carol58

Hello Everyone, This question might be like 'how long is a piece of string', but Stonecat Nature Reserves in North wales is planning a fund raising event in the early spring '07, and is looking to commission an angler to fish on its behalf on a venue of choice. Such an angler will be a good all rounder, who on a favourite venue, and all things being equal, would be in with an excellent chance to catch a 50 Ib+ bag. SNR would pay an attractive fee to cover the angler's time and travel to and from the venue. The event will consist of a skilled angler fishing for a 10 hour session on a venue of choice somewhere within the Wirral/West Merseyside/North Cheshire/North East Wales area. SNR will provide sponsors who will pledge 1p per ounce of fish weight caught. Thus, if the angler caught 10 Ib, that would be 160 ounces. Each sponsor would give £1.60. There will be an £8 cap on the total sponsorship a sponsor could pay hence, the suggested 50 Ib minimum bag target. Would anyone like to put their name forward? Or, can anyone suggest the name of a consistently good angler who has a chance of achieving this target? Please email any suggestions etc to Stonecat Nature Reserves via poem4conservation@btinternet.com Thanks. Carol.

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.

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.

Hi there all, I thought readers might be interested in an interesting little website I came across recently www.stonecatnaturereserves.co.uk There is on its 'Helping SNR' page, a useful piece about how coarse anglers can receive a free annual subscription to any of the British specialist anglers' groups like PAC etc. In exchange for a very little bit of practical help, Stonecat Nature Reserves will fund a subscription and each participating angler is credited with the planting of 10 trees. I love trees and my partner loves fishing and I don't believe yet I've seen a better scheme than this. It is a must for any angler who genuinely sees himself as a conservationist.