View Full Version : Divided We Fall ? - Angling and Hunting Vote.
OOO.....I'm the first to vote!
The difference,(I feel),between anglers and the hunters etc...is that we preserve,protect and moniter the objects of our attention....whereas they destroy it!
I know that differs when it comes to game fishing and sea fishing,but it's not so bloodthirsty!
Game etc...is well managed as is our fisheries etc....but not on the same scale.A fishery provides an enviroment for more than just fish,creating ecosystems etc....blah,blah,blah...
Fox hunting is on it's own.........I do not agree with this at all.if they need 'controlling or culling etc...it can be done in far more 'fox friendly' ways!...They KNOW they are running for their life.
People may say that each fish hooked is fighting for its life too.....at least it keeps it.Young fish fight like fury for their life,but who has caught a large carp for it to come fairly quietly as if to say 'here we go again..let's get it over with'!!!
This topic is HUGE and my views here are very simplistic to fit on the forum!
Smarts
CarponlineEditor
15-12-2000, 14:19
I am afraid that I dont agree with fox hunting at all. There must be more humane ways of keeping control of fox numbers if they have to be controlled. On the other hand though and this should start a bit of a discussion, I do believe that we anglers do cause a certain amount of stress to the fish we catch as well. Fair enough we try to take as much care with our catch as we can, using unhooking mats, soft sacks and nets and even using antiseptics on wounds but we still stick hooks in them and drag them around in the water and then into a net. This must cause the fish some stress even if the argument that fish have no feelings in their lips etc is true. I believe that we should fight in our own corner to keep our sport alive mainly because their are anglers right from the top to the bottom of our society and we shouldnt rely on allying ourselves with those that may well help to bring down our sport if we joined forces with them. I think I'll shut up here before I get roasted lol
Personally, I think we need to support th alliance - If Fox hunting is banned then I reckon we'll be next. even if fishing doesn't get banned, publice opinion will move against it. And pressure groups - bhouyed by success against Fox hunting will concentrate their efforts on angling.
i beleive that we should not support fox hunting, as said above us carp anglers look after after what we catch, unhooking mats, nets, antiseptic, fox hunters are blatantly killing the fox`s with no respect for the animal at all and i for one would not like to be associated with these people, because as soon as carp anglers start fighting for them, people will notice us and start throwing more abuse our way.. why should we bring more attention to our sport than is neccessary, we need to keep a low profile because before we know it the protesters will be on at us next, we will be attracting attention to our sport and for what, a sport that we dont even participate in!!
Hi,
I agree that fox hunting should be banned because they kill the fox where we catch it and put it back.
Also foxes are rare now where there are thousands of fish.
James
I voted against supporting fox hunting and hunting game, I am a trout fisherman and kill my catch which in affect makes me a hunter. The trout are put into the lakes to be captured and killed. The foxes are not added into the ecosystem artificially and that is what made me decide on my vote. To kill a wild animal is killing something natural. If they banned angling on the grounds that trout fisheman kill their catch they have to in a way ban the killing of sheep, cows, chickens & the rest as these animals are bred as the trout are for the consumption of man. I can not see sport in raising and using a pack of dogs to kill a fox although foxes are classed as vermine.
Tony
I beg to differ when you say foxes are rare, I see at least 20 - 50 a day as I work on the railway and do shift work. There are more foxes about than most people think, I think that the fox is the commonest predator in Britain and will always be so.
Tony
Rivercarper
17-12-2000, 10:15
I personally I am against fox hunting and would not like us to be alined with the Country side alliance but we can not bury our head in the sand.Because we will come under attack from the antis sooner rather than later.We need to get our house in order so that we have a united front to counter their attacks.At the moment angling is split with many small groups,these need to brought together.We will need the Know how of the country side alliance to help fight our corner.We need to get things sorted out now so when the challenge to angling comes we are ready.At the moment we are not ready and will be easy meat for the antis who are better organised than us.BEWARE and PREPARE
I guess this message kind of touches on a number of threads on this forum. However in answer to the poll vote, I am against fox hunting (and include in that hare coursing and stag hunting). Humane culling yes, but the savagery of a hunt definately not. There is though the argument that a lot of people make their living from this who may have little scope to do other things, so it likely to be another nail in the coffin of rural life. But the way I see it is that a lot of livelihoods have been wiped out through closure of industry etc. but many of those people have re-invented themselves. Maybe the government should put more investment in to the police forces etc to wipe out the even more sinister and illegal "sport" of badger baiting and the like.
