Band of Brothers

Since watching the brilliant series "Band of Brothers" and now noticing that the infamous "Bone Collecter" has become one of us, I get this feeling that before we all kick the bucket and the Collector comes for our bones, and measures us up for our wooden overcoats, we should have a reunion.

I am speaking of course of those few of us left who were involved in the specimen hunting scene and the formation of the specimen groups of the 50s and 60s.

I know that a few of you were so involved. And there may be many lurkers who were too.

If any old 60s and 70s specimen group members who were involved with the NASG, fancy a reunion in the future, please let me know. We were part of a unique period in angling history and we shaped a great deal of the way modern angling has developed.

The reunion could take the place of a fish-in, or a get together at an hotel somewhere.

I was a late starter, joined NASG in 1975 under Alan otters auspices and formed my first group in 1973, does this still count mate?

I did say 70s mate.

You will be vital in helping to organising it.

And I'm pulling rank, that's an order!

Band of Brothers ????


It would be more like "League of Gentlemen"
You could have the get together at the pub in Royston Vasey

The long stay hotel would be a good venue. There is one in all towns.

Hey, what a fabulous idea, I'll be in that, could some one pick me up and give me a lift home please? It's worth a crate of beer to anyone who can help!

I have to correct Ed though, it would be more like a "League of P!ss Artists!" *LOL*

Thanks for your confidence Ron although i`m definately not in the same League as the likes of BC, Chevin and Ed, I came on the scene a little later of course, were you lot were all cults

Let's be a bit more honest about this; specimen groups were a fad of the 50s/60s. They represented a tiny fraction of the angling population at large, much less than one per cent. The vast majority of anglers has never even heard of them much less been influenced by them. Interestingly someone that I've known as a match angler for over 30 years turned out to have been a member of the Birmingham Specimen Group but I only found out when Peter Wheat's book came out not long ago.

Unique period?

I think that you look at it out of context. In the thirties the potential for vast development was there; nylon had been invented, interest in catching big fish was growing - Bill Penney easily predates this unique period yet was a true specialist angler, developing special tackle, for example. The second world war put a massive kibosh on that development, and it wasn't until things had returned more or less to normal circa 1950 that things started to gather pace again.

I believe that without the massive disruption of WW2 things would have happened much quicker. Whether some technological advances would have come about is debatable eg plastics/fibreglass/resin etc.

specimen groups were a fad of the 50s/60s. They represented a tiny fraction of the angling population at large, much less than one per cent.

I`m not so sure about the 1% Mark, but the fad as you describe it continued on into the 70s and still experiences small bands of like mided anglers getting together today, The main growth of the Specimen Group period was after the formulation of the National Asociation of Specimen Groups on the 24th April 1965, the organisation still survives albeit it has evolved over the years and adapted to an ever changing angling world environment and was of course responsible for the growth of the National single specialist specie movement, The PAC, Carp Society, Barbel Society, I don`t want to go into all of the history again here, but the fad is still very much alive, kicking and growing Mark and its percentage in the ranks has also grown significantly, as has the trade, tackle propotion and fishery design, NASG and the the localised SG was the acorn.

I think really Mark we need to look at the much bigger picture and the development of the big fish movement and its influence it has had on the angling world, as the localised Specimen groups declined, the national bodies progressed, NASG 1965, National Carp Club 1966, Winter Carp Group, 1968, BCSG 1969, Pike Society 1972, CAA 1974, PAC 1975, Grayling Society ca 1977, NASA 1980, Carp Society 1981 followed by Catfish Conservation Group, Barbel Society etc etc, even the Barbel catchers, Perchfishers and Tenchfishers re-formed around the 70s, these were not the original groups from the 50s. Interestingly the idea of a big fish movement and NASG came about at a meeting through the 1962 formed Northern Specimen Hunters group (to give it its original name)and Eric Hodson was responsible for bringing all the known specimen groups together, Ron Clay was founder of the NSHG (1962), The Birmingham SG was one of the groups present when NASG was founded, from memory the late Peter Mead was secretary

Monk,

The overall numbers are amazingly small. I think (rightly or wrongly) that thirty/forty years ago there were more anglers than now - somewhere in the region of 1.5 to 2 million as opposed to around a million now. The sum total of those groups would, I believe, fail to top 5000 then, and even today struggle for 10,000. My numbers may be wrong but many of the groups, even national ones, are quite small. Many have less than a 100 members. a few top a 1000 eg the Barbel Society.

