Shooting ban, could we next?

[theartist]

Some of those ways we may not agree with Kev but they are rural ways, country ways and have been like that for centuries.

We can't slag of introduced peasants and fish waters that are stocked unnaturally

 

[theartist]

Ok just seen the pheasant typo, but think i'll leave it as it's apt is it's all we are at the end of the day

 

[john step]

This topic has cropped up over many years.
Horse racing was mentioned. I know someone who goes to racecourses to hand out leaflets calling for a ban on racing.

I always said if fishing was banned I would emigrate to another country. As I get older that is less practicable as It wouldn't happen now in my active life which is left.

There have been attempts on angling in the past with demonstrators disrupting matches.

The BBC with Ester Rantzen jumped on the bandwagon over lead shot producing some very dubious examples of abandoned tackle for the Sunday evening show some years ago. I appreciate tackle is left on the bank but the stuff I saw portrayed was obviously from the props department and from a time of distant history.

These sorts of things are minor but the undercurrent is there. There will be a nibbling away until the cake is gone.

Having said all that, I would not stop fishing anyway come what may.

 

[nottskev]

We can't slag of introduced peasants and fish waters that are stocked unnaturally

I see your point, kind of, but it's a bit broad-brush (!), and I don't think you can simply equate the two. Each has its own specific issues, and needs weighing up separately.

 

[sam vimes]

Dismissing all environmentalists as "bunny huggers" is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, both in terms of lumping people together and blinding ourselves to the need for a positive environmentalist support for things we want, as people and as anglers.

In this case, I understand that the legal challenge, pre-empted by Natural England, was about the automatic renewal of a license to shoot that covered sacred ibis, parakeets, and jays as well as crows and pigeons, and there will be a different system in place before long. Hardly apocalypse now.

I don't buy into a simple distinction between environmentalists (boo!) and those trustworthy guardians of traditional countryside values, landowners and the shooting industries(hooray!).


To give just one example: grouse moors - those profitable playgrounds of the rich – are a Bermuda Triangle where birds of prey disappear and a heather monoculture induced to feed young birds. They are owned by a tiny elite who receive public subsidy for their contribution to environmental damage.

To mention another, the pheasant shooting industry sees some 40 million pheasants released each year, to impact on native species via competition for food, prompting further predator suppression and, as roadkill when the over-eating, stuffed pheasants wander into the road, providing a useful food source for “pest” species. Those who rear them bear no responsibility for them when released. It has also secured state-sponsored persecution of a protected species – the buzzard – to satisfy some of our richest fellow citizens.

I’m afraid that dividing us up into ignorant tree-huggers and savvy country folk misses that point that a lot of damage to our environment is actually caused by those who own the land and milk it for profit – and often with the aid of public subsidy. We rely on environmentalists to inform us about the threats to our countryside, and to expose the murky politics around those who threaten it.

True, there are idiots out there who would raid a zoo and liberate the animals etc, but there are idiots in every walk of life. The Daily Mail takes a "tree-hugger" view of environmentalists - but don't forget long-term former editor Pauk Dacre owns a grouse moor. Opposing environmental politics is a step backwards.

The main thrust is probably reasonable enough, but you are guilty of a certain level of doing exactly the same thing (in opposite). Those pursuing the fox hunting ban (which I don't particularly disagree with) also did the same with their suggestions that fox hunting was the sole preserve of the wealthy. They turned the whole thing into a class war. It was never as simple as that, and neither is the shooting scene.

I'm afraid that your understanding of pheasant rearing and game keeping is also somewhat flawed by your suggestion that "those who rear them bear no responsibility for them when released". It's a terrible keeper that doesn't maintain control of his birds once released, mainly by large scale feeding. As a by product, an awful lot of other birds also benefit from this feeding at a time of year when natural food is becoming scarce.