I also think that angling should stand on its own, but not alienate ourselves from the Countryside Alliance. With the financial revenues of, and numbers of people employed directly or indirectly by the angling industry, I suspect any government would be hard pushed to enforce an outright ban. But you never know. With regard to the anti-bloodsports lobby, they already know about us, Its just that they literally have bigger fish (pardon the pun) to catch (i.e the hunting brigade). Dont you think they already have the ammunition? What about the stray tackle left behind which swans and other aquatic wildlife get caught up in AND then getting shown on prime time TV. We have come leaps and bounds with the introduction of lead-free weights, but the leaving behind of tackle is inexcusable!!! There needs to be some education done, like the example in another thread of clipping up on the cast. A bit of time spent with the next generation of anglers will reap rewards. Not that I am saying it is the younger fraternity that is to blame for this and the more "mature" culprits should know better and are just spoiling it for the rest.
We were always quoted as being the biggest participative sport in the country and I am sure that is still the case, so we must possess be a pretty big voice. But, we need a focal point, someone we can consolidate behind. Someone like John Wilson. Like him or loathe him, he is the only "personality" who touches all fishing codes, be it carp or conger. And we also need to stop the infighting which has been blatantly obvious on this forum. If that is the same throughout the country then we dont stand a chance. We have to be united and simply accept that its a case of "each to their own". We all have a right to fish whatever waters we choose using whatever method we choose, but respect another persons approach may not be one that another would use. Its been said already: we fish for enjoyment. Lets hope we can continue to do so for a long time to come.
Sits back and waits to be shot down in flames.
Very interesting point John, to be honest these protesters are extremist activists who will all follow the insane leader in protesting about anything... if or when fox hunting is banned they will roam about protesting about something else, it could be angling or it could be something completely new. I don't want to stereotype these people but when there was a save the tree campagne in Crystal Palace Park I think it was there, it cost the local council tens of thousends of pounds clearing the mess they left, typical isn't it. The mess they left probably would have killed a few foxes in a sad and painful way.... they don't think of that do they. I work hard for a living and honestly cannot see how these people find the time to protest unless they are sponging off the government and it is us hard working tax payers that are keeping them.....
Tony
Vote in Parliament today. Three options put forward in the Hunting Bill to choose from, although it looks like a total ban on fox hunting is on the cards. However legislation will not come in until the next Govt.
It will be interesting to see how angling gets treated in the immediate fall out from this.
Does anyone know the outcome to this ? I've been out all day FISHING !!
Bill.
the vote isn't till 10pm.......LOoks like an outright ban though!!
Paulm
Agreed - we will be next... the anti's even say so !
Anyone going on the 18th March march ? I was chatting to a guy that runs a couple of local shoots a few weeks ago. His thoughts were that if anglers didn't stick with the rest of the groups, we could see things getting a LOT worse for us all !
Bill.
I am almost certain that they are after the trout angling community more that the coarse, but what will happen is the media will be mis-informed by this pathetic government who lie through there teeth and are the biggest hypocrits in this country..... I would say they should put their efforts in to all the child abuse that's going on, 1 in 5 kids are abused. But no they take on people because of what they represent and lets face it 99% of fox hunters are upper class rich people. If you think this post it too politically bais guys stick it in the holding board and I will rephrase it in a more cryptic way.
Tony
I feel that fox hunting with dogs is disgusting the fox is absolutley terrified. If a fox is being troublesome then shoot it.
However some people hunt with dogs for mink, they claim setting traps is ineffective as mink prefer live prey, or are they saying this to keep dog hunting alive?
If it were not for the antis then mink wouldnt be a problem
also if otters are present then they to must be at risk.
hunting without dogs I have no problems with.
But having said that I feel we should unite with the countryside alliance,otherwise the antis will pick us all off one at a time.They have admitted that the best way of defeating tht hunters shooters AND anglers is to beat them seperately, and that if we united then they have no chance.
So as much as I deplore dog hunting I think we should unite to fight the common enemy
paulh
CarponlineEditor
17-01-2001, 20:54
Hmmmmm I really dont know how I feel about some of this debate. Although obviously as an angler I dont want us to lose our sport I cannot find it in me to join groups that do things such as Hare coursing and fox hunting. I just couldnt think of joining with those groups.
