Swan Poisoned by Angler's Lead Weight

[Dick Dastardly]

That Anderoo is the first thing Ive read that goes any way towards justifying us sacrificing anything.

 

Maybe,just maybe the "general public" (as opposed to the die hard anti) isnt that against angling and removing any thing that may swing them against us would be sensible.

 

I would agree with you as long as we made sure that the "general public" were made aware that it is us that have brought in these changes/stopped practices that may be seen as unacceptable or non enviromently friendly.

 

Would the GP accept catching fish with hooks but not sticking them on them for bait? I hate to say it but yes you are right they probabley would!Sad fact is that the GP wouldnt even be that aware of our questionable practices BUT the antis would certainly make sure they were!

 

Your post has really made me re-asess my thoughts on this issue.Yes indeed it isnt/wouldnt be the antis we are trying to apease but the GP and as you say they will be the ones who decide our fate in the end.

 

Maybe the lesson to be learned from the Lead Shot issue isnt as I first suggested that it is a waste of time offering consessions but that its a waste of time unless we as Steve said ensure that people are made aware of the fact that not only have these been brought in but brought in by anglers.

 

I dont for one minute believe that any consession will get the antis on side but they may keep the GP on our side.

[Anderoo]

That Anderoo is the first thing Ive read that goes any way towards justifying us sacrificing anything.

 

Maybe,just maybe the "general public" (as opposed to the die hard anti) isnt that against angling and removing any thing that may swing them against us would be sensible.

 

I would agree with you as long as we made sure that the "general public" were made aware that it is us that have brought in these changes/stopped practices that may be seen as unacceptable or non enviromently friendly.

 

Would the GP accept catching fish with hooks but not sticking them on them for bait? I hate to say it but yes you are right they probabley would!Sad fact is that the GP wouldnt even be that aware of our questionable practices BUT the antis would certainly make sure they were!

 

Your post has really made me re-asess my thoughts on this issue.Yes indeed it isnt/wouldnt be the antis we are trying to apease but the GP and as you say they will be the ones who decide our fate in the end.

 

Maybe the lesson to be learned from the Lead Shot issue isnt as I first suggested that it is a waste of time offering consessions but that its a waste of time unless we as Steve said ensure that people are made aware of the fact that not only have these been brought in but brought in by anglers.

 

I dont for one minute believe that any consession will get the antis on side but they may keep the GP on our side.

 

Thanks Budgie. I'm glad I've finally managed to express myself properly. It's difficult to get a point across sometimes, especially when it's an emotive issue.

[gozzer]

The thing that worries me is. What would be the starting point of these sacrifices, and where would it end?

 

Your right Anderoo, it is an emotive subject. The point I am trying to make is that with various factions of angling, each thinking in terms of their own particular discipline, then when it came to making a sacrifice (to appease the general public, and show what good conservationists we really are), then who would decide? As it is now with disunity and infighting between certain groups, then I could see the angling fraternity with bigger cracks in it than there are now.

 

 

Yes I am a pessimist, I admit it, but it's served me well through the years, and has proved me right on many occasions, so I'm not about to change now.

 

I had to leave the PC for awhile, but I'm back

 

There are things that I could do in angling that would make it more acceptable to many doubters (not antis), and I could make sure that it didn't effect my personal angling a great deal. Ask anyone on this forum and they could do the same, but we would be pi**ing off at least 50% of the others on here.

Changes will come, not all for the good of angling or anglers, but I think we must tread very carefully, and try and think as a unit, otherwise if one thing is sacrificed in one part of angling, I could see an attitude of " if they're voting for this, which effects me, then I'm voting for that which will effect them" and there will be no winners, except those that want an end to angling.

Edited July 20, 2006 by gozzer

[Dick Dastardly]

Exactly the reason why us gaining angling unity" is so important.

 

For example if the pike angler and the match angler could be united in the sense that they uderstood and respected the opposites angling then the pike angler might not feel so bad if he had to give up livebaiting if the match angler gave up his keep net. Even better of course would be if the matchman said "sod it why should I give up my keepnet and why should the piker give up his livebaits either!" or vice versa.

