Angling Trust urges RSPCA to stop blaming anglers for plastic problems

[FishingMagic]

The Angling Trust has urged the RSPCA not to lay the blame at anglers’ feet following the publication this morning of an article in The Guardian suggesting that the majority of litter related wildlife incidents are caused by discarded fishing tackle. Instead the Angling Trust invites the RSPCA to join with it in highlighting the issue of litter and its impacts in both the marine and freshwater environments.
Anglers take the issue of litter extremely seriously and the vast majority are responsible custodians of our countryside and coasts. The Angling Trust runs several initiatives to educate the small minority, working with their extensive network of over 2,200 clubs, fisheries and trade members to promote angling club litter clean ups, in which anglers in their thousands take part in across the country. The Trust also runs an initiative called Take 5 to inspire anglers to collect five pieces of (non-angling related) litter when packing their gear away, all in partnership with the Environment Agency.
Over recent months a new enterprise to recycle used fishing line has also emerged. Known as the Anglers National Line Recycling Scheme, the Angling Trust is encouraging all anglers to utilise this free service to minimise the amount of fishing line that is sent to landfill.
Furthermore, our 500 trained Voluntary Bailiffs have guidance on how to assist injured wildlife, which was drawn up in partnership with the National Swan Convention. The Trust has had a number of meetings with the RSPCA in the past to work jointly on this issue with them but regretfully they have declined to take this further.
According to the RSPCA’s own figures, of the 579 incidents in 2018 involving plastic litter, only 29 were litter from angling and 550 were from general litter. Moreover, The Guardian article failed to acknowledge the contribution of commercial fishing to marine litter in particular, with reference to “discarded nets” from anglers. Discarded nets are likely to arise exclusively from commercial operations – not from recreational angling – and can cause major damage to wildlife both in the marine environment through ‘ghost fishing’ and by entangling animals when nets wash up onto the shore.
The Angling Trust recognises that litter can become a problem in some areas. However, analysis of previous data provided by the RSPCA has shown that this is an issue primarily attributed to summer school holidays on open access waters, where inexperienced anglers are using inappropriate fishing equipment. The Trust wants to see more people take up angling and to access the many health and wellbeing benefits derived from participation but would urge everyone to first attend one of our managed and supervised “Get Fishing” family events, which can be found at*www.getfishing.org.uk.
James Champkin, Campaigns Officer for the Angling Trust, said:*“No one likes to see litter around our lakes and rivers or spoiling our beaches, least of all anglers who spend more time enjoying our waterways than any other group. Many anglers are also keen birdwatchers and nature enthusiasts, and the last thing they would want to do is cause harm to the amazing wildlife that we share our sport with. The Angling Trust is keen to work with the RSPCA to help better educate the minority.
Anglers are the driving force behind conservation of rivers and oceans and overall make a hugely positive contribution to the protection of habitats for wildlife with rod licence fees, donations and volunteer time. Our members support work by the Angling Trust and Fish Legal to campaign and take legal action to stop pollution and other damage to the water environment”


Source Article...

 

[bennygesserit]

I doubt a serious angler would deliberately leave litter but we will all get tarred with the same brush

 

[kevt]

Hi

Sat fishing the other Saturday - 2 dog walkers went past with bottles of water in hand, just past me finished their water and threw them in the reservoir - the wind blew them into my bank so I netted them out and put them in my bag / and later in my home plastic recycle box. Was hoping they would go a second walk round so I could have said something. Amazing how many walkers on the canals drop litter too.

KevT

 

[no-one in particular]

I thought the Guardian article on balance was fair although a bit confusing as to which data is attributed to what! Source article:- Animals and birds under increasing threat from plastic waste | Environment | The Guardian

The problem is confusing litter with "lost" line and hooks by both the Guardian/RSPCA and the angling trust; in my opinion they are different things. And it sites 3200 cases of harm done to wildlife by anglers lines etc from 4579 cases so I dont know where the 29 comes from in this by the AT if I have read this right. Both article and response does confuse the numbers somewhat but it might be a majority.
Going by this latest round I think a proper liaison is needed between the AT and the RSPCA, not a war of words and fake news in the media.