Personally whether I am right or wrong I still reckon that the antis would have one heck of a time trying to stop ordinary angling as there are so many of us. But I honestly dont know what can be done.
There might be a lot of us Andy, but how many are part-timers and/or couldn't care either way ?
Bill.
CarponlineEditor
17-01-2001, 21:09
I'm not sure about that you know. Apparently there are more people who fish than there are who do any other sport. That makes an awful lot of people. I read somewhere that if everyone who went fishing voted for the same party whichever one it was. It would win. Not sure how they work things like that out though.
I am with Ian , Rivercarper and Billyo on this one, I disagree with foxhunting, however divided we fall!
Unfortunetely the British public in general are politically stupid and will either vote for who their parents vote for or vote with who they think might win, you wait and see, not a word will be mentioned about angling untill the election is over, then, they will start once they have power. We need to act as soon as possible on this matter without making ourselves noticed. we need more people in the sport, and need to get home that angling as a pastime not a "SPORT" is at risk... how can angling be a sport, okay so you get match fishing, that is not angling as we call it, that is who has the most money for the best pole etc & who can catch 2000 bleak in 5 hours. We as anglers go for the pleasure of it and also for the tranquility of the bankside. Okay, the excitement too. Has anyone here got any ideas where we start to build ourselves some defense? Prevension is better than cure.
Tony
rhornegold
17-01-2001, 23:52
Ian,
If you support countryside alliance or not, please think carefully before expressing a view on an open forum platform.
Let us as specimen anglers put our support behind NASA/SACG who fight on our behalf against the anti angling groups.
Giving ammunition to these groups is not helpfull, as they are well funded and politically aware.
Bob Hornegold
jimshelley
18-01-2001, 00:08
BE CAREFUL WOT YOU SAY,ITS DANGEROUS.
JIM SHELLEY
KEEPING IT BRITISH.
Well that is it, the antis have got their way, now they will have nothing to do but sit at home and do nothing...........dream on !!!!!!!!!!!!
If the government ban angling would the last person to leave Britain please turn out the light. All any government are after is power and votes. If the 5 million anglers in this country said they would vote against any government that proposed to ban angling we wouldn't hear anymore about it. I think it's time we had a "union type" representation for anglers. There is a major difference in catching a fish and having a pack of dogs rip a fox to pieces. By the way, fishing and hunting was mentioned in the house of lords last night in a reaction to the vote on the fox hunting and the people I heard speak, 2 conservatives 1 labor & and one lib all supported the rights to people angling. What is all this about Euopean Union, Bear bating, bull fighting, donkeys in spain.... something is not quite right here don't you think.
Tony
Sorry but not a reply to JohnH, but I found this statement on the League Against Cruel Sports website. Thought you all might be interested to read it:
"The League is neutral on the issue of angling. We recognise that some people genuinely believe angling to be very cruel, whilst the majority of people do not oppose angling and see it in a totally different light to the barbaric activities of the hunting set. The League comes in the latter category because, although there may be some worrying aspects of angling including the effect of discarded tackle on wildlife , there is no doubt that the intention of most anglers is not to kill their quarry. We know that most anglers oppose hunting, indeed some of our own members are anglers - no doubt seeing a vast difference between angling and hunting with dogs. The League feels that we do not have the time or resources to involve ourselves in the argument about fishing as we need to concentrate our resources on abolishing the brutal bloodsports that include setting dogs on to wild mammals".
They may not have the time at the moment, but maybe in the future......
James, foxes are far from rare mate, there are more than anyone imagins...... I see in excess of 30 a day at work and those are only the ones I see. Obviously there are more fish than foxes but we don't hunt fish as such.
Tony
I do not agree with the figure of one million, how many licences did the NRA issue last season? I would say that there are in excess of 3M anglers who fish more than twice a year and a lot who fish with friends. The trend is down, and sorry guys I put this down to the popularity in "Carp Fishing" Yougsters get introduced into Carping and not the forms of angling us oldun's were introduced to many moons ago.... lets face it a 10 year old is going to get bored sitting on a difficult Carp water. My son is into fishing only because he catches fish. A lot of parents cannot afford the Carp gear that is sold at these rates..... getting off the subject here regarding the Fishing Hunting dilemma, but this in my opinion is why not so many youngsters are in the sport like there used to be.
