Swan Poisoned by Angler's Lead Weight

[Zaphod]

It would be a good point, but not at the water in question. As I said in an earlier post, it's a lake with a yachting club, a canoe club, and no shooting. The lake side is used by the general public out for a stroll or walk the dog. There is a BMX track to one side, and a swing park at the other. So shooting is out of the question in this case.

 

 

I was refering to the Lead problem in general and not regarding a specific lake. But point taken

[ColinW]

There are restrictions on the use of lead shot for shooting. You can't use lead shot on the foreshore, nominated SSSI's or for duck or geese shooting. Call me a lefty cynic but it seems strange that the hooray henry grouse and pheasant shooters can still blast lead all over the countryside with impunity. One wouldn't want to damage the old Purdey with any of that steel shot nonsense, would one.

Edited June 1, 2006 by ColinW

[Bob Bradford]

It would be a good point, but not at the water in question. As I said in an earlier post, it's a lake with a yachting club, a canoe club, and no shooting. The lake side is used by the general public out for a stroll or walk the dog. There is a BMX track to one side, and a swing park at the other. So shooting is out of the question in this case.

 

 

How can anyone prove the poisoned swan did not come from somewhere else? it could easily have picked up the lead from elsewhere, and it could just as easily have come from a shotgun or some other source, the point I am making is this;

 

People are too quick to admit blame and start making concessions to appease a nasty little minority that exist in this Country, this is not the way to combat speculative opinions spouted by bias and ill informed individuals.

 

CONCEDE NOTHING.

 

Angling is not an illegal activity and anglers have nothing to justify to anyone.

[Anderoo]

How can anyone prove the poisoned swan did not come from somewhere else? it could easily have picked up the lead from elsewhere, and it could just as easily have come from a shotgun or some other source, the point I am making is this;

 

People are too quick to admit blame and start making concessions to appease a nasty little minority that exist in this Country, this is not the way to combat speculative opinions spouted by bias and ill informed individuals.

 

CONCEDE NOTHING.

 

Angling is not an illegal activity and anglers have nothing to justify to anyone.

 

The question is not one of legality but rather one of ethics. That's the problem. As hard as I look, I can't see any ethical reason to use keepents, for example; but, as you say, it's perfectly legal.

 

The point about the swan picking up the lead from elsewhere is a good one. As usual, though, as we have no facts it all comes down to us starting from our own conclusions and working backwards from there, justifying them as we go. And yes, I concede I'm as guilty as anyone of this. If it could be proved that (1) the swan is ill because of lead (2) where the lead originated from (3) how old it [the lead] is/how long it's been there, then we'd be able to discuss it properly. Everything written so far is a speculative opinion!

 

I still reckon fishing's better off without some aspects of the sport - that's only my opinion. Remember, until recently zander were thrown up the bank and pike were landed with gaffs and unhooked with the aid of gags. Things change from within over time as anglers' opinions of what's acceptable change. Even with no influence at all from outside the fishing world, I will be very surprised if nothing changes over the next 10 or so years. This isn't giving in to a nasty minority - it's simply the way the sport evolves. Not always for the good either - as evidenced by the number of commercial carp fisheries now.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Anderoo

[Steve Walker]

The question is not one of legality but rather one of ethics. That's the problem. As hard as I look, I can't see any ethical reason to use keepents, for example; but, as you say, it's perfectly legal.

 

Can you see any ethical reason for catch-and-release? Dangerous ground, IMO, having to justify oneself. It's the job of those who want to restrict freedom to justify themselves, not vice-versa.

[Bob Bradford]

"Even with no influence at all from outside the fishing world, I will be very surprised if nothing changes over the next 10 or so years. This isn't giving in to a nasty minority - it's simply the way the sport evolves. Not always for the good either - as evidenced by the number of commercial carp fisheries now."

 

Well your opinions are DEFINITELY not going to influence me!!!

 

If you wish to bend over and take it up the ars...... you can mate but don't expect others to do likewise, I will never concede one solitary thing to the cranks and do-gooders that exist to stop others enjoying a perfectly legal sport/pastime.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Bob Bradford

[gozzer]

"Even with no influence at all from outside the fishing world, I will be very surprised if nothing changes over the next 10 or so years. This isn't giving in to a nasty minority - it's simply the way the sport evolves. Not always for the good either - as evidenced by the number of commercial carp fisheries now."

 

Well your opinions are DEFINITELY not going to influence me!!!

 

If you wish to bend over and take it up the ars...... you can mate but don't expect others to do likewise, I will never a concede one solitary thing to the cranks and do-gooders that exist to stop others enjoying a perfectly legal sport/pastime.

 

Steady on Bob, you've been fishing for some years now, like me. We've seen a lot of changes, some for the benefit of angling, some not. But whether those changes came about by outside influences, is debatable. Each newcomer to angling brings a set of ethics with them, these are learned and accepted from other sources, so it's bound to change angling whether we like it or not. I was against fishing in the 'close season', still am, and know a lot of anglers are, but it changed all the same.

[Anderoo]

If you wish to bend over and take it up the ars......

 

Ah, go on then, as it's you

 

As I said, we're starting from our conclusions and working backwards. I'm not trying to influence anyone. This is not me giving in to 'cranks and do-gooders', this is simply how I feel about it. Deciding already not to concede one solitary thing seems to be an unnecessarily aggressive stance to take. There's a whole list of things I'd be quite happy to get rid of from the fishing world - you can't tell me you don't! That's why ethics are tricky - we all have a different idea of what's right and what's wrong.

[Bob Bradford]

I am comfortable with angling , where I have issue's within angling is the blatant disregard for our laws, fish stealing, illegal netting and the illegal transferring of natural fish stocks etc.... anglers that break those laws are making it easier to get angling banned, and are doing untold harm,....... it is not not the ethical issues of Keepnets, livebaits etc that anglers need to address, and I will NEVER concede one solitary legal practice regarding angling.

[Dick Dastardly]

and the illegal transferring of natural fish stocks etc.... anglers that break those laws are making it easier to get angling banned, and are doing untold harm,.......

 

 

In general I agree with your stance Bob.

 

However I suppose Im on a hiding for nothing again here but what do you mean by harm? Harm to our image as anglers or harm to the enviroment?