What I did in my last post was to lay out the argument as many laymen, pleasure anglers and legislators would see it. I can understand why some on here would find that uncomfortable.
So far as a defence of angling overall is concerned, it could well make sense to defend the right to livebait. Much better to have a lengthy debate about livebaiting than to have a debate about banning angling as a whole. The flip side of that argument is the same reason that many anglers were happy to stand to one side while fox hunting was banned. By associating with and supporting the fox hunters, anglers would be associated with the cruelty to animals brigade and tarred with the same brush (no pun intended). Livebaiting could, as I argued in my last post, be seen by many as an unacceptable aspect of angling. Certainly the Scots seem to see it that way, and because livebaiting pike anglers have little financial tourism clout when compared to the salmon fishing industry for example, they make an easy target.
Personally I would prefer not to see livebaiting banned, as I think it’s an issue that should be left to the discretion of the individual and is not an area into which the politicians should be poking their noses.
However, as I said earlier, I don't see an overall ban on angling as something that is likely in the foreseeable future, with or without a livebaiting ban.
As for conspiracy theories, I'm just an angler who can see things from more than one point of view. I was under the impression that was what these forums were about.