The Big Pike List has been cast into the past and is no longer printed, but this is a warning into what might wait for the next compiler of any such list in the future. Enter with care.
At a PAC conference many years ago a “renown” pike angler asked the panel if the “Big Pike List” were a good idea. I had to assume that he was talking about Neville Fickling's Big Pike List although I am not certain if that particular list was mentioned specifically. This individual wasn't in favour of the list (for what ever reason?) but a number of anglers on the panel were either in favour, or could see no harm in them. It made me think that this topic had the potential to cause a division of opinions within this small and select group known as the “modern pike angler”.
Firstly, I would like to say that I have no connection with any of the compilers of this list or any other list, which would leave me in a good position to comment on their relevance. I suppose a good starting point would be to try and evaluate what a Big Pike List really is, and what it is trying to achieve. In my opinion, a Big Pike List has one primary function, which is to give anglers knowledge. It sets out clear levels of achievement so as the reader can judge how their results compare with other anglers that may be more talented, better geographically situated, or just plain luckier than the average angler. Of secondary importance are the individuals whose names are detailed on the list itself. What is important is that the contributions are not the figment of the individual`s imagination, but a true, and accurate reflection of their captures. This leaves the integrity of the list down to the individual and not the compiler.
CLICHES.
When I played football a common cliché after losing a match was
“Never mind lads, It`s the taking part that matters, not the
winning”.
I have
always thought that you don`t start off a match to lose, and you
don`t go fishing with the main objective not to catch anything. Pike
fishing is no different and in fact pike angling can bring out the
most competitive instincts compared to most branches of the sport in
general. I was a victim to this in my early days. This is not a
modern phenomenal and if we go back in angling history, we can see
how Neville Fickling's “List” fits into the big picture.
Since the beginning of time, anglers have tried to outdo one another.
It`s as natural as fishing itself, and it is also natural to document
your captures, and sometimes achievements of others to gauge levels
of success.
Lord Inverurie`s List of big pike captures started it all off, setting out genuine (and not so genuine) big pike which were caught during the early and late 19th century. Amassing the information required must have been very time consuming, as the lord had no access to modern methods of communication. He had the rely on advertising his intentions of this list in the equivalent to today`s angling press, and then wait for replies by the Royal Mail. It not only had to rely on the captor`s ability not only to read, but to have an interest in general angling matters of the day. This may have been more difficult than you think, as education and communication were very different in those days. The accurate weighing of fish must have also been difficult unless you caught your pike near a friendly butcher or similar who had proper weighing equipment. But undeterred, Lord Inverurie`s request to the Fishing Gazette and The Field went as follows; “Dear Sir, I should be extremely obliged if any of your readers could furnish me with a list (that word again), of any pike of remarkable size whish have been caught within their memory etc”. I should imagine that if anyone cared in those days, he would have also questioned as to the relevance of such a List, maybe by people who couldn't get on the List in the first place for whatever reason?
Lists have a way of separating people out as either the successful, the un-successful, or the uninterested. It might be taking it a bit too far, but without the Lords List the “Doomsday Book on Mammoth Pike” may never had been written, as although compiled in a book format, it is in fact a List of big pike, all be of modern times. Neville's List had a lot of adverse comments in those days on some forums which had more to do with him as an individual than the relevance of the List itself. Other authors who had bothered to try and amass a List of big pike didn't have to go through such problems and I can`t recall Steve Harper taking a pounding after he published the excellent “Broadland Pike” which in my estimation is also a List, again packaged in a different format.
THE POWER OF A LIST. List`s do
possess a certain power to drive the reader onto realising that
mammoth pike are not just stories from the past, but gives them a realisation that the pike of a lifetime is still possible. It can
inspire, and without a List who would ever know what is possible? On
the down side the List could also dispirit and be an indication of
how average the individual really is. Maybe this why some are for,
and some against. The list has the power to divide.
Some pike anglers have no
interest in Lists at all, and that is fine. It`s their choice. I am
in between as I am an average angler, but I do like to see what
others have achieved in case I dare to dream and I think that covers
the majority of modern- day pikers. In historical terms it may be
that the compilers of any List will be remembered more than the
contributors themselves. Lord Inverurie, Fred Buller, Neville
Fickling, Steve Harper, the mind boggles.
UNIQUE LIST.
Neville's List is different in one way from other or subsequent
offerings in that it is formatted in a way to show a more general
level of performance of the individual and tends not to highlight on
specific fish. Gareth Edwards British record would be a clear example
of this having been his first day out pike fishing being a measure of
luck against seasons long efforts. Maybe this is where the contention
lies between warring parties on the existence of this type of List.
It separates the doers from the talkers which is a delicate path to
tread considering how sensitive some of our high achievers can be.
As previously mentioned, the name of the individual capture is of secondary importance and, it is the historical relevance that will stand the test of time after we are all long gone, just as the List compiled by Lord Inverurie has left us what things were like in those far off days. The “Big Pike List” will (to the anglers of the future) be a measure of what this generation achieved in comparison to what they are experiencing. The “Big Pike List” can also do something really special, it can give hope, and that is may not be what the compiler envisaged.
Chris Donovan