Tony
Again not a direct response to the thread subject.
I also think another point regarding the number of kids taking up fishing is that of safety. I know that I started fishing at the age of 4 with my dad and by about 10 or 11 going fishing with my mates then night fishing at 13 and never met with any trouble. Thing is times have changed and the liklihood of trouble, especially on publicly accessible waters has increased considerably, hence the vulnerability of children and the reluctance on the parents to let them go in the first place. There are also a whole range of distractions not available in my childhood to occupy their minds.
Still, if there are 1M approx anglers across all disciplines, it would still create a big forum.
John,
By anglers I meant anyone who fishes who will be very upset if angling was banned and that accounts for anyone who fishes, be it once a week or twice a year, they will be having a pleasure taken away from them. I see your point about footballers etc. but to be honest anyone who fishes no matter how often are anglers.
Tony
Certainly complacency was not meant to be implied in the earlier response. If and when the real threat to angling becomes reality, then whatever numbers of dedicated anglers there are , as well as the angling industry, need to make themselves heard.
Do you think that maybe the declines you mentioned in other sports were connected with how national teams or individuals were doing. Cricket certainly went through a period in the doldrums and every boy wanted to play football, but as the ECB etc got their act together the profile of the sport went back up. The greater the success, the more kids want to do it and vice versa.
Now with fishing there is no real correlation. Sad as it is I think that this decline may well be more permanent than some others.
i fought for my right to party back when the criminal justice act looked like law. i will fight for my right to fish in peace as well.
my true thoughts are not for publication on the web. big brother etc.
keeping it militant! ;-(
**sam**
I think we should stick together with the hunting people, although I dont agree with fox hunting, I like shooting and have been quite a few times. As far as Im concerned hunting(shooting) and fishing are both outdoor sports and are very similar in that its man against animal. I reckon one day fox hunting could be banned which doesnt reaaly bother me but after that they will go on to shooting and fishing. I doupt they will ever ban shooting because most of the royal family go shooting ( and fox hunting i think) and fishing is too popular to ban.
I read in the angling times about some woman who turned up at a match on a canal, jumped on some poor geezers pole before diving in the canal and then kicking a policeman in the stomach. She is now in jail where she belongs but I too reckon this will happen more often.
All I can say is that all these idiots can come to my lake set off fireworks or brake my rod (if they dare) and see what happens to them!
Yappi,
That was an isolated case, I can't agree that shooting and fishing are similar. Anyone can fish and a fishing rod is not a deadly weapon, well it wasn't designed to be. We should all just support our pastimes and enjoyment of the countryside because to me that's what fishing is all about.
Tony
I agree that they are different but they are both virtually the only sports where you can enjoy the outdoors instead of sitting at home on the computer all day (hypocritical!) or whatever.
In the shooting times magazine there are a lot of articles on fishing and there is a weekly column in there about fishing. What about the angling and shooting 2000 exibition? There are also a lot of tackle shops that also sell shooting equipement or vise versa. Also a lot of anglers also go shooting ( I know Terry hearn loves it).
Im not saying theyre the same sport, far from it but they are country sports and originally the idea about fishing was to catch a fish to eat, like in shooting where you kill a bird to eat it.
Now I don't agree with fox hunting but I feel that we should be on their side, because as believed by several people on here we will be their next target whether it be straight away or a fair way in the future. (Is this being selfish atall?)
Let's remember it was only a week or so ago that some Animal right's peole bombed a fish and chip shop.
Symon
A fish & Chip shop? What has that go to do with Angling? Commercial fishing & angling are 2 separate issues, a fish and chip shop are selling food as Tesco's, butchers and many other places, I don't see the connection sorry. Maybe the fish & chip shop were selling other things than Cod?
Tony
Fox hunting, or any other wild animal hunting for that matter, will always be open for attack/banning simply because there is no credible defence for the activity. The control of fox numbers by the hunting community is not a defence because there are so many other more efficient and humane ways of achieving it (even if you believe that Mother Nature isn't capable of managing the feat herself!).