 

Either way ie keep both or get rid of both the anglers would be united and which ever way they went would have more chance of succeeding.

[gozzer]

Exactly the reason why us gaining angling unity" is so important.

 

For example if the pike angler and the match angler could be united in the sense that they uderstood and respected the opposites angling then the pike angler might not feel so bad if he had to give up livebaiting if the match angler gave up his keep net. Even better of course would be if the matchman said "sod it why should I give up my keepnet and why should the piker give up his livebaits either!" or vice versa.

 

Either way ie keep both or get rid of both the anglers would be united and which ever way they went would have more chance of succeeding.

 

That's my point Budgie, it's OK to say we've got to show ourselves in a good light to the general public, and be prepared to sacrifice.

But while angling stays as fragmented and apathetic as it is, then, the real enemy just have to sit back, stir things occasionally, and wait for us to do their job for them.

[barblesss]

It wasn't helped by at least one of the weeklies running a campaign to keep lead shot.

 

Clueless KNUCKLEHEADS.

 

Shot ourselves in the foot... exactly!

Edited July 20, 2006 by barblesss

[A Worm OOE]

This whole issue confuses me. Part of me says we should promote the caring side of angling and that to this end bans on say nets and livebaiting etc might be helpfull. I then think that by accepting such restrictions we are completely undermining ourself. How can we justify catching a fish but not retaining in a net, surely the act of capture is more stressfull than retaining the fish in a dark net for a while. (not that I belive the capture of fish is stressfull in the way we percieve stress)

As I see it we have two choices one is to go for the caring aproach and hope that we can keep a little way in front of the antis in terms of public support. Alternatively we can put our stake in the ground and defend it. Both options are viable but only if we have the bodies in place to state our case and defend whatever position we choose to adopt. The big problem is that we wont find a consensus on which path to take.

[gozzer]

I see this discussion is only being joined by a few AN members. I constantly see that there are many Guests reading the posts, along with some long standing members that very rarely make a post. I've made more than my fair share of posts on here (I can be a bit gobby when I feel passionate abut something, as some will have noticed), but I think that some of the 'silent' members are a bit intimidated by the "that's wrong, you don't want to do that" attitude of some members. I have read posts where members have said that they wouldn't post pictures of a bag of fish in case it upsets those who don't like keepnets! Well for the benefit of the 'silent' ones, don't be afraid to post, don't be intimidated, as long as you are using legal methods you are not doing anything wrong. I use a keepnet when I think I need to. I don't always take an unhooking mat with me (most fish are unhooked in the landing net, but I do have large bin liners with me for the odd occasion I'm caught out). I have used live bait. I have taken the odd fish for the pot. I don't 'specialise'. All fish mean the same to me, I can get as much enjoyment out of building a bag of small fish, as I do catching chub and barbel while roving. Every ones got an opinion, use it, sure, you'll get those that disagree with you, but as long as it's done without personal insults, so what. It's only through discussion, compromise, and acceptance of others and their methods, that we can achieve unity amongst anglers.

 

 

I'll probably get some stick over this post, but I've got thick skin

[Anderoo]

Gozzer's got a good point. I seem to be in the minority on this issue, but I'll stay civil and polite and if someone says something that makes me rethink, I'll say so. That's what debate is for.

 

This is a thorny issue. Let's hear what you have to say

 

PS I used to use a keepnet all the time in years gone by, and I still do use livebait, in case you think I'm trying to be whiter than white. I also sometimes don't take an unhooking mat, and I've taken and eaten coarse fish (pike and zander) in the past. And I recently got 3 points and a £60 fine for jumping a red light in South London. I'm a rudeboy, no diggidy

[Dick Dastardly]

I totaly agree that this is a very confussing and difficult subject! But by discussing it it helps to clarify our own thoughts.

 

When I post on any subject like this I want to her as many veiws as possible. It doesnt matter if they agree or disagree with my own.As long as they are backed up with WHY they agree/disagree.This then makes the reply of value to me where a simple agree/disagree cause I say so not only doesnt cut the ice but adds nothing to the disscussion.