JAGB

[lyn]

Just wonderful! I have just found this, with Sport England behind this new 'Angling Development Plan' it's no wonder it's such a mess. If someone, somewhere thinks that Sport England are going to finance angling when they feel like this, they may have to think again!

 

This is copied from the Sport England web site, sorry I don't do links! :confused: the site address is www.spotengland.org

 

Policy briefing notes

Controversial sports

Introduction

 

Sport England supports 112 different sporting and recreational activities. The majority of these are not controversial and accordingly we do not have specific policies on them. However, a few of those activities are contentious and we have developed policies on them… policies that we review regularly.

 

Angling

 

Next to walking and swimming, angling has the largest number of participants of any recreational activity - some three million people fish regularly. However, legitimate concerns have been expressed about the environmental impact of the sport and about the welfare of fish.

 

Environmental Impact

 

On the question of environmental impact, we accept that any sport with a large number of participants will have some adverse impact on the environment. In the case of angling, that impact comes in the form of discarded lines, hooks and other litter that can harm wildlife. However, we believe that most anglers are environmentally aware and law abiding, and we recognise that angling's governing bodies are determined to make further progress in this area.

 

We are working with those governing bodies and with the Environment Agency to introduce measures to eradicate dangerous and illegal practices and - as far as possible - to recognise the legitimate interests of anglers and conservationists.

 

Sea angling raises an additional environmental issue. Fish stocks are an important, but increasingly threatened, national resource. Commercial fishing is overwhelmingly responsible for the dramatic decline in fish numbers in recent years, but we recognise that recreational fishing also has a small impact. We believe that sea anglers must play their part in conserving fish stocks, and we acknowledge the initiatives being developed by the angling governing bodies (such as promoting 'catch and return').

 

We are not persuaded that there is currently a need for bag limits. However, we will review our position as and when new evidence becomes available.

 

Animal Welfare

 

On the animal welfare issue, as the existing research into the physiological effects of fishing on fish is inconclusive we see no grounds on which to withdraw our support for angling. We will reconsider our position as and when new research findings are published.

 

 

lyn

[Newt]

Lyn - I read that thru twice. Can't for the life of me see what is wrong with it.

 

They say they are working with various groups to address the same items that most on here agree are a problem - litter, depleted sea stocks (commercial fishing mostly), etc.

 

They say they find most of the concerns to be unfounded but would reconsider IF evidence were presented.

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

[phil hackett]

Oh boy!

I neither have the time or inclination to carryout an Environmental Impact Assessment on any or all of the sports that SE fund. All I’ll say is that a large percentage of them have at best a poor envo. record and at worst a diabolical ones.

 

Football - No don’t go there Phil!

Golf - wildlife what wildlife? The bloody grounds toxic with all the chemicals heaped on it.

Athletics- potentially more drugs in use there than in Columbia!

 

The list goes on and on and on.

 

If it’s about animal welfare how many horses are putdown in show jumping, horse racing, dogs in greyhound racing then? Not all done humanely either!

 

Environmental Impact, pull the other one Sport’s England!!!

 

Angling is very high up the environmentally green tree!!!

 

The bottom line is, the prejudice and bigoted attitude of some of those Officer who work for SE towards Angling.

[phil hackett]

P.S.

…….we see no grounds on which to withdraw our support for angling.

 

What support? Angling gets nothing from them! Zilch! Crabs! Bu**er All!

 

Lyn you’ve now really rattled my cage on this one!

[lyn]

Newt, check out the top bit we come under the section of "CONTROVERSIAL SPORTS" just for starters!

 

Phil, is this a first? gosh I must be doing something right for a change,what with personal phone calls from David and now, you & I getting wound up over the same thing, what ever next lol

 

lyn

[phil hackett]

lyn:

Newt, check out the top bit we come under the section of "CONTROVERSIAL SPORTS" just for starters!

 

Phil, is this a first? gosh I must be doing something right for a change,what with personal phone calls from David and now, you & I getting wound up over the same thing, what ever next lol

 

lyn

Now Good lady don't take liberties

 

You know it won't last!

[Newt]

lyn:

Newt, check out the top bit we come under the section of "CONTROVERSIAL SPORTS" just for starters! ....

lyn - the wording does look strange and a bit sensational at first but it is accurate. Since there are various "anti" groups making pronouncements about angling, there is controversy. So, by definition, angling could be said to be "controversial".

 

No one is likely making public pronouncements against football or golf or the like so by the same token, they cannot be said to be "controversial" just now.

 

Granted, the use of the term in that context stinks. They could certainly have found a better way to express the same idea. And I am certainly not trying to say they give any support to angling. I have no idea and will happily believe Phil when he says not.

 

But the fact remains that their statement is factual and accurate.

 

Likewise it is factual and accurate to say that I start my days be eating the unborn embryo of a fowl along with some cooked flesh from a dead porcine animal. But eggs & bacon would be equally accurate and wouldn't sound nearly so sensational.

[dexter]

Lynn

 

Are you trying to say that angling is not controversial? Give me a break just look at most of the threads on this board to see how "non-contorversial" it is and we are supposed to be like minded.

 

Anyway like it or not any activity that gives unfettered access to, or is likely to attract children, will be regulated. No bad thing in my book.

 

D

[lyn]

Dexter, no one has a problem with the 'Child Protection Policy' as I said, as a parent and with the 'pervs' (can I use that word?) that are about, yes it is a good thing.

 

The reason I put the above from the Sport England site is because it is them that have told the 'Angling Governing Bodies' to create this 'Angling Development Plan' they are calling the shots from what I can gather. If they feel like that about us, I can't see them falling over themselves to give angling 'loads of money'!

 

This is what it boils down to, Sport England have money, angling wants/needs it, enough said!

 

Someone has started a new thread on this which will mean hopping about! I asked him as I am asking everyone I email, including the Minister of Sport. WHY do I or anyone else need to be a licensed coach when we are NOT doing it for any financial gain?

 

Believe me our next generation & future generations ARE going to suffer if this gets through. There is enough red tape just to get cleared through the CRB. I have no problem with doing that. I work full time & I am a single parent, therefore, I have neither the time, the money or the wish to become a licensed coach.

 

lyn

[chesters1]

"WHY do I or anyone else need to be a licensed coach when we are NOT doing it for any financial gain?"

because it immediatly (in my book) puts you in the " WHY " league , i am not saying that if a person "passes the test" to get their diploma (or whatever) they are non perves ,i think that pervs would be the first to take it ,its the same old story of a big "clique" telling everybody else what to do OR ELSE ,pervs arn`t born with "child molester" tatood on their forehead ,they are well entrenched into society and are well known to wheedle their way into positions that are close to children the nfa has their own share of pervs as does all forms of recreation , my advice would be to stay clear of any kids its not worth the hassle ,i expect few anglers on here were taught to fish by an organisation however well meaning ,if we fish its because we do ,not because some kind lady or gentleman showed us how .

anglers are born not made ,let the brats end up in an institution they can be interfered with just as easily there as on a river bank

as the old addage goes "children are best seen not heard" in my addage its " children are best not seen nor heard "