The only way angling can defend itself against the anti lobby is to organise and publicise, via a sustained campaign, the extensive benefits that angling clubs/organisations can offer. The obvious 'positives' are waterways management (perhaps Ian's point in another forum about the fly tipping problem at Burghfield being resticted to the non-RMC controlled areas being a good example - pics/video of trolleys/cars/junk would be high-impact), conservation of fish stocks by disease research/control and restocking policies, or even the transformation of stark aggregate removal sites into beautiful natural areas supporting a multitude of wildlife and ecosystems.
My point is that angling has a huge 'defence', but it must be properly co-ordinated and projected to the voting public at large, including perhaps the genuine anti lobby. So the question raised is how? Is there an existing national organisation capable of creating/funding such a campaign, or is a new organisation (perhaps funded by the many commercial groups with a vested interest in the continuation of angling activities in this country) required to be set up?
I do not give an opinion on any of the issues raised in this excellent forum, everyone is entitled to their personal view; I do believe, however, that decisions arising from serious debate/argument can only be considered the right ones if all the facts were considered. Be assured that the anti-angling lobby will be well organised with their facts, we should be too.
I was in the car yesterday morning and was listening to radio 4- I don't know what the programme was but they were discussing the Hunting Bill. John Gummer (pro - hunting) and Tony Banks (anti) were 'discussing' the recent parliamentary debate. In defence of hunting with hounds John Gummer stated that it is not half as barbaric as angling! 'Friends' like that, I think we can do without! I was absolutely appalled that all he did was slag off anglers rather than defend fox, deer and hare hunting. It seems that they wanted our support but having lost the vote in parliament they now don't seem too bothered about trying to drag us down too! I shall be writing to him, c/o the Houses of Parliament to tell him just what I think of him. Even though Tony Banks is anti hunting even he seemed genuinely surprised by Gummers attitude. He even seemed to stand up for angling, which is something at least.
In response too Boo, I could easily believe John Gummer said that, a typical bloody politician!
The guys who support hunting with dogs know they will lose eventually but they will try their hardest to avoid that, and that means they will try to get support from anglers. I have nothing against hunting with dogs, you cannot stop the household pet from chomping the odd rabbit, it's their nature!
Let the hunt supporters fight their own losing battle, it seems most people in this country are against it and I can't see it lasting much longer.
Angling is safe for now, I can't see the majority of the public wanting it banned but that doesn't mean that the soap dodgers, mink releasers and the like will take up worthwhile causes like fighting child abuse and reducing violent crime etc. These are the people I heard about recently who are against cancer research because animals are often used. They have obvoiusly not seen an advanced case of terminal cancer!
Cheapskate angler
Interestingly I believe I heard Tony Banks state, on TV last week shortly after the vote, that he was an angler himself.
As for John Gummer, he was the Agriculture Minister who, seveal years ago, scoffed beefburgers on live TV saying there was no danger from the beef. And we all know what happended after that!!!
Totally agree with what you say John.
My 12 year old lad has no wish to go fishing. He tried it once and because it wasnt "kickin action" a la Playstation etc. it was no contest. Definately in the uncool bracket.
A terrible shame really.
Just been on an anti-hunt site and guess what I found????
Yep anti-angling information most of it garbage, but the general public dont khow that.
So those of you taht still have their heads in the sand thinking they have no agenda for angling, then think again.
Click onto <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.sahc.org.uk>http://www.sahc.org.uk</A>.then click onto the fox that moves down the page[as you scroll down],once into this site click onto library and scroll down until you get to"whats wrong with angling" courtesy of campaign for the abolition of angling.
They paint apicture of us that makes the foxhunters look like cherubs.
WAKE UP WE'RE ALREADY THEIR "TARGETS"
/images/forum/icons/cool.gif /images/forum/icons/cool.gif
paulh
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by scorpio on 10/02/01 07:30 PM.</FONT></P>
On TV this morning (Sunday) it was announced that the activists are targetting angling, their next mission. We will have to wait and see how much support they get. I would have thought there were more serious environmental issues for them to concentrate on. Angling is not affecting the environment in any way, we are not cruel to our fish, if fact we look after our fish stocks. We will have to just watch this space.
Tony
daytimedave
11-02-2001, 12:55
angling is a 1000 times bigger than
what fox hunting was
they`ve got no chance
ANGLINGS HUGE
lets keep it that way and some
I agree Tony if it wasnt for us anglers how many fish would there be in the rivers?.Anglers are usually the 1st to notify of pollution,and help restock any waters where pollution has decimated fish numbers, if it werent for anglers the cormorant
problem would be worse.And as for the problem of mink eating everything, well we all know who released them into the wild.The so called animal lovers who want to stop us,if they really care so much about fish, why release these alien predators?its not just fish they eat but voles etc.
