Countryside Alliance Angling Forum

[John S]

Just a friendly reminder, please keep personal remarks out of these forums

[KANNY]

this is off the hunt sab website

 

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/tactics/sabfish.html

 

so is this

 

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/features/angling.html

 

graham you forgot to quote my last remark about that post sounding hard but is nothing compared to what the antis will say and by the looks of the above links much worse.

 

y.i.s

 

 

kanny

 

[ 11. March 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: KANNY ]

[KANNY]

looks like the N.A.A dont agree with you graham and peter.......... they seem pritty happy to stand with the C.A

 

http://www.maggotdrowning.com/Press/pressr...el23_270801.htm

Y.I.S

 

kanny

 

[ 11. March 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: KANNY ]

[KANNY]

your gunna love this one..lol!

 

http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/paulbroad...d/anti/anti.htm

 

 

y.i.s

 

kanny

[Guest sslatter]

KANNY:

this is off the hunt sab website

 

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/tactics/sabfish.html

 

so is this

 

http://hsa.enviroweb.org/features/angling.html

 

graham you forgot to quote my last remark about that post sounding hard but is nothing compared to what the antis will say and by the looks of the above links much worse.

 

y.i.s

 

kanny

Having had their usual stock defences of foxhunting reasonably countered, everyone who has a “pro” argument/stance then resorts to this basic:

 

“If we all don’t band together, then angling will be next on the list.”

 

I don’t believe this is necessarily so, for reasons I posted earlier in this thread.

 

And Kanny? Posting links to an ELEVEN YEAR OLD document of a tiny minority extremist organisation such as the Hunt Saboteurs Association is pure scaremongering. These documents have been in publication for YEARS, and I don’t see a major groundswell of public opinion in their favour over the intervening time. This is really old stuff, and to use it as an example of a “current” or “pending” trend is both misguided and misleading.

 

Their existence and beliefs, the opinions they have about angling, are NOT valid reasons to support the pro-foxhunting lobby. As an ordinary moderate angler, I feel I have absolutely nothing in common with such people who support foxhunting.

 

IF, sometime in the future, the “anti” views become more populist, then I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

 

But reading their site material (again) is interesting. It could be argued that the initial publication of this material actually HELPED angling to drag itself into the modern era. Many of the issues they raised have been subsequently addressed by anglers and angling, if not to a completion, then at least to an extent: fish handling, keepnets etc. There are two issues, however, that are just as pressing today, as they were 11 years ago:

 

1) Litter;

2) Destruction of natural bankside.

 

To explain:

 

As far as I can see, their opposition to angling has always rested in three main areas.

 

1) Pain and stress: the damage caused to fish;

2) Litter: the damage caused to the environment and other flora and fauna;

3) Other environmental damage.

 

I have to say, they had some pertinent points to make, namely:

 

QUOTE: “Other factors include stress imposed due to… <SNIP>…damage to a protective mucous (sic) layer.”

 

True. The proper handling of fish is all-important in modern angling. Time and again I STILL see anglers wrap a piece of cloth round a fish, then unhook it. This practice, although not now widespread in “coarse” fishing, still exists: I’ve seen it often on my local river, usually it has to be said on “free fishing” stretches, sometimes by experienced anglers who should know better, and it must be eradicated. If you have to handle a fish that’s going to be returned alive, then do so with wet hands. It’s in all our interests to do so.

 

QUOTE: ”If fish survive this ordeal, they are often put into a keepnet. These nets are designed to contain fish underwater, before being released at the end of the fishing session. However many fish will receive injuries from the net mesh or from being squashed together with other fish…”

 

True. And heartening to think that over the last years, we have seen angling trying to ameliorate this situation: knotless nets etc etc.

 

QUOTE: “…and many will die due to depletion of oxygen over a period in these devices.”

 

Well, some perhaps, especially if kept in a net too long in direct sunlight. But yes, all anglers know, fish do die in keepnets.

 

QUOTE: “Many pleasure anglers use keepnets simply as a personal ego boost.”

 

I’d have to agree with that.

 

QUOTE: “Hatchery-reared trout are used to re-stock game fisheries and a substantial degree of "vermin" control is undertaken at both fish farm and fishery…”

 

Yes, this still happens, but the use of the adjective “substantial” could be open to debate.