Don't get me wrong, there are still despicable keepers doing stupid, illegal things. Some of those that claim to be guardians of the countryside are anything but. However, our countryside will undoubtedly be vastly different if the many forms of hunting and shooting are done away with. Some changes may turn out to be for the better, some definitely won't.

Unfortunately, deliberate polarization of any debate appears a tactic in such debate. I've little doubt that one side will paint the other as scruffy, jobless, bunny huggers. The other side will attempt to make it a class thing, trying to suggest that everyone involved with hunting/shooting is posh and/or rich. Neither is accurate, nor helpful.

 

[theartist]

I see your point, kind of, but it's a bit broad-brush (!), and I don't think you can simply equate the two. Each has its own specific issues, and needs weighing up separately.

I think you can equate the two as the parallels are very similar, the bottom line is these country ways may seem old hat and outdated but they work, and they work alongside nature reserves the same way we can fish a lake down the road from an RSPB reserve, there is room for us all and things don't always change for the better. We may not like the lords and all their land but we aren't using it any better or more ethical than they are.

With over population it's getting to the stage where the hunting/shooting land offers the best chance of a natural environment for many species, the alternative is urban development or worse still these twee country parks where everything is hand fed/ or overstocked ponds as in fishing.

 

[nottskev]

The main thrust is probably reasonable enough, but you are guilty of a certain level of doing exactly the same thing (in opposite). Those pursuing the fox hunting ban (which I don't particularly disagree with) also did the same with their suggestions that fox hunting was the sole preserve of the wealthy. They turned the whole thing into a class war. It was never as simple as that, and neither is the shooting scene.

I'm afraid that your understanding of pheasant rearing and game keeping is also somewhat flawed by your suggestion that "those who rear them bear no responsibility for them when released". It's a terrible keeper that doesn't maintain control of his birds once released, mainly by large scale feeding. As a by product, an awful lot of other birds also benefit from this feeding at a time of year when natural food is becoming scarce.

Don't get me wrong, there are still despicable keepers doing stupid, illegal things. Some of those that claim to be guardians of the countryside are anything but. However, our countryside will undoubtedly be vastly different if the many forms of hunting and shooting are done away with. Some changes may turn out to be for the better, some definitely won't.

Unfortunately, deliberate polarization of any debate appears a tactic in such debate. I've little doubt that one side will paint the other as scruffy, jobless, bunny huggers. The other side will attempt to make it a class thing, trying to suggest that everyone involved with hunting/shooting is posh and/or rich. Neither is accurate, nor helpful.

|Yes - I'm not particularly interested in countering one gross simplification with another, but whlist environmentalism is caricatured widely as tree-hugging etc, the kind of thing I briefly and thus sketchily mentioned - this is a forum post, not an article - seems to pass under the radar of popular awareness.
Scrutinising the doings and dealings of elite landowners and their use of the countryside is not to be dismissed as class war, but a prerequisite for good laws and policies.

BTW I didn't mean responsibility in the personal sense - I meant the legal sense, as below:

When pheasants are reared, they are classed as livestock: that means the people who raise them are exempt from some payments of value added tax and certain forms of planning control, on the grounds that they are producing food. But as soon as they’re released they are classed as wild animals. Otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to shoot them. But if you want to re-capture the survivors at the end of the shooting season to use as breeding stock, they cease to be wild and become livestock again, because you aren’t allowed to catch wild birds with nets. If, however, pheasants cause damage to neighbouring gardens, or to cars, or to the people travelling in those cars, the person who released them bears no liability, because for this purpose they are classed as wild animals – even if, at the time, they are being rounded up as legal livestock. The pheasant’s properties of metamorphosis should be a rich field of study for biologists: even the Greek myths mentioned no animal that mutated so often.

 

[morston1]

I think you can equate the two as the parallels are very similar, the bottom line is these country ways may seem old hat and outdated but they work, and they work alongside nature reserves the same way we can fish a lake down the road from an RSPB reserve, there is room for us all and things don't always change for the better.

