What is it about angling that makes everyone who thinks they know tuppence about it lay down the law about how it should be done? Someone once said, “Rules are for the strict obedience by fools and the guidance of wise men”.
Master match angler Ivan Marks in thinking mood
So why do we get so many edicts? From the most trivial technicalities to the entire moral stance, we are bombarded with rules that appear to be written in stone. Let’s start with the trivial and work up to the philosophers’ morality. Or shall we do it the other way around; there are no rules for feature articles either, just guidance.
The Trivial and the Technical Practical fishing is all about experimentation, trial and error. The fish don’t obey the rules. We may broadly understand their behaviour but it can hardly be reduced to absolutes. Move the float up a bit, try a smaller hook, a different bait, a different swim, cast further down stream; all simple experiments that might work. Most of them we try with little thought, it becoming second nature with experience. Yet pick up a copy of the angling press, apart from Waterlog perhaps, and you will be bombarded with the finest detail. “The shot under the float must be nearly touching the float which must be shotted so that 2.3mm is showing”, and, “The hook link must be 2.5 inches long”, and, “Always ensure the spool is filled to within 3mm of the spool lip”, and, “Never fish with your flies undone”. Look out for those two special words, ‘always’ and ‘never’.
The trouble is ‘always’ is never the right word and ‘never’ is always wrong, or something like that. It boils down to the difficulties we all have in explaining the subtle stuff, the little grey areas of thought that we can’t explain so we try to pin it down to black and white. One day, some of our angling journalists will loosen up enough to explain that what they’re reporting is what worked on that day, and is just a starting point, no more. Let’s have less of the wiring diagrams and more of the watercraft.
Rules, What Rules? In any field, there have always been the experimenters, the trailblazers, though I’m sure that there is some exception to the always (is there trailblazing in dominoes?). I grew up on the exploits of Ivan Marks. He developed methods and floats whilst ignoring the cast iron ‘rules’ that were supposed to dictate how he was meant to fish. Told that groundbait was the kiss of death on the Warwickshire Avon at Evesham he took the place apart using groundbait.
Of course, Dick Walker was the other great experimenter. Walker didn’t bother following the set rules of what should be done. He simply looked at each problem he faced and brought whatever solution he could devise to crack it. He didn’t take the stock answers of the tackle trade at face value either, challenging them on diverse issues such as keepnets, nylon line, using carbon fibre for rods and many others. These two, with many others, fall into the category of wise men. Sure, they understood the rules but quickly moved on from those starting points.
Purism and “Dray Fley” For some, the opposite extreme is much more to their liking. Not content with simple guidance the whole experience of angling is rigidly codified. If you wish to share their fishing then it must be to their laws. The classic example of this is what developed on the Southern chalk streams in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The method of dry fly developed as an effective way of catching trout in these pellucid and smooth waters. With better technology in improved rods and lines, and a method of making the fly float, it ousted the old blow line method that used the wind to blow the fly over the water and dap it down. But for some just having a new method was not enough, and taking Halford’s writings as their bible the whole method quickly calcified into a strict code. “Upstream Dry Fly Only” became a cult that lasted many decades, and was shaken to its foundations by the development of nymph fishing by Skues. Eventually the new method was allowed but the rules on these waters have changed little in a hundred years. The Northern cousins of these fly fishers, used to more rugged waters, never quite got so strung up about the dry fly code, and have continued with downstream wet flies all along.
Tradition? One of the most common excuses for conformity is tradition. “We’ve always fished like this, so why should we change?” And, “That’s the way to fish it, it’s the way to catch on our river.”
Why is that so many people think that the fish in their bit of river are especially difficult to catch and that they’re the only anglers that know how to catch them? And, of course, only the special method developed over years and practiced by all locals will work. Thinking anglers know this isn’t true, indeed it has been proved false many times. But this entire logic is used to bludgeon the unwary into conforming, and to try and make out that the local anglers are somehow superior to all others. Tradition? No, it’s just blinkered thinking and resistance to change.
A similar aspect occurred some years ago when certain angling writers began to write of “fishing The Stick” or “fishing The Waggler”, as if the reader actually knew what they were talking about. The writers concerned certainly didn’t. Any angling method, whether using a float or not, always, nearly always, has many subtle different ways of being used. Tell it as it is, including the subtleties.
The Barbel Police – are they becoming over zealous? The increased popularity of barbel fishing over the last decade has resulted in a new phenomenon of the so-called ‘Barbel Police’. Adopting a righteous attitude, and an unwritten but seemingly strict code of conduct these individuals have sought to castigate those that fail to live up to their own ideals. Why? No other branch of the sport seems so badly affected so why pick on those that choose to fish for barbel in a different manner? Provided the barbel are treated in a sensible and sporting way then what does it matter how you go about catching them? Why dictate how you should go about catching barbel? Who cares if your rod is made of wood rather than its plastic equivalent? It doesn’t matter if you wear a baseball cap or use a bite alarm. So what? Perhaps angling is becoming more like a religion with all the associated piety and preciousness, rather than the field sport that it is. I just hope we don’t get perch police dictating what kind of bent pin to use.
Ethics I’ve left the toughest bit to last. Anyone fortunate enough to study philosophy will know about one of the main topics. Ethics. In angling, and avoiding the whole question of whether angling is itself ‘morally defensible’, one man’s meat is another’s poison. It all depends upon the viewpoint that one has obtained, through experience, education or deduction. This is why it is so hard to lay down the law for any issue that comes down to a moralistic stance. Any point of view may be equally valid. A contentious issue for example might be to argue that adultery causes unnecessary suffering and cruelty, and therefore should be made illegal. (I’m not arguing for that just making a case of an ethical viewpoint). In some societies, adultery is illegal, and so their stance is different from our own.
So tread carefully before dictating that one way of angling is morally superior to another, for there are many points of view.
For the complete case on angling and ethics obtain ‘Hook, Line and Thinker – ANGLING AND ETHICS’ by Alexander Schwab – Merlin Unwin Books.
Brain Exercise for the Mentally Inactive If you found the last bit tough, then perhaps your brain isn’t getting enough exercise so I will leave you with a challenge. There is a little tale many hundreds of years old. It’s found in a book of philosophy called The Republic by Plato (from good bookshops or your local library). The story is called The Cave (beginning of Book Seven). It’s not difficult to find this book if you try. Read the story and think about it – Can you see the stars? It’s like a dose of WD40 on those seized-up brain cogs. It will improve your fishing more than all the ‘How-To’ books put together. Don’t be put off by it being philosophy.
Remember, if it wasn’t for bumblebees there wouldn’t be any flowers! Or Honey!
