Was in the newsagents this evening browsing the reference library of fishing mags! Thought I was back in the 60's with one cover. A highly respectable mag, I thought, the editor of which should know better, had a shot of multiple pike all laid on the ground, albeit on an unhooking mat.

I wonder, did they all lay nice and placidly whilst being arranged for their photograph? Were they all retained in separate sacks? For heavens sakes this is the sort of crap I'd expect from one of the weeklies of a so called pike championship.

I really thought piking had moved on from such pictures. But to be the front cover of an influential magazine is nothing short of a disgrace.

And it wasn't emap!!

Well, what do you think of this one?

[img]http://www.go-fishing.org/upload/files/Badpike.bmp[/img]

[ 17. December 2004, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

no link Peter!

There is now! I missed of http!!

now I see it peter. not good. not good at all

Says all it needs to about angling journalism.

That picture merited about 9 pages on Pike and Predator Forum, almost two weeks ago.
You should have a word with your Newsagent about his old stock.

I believe this is the answer the Editor gave.

"The facts are that Bob Church and his pal got permission to pike fish a trout fishery and move any pike they caught. This action saved the pike from being killed. Bob will be putting a letter in the next CAT explaining this. He did tell me these facts when he sent the photograph and I should really have put a caption to that effect with the photograph."

It makes a change from looking at pictures like these.

http://www.eurocbc.org/page29.html



Tight Lines - leon

(ps sometimes I wish that I had stuck to freshwater angling!)

Hi Cranfield, thanks for the enlightenment. Shows how often I visit a newsagents, or visit the Pike & Predators forum.

Anglers Mail from Tesco. The P&P forum can be a bloodbath so my visits are rare.

Irrespective of the excuse, it shouldn't have been used as a cover. People will see it, possibly be influenced by it, they may not read the small print.

The pike may have been 'saved', but how many survived the transfer I wonder? Many big pike don't take to being shunted around, or having their environment destroyed.

In my opinion a retrograde step for angling, a poor editorial decision. Its taken a great deal of hard work over the last twenty years or so to educate people away from such pictures. Pity to turn the clock back, irrespective of the reason.

Just a thought, Elton has asked us not to slag off other publications, and I suppose this is doing just that. And if Elton regards it as such then I apologise. But I really do not think any publication should be above unfavourable opinion, especially when they are, in the opinion of the commentator, in the wrong.

Pointless knocking is one thing, but I don't regard this as pointless!

[ 18. December 2004, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

I have no problem with personal comments regarding specific incidents. I've been the subject of them before, and it comes with the territory. I also believe that, in legal terms, it's fine - you are commenting on articles in the public domain.

The times I get 'concerned' are when we get the "I hate Magazine X (even though I haven't read it for 4 years) because...." threads.