hunting

[Cranfield]

Food for thought.

 

http://www.peta.org/feat/dogfish/index/html

[Peter Sharpe]

I totally agree with Peter Waller. The CA try to drag angling into the argument at every opportunity, in fact they do more to damage angling than the pathetic attempts by PETA ever did.

 

Quote:

"For my money, the brightest pannelist was the deputy editor of the times.She was making the politicians look thick. I was horrified when at one point, she came out with something like "what about fishing, they put great big barbs in the fishes mouths, drag them out of the water and throw them back, they dont even eat them", The point was that in her view there are some things worse than hunting foxes."

 

Come on now Adrian, were the politicians on the panel really as thick as that?

[Cranfield]

I,m sorry the link I posted was incorrect.

 

http://www.peta.org/feat/dogfish/index.html

 

Don,t make the mistake of underestimating these people.

They are seriously well funded.

[Peter Sharpe]

That advert was banned in this country for being untruthful or misleading. They may have a lot of money at their disposal, but they certainly know how to waste it. The only weapons they know how to use are misrepresentation and hysteria. They made such laughing stocks of themselves during their last forays to these shores, that even previously neutral non anglers were ridiculing them. They made a very serious miscalculation, and must have wasted an enormous amount of money, that would probably put any conventionally accountable company out of business.

From what I've been hearing lately, the R.S.P.A are a far greater threat, and I think all anglers who may previously have actively supported them should cancel their subscriptions immediately.

 

[ 24 March 2002, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Peter Sharpe ]

[Tim Kelly]

Peter

 

If you look at Nightwing's example of solidarity above, how can such a united front be a bad thing for any sport?

[Alan Roe]

Peter firstly what are you doing over here!! This is a nice respectable site:D

 

Secondly that silly cow Dawn Carr and her cohorts are back over here looking to make more mischief she popped up on the BBC radio five debate on hunting last week.

 

S'funny how this meddlesome wench seems to always be able to get on the BBC isn't it.....

[Peter Sharpe]

I would probably have been one of those protesting against bear hunting, and I would certainly like to see an end to the obscenity that is gambling on the death of a wild animal.

 

Quote:

"Vast areas of countryside are kept for the benefit of the animals rather than being put to the plough. Without sportsmen and women many species, not just the quarry, would have become extinct years ago."

 

This seems to be a curiously naive statement. The only areas not under the plough are ones where it is more economical to use the land for other purposes. In the case of my area, the farmers seem to find it more economical to turn their green fields into extremely wildlife unfriendly housing developments.

Vast areas of land have been turned by farmers into barren monocultures, where any wildlife not driven out has been sprayed with poisonous chemicals. Countless thousands of miles of hedges have been ripped out, and I don't regard it as a great favour that a few token bits of greenery have been left for horses to jump over. Anglers phased out lead shot eighteen years ago, and are still being blamed in the media for causing lead poisoning in swans. The shooters meanwhile, continue to fill the fields with collosal quantities of lead, a single cartridge of which, contains more shot than most anglers would have dropped in a season.

The main areas of unspoiled land in this country are owned by the National Trust, and on which hunting is banned.

[phonebush]

On subjects like this "bad news travels round the world while good news is getting on its socks".

 

I am an avid outdoorsman. As a young man I hunted. I set a goal of "collecting" a specimen of every sporting game animal in North America. One year, my last, I sent of and received a permit to hunt buffalo.

 

The hunt goes like this: Four "hunters" step to a line with enough firepower to challange a nuclear holicost. The "Fish and Game authorites" drag a live animal behind a Jeep on about 200 yards of rope. Everyone on the line fires and each receive one quarter of the kill.

 

I quit.

 

I suppose even the most avid sportsmen will have differences of opinion. I think we shall never see a concensus. Further, it is probably a good idea to have discussions like this as a lightning rod for approval and disapproval.

Phone

[Mally]

To Peter Sharp,

 

have you ever heard of somthing called set aside? I can't remeber all the details because it is a number of years since i worked at a game keepers but, Farmers have to set aside somthing like 5-15% of there land on which they do not farm anything, i dont know if woods are counted in this 15%. This is regualted by the eouropean farming commision or somthing who give the farmers money for the land which they do not farm.

 

I'm sure what ive written is inacurate but the basic principal is correct and i'm sure sombody will pick up on and correct my mistakes!!

 

Thanks

[Peter Sharpe]

I believe that the farmers receive an EEC grant for maintaining set-aside. It's not generally something they do out of the kindness of their own hearts, although there are a few notable exceptions.