Do the antis help restock, report pollution etc no I think not.
They should as you say stick to actually saving the environment, we're all entitled to our views,as these forums prove but when people tell me that I sholud live my life the way they want, then thats too much.
/images/forum/icons/cool.gif /images/forum/icons/cool.gif
paulh
Totally agree with you Paul. We add bait (food) into the water whaich the fish eat, If we catch a fish and it has an abrasion or a sore on it's skin we treat it with antiseptic. The polution thing, too widespread, there are many factors which cause polution and these need to be sorted. We do need to all be vigillent with discarded tackle, cans and other litter. It is a minority that cause these problems so maybe a more strict policy on litter on *all waters*.
Tony
I think it is very likely that we will continue to agree with each other, we are preaching to the converted after all. I go back to my earlier post where I suggested the angling community needs to co-ordinate all the positives, and then present a credible argument to counter the anti view. It is vital that the message gets into the public domain, the question is how.
It seems to me that a major front-line company or organisation needs to take on the responsibility (and cost) of putting a pro-angling advertising campaign together. This probably should include lobbying the major news agencies (press releases, conferences, etc), and any supportive political parties/groups.
When other sporting organisations need to get a positive message across to sway a decision, the soccer world cup campaigns of last year for example, a high profile package of impressive presentations are produced. Angling is no different because we need to sway a decision in our favour.
Andy
At the moment Loki, we don't need publicity really to be honest. When the time comes then maybe the truths about angling should be put forward to prove to the anti's how mis-informed they really are. I remember the protesters camping out at Crystal Palace campaining about tree's and such. They left the area like a garbage tip.... now you tell me is this good for the environment? Leaving non biodegradible rubbish about? Sharp tins and cans that can injure animals? No.... I was involved with the people who had to clean it all up.
The thing is unfortunately the general public are very gullible with stuff they see and hear in the media in all aspects, the government does a great job of manipulating the general public and so will the anti's what we need is a structured defence to prove them wrong with their accusations, true facts about the angling people. We are just normal people who enjoy our sport of angling and who look after the fish we catch. It is not hunting as we do not kill the fish.... I wonder how many of these protesters actually work and contribute to the taxes that pay for their protesting? A sensus would be good I would say!!
Tony
Errr, I think you are agreeing with me, certainly about a structured defence. The only points you make that I disagree with it that we don't need to act now, we do because they will be! Also don't make the mistake of assuming the anti brigade are all unwashed hippies, too high or stupid to make a point. These people are intellegent, organised, and have access to all the modern communication technology they need.
As you say we are all normal people enjoying our sport, but we need to recognise the very real threat that our sport faces. If we can tap some of the enthusiasum that manifests itself on the carp boards we have a chance, lol.
A fairly naff answer this, but I listened to and read about the vote on fox-hunting and now have read these posts and to be honest it scares the sh~t out of me.
I now have two young sons who basically take up all my time (rightly so) I only get out to fish every now and again, so I dream of the future when the boys get to school and I can return to fishing more regularly, let alone the great thought that they might get into angling themselves! But with all this business of the anti's... will our sport/hobby have a limited lifespan? As I said not a particularly educational reply but one from the heart.
I love my sport and think that it doesn't do any major harm, mainly a lot of good, and the thought of it being banned.......sob, sob
Clive
CB1_chig
12-02-2001, 12:41
I heard on the news to day on Talk sport that the anti's have now turned there attention to fishing saying that it is as bad as fox hunting did anyone else hear this /images/forum/icons/mad.gif
This seems to change weekly. Today's Times speculates that if there is a May election and the current anti hunting bill "dies", Blair will after the election throw his weight behind the so called middle way approach on fox hunting, ie it will continue but closely regulated and with certain practices banned.
And the NFU Parliament correspondent has said all along that this compromise would happen - I get a monthly magazine from them through doing house contents insurance with NFU mutual...