However, this is a poor article, blurring the lines berween litter, plastic litter, harm to wildlife through plastic, lost commercial nets etc, litter from anglers and harm to wildlife from lost lines/hooks.

 

[Brianw999]

The only evidence you will ever find of me having occupied a fishing swim will be 6 holes. 4 for my chair and 2 for rod rests.

 

[mikench]

I have no time for the rspca and have dealt with them professionally quite a few times! I regularly pick up litter at fishing venues from beer cans to empty cans of luncheon meat!

Those who do this merit a new adjective as moron is far too generous!

 

[no-one in particular]

I have no time for the rspca and have dealt with them professionally quite a few times! I regularly pick up litter at fishing venues from beer cans to empty cans of luncheon meat!

Those who do this merit a new adjective as moron is far too generous!

I read thier leaflet on angling once Mike, it said they recognized angling was a sport enjoyed by many and they did not want it banned. It went on to advise ways of minimizing harm to wildlife by anglers. All very reasonable I thought and its thier job to do that. And lets not forget without them cruelty to animals would be a lot higher. Dealing with them in a proffessional capacity might be different but as a member of the general public visiting one of thier centers I felt rather grateful for them and for some of the shocking cases they were dealing with. On balance I think the world would be a worse place without them.
I think the Guardian have used some quotes and statistics from the RSPCA to paint anglers in a bad light for thier readers. The AT should take it up with them rather than the RSPCA, just my opinion and my reading of the article the way they have laid it out. It worked as everyone is reacting to it as a case of the RSPCA blaming all wildlife harm caused by litter left by anglers including the AT. They would love to start a war between the AT and the RSPCA and they have. Clever these newspapers but you have to see through them.
I urge the AT to wise up, outflank the Guardian, talk to the RSPCA who have a grasp on reality and have a war with the Guardian who don't.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

The RSPCA does excellent work but I cannot come to terms with their silence on the barbaric Islamic practice of conscious-animal slaughter. I hope readers have strong stomachs......

YouTube

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Cliff,

I am sure that the RSPCA have many faults but cannot see any link between the thread topic and animal slaughter of any kind.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Were it not for the enormity of this issue, Peter, I wouldn't have made the link.

 

[mikench]

I agree that the RSPCA do a lot of good work but like many charities they are greedy! I have dealt with them pursuant to the administration of estates left in whole or in part to them! They have defended actions brought against them and instigated actions often unsuccessfully! In some they have acted unreasonably in my book and wasted significant funds on litigation which should have been spent on animal protection!

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Notwithstanding the size of the issue we had better agree to disagree on its suitability here on FM.

 

[Molehill]

The RSPCA does excellent work but I cannot come to terms with their silence on the barbaric Islamic practice of conscious-animal slaughter. I hope readers have strong stomachs......

YouTube

I am not a big fan of RSPCA these days, but feel this post is something of a straw man regards the original point.

 

[no-one in particular]

I am not sure what point Cliff is trying to make, no explanation; but putting thousand years old religious practices aside; I understand the RSPCA has received some critisisims over the last few years, some of its politcal and financial and I am sure the press love all this.
However, I would urge anyone to visit a RSPCA center if you have one near you. Lovely people who will show you around and explain what they do, its not all fluff, some very ground-breaking scientific stuff goes on and it is very educational. Seeing the work done by voluteers and vets at the ground level of the organation is more important than the head line stuff. And you will enjoy it and your children I am sure plus it will give you a more balanced view of the organization.
And they don't blame anglers for all the animal harm done by litter which they list under 8 categories, angling being just one of them where they urge responsible angling, nothing more nothing less; not banning it and they work in conjunction with the enviroment agency.
Which is really the point I am making, the Guardian article is propaganda for the Guardian anti-angling brigade more than anything else it seems to me which is probably their agenda. And like all propaganda and news papers agendas, it reported in a way they want the public to think about anglers.

And just an extra thought for Mike, the one near me was experimenting in providing supervised accomodation and education for troubled kids, they were having a lot of success with this but it is very expensive and funds were drying up and the whole place including the center itself was under threat of closure through lack of funds. I am not excusing them because I dont know what the situation was but funds are often difficult for these kind of organizations.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Notwithstanding the size of the issue we had better agree to disagree on its suitability here on FM.

