Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sea Fishing and Conservation


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#121 JRT

JRT

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts

Posted 23 October 2006 - 06:05 PM

Holding p1ssing competitions on web forums will get us nowhere


Coddy, 6 pages of posts and this one quote sums it concisely B)

#122 carol58

carol58

    Junior Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 24 October 2006 - 08:56 PM

Hello Everyone,

This thread about sea angling and conservation is exciting.

Just because an angler uses a baited hook to catch a fish does not mean he is not a conservationist. He ceases to be a conservationist when he continues to take fish from beyond the point of no return for the species.

To say an angler is not a conservationist because he catches fish to kill is like saying pheasant shooters are not conservationists because they kill birds.

Conservation is a modern buzz word but one that has been twisted, warped and hijacked by dogooders and the anti fieldsports brigade. Conservation is a posh word for management. And management of a species or group of species is what happens, whether a species is managed for a harvestable surplus or because they look nice and cute. Two opposing poles here.

The end result is the same. It is just a matter of which route one takes.

Many 'fluffy bunny' types try to make out that conservation means preservation and it does not. What is important is the ongoing survival of a species. The route taken to achieve this is conservation and if that means impaling a fishes mouth on a hook, chasing a fox across the countryside or downing gamebirds, then so be it.

Anglers should realise that every move they make is being watched by the sports' enemies. They will capitalise on every negative point, even internal disagreements. Divide and conquer.

Anglers need to show a more understanding face. It isn't good enough to go fishing these days. How many sea anglers if asked could quote the life cycle of common sea weeds, things which catch up on their lines, or even correctly identify them?

I was once personally appalled by a canal angler who wrongly identified a water vole as a young rat. Another of my acquaintance called a mink a ferret.

I know another person who sent posters to angling shops re angling and conservation and hardly any of the proprietors bothered to put them on display despite the fact they offered free tackle vouchers.

Little wonder the opposition scores brownie points all the time.

Anglers in modern times must become naturalists and do practical conservation work and publicly boast about it if they are to gain new blood and new friends within the non fishing population.

Just going fishing is simply just not good enough anymore.


Hello again and yes, I'm a lady,

I'm on the side of anglers, hunters and shooters, falconers and coursers. I don't condone anything illegal.

A true shooting man must by definition be a good naturalist. If he knows nothing of the countryside and perhaps little of his quarry, then when he shoots, he is just a man with a gun killing things. He cannot respect his quarry or the environment it lives in.

With anglers (who are fieldsportsmen and women, whether they like it or not), the same applies. If you have a wide knowledge of both quarry and environment and you can see how other species interact with the quarry etc, then you are a sportsman. Failing that, you can only be a person with a rod who goes fishing. The two are poles apart and in modern times, that ignorance is simply exploited by anyone with a grudge against fishing.

Look at it another way. There are postings on all sorts of sea angling forums at the moment about a cod fishing ban in the North Sea. Do you really think the scientists who collate the data are going to take seriously the opinions of people who simply go fishing and who cannot identify common seaweeds, common birds or the various foreshore tidal zones etc?

I think not.

Yes, I'm on the side of anglers. But I really do fear for angling's future because the people with the say so power are light years away from most anglers and most anglers especially sea anglers have no influence whatsoever over important decision making. Some don't even care.

#123 Norm B

Norm B

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire UK
  • Interests:Sea Angling, Conservation and shooting.

Posted 24 October 2006 - 10:27 PM

Hello again and yes, I'm a lady,

I'm on the side of anglers, hunters and shooters, falconers and coursers. I don't condone anything illegal.

A true shooting man must by definition be a good naturalist. If he knows nothing of the countryside and perhaps little of his quarry, then when he shoots, he is just a man with a gun killing things. He cannot respect his quarry or the environment it lives in.

With anglers (who are fieldsportsmen and women, whether they like it or not), the same applies. If you have a wide knowledge of both quarry and environment and you can see how other species interact with the quarry etc, then you are a sportsman. Failing that, you can only be a person with a rod who goes fishing. The two are poles apart and in modern times, that ignorance is simply exploited by anyone with a grudge against fishing.

Look at it another way. There are postings on all sorts of sea angling forums at the moment about a cod fishing ban in the North Sea. Do you really think the scientists who collate the data are going to take seriously the opinions of people who simply go fishing and who cannot identify common seaweeds, common birds or the various foreshore tidal zones etc?

I think not.

Yes, I'm on the side of anglers. But I really do fear for angling's future because the people with the say so power are light years away from most anglers and most anglers especially sea anglers have no influence whatsoever over important decision making. Some don't even care.

:clap2: Thankyou for that. We are obviously two of a kind. Until recently I was a serious shooting man but have recently hung up my guns, so to speak. I understand my quarry and the countryside, in fact shooting to me was just a means of getting out into the countryside. I could sit for hours cammed up waiting for a fox near the pheasant pen and when the fox came I didn't shoot because I didn't want to disturb what surrounded me. Fishing is the same, a means to an end, out in a boat or on the beach, it's all the same. I'm not there for the catch but for the fishing. :clap2:

#124 Ken Davison South Wales

Ken Davison South Wales

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,153 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tycroes
  • Interests:sea angling

Posted 25 October 2006 - 04:28 AM

Thanks for this coddy,
I was close to resign from here but sensible guys like you makes it worth to continue. :)


This quote and the last few are a breath of fresh air and if more anglers did a bit more to support thier sport where it counts we would have a shout.
I fish, I catches a few, I lose a few, BUT I enjoys. Anglers Trust PM



http://www.petalsgardencenter.com

Petals Florist

#125 Andrew Syvret

Andrew Syvret

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 17 posts
  • Location:St Ouen, Jersey

Posted 25 October 2006 - 09:38 AM

Carol58,

amongst all the drama I've been really pleased to read your posts, particularly the sentiment expressed below...

Do you really think the scientists who collate the data are going to take seriously the opinions of people who simply go fishing and who cannot identify common seaweeds, common birds or the various foreshore tidal zones etc?

I think not.


you are so right, we badly need to wise up & it's refreshing to hear a few voices here advocating exactly that

take it easy

Andrew