I do not think this result should leave us complacent - maybe as CB1 says the antis will conclude fox hunting is too hard a target and try to hit on anglers instead. If not and the yahoos continue with anti hunting protests, then all anglers, shooters and riders to point to point should say a quiet thank you to fox hunters for continuing to take the flak !
daytimedave
12-02-2001, 18:57
cb1 yes mate
i heard this
scarry stuff
we must sort out a pettition of all rmc anglers to be
sent to no10
positive steps must be taken
come on people unite!
this is happining,what else can we do?
Untill we get the threat I don't think sending a petition to No. 10 will help us.... we need to keep out of the limelight for now
Tony
daytimedave
12-02-2001, 19:11
second thoughts your
probably right!
it is worrying though
You got it. Don't stir the waters.... yet
Clive
The anti's are soon going to angle an attack into banning fishing, it will be a natural progression for them(after the fox hunting issue gets resolved/completed). What i will be concerned about then is how they take it among themselves to make themselves heard(does that sound right?). What avenue(s) will they take, publicity? Tackle theft/damage? Stock theft to be taken to an unfished/private lake? Violence?
I work in food retail and have had demonstrations from these people about testing on animals outside of my stores of which i have managed. Some are ok and are just making their thoughts heard on something they believe in(I feel everyone has the right to voice there own opinions), but some are just down right nasty and can be very threatening and vicious.
What i wouldn't want is for some anti come along to me when i am fishing with my wife & daughter and threaten me with violence and then use my actions against fishing because i myself would maybe have to resort to violence to protect my family/tackle etc.
Stick together
Baz
Ian locked me out of the thread on the Carp list - I'll re-post here
A recent message on the IAC Carp List indicated that around Easter, PETA are going to start a national advertising campaign denegrating Angling - the information came from an article in a local paper in Walsall.
Scheduled to start around Easter, the campaign is based on an image of a pet dog impaled through the lip by a large hook - presumably with suitable wording.
Cheers
Russ
Bourne
Lincs
rhornegold
13-02-2001, 07:31
Paulh,
If you go into Anglers Net via Masterclass,you can then go into SACG.
This is the group supported by RMC and many others fighting on behave of coarse anglers.
They have the expertise to fight for angling, but they need funds, let us all get behind them and help.
If you want to protect angling join as individual members and support the events.
Bob Hornegold
This PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) lot are very well organised. Just check out their website <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.peta.com>http://www.peta.com</A>, in particular the NO FISHING NET.
Well financed, with 1999 revenues in excess of $16M and an organisation that spans the US and Europe.
Fishing is definately one of their targets, but what really gets me is how they are punting this to the kids with the following suggestions:
send in your old fishing gear to be used for anti-angling displays
hold a demo if there is a fishing match in your area
dont keep tropical fish!!!
And these are just a few of the suggestions. There is a whole stack of information on the site attacking both sport and commercial fishing. With access to the internet increasing this is a sure way to poison young minds.
Some of the more extreme info on the site stated that Jesus was a vegetarian, relating to the loaves and fishes and that fish were not caught or eaten, and likening the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) to the French Resistance as an example of "people breaking the law in order to answer to a higher morality".
You can get an idea of these peoples mindsets and also how dangerous thay can be. With that sort of money behind them they could certainly mount a very effective advertising attack on angling.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by scorpio on 13/02/01 06:27 PM (server time).</FONT></P>
Bob
Cheers mate will do that I'm already a member of the ACA.
I think that we all as anglers should do our utmost to support these groups.
Just been on the PETA site . Qiute frightening how they portray us anglers.
And didnt jesus [allegedly] tell his mates to cast their nets on the other side of the boat?
I think that with all this misleading shock tactics propaganda
that they are putting out, that some members of the public will be gullible enough to believe.But when we come to answer them ,then we through reasonable dialogue will shoot them down.That is, if the public havent bought their derogatory slurs, already.
Well thats my feelings anyhow.
/images/forum/icons/cool.gif /images/forum/icons/cool.gif
paulh
I think we as Anglers have several things going for us:
1. There are supposed to be 3,000,000 pleasure, specialist and match anglers in the UK - that's an awful lot of votes!
2. Tony Blair has stated publically 'we will not ban angling'!
3. At least, at present, the great British Public is not interested.
I think that Angling of all diciplines, is one area that unites both Town and Country. I'm not sure that the Countryside Alliance presents quite the right image (slightly bloodthirsty)
Our future lies, IMHO, within the sport. The Angling Press should take the lead. I say this because I doubt whether more than perhaps 500 anglers use this and all the other lists. The same old 'handles' keep coming up where ever you look!