One our local clubs, King’s Lynn Angling Association, and the RSPB co-operated in developing a car park and facilities, now shared, on the KLAA lakes and RSPB reserve at Snettisham in Norfolk.

I have long been an angler and RSPB member. We can work together in our mutual interests and polarisation helps none of us.

 

[sam vimes]

|Yes - I'm not particularly interested in countering one gross simplification with another, but whlist environmentalism is caricatured widely as tree-hugging etc, the kind of thing I briefly and thus sketchily mentioned - this is a forum post, not an article - seems to pass under the radar of popular awareness.
Scrutinising the doings and dealings of elite landowners and their use of the countryside is not to be dismissed as class war, but a prerequisite for good laws and policies.

I'm not dismissing the prospect of any scrutiny, merely pointing out that caricaturing of either side of the argument by the other is equally ridiculous. No one can really complain about environmentalists being dismissed as bunny huggers whilst the impression is given that the hunting/shooting lot are all posh/rich.

Ultimately, it's very likely come down to this kind of nonsense, and, ultimately, the rich poshos will probably lose. The class war aspect is a powerful propaganda tool to use on a largely indifferent majority that are neither posh, nor rich.

If and when it comes to it, the same tactics will be used on angling. The difference is that a greater number of people will know that it's rubbish. The problem that angling has is that there may not be enough of us left to counter the propaganda.

 

[john step]

Just as an afterthought.... I may be wrong but judging by posts on here and MD forum the greatest proportion of fishing in this country is done on commercials or club lakes well away from the gaze of the general public unlike when it was mostly rivers?
Perhaps the perception is that not much fishing goes on now so perhaps we are not too much of a problem for the antis? Hopefully.

On a parallel theme I have seen the headlines about lion farms in South Africa where lions are raised to be shot by paying hunters in fenced enclosures. Apparently the body parts are then sold to the Chinese medicine industry and the skins for leather stuff.

My first reaction was how awful. I then wondered what the conditions the lions were reared in. I then thought that IF the conditions were humane how much different from rearing crocodiles for leather, cattle for meat and leather.
Carp for catch and release.
Rainbows for catch and dispatch?

Its a muddled situation. Would it be OK to rear lions to kill for medicine if they were not shot first for sport?

I will have a lie down before I get a headachemg:mg:

 

[theartist]

Its a muddled situation. Would it be OK to rear lions to kill for medicine if they were not shot first for sport?

No, given there's no scientific proof that there is any health benefit from any Lion produce

 

[sam vimes]

BTW I didn't mean responsibility in the personal sense - I meant the legal sense, as below:

When pheasants are reared, they are classed as livestock: that means the people who raise them are exempt from some payments of value added tax and certain forms of planning control, on the grounds that they are producing food. But as soon as they’re released they are classed as wild animals. Otherwise you wouldn’t be allowed to shoot them. But if you want to re-capture the survivors at the end of the shooting season to use as breeding stock, they cease to be wild and become livestock again, because you aren’t allowed to catch wild birds with nets. If, however, pheasants cause damage to neighbouring gardens, or to cars, or to the people travelling in those cars, the person who released them bears no liability, because for this purpose they are classed as wild animals – even if, at the time, they are being rounded up as legal livestock. The pheasant’s properties of metamorphosis should be a rich field of study for biologists: even the Greek myths mentioned no animal that mutated so often.

That's just one of the many strange inconsistencies that exist in laws that have developed over hundreds of years. Similar weird inconsistencies apply to fish. In an enclosed water they can be owned and taking without the owners consent is theft. In running water they can't be owned and taking without consent (or out of season, in too great a number, the incorrect size) is poaching.

Then you have similar with game and "pest" species. Landowners are legally responsible for the control of pest species. However, I've never heard of a landowner being held responsible for failing to control pest species. If someone takes one of these pest species without permission, it's aggravated trespass and poaching.