 

QUOTE: “Angling litter includes all types of hooks and weights, and vast quantities of nylon fishing line, which is only slowly biodegradable and with or without attached hooks and weights is potentially lethal to birds and mammals for a long time. Waterfowl especially swans, who are particularly susceptible. They suffer lacerated beaks and throats by swallowing tackle and slowly starve to death. Entanglement may also result in lost limbs.”

 

True. Incredibly sad, but still as pertinent today, as it was when this material was first published.

 

QUOTE: “Anglers maintain that only a minority of their number deliberately discard tackle. This may be true, but most tackle in the environment is of the "lost" variety. (Hooks are snagged on bankside vegetation, underwater obstructions and sea beds-often resulting in snapped lines).”

 

I don’t agree with this. It’s not true that most angling litter in the environment is of the “accidentally-lost” variety. Most is deliberately discarded.

 

QUOTE: “The only way to prevent injuries and fatalities due to lost and discarded fishing tackle, is to ban angling.”

 

True, taken prima facie. But this would be an extremely harsh measure, rather like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The solution here is, and has always been “Education education education”. Raise anglers’ awareness of these issues, and keep on so doing. It’s a strange fact, but as I’ve got more experienced, the less I get snagged. And to this day, 42 years after I first went fishing, I can truthfully say that I’ve NEVER snagged a swan or any other bird. You’ve just got to be careful, and show respect to all fauna, not just the fish.

 

QUOTE: “Fish and tackle victims are not the only creatures suffering at the hands of anglers. Any fish eating species which is thought to compete with angling interests is at risk. Seals, herons, otters and wildfowl are killed by fish farmers, who breed primarily trout and salmon for re-stocking fisheries and of course for the meat eating public. As many as 5,000 seals a year are already killed by fishery interests and there is pressure for widespread organised "culling" to be re-instated in Scotland.”

 

To say that any of this does not still happen would be erroneous, but anglers’ awareness of these issues has most definitely been raised over the years since the publication of this material. It doesn’t happen to anything like the extent it used to. But yes, it does still happen.

 

QUOTE: “Mink, in addition to being hunted, are increasingly being killed by angling bodies and have been branded with as bad a reputation as the poor fox had 20 years ago.”

 

This now appears to be an extremely outdated view, taking into account the known effects of the mink upon all indigenous wildlife which are on its menu.

 

QUOTE: “This year (Graham X’s note: 1992) has seen a new victim - the cormorant, a sea bird, which is reportedly moving inland after being starved out of its natural habitat by overfishing.”

 

I’ve been told that the cormorant which is often seen roosting in trees by fisheries, inland, etc is usually not the sea-going cormorant which traditionally roosts on cliff faces. It’s a sub-species “Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis”. So, the argument that “cormorants” are being driven inland may not have any foundation. But I’m a layperson here. Maybe one of the AnglersNet ornithologists can help out with this one. I just don’t know. But yes, some anglers do perceive the cormorant as a pest which should be culled. But some anglers don’t.

 

QUOTE: “Lastly, litter must not be forgotten as a huge problem associated with angling. Bait tins, beer cans and plastic ring pulls are amongst the piles of anglers' trash, disfiguring the bankside and inviting further wildlife damage. Many clubs have been banned from angling venues due to the persistent menace of litter.”

 

Sadly as true today as it ever was. Of course, this is not only angling’s problem, but a general malaise amongst human beings. But we, as anglers, should do our utmost NOT to add to this problem. I assert that any TRUE angler would never dream of leaving any litter, and always pick up and dispose of any they come across. Unfortunately, by this definition, there are an awful lot of “anglers” out there who couldn’t care less. We’ve still got quite a way to go to clean up our act, as far as this one goes.

 

QUOTE: “As if this isn't enough, banks are left as mudslides, with vegetation hacked down to facilitate access to the water.”

 

Yes, this one annoys me too. There are too many fisheries who perform such “bankside management” without any thought to the general balance of flora and fauna other than fish and humans. Just get the chainsaws out, and hack away. It seems to be done purely for financial reasons, in order to get more bums on seats. The “natural” fishery is disappearing fast, and it is a trend that worries me.