I agree that some individuals have had a huge impact but they haven't all been specimen hunters - and a huge amount of tackle development simply comes from people who's living is just that - tackle development rather than enthusiastic amateurs.

Conversely, what many used to think of as the centre of the universe, the NFA, which had around half a million members, has shrunk considerably to, I believe, around 150,000 members. That can be reflected in the demise of the mega large associations like the BAA, the big Shefield clubs etc, from, for example, the BAA going from 70,000 in 1970 to circa 10,000 today.

I have always found it funny, and probably will in the future, that a three mates go fishing together and have to call themselves the "NE Poole" Specimen Group for example, as if anyone gave a flying fig! Talking of figs, where's Ron when you need some sport?

a three mates go fishing together and have to call themselves the "NE Poole" Specimen Group for example, as if anyone gave a flying fig!

Yes but as long as they are happy whats the problem? I think however you are missing the pouint mark, what I`m trying to say is that the so called specialist movement ( and i`ve sat on quite a few national committees who have tried to change the name specialist over the years) has not only grown in propotion to other branches of the sport, and i agree angling has shrunken in numbers, but it has increased in propotion, pro rata if you like, you only have to look at the growth in carp fishing alone to appreciate this, these people are now specialising for one or two species, hence specialist angling has grown significantly and so has the indistry which supports it!

Monk, you have put a little of what the early specimen groups did for British angling togther quite eloquently.

I do hate to pull rank based on seniority here, but I'm afraid Mark you just do not have the qualifications to comment about what actually happened in those days.

I was there. I doubt if you were a twinkle in your Dad's eye when I set about forming the NSG.

As regards technical innovations. It's well known that WW2 was the fount of some of the most advanced inventions ever known to man. Radar, jet engines, nuclear energy, rocketry, computers, NC machinery, weaponry, modern aircraft. etc etc, all came about due to necessity being the mother of invention at the time of WW2.

This of course rubbed off in the design of fishing tackle. And it was the early groups who were responsible for a lot of tackle innovations that took place in the 70s and 80s.

And it wasn't a "fad", it was more a very successful concept. These early specimen groups were bands of brothers make no mistake about that!

I really can't see what Mark's problem with specimen groups is - be they large or small. The groups were formed by anglers who wanted to set out to catch good sized fish of a predetermined species. In the early '50s very few anglers were able to do that. They didn't understand the fish or the water craft involved in being able to target and capture them consistently. However, with the advent of specimen groups that began to change, the anglers studied their fish and generally found what made them tick. Gradually, the work they did began to pay off and they regularly caught fish the size of which most anglers normally only hoped to catch. Gradually again, the news of their fish began to percolate through their localities and other anglers either joined established groups or formed their own. The formation of a group meant that there would be several like minded anglers sharing information that they were gathering both as a group and as individuals. As this information became accessible through magazine articles and conversations in tackle shops the ranks of specimen hunters swelled and they actually began to have an influence on the tackle a lot of dealers held.

When I started specimen hunting my tackle was hopelessly in adequate for almost every type of fishing. It was stuff that was sold on the premise that all you needed to catch fish was a basic rod, reel and line. While catching fish on it was always fun, trying to hook them in the first place was frequently frustrating and disappointing.

You couldn?t go into just any tackle shop and buy specialist gear ? indeed many tackle dealers didn?t believe in the need for it. I well remember going into a tackle shop in Dunstable and telling the owner that I was going chub fishing at the weekend. His response was that he didn?t believe that I could go and deliberately fish for one species of fish. About the only specialist rod in those days was the pike rod and they were just lumps of greenheart or split cane but specimen hunters soon demonstrated that a Mk IV Carp rod was more than man enough for most pike ? as long as the angler holding it knew how to fish and once rods of that nature were available.

As Ron and Monk say, specimen hunters did a lot of valuable ground work in fishing and it was far from being a fad. We took our fishing very seriously and there is no doubt that anglers today are still benefiting from the work we did. Even though the methods of pursuing big fish may have changed along the way, there is no doubt that a lot of the work we did in those heady days still forms the basis of what is done now.

Ah, some bites!