Yes, Peter, it's not something I want to examine too closely but it must be said...if ever there was a reason for the RSPCA to be creating merry-hell - this is IT. In a saner era, the revelation - possibly by a major Sunday broadsheet or a Dispatches / Panorama - type TV programme - that British slaughter-house workers were slitting the throats of conscious mammals and allowing them to bleed to death, would have seen nationwide condemnation and urgent debate at government level. Without question, the RSPCA would have been right there in the thick of it, producing graphic literature and television advertisements to foment outrage within the compassionate British public. WITHIN MONTHS, THE PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUTLAWED. You and I know this, Peter and so does every other decent person but, for some reason, the world's premier animal-protection organization and the governments of Europe see fit to turn a blind eye. Hopefully we'll see this problem eradicated one day.

 

[bennygesserit]

The RSPCA does excellent work but I cannot come to terms with their silence on the barbaric Islamic practice of conscious-animal slaughter. I hope readers have strong stomachs......

islamic and Kosher

This link also sheds light on the RSPCA campaign regarding Halal and Kosher meat Humane Slaughter & Stunned Meat | Halal Slaughter | RSPCA
Interestingly animals can be stunned before slaughter and still remain Halal , the RSPCA estimates 65 % of Halal meat in this country is pre-stunned ( not enough by any means ) but I think Kosher meat cannot be pre-stunned

From the RSPCA web site ( which may or may not be true )


All animals slaughtered under the Shechita (for Kosher) are non-stunned, however, between two thirds and three quarters of meat labelled Halal is from animals that have been pre-stunned.

Not sure this is a topic suitable for a fishing forum but if the editor raised it then it must be so.
Personally some of the places I eat only serve Halal chicken , if they chose to label it as pre-stunned or not we would have more of a choice.

Back to the topic in an earlier thread Fishing Room 101 everyone expressed an aversion to litter but there must be some anglers who leave it ( I dont ) but I have seen some pretty bad behaviour on public pools.

 

[nottskev]

Most anglers I know don't leave litter and will pick up and bin/take away what they find. But we have to admit there are some people who go fishing who are not just litterers - they are wide-spectrum d***heads who will ignore any rules, written or unwritten. One of the places I enjoy fishing runs a refreshingly liberal regime in these days of the 20 point rules notice board: they ask you do to do two things 1) dip your nets 2) use barbless hooks. The bailiff tells me he regularly finds people who drive past the big notice and the dip bins, then rig up with barbed hooks. And they're not from the far side of the continent, either. I'd like to think the owners would ban individuals who won't cooperate before they'd impose more restrictions on a cooperative majority, but you never know.

 

[no-one in particular]

Yes, Peter, it's not something I want to examine too closely but it must be said...if ever there was a reason for the RSPCA to be creating merry-hell - this is IT. In a saner era, the revelation - possibly by a major Sunday broadsheet or a Dispatches / Panorama - type TV programme - that British slaughter-house workers were slitting the throats of conscious mammals and allowing them to bleed to death, would have seen nationwide condemnation and urgent debate at government level. Without question, the RSPCA would have been right there in the thick of it, producing graphic literature and television advertisements to foment outrage within the compassionate British public. WITHIN MONTHS, THE PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN OUTLAWED. You and I know this, Peter and so does every other decent person but, for some reason, the world's premier animal-protection organization and the governments of Europe see fit to turn a blind eye. Hopefully we'll see this problem eradicated one day.

I think its too big for a UK charity organization to take on, Government and religious leader level I would have thought to get the law changed. However, from Benny's link the RSPCA state:-
"Together with British Veterinary Association (BVA) we're calling on the UK Government to end non-stun slaughter. No exceptions."

I dont see what your problem is Cliff? The RSPCA are not culpable in this.

 

[Molehill]

In my opinion, the subject of acceptable animal slaughter methods and RSPCA involvement is a separate thread suitable only for the "Bait Box", no problem there.
But what connection it has to anglers leaving litter, I fail to see.

 

[bennygesserit]

post deleted