The Secret Angler

The surface of Redmire Pool has been ruffled again. Now restored (cleaned of silt and fenced against otters), anglers are once more camping on its banks determined to be historical carp fishermen — well, apart from the bolt rigs, hair rigs, boilies, etc. No longer, however, are handwritten letters exchanged between the Hereford enthusiasts; now communications are online in a style of rather lower literary merit. We can safely assume there will be no collections of the Redmire Facebook missives in years to come — “Deffo a brill weekend. Boz”.

The Redmire group on this particular online collector of private data has seen a few ructions since the opening of the season. It seems rather than glimpses of majestic old carp called the Bishop, etc, some immature and distinctly recent carp have been coming to the lines of the Redmire Fan Club, creating some unfavourable forum rumblings in choice language. Apparently the provenance of these carp has been questioned, their genetic purity doubted.

Nigel Hudson (quaint GSC nickname ‘Fennel’) has referred to this on his blog, while Redmire restorer Mark Walsingham (quaint GSC name ‘Skeff’) has been impelled by the criticism to defend his stockings on Facebook and other forums. Walsingham made great play of cleaning out the interloper carp and returning only the pure blood ‘Leneys’, the size of which were kept secret. Given that it is unlikely any of the old fish have survived the long years of decline, this is not such a great secret.

Walsingham decided to supplement the remains of the original stock with mirror carp of the same strain from elsewhere. So the protestations about genetic taint are misplaced, if it makes any sense to talk about pure breeds of carp (the originals from Poland may well have been selectively bred from yet earlier strains). And the average carp angler would hardly be in a position to judge the genetics of the carp they cradle for the camera.

All this furore illustrates what a nonsense the whole Redmire thing has become. Reading a few of the posts on Facebook shows how much bluster is aired in the lake’s name. Pontifications about genes and tradition, squabbles over the relative value of Simmos (an ugly neologism new to me) versus Leneys. It all seems so trivial and artificial. The futility of wishing oneself back to the days of Yates if not Walker is clear. But there is really no escape from the vulgarity of carp fishing modernity, as the image below shows. Looks like a logo for a death metal band. Walker will be spinning in his grave.

The 2019 issue of Salmo Trutta, the annual magazine of the Wild Trout Trust, comes with a new design. One obvious difference is the change in paper, now not so glossy, similar to or the same as that used in Fallon’s Angler. Apart from fonts and other minor details, the two are rather alike, though there is no indication that Fallon had a hand in its design.

But layout and design are of little interest compared to the content. Some years ago, the editor at the time, John Williams, a most likeable man no longer with us, told me he wanted to make the magazine into a semi-academic journal. Since then it has carried these semi-popular science articles, though perhaps fewer than before (as far as I can remember). I think this is just as well because they are not very successful. They need to be written for the lay reader but often fall between journal paper and article, with graphs poorly explained and written in a dry style.

Even so I am interested in what the biologists have to say, enough so that I have attempted to contact a few in the past. Now I am not one to make the ridiculous criticisms of fishery biologists in the way of some ignoramuses — ‘What has the Environment Agency ever done for us?’ However, I haven’t found them very open to chatting with those outside their field. I remember the sniffiness of David Summers who was disparaging of non-biologists (and possibly a few fellow scientists too); I also had a less than fruitful encounter with Ron ‘never buy your own drink’ Campbell whose main interest seemed to be getting free labour without attribution. These are two of the worst examples but my wider experience suggests a general lack of interest in public engagement amongst fishery scientists. These days I don’t bother.

Another yearbook of this kind is Gamefisher, published by Salmon & Trout Conservation. This really is designed by Garrett Fallon. The editor is Tom Fort, which might be the reason the articles are better than Salmo Trutta’s. There are reports of science research inside but they are better aimed at the angler on the bank. There are good articles on politics, the environment and fishing, though as with Salmo Trutta, its pieces on worldwide fishing sit uneasily with the organisation’s environmental credentials. Overall Gamefisher is a better read, although Chouinard’s criticism of hydroelectric schemes in Salmo Trutta is excellent, and Myerscough’s article on remote sensing genuinely fascinating despite the frequent exclamation marks.

Finally it’s worth drawing attention to Tom Fort’s Gamefisher editorial, in which he makes a stoic effort at optimism at the tail of one of his worst seasons, and one of the worst ever for salmon fishing. I can’t say I am able to see many silver linings but one evening this year I did see an extraordinary flight of mayfly spinners. That’s my contribution to a brighter outlook.

Follow @secretangler