I suspect the trap Ron et al are falling into is the old one that politicians seem wont to fall into; politicians in their vanity thnk that they have improved our lot whereas the bigger picture is that our lot has improved despite their interference. Indeed, this government seems intent on proving the law of unintended consequences where laws have the oppsoite effect to that intended.

I may be a little younger than Ron but that does't mean I am ignorant of what happened in the sixties, or for that matter several decades before, so behave Corporal Clay!

What I am pointing out is that the innovators were extremely few in number, far less than the few hundred/thousand involved in specimen groups. Anglers are mostly followers; they copy what others have shown them, occasionally refining what they have learnt according to local conditions. The ultimate innovator was Walker but it was commercial interests that made his developments of rods, leads etc widely available, even if it was difficult to persuade dyed-in-wool match-biased tackle shop owners that anyone would want to fish in a specialist manner. People like Dave Swallow took others' inventions like the leger stop and made it available.

WW2 did accelerate some developments but the jet engine (possibly RADAR too?) was invented prior to then. Computers developed a little during the war but post war their potential took many years to be recognised.

The point that Ron cannot comprehend is that the formality of a name is unnecessary; when we (my mates) started venturing far and wide as match anglers in the 70s we didn't bother with a name such as the Wareham Match Group we just got together, shared ideas, practiced together, travelled and fished. The strength of our success (joke!) was down to our collective experience and skill rather than title.

Another for instance; In Christchurch AC there are probably more serious chub anglers than the entire Chub Study Group (some of whom are in CAC) yet those chub anglers are not hindered by not being members of the CSG - they are simply serious anglers, just as there were serious roach anglers in the 30s.

To compare specimen hunters with governments borders on the ludicrous I am afraid. To suggest that we interfered with progress rather than promoting it is equally ludicrous. Of course we improved things at just about every turn. We improved a lot of tackle; we changed a lot of anglers? approach to the sport and to the fish. We looked at what we wanted from fisheries and we created fisheries that would provide us with that. A lot of early fishery managers, myself included, came from the ranks of specimen hunters. A lot of anglers today enjoy the benefits that came from what we learned about improving waters for the fish that lived in them.

The fact that we identified ourselves with a named group should trouble Mark is a puzzle. We were pretty thin on the ground at the time and by having named groups helped us understand who was doing what and with whom. For example, most of us knew which group Ron was with and through that we knew who he fished with. It was the same with many of the identities at the time. Peter Butler, Fred Wagstaffe, Bob Church, Sonny Wing, Jack Hilton and many, many others. Just one name would tell us so much from his association with a named group. The fact that Mark and his mates don?t wish to form a named group for their match team is fine and their choice as it should be, but it certainly doesn?t mean that we were doing anything wrong, unnecessary or even silly. Angling clubs give themselves names even if they only associate themselves with the town in which they are located. Football teams, cricket teams, rugby teams, all of them are named ? so why not specimen groups.

It seems that Mark considers Dave Swallow to be a benchmark of some kind, well perhaps it will interest him to learn that when I was fishing with Dave some 45 years ago, he was very much a specimen hunter and was proud to be involved with others ? in fact if he were to hear about the proposed get-together I would think that he would be keen to be involved.

Comparison with politicians ludicrous? Inflated sense of self importantance - perhaps? Law of unintended consequences - so where did buzzers, hair-rigs, boilies take us? Judging by my observations last weekend, driving the majority of modern angling to a lead-slinging multi-rod time-banditry.

Dave was in my winter league team (there's a good reason for a team - competing in a league); he's gone back to seeking big Avon roach, very successfully too, in his own crafty way.

Ron,

Are you not in danger of attributing a degree of 'romantics' that might, or might not have been present in your speciment hay-days?

Having myself been involved with a few specimen groups in the late 60's I certainly don't recall too many great innovations that were evident in that period stemming from other than from the likes of Walker, but then maybe we in the South were a long way behind you chaps.
(with the obvious exclusion of painting everything matt black - which is not a million miles away from todays 'camo'that you seem to dislike so much)

As for the apparent distinction being drawn in some of the above posts, I think that the match anglers of the same period were probably responsible for as many, if not more, progressive methods and thinking than some of the speciment groups, but in the final analysis it is really only personal perception I suppose.

It is an interesting topic though and I really do agree with Mark that the 'formality' of a name was virtually unnecessary.

Chevin though makes some very valid points w.r.t. the MkIV Carp rod, but then that was Walker again showing the way, but boy how quickly so many followed.