Shooting ban, could we next?

[Neil Maidment]

With the ban on shooting ‘pest’ birds by Natural England after giving in and bowing down to a challenge by environmentalists can we still consider that fishing will never be banned.
Environmentalists / bunny huggers see things in different way when it comes to animals.

What ban on shooting pest birds?

I have little or no time for Chris Packham or his two cohorts. However, via their Wild Justice vehicle, they reaffirmed the need for such pest control but challenged the utter incompetence of Natural England's administration of the current General Licence process. When NE failed to respond to their initial challenge, they upped the ante with a legal challenge.

NE quickly discovered via Counsel Opinion that they had and were continuing to act illegally. Their choice was, without advice or notice to those most involved, to immediately remove the General Licence process and attempt to introduce an alternative. Surprise, surprise that online process crashed under the immediate pressure. Wild Justice had previously recommended NE revise their processes with a target to introduce alternatives in 2020.

Responsibility for Natural England lies with the odious Professional Politician known as Michael Gove. I've not seen any response from him yet to the many formal questions from those most affected.

Having said that, the thing that shouldn't surprise any angler, is that Wild Justice raised the required funds to finance the legal action in a blink of an eye...... all from public donations.

 

[xenon]

I don't see any cause for alarm on our part just yet. The key difference being that we put our quarry back unharmed. Contrast the long history of hunt saboteurs giving gip to hunts, can anyone here recall any instance of members of the public giving us grief on the bank? Until the majority of the population turn veggie i think we are safe.

 

[103841]

Ironically, there is a campaign to end fishing on the Great Stour through Canterbury City centre.

In the past few weeks (during the close season) groups of kids have been wandering along the river with catapults killing ducks and ducklings. I’d like to think a river lined with a few anglers would not allow that to happen.

 

[bennygesserit]

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.

it is demonstrably true though that the ownership of land in this country is in the hands of the minority - on the whole.
So the hunting shooting lot who control the most hunting shooting land are all , by very definition , posh.
A prime example is Richard Benyon , a hereditary owner of vast tracts of lands and who rose to power on the back of his elite education and status and who advocated the poisoning of Buzzards and the disturbance of their nests , to protect his grouse , whilst simultaneously being part of the environment ministry.

So while I agree its not a simple posho class issue , rich landowners and their (AB)use of the land they own , certainly is a factor.

 

[sam vimes]

it is demonstrably true though that the ownership of land in this country is in the hands of the minority - on the whole.
So the hunting shooting lot who control the most hunting shooting land are all , by very definition , posh.
A prime example is Richard Benyon , a hereditary owner of vast tracts of lands and who rose to power on the back of his elite education and status and who advocated the poisoning of Buzzards and the disturbance of their nests , to protect his grouse , whilst simultaneously being part of the environment ministry.

So while I agree its not a simple posho class issue , rich landowners and their (AB)use of the land they own , certainly is a factor.

Big landowners may be rich/posh (it's not automatically the same thing). However, those actually engaged in shooting, especially pest control, are usually anything but.

 

[bennygesserit]

Completely agree
What is your opinion of Richard Benyon ?

 

[sam vimes]

Completely agree
What is your opinion of Richard Benyon ?

I don't really have one beyond him being a politician. I'm not a big fan of any politician, regardless of their party of choice.

 

[nottskev]

Although I'd agree that polarised name-calling doesn't shed much light on anything, it needs to be said that the facts bear out the idea that land ownership has in recent years become concentrated in fewer hands, that rural policy has been increasingly hijacked in the interplay between the land-owning and political classes - look up Richard Benyon, for instance - and that there follow from such unhealthy symbioses such consequences as the disappearance of birds like the hen harriers shot and poisoned by grouse shooting estates. While you can declare a plague on both your houses to the name -callers, I think you do have to take issues of wealth and class, and the powers and privileges that go with them. seriously in order to analyse where we are heading in terms of rural policy and how vast amounts of our countryside are being managed. Being told, if I mention class, that I'm in the business of class war, reminds me of another comparable situation: the occasions when, having pointed out some quite undeniable example of privilege or preferential treatment, that the defender of it accuses me of "the politics of envy". I'm quite willing to believe that there are any number of hardworking people of integrity involved in the rural economy, and my comments don't cast aspersions on them. But it would be naive not to focus on the self-interest and self-serving political influence of some of our big landowners, and their indifference to wider environmental matters when getting rid of anything that threatens the birds they grow to shoot.

 

[no-one in particular]

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.

I am pretty sure sea angling will get banned as well if they ban coarse angling. Coarse angling is usually referred to as pleasure fishing and sea angling as recreational fishing, not vital for food so, the argument will be from the antis, go and buy your fish like everyone else and it's still cruel.
I can see the day when even commercial fishing has to humanely kill its catch.
And I think the day when some political party see more votes in an angling ban outweighing the income is when they will think about it. Whether thats what happened in Germany I do not know but I bet it played a big part for some party or other. And those votes will come from all the bad publicity, pictures etc that will be thrown at the press, same as they did with fox hunting, badgers etc.

 

[mikench]

A thread such as this treads a narrow path in trying to avoid politics and religion. I use the terms loosely to suggest a fervent almost zealous belief in a cause or pursuit almost to the exclusion of all others.

The truth is that the standard of the former and those who profess to practice it, almost throughout the world, is woeful. The latter is distorted and hyped by the media.