 

So, it could be argued that much of this material published by the Hunt Saboteurs Association 11 years ago has been taken on board by anglers and angling in general. But we’ve still got some way to go. Like I wrote before: “Education education education.”

 

Now…the big one.

 

FISH AND PAIN.

 

Eleven years on, and the jury’s still out on this one. With a certain document recently published, as written about in a recent AnglersNet thread, there now seems to be new evidence that they cannot feel pain. As a layperson, I have to listen to both sides of this argument, and make my judgment thereon. As far as the evidence which has been presented goes, it would seem to me that the new evidence holds more weight, but to be fair to the detractors of angling, I would say that, wouldn’t I? I have to leave such things to the “scientists”, and these latest findings seem to point to the “fact” that fish don’t feel pain.

 

FISH AND STRESS.

 

I’d be lying if I said I thought that fish don’t feel any stress when they’re being played. As long as they are not bullied in too quickly however, it doesn’t seem to me that this has any real effect on them for very long.

On the subject of playing fish, as I got more experienced, I came to realise the truth of an angling article from the 70s (??..can’t remember the author) in which the author wrote that it was possible to hook, play, and land a fish, without it ever realising it had been hooked. I didn’t understand this at the time, but as I went on, I found that it was true in many cases. It may sound uncanny, but something seems to transmit down the line between angler and hooked fish. If the angler starts to “lose it” and panic, the fish will start to panic also.. it will “feel” it down the line. A calm angler can often “trick” a fish into the net without it seeming to realise it’s been hooked. I’m sure that some other anglers here will relate to what I’m saying. In my experience, this does not always apply however, especially in the case of foulhooked fish. But it does apply in many cases, and can only be a good thing for the fish. I’m not of the opinion that a fish should be brought in as quickly as possible, because this causes less stress to the fish. Rather, to stay calm (I know it's not always easy) and to let the fish come in, in its own time, is far less stressful to the fish, in my opinion.

 

So…to summarise: angling has done much over the last years to raise its participants’ awareness of certain issues such as those raised by the Hunt Saboteurs Association in those 11 year-old documents.

 

But it’s still got some way to go, in my opinion.

[H Jampton]

Graham X:

I’m not unable to substantiate this fact, but am certainly unwilling.

Even as proof you are not just repeating something you have read about or are making it up?

 

With which organization were you employed as an environmental officer? or was it one of these self-appointed positions?

[H Jampton]

Graham X:

Keep angling out of it mate.

But it was an angler who started this thread in this section.

[KANNY]

hjuguiguy7iovguihnhysfuicnvbgyuuioOPaA|KOtydrtsdw346tyiuiou................thats my head banging on the key board!.............lol

 

graham the FACT is that allthough SOME of those documents are 11 years old? as you say... there still there for every reble WITHOUT a cause to read and act upon. graham u said if fishing was like that u would pack it in..well i suugest you hang up your rods mate because its obvious fishing doesnt suit your beleifs.

 

 

y.i.s

 

kanny

 

[ 12. March 2003, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: KANNY ]

[GORD]

Nice one Kanny, like it.

[Guest sslatter]

KANNY:

hjuguiguy7iovguihnhysfuicnvbgyuuioOPaA|KOtydrtsdw346tyiuiou................thats my head banging on the key board!.............lol

Try banging a bit harder.

 

quote:

---

graham the FACT is that allthough SOME of those documents are 11 years old? as you say... there still there for every reble WITHOUT a cause to read and act upon.

Yes well, if you believe that, I suppose you'll believe anything. On the internet you can find all sorts of extremist stuff, like how to make a bomb,paedophilia etc etc. This doesn't mean that people who are not of such a predilection in the first place, are suddenly going to become raving loony extremists. Scaremongering, pure and simple, and it is very old hat.

 

quote:

---

graham u said if fishing was like that u would pack it in..well i suugest you hang up your rods mate because its obvious fishing doesnt suit your beleifs.

Funny that..I was thinking the same about you.

 

You profess to being worried about the "sabbing" of angling, and what the "antis" can and will do.

 

But I think a far more successful way to "sab" angling, would be to infiltrate it with people who profess to hold such views as you. That would be far more successful, wouldn't it?

 

Malcolm.

 

[ 12. March 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Graham X ]