Cheers
Russ
Bourne
Lincs.
Boz - have you read some of the earlier very interesting material under here.
In response to your 3 points;
1. The number of serious anglers (not people who wet a line once a year...) is probably nearer a million, may be less, and falling;
2. He'd sell his mother for a few extra votes in a tight election. Ask Peter Mandelson...
3. Strength in numbers !
We need to take care ! But I am certainly encouraged by the intelligent and committed responses folks on this RMC site have shown.
This is good, me replying to my own posts.
Another possibly worrying point from Boz's note is that while he says "the GBP is not really interested", it's equally true that the GBP is rather prone to sudden, shallow loyalties to ideas or causes stirred up by sensational cases or clever publicity. I am sure we can all think up examples. And what worries me is that angling could be vulnerable to just such a campaign which is stronly rumoured to be coming.
I wonder how we (ie ACA, Salmon & Trout, Countryside Alliance) should respond ? Calm, rational refuting of specific points raised - or should we play hardball ? For example "Mr/Ms "X" is a contributor to PETA and yet has allowed drugs tested on animals to be taken by their spouse /child - hypocrite"
What does anyone think ?
Personally, I think if we chose the "specific target" approach, it would just end up being a mud slinging contest with both parties losing their credibility and not just the anti's. To me that is key; undermine their credibility through structured reasoning, scientific fact and so on, and as you say calm, rational etc. I think that at the end of the day this would win over a sensationalist situation, which is typically more of a short term (flash in the pan) thing, as its more of a long term way of doing things.
However the major problem as I see it is what medium should we use to get these messages across? I guess we do not benefit from the revenues certain "anti" organisations benefit from allowing them to launch a massive advertising campaign. How do we get a coordinated defence across? TV? Radio? Newspaper? I suspect none of these are cheap!!!!
Yes, I came to the same conclusion myself. Mud slinging might be tempting but is short term stuff and undignified.
I do just suspect that a PETA anti angling campaign could misfire. I get the impression that the high tide of anti-hunting feeling may have passed, and that people now realise that just because you personally don't approve of something others enjoy, that causes the rest of humanity no harm, that's no reason to ban it. Latest polls I have seen show small majority for NOT banning hunting. In the same connection I'm sure that big article about Bazil in the Mail did us a lot of good - if the old chap has been caught however many times in 25 years and is still growing and thriving, angling's not exactly harming him, is it ?
Live in hopes anyway !
First of all does anyone know how many foxes are killed each year?
Do these anti's realise that over 20,000 hounds will be put down and thousands of people will loose their jobs? Probably, but do they care about the important things in life? NO.
Considering the sentences (less than 3 years in prison) that were issued to the seven sick pervets yesterday for abusing children as young as 3 months old, I think these Anti's would do more good channelling their energies fighting issues such as child pornography.
It makes me sick, the same people that campaign against fox hunting and testing drugs on animals for medical research for the good of the human race, are the same people who have been sending innocent workers letter bombs and making seriously threatening telephone calls, mmmmmmmm that's brave!
One instance on radio 5 the other day stated that an "anti" called a worker of a research facility and told him that they were watching his young daughter walk from one classroom to another while at school.
These people are all the same, they are sad, bored, selfish people who are scared by the reality of life and the fact that the human race is top of the tree, real issues scare them, the real world scares them!
John
I agree, we need to to look at all angles (no pun intended) to counter the arguments of PETA and other groups.
but these counter arguments then need to made convincing. Two things are required:
1. Better brains than me to formulate the arguments
2. Top of the range PR people to market the ideas
This is where the professionals i.e. the Angling Press come in??
Yes John, I have read the messages, from excellent opinions to threats of violence. This is why a coordinated approach is going to be needed.
enough
Russ Manhire
Bourne
Links
PS do you know my Uncle, he is a honourary bailiff on the Itchen or Test I believe??
As you say Boz, enough for now.
If your uncle is the bailiff/keeper on the Lower Itchen Fishery - friendly, medium size guy about 40 with a moustache - then I have met him there. I don't fish elsewhere on the Itchen or on the Test, my trouting is done on stillwaters.
vBulletin® v3.6.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.