A ban on Angling is a possibility as indeed is a ban on anything. I am all in favour of preserving the countryside and all living things within it and the several practices referred to in this thread do so albeit imperfectly and disagreeably to some.

If all forms of hunting, fishing, shooting, riding, rearing of meat, growing grapes malt and wheat for alcohol production, tree planting for furniture production and many more activities were banned, what would we have left. The word civilisation literally means a city dweller and few if any of the activities above occur within a city. Many of us envy the rural life and pursuing hunting and Angling is the closest we get to it. A few rhetorical questions assuming all things are banned.

* who or what will look after our lakes, rivers and other water courses and at what cost?

* who or what will will produce food we are happy to eat if meat is banned along with other foodstuffs?

* how will whatever is left be transported to feed us all if all means of the use of fossil fuels are banned?

* would the horse and cart be banned as being cruel?

* how would we and other countries generate gross national product if we couldn't export goods or manufacture them due to banned processes and sources of energy?

* without income and taxes from earnings, indirect taxes such as vat, excise duty, stamp duty, car tax, road fund tax and so on, who funds the NHS, our pensions, our social services, the entire fabric of our " civilisation?

* what will the vegans, dogooders and other minorities seek to protect and ban then? The killing of vegetables( they are living things) , the use of horse drawn ploughs and carts, anything which uses electricity or increases greenhouse gases?

* who or what will maintain law and order( we barely have it now within our "civilisation) and pay for it?


Suddenly the distopian worlds of Mad Max, Blade Runner et al don't seem so far fetched. It is always the vociferous minority which shouts the loudest and, it seems, gets its voice heard.

If I wish to catch fish I will jolly well do so!

 

[steve2]

Having said that, the thing that shouldn't surprise any angler, is that Wild Justice raised the required funds to finance the legal action in a blink of an eye...... all from public donations.

When I was an RSPB volunteer it was very easy to raise money for our causes even from anglers. When I tried to raise money for fishing anglers wouldn’t give a penny.
So who would if it came to it fight the anglers corner if anglers won’t.

 

[mikench]

So who would if it came to it fight the anglers corner if anglers won’t.

Nobody and we, as the Angling community , would only have ourselves to blame! It would be left to Angling clubs and their dwindling numbers to provide or at least to maintain waters.

But don't clubs to varying degrees do that now? Don't commercials do that now after all if their waters were scruffy, overgrown and devoid of fish they would swiftly disappear. Hardly any bird watchers are anglers but most anglers are bird watchers so your findings are hardly a surprise. I am a member of the RSPB and finds its raison d'être and aims entirely complimentary with my love of Angling, birds and wildlife and a general love of the countryside! I have seen more birds and observed more fascinating behaviour whilst fishing than I ever did sat in a hide!

 

[no-one in particular]

If I wish to catch fish I will jolly well do so!

Just out of interest, would you risk paying the fine or do the prison sentence to carry on. Same question to everyone else.
I wouldn't, I am pretty sure I would give it up.

 

[peter crabtree]

So who would if it came to it fight the anglers corner if anglers won’t.

I'm sure the Angling trust would fight and they would suddenly see a huge influx of new members.

 

[nottskev]

I don't see any signs of the kind of groundswell of opinion and intense lobbying that would need to build over years to make a ban a realistic possibility. I wonder, though, whether fishing in many places could be sanitised beyond recognition by proliferation of the rules and restrictions that micro-manage fishing on many waters. No surface baits no keepnets no hooks over size 10 no groundbait no nuts no bread except as hookbait all fish of whatever size to be landed via net etc etc etc

 

[mikench]

would you risk paying the fine or do the prison sentence to carry on.

Yes I would but in the same risk assessment manner I live out my life. We have far too many prisoners and too few prisons without sending me or anyone else to one for catching and releasing a cute little roach.

I agree with Kev's points and have already suggested to a few venues I no longer frequent" why not just put up a sign No Fishing and be done with it" could that be a premonition of a bleak and unpleasant future? If it is I won't be here to endure it!

 

[Molehill]

We have done the "angling ban" discussion in full before and my opinion is in line with some others, there will not be an outright ban but rather "death by a thousand cuts". and slow strangulation of the sport with ever more restrictions and regulations. Nobody will want to go fishing in 50 years time - or not as we know it.

I think what is happening with Wild Justice, is showing how quickly and easily a small group of anti-shooting in this case, can motivate the public behind them, raise funds and chuck a major spanner in the works of something that has been accepted practice for years. Natural England being a bit slow off the mark makes their job easier.

And in my opinion their motivation is purely to disrupt the shooting world, unfortunately there is a massive potential knock on disruption until the whole thing is sorted and hopefully we can get back to general license of some form. I live in Wales so currently this doesn't apply to us, though god knows what will happen next week if NRW get involved, or perhaps Wild Justice will come after us as well?

 

[john step]

Just out of interest, would you risk paying the fine or do the prison sentence to carry on. Same question to everyone else.
I wouldn't, I am pretty sure I would give it up.

I am a chancer. I would risk it.

 

[mikench]

Banning something always works, just look at illicit drugs.

 

[108831]

Just out of interest, would you risk paying the fine or do the prison sentence to carry on. Same question to everyone else.
I wouldn't, I am pretty sure I would give it up.

Well I'm afraid they don't put people in prison for far worse,in fact you have a job to get the police out unless you tell them you have a mad axeman at the door.