And some of you said Fishing was safe from attack!

[yoxer]

If you think Im being a pain in the arse Darrell then you need to start making a few suggestions to counter the arguments that are coming the way of anglers as sure as day turns to night. So far Ive heard sod all. They'll be tryin to ban us from clubbing baby seals to death next .

[darrell.cook]

Yoxer - Bottom ( no pun intended ) line is:

Most people have a problem with Fox hunting, whether it be cruelty or class.

The vast majority of people have no problem with Angling.

In all honesty the only place I see any substantial anti angling discussions is on fishing websites / magazines. We seem to give it more publicity than the tree huggers could ever hope to.

[Cranfield]

quote:

---

Yoxer it may come as a suprise to you but I have been quietly working away to expose the antis for what they are

---

We know what they are, they are people who profess an objection to creatures suffering pain and/or death, to provide sport to humans.

 

It will be difficult to defend angling, not only because of its perception to the uneducated and those that don't want to listen, but because angling itself isn't centrally organised or coordinated.

 

Its fine to say that 25+% of the people in this country have been fishing, but what about the other 75-% ?

Perhaps some stopped because they weren't happy with the "pain" aspect.

 

We have probably flogged this to death and I for one will withdraw from the online fray.

There's none so blind as those that will not see.

[yoxer]

Darrell: with the ban on hunting with hounds everything has suddenly changed, whether we choose to ignore or not. The ban was implimented on the reasoning that it is cruel and barbaric, whether we choose to accept that or not. It is a fact . It has happened. It has opened the doors for this very accusation to be successfuly leveled at the sport of angling. You may give give as many reasons as you can think of why angling should continue but if you can not say with any credability WHY it is not cruel , and so far no one has , then anglers are staring a potencial ban right in the eyes. The only possible justification ,and it is extreamly weak, is that angling is not a sport but provides food for the table.

[kentangler]

*Anthony*:

OK then, lets say they ban coarse fishing in the UK. By rights the government would then have to accept game fishing being banned and also salt water angling. If they made all these illegal then they would also moraly have to ban commercial fishing. So, effectively making the eating of any fish a crime, which would then mean having to ban all rearing of animals and the sale of meat in the UK a criminal offense.

Now apart from upsetting a few million anglers, british tackle manufacturers and staff, the closing of hundreds of tackle outlets, moth-balling the commercial fishing fleet and all related industries, closing down the (non-smoking) fish resturants, giving the farmers something else to moan about and turning the nation into imposed vegetarianism.........

You have hit the nail right on the head. The most sensible reply to this whole fiasco. If angling was banned, they would have to ban all means of capturing fish, as it results in the death of the fish. It would also have to apply to any animals that we eat. As for me, they will have to drag me off to bloody jail to stop me, cos I for one absolutely refuse to stop my sea fishing for anyone.

[yoxer]

No one is bothered by the death of the fish , it is not in question and in the case of hunting by hounds the question of the death of the fox plays no significant part in the reason behind the banning. FOX HUNTING HAS NOT BEEN BANNED ! you can carry on hunting a fox with a f****** flame thrower if you so desire.

Far from hitting the nail right on the head you have missed the point by a mile. Hunting with hounds has been banned because it has been perceived as cruel and barbaric. A charge that can be equaly brought against angling.

[kleinboet]

Let's all back off from high emotion for a while and look logically.

 

1: The same fish are caught several times in one session. If people wish to be pedantic and say there is still pain, then why are we killing livestock for food? why if you take a pet to the Vets they "put it down" to avoid it having pain?

If a racehorse falls and breaks a leg, they "put it down"

 

2:The quality of water in the rivers has continually improved, and it can be PROVED that anglers have been very involved, both vocally AND financially in this improvement. My personal feeling is, that if angling is banned,the water companies and the government will have be forced to add some sort of financial levy IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, let alone improve matters. Another plus is the reappearance of wild life at places where they have been long gone.

 

3: The sceptic (or anti)has only to watch an angler with his catch, to see (with,as always,

a few exceptions)the love and care they give the fish. They will even medicate a fish they have caught it and found something wrong with it.

 

4: I do not have figures, but I would think a rather large amount of money is spent on tackle, bait and ancillaries.

 

I would think that if this logical approach, the antis will be hard pressed to persuade the man in the street (which he will HAVE to do!)that angling is wrong!

 

[ 27. November 2004, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: kleinboet ]