies, and so on. I even addressed the annual conference of the NFA at Ken's invitation, presenting the case for the specialist angler. We often disagreed - I nearly said usually - but it was always without animosity (and a bit of winding up, both ways) and Ken would listen to you, unlike some in high office. If you convinced him he'd then run with it. I don't think it was in his nature to be devious or political in the worst senses, so he struggled at times with the unscrupulous antics of others. It would be nice if someone closer to him did a piece, because, so far, we have heard nothing about his boxing days or the fact that he arranged gigs for some of the famous blues singers of the day.
The Walker Biography
I'd intended to begin this piece with some notes about Dick Walker, arising in part from the biography I did. Firstly I'd like to thank all those FishingMagic readers who contacted me with letters, stories and much more. It really did help. Things are still coming in and I'm grateful for that too. It is true that things do fit into patterns now, but I've just had a couple of interesting letters which will enable me to look at one subject in a new light.
My main purpose here is to pick up on a comment in one of the reviews - which, by and large, have been very good. This particular review said that the book was not analytical, simply giving Dick's journey through time. That puzzled me. I looked at another book widely regarded as analytical in its approach, but it isn't! What it does is simply list every idea, contribution, telling letter and so on. This leaves the reader to analyse the accumulated data. Had I taken this approach with my Walker archives it would have filled four large volumes each costing around £100, which would surely have put it out of the reach of most if not all of us. What I actually did was analyse the nature of, for example, his vast private correspondence, and his nearly as vast dealings with tackle firms, and then put my conclusions from this in the context of Walker's achievement. Some of these have a time connation of course, eg, his carp contribution preceded his reservoir trouting contributions and hence appear earlier in the book. My analyses take the form, in effect, of a series of summation essays: I did not stress - though I did not leave out - some of the more well known, well trodden, paths such as the Arlesey perch (with the Arlesey bomb I did discover who actually made the first one, in Dick's shed) or the Tom Sails match. These have been mentioned interminably in the press and full repletion would be a waste of space. So I would argue that the Walker volume is seriously analytical in the proper sense. Of course, my analyses may be flawed, but as more and more information comes in it does seem to fit with my analyses, and many letters have said just that.
There were some areas I couldn't deal with too well. Hardly anyone can. For example, those anglers like Fred Taylor or Peter Thomas knew Dick and his angling better than anybody, and, no doubt, they could tell very interesting slants which many of the rest of us might miss, and, indeed, they have done from time to time. Quite a lot of letters I have had have asked why I didn't mention Dick's reputation with the fair sex. Well, if you read it carefully, I did. However, I only did it in passing because, although I have quite a bit of information on this matter, hardly any of it seemed to me to be relevant to the fishing. The book was about his achievements as an angler. Had such matters been relevant they would have been included, and maybe analysed? Or maybe not.
Whilst we are on the subject of the maestro perhaps I should briefly mention the new book 'Spin me a Line' recently published. I have read it through twice now and have to confess to be very very disappointed. There's a nice piece by Fred J. Taylor in it which had me chuckling, as always; but the rest just is not funny. I think some of the stories would have been funny at the time but here they are presented completely out of context. By that I mean that they have no real reference to Dick's achievements or to the times. And a great deal seems to me to have been published before. Not only that but much of the writing is not by Dick at all and some seems totally irrelevant. You can see no theme in the book, no linking of things: it is just a hotchpotch of bits. The dust jacket cover is eye-catching but it illustrates an article by someone else, not Dick Walker. I can't see the point of it at all. What is also puzzling is that the editor is Peter Maskell, well known as a top class editor. I suspect there have been other hands involved in the process. I noticed that Des Taylor, writing in Angling Times, didn't much like the book. I think I agree. It really does a disservice to Dick's achievements and his memory. It may be that others take a different viewpoint, of course, and someone who was closer to him may have a better feel than I have, but it didn't feel right to me at all.
Big fatties and longevity
Let me try this one out on you. It has been thought for a long time that people who grow tall quickly, or who are big and tall, and especially if they are overweight, don't live as long as the small, wiry types. Now it seems that the latest serious research confirms this. The oldest known human was a French lady who died not so long ago aged 122: she was 4 feet 11 inches tall. Does this ring any bells? I'm thinking trout water pike.
It is known that they grow fast. They grow big. And they grow fat. It could just be that those 30 lb plus fish are quite close to the end of their natural lives. Many anglers think that bad handing by pike anglers results in their demise, and certainly this must be a factor from some of the 'skills' I have witnessed myself. But suppose such a fish was caught and returned well, in say, January to March, it is possible that it was never destined to see the following spring anyway. In cases of bad angling the last year could be curtailed, of course. As many have said, a lot of these very big fish are never seen again. The crop of very big fish present at any one time have an important role to play in keeping down the numbers of smaller pike (say 10 lbs downwards).
The next age group; following the big ones might be mid-twenties and they'll take 2 to 3 years to reach 35 lbs when they can again effectively control the youngsters. So, after a loss of the very big fish population we see a period of good twenties being caught and, if fishing is sensible (or non-existent) a recovery of some big ones later on. Pike in trout waters don't just eat trout - and a lot they do eat are dead. If you ever watch a pike after a rainbow trout you'll soon see why it is easier for them to overhaul a young pike. They also seem to be able to grip a pike better too, possibly something to do with the skin and wriggliness of trout - that's why you catch so many trout with pike's teeth marks on them!
Pike can live to a fair old age, and I think 25 years is usually given as the maximum known. As a youth I used to fish a tiny pond which only had pike in it, and these ranged from 8 oz to 2½ lbs. They were easy to catch on small spinners, being permanently hungry I guess. The 2½ lb fish was, I think the biggest in the water, and I caught it on my second visit to the lake. I suppose it must have been a few years old by then, but six years later I was still catching it. It was in perfect, slim, health, and it still weighed 2½ lbs. I reckon it could have done a few more years. I wonder if those trout reservoir pike ever live for ten or eleven years - maybe someone knows? And if all the above isn't nonsense, what about the 30 lb plus fish in natural Irish waters and some of our other big waters without a stocked trout population? We know they live longer and are usually slimmer. Just thoughts for you to play with.
Close season insults to bolster their argument
I'm not going to have a pop at the usual time of the year discussions on the Close Season, or not. At least not at the moment. Except to make the point again: hasn't anyone else noticed that the pro-Close Season people frequently seem to have to resort to insults to bolster their case? Why is this I wonder, because I have not seen this indulged in by the other side at all?
Thus we recently had Keith Arthur writing in Angling times (4 March) saying: “Leave the rivers in peace for those who appreciate them, rather than play the numbers game with big fish.” I'm not sure what the numbers game and big fish has to do with fishing in the Close Season rather than at any other time. The problem is that he makes this statement shortly after having a go at 'Des Taylor et al.' He may not, I hope not, be accusing Des of being an unthinking uncaring angler, because that would be utterly ludicrous. The truth is that there are caring thinking anglers out there who think the close season is not a good thing for the fish. They are, as Keith rightly says, in a minority. This was also true of the debate on the stillwater close season. So where are those anglers now?
Fishing in the 'Close Season'. Clearly their objections were not on matters of principle.
But there is simply no need for insults. These opposing views are often sincerely held, to me it doesn't matter a deal because I don't fish for coarse fish in the Close Season anyway, though I may try it this year just to be bloody minded.
Graham Marsden