When it comes to responsibility for damage to property, it's similarly grey. However, it's just as grey for genuinely domesticated cats or dogs. If either run out into a road and damage a car, good luck getting an owner to take legal responsibility.

However, I'm more than a little dubious of the idea that pheasants routinely return to livestock status after previously being release into the wild. It's not something that happens regularly these days. No keeper I've ever encountered even attempts to recapture birds for breeding stock. A good keeper won't have enough birds left at the end of a season to make such an enterprise worthwhile.

 

[103841]

Forgive me if this has already been asked I haven’t read the entire thread, would you also expect sea fishing with rod and line to be part of the anti angling campaign?

 

[john step]

No, given there's no scientific proof that there is any health benefit from any Lion produce

Yes I agree but the Chinese think there is. Its the fact of using one animal as opposed to a different species which is deemed OK I was thinking of. I suppose its a bit like trawling for fish and gutting them alive after squashing them in a trawl net or maybe the thought of catching and gutting nice little furry bunnies alive? I was just thinking of the different reactions to varying species that humans have.

 

[theartist]

Yes I agree but the Chinese think there is. Its the fact of using one animal as opposed to a different species which is deemed OK I was thinking of. I suppose its a bit like trawling for fish and gutting them alive after squashing them in a trawl net or maybe the thought of catching and gutting nice little furry bunnies alive? I was just thinking of the different reactions to similar species that humans have.

Spot on John, there is also the flip side that if the fish were cute and furry we'd be in a whole lot of trouble fishing for them, makes me laugh the love in for foxes and otters, yes they are magnificent creatures but would you leave a new born baby with them, would they be cute then?. The worst thing is there's people out there that think we are in a disney film and that animals are like that. I've also got no problem killing something for food as long as it's sustainable. P.s Look for the sustainable fish logo on any seafood you buy

All animals are the same they are after food and reproduction plus they'll all rip your face off and that's the truth

 

[theartist]

Forgive me if this has already been asked I haven’t read the entire thread, would you also expect sea fishing with rod and line to be part of the anti angling campaign?

From all the sea anglers I have met any anti angling campaign targetting them would be a big mistake lol

 

[S-Kippy]

I do wish these professional agitators would direct their undoubted energy at something a bit more worthy. There are many issues having a lot more impact that could do with addressing first.

 

[Philip]

Forgive me if this has already been asked I haven’t read the entire thread, would you also expect sea fishing with rod and line to be part of the anti angling campaign?

Thats a good question, the answer I believe will be no under the assumption its for food.

I dont think we will ever see a blanket ban on "angling" what we will see is a slow erosion of it as they create tighter and tighter rules to chip away at it from edges inwards. Angling for sport being on the outside edge and angling for food in the center with lots of grey area in between.

For anyone that doubts this I always use the example of Germany where I believe angling for sport is basically banned. I think Switzerland too has similar rules. I am sure recreational angling also raised money for the governments there but it didnt stop them passing the new rules.

How practical it is for them to then enforce these rules is a different question...they are probably almost impossible to police but thats missing the point.

 

[john step]

Thats a good question, the answer I believe will be no under the assumption its for food.

I dont think we will ever see a blanket ban on "angling" what we will see is a slow erosion of it as they create tighter and tighter rules to chip away at it from edges inwards. Angling for sport being on the outside edge and angling for food in the center with lots of grey area in between.

For anyone that doubts this I always use the example of Germany where I believe angling for sport is basically banned. I think Switzerland too has similar rules. I am sure recreational angling also raised money for the governments there but it didnt stop them passing the new rules.

How practical it is for them to then enforce these rules is a different question...they are probably almost impossible to police but thats missing the point.

Whoops........I was just about to administer the priest when it slipped from my hands and plopped back into the water, honestly. :wh

 

[theartist]

I was just about to administer the priest when it slipped from my hands

Usually claims like that are swept under the carpet as ecumenical matters :wh