My reply to Adam Stacey, Administrative Officer, The Green Party:
Dear Adam
It seems incredible to me that you had to refer to an anti-angling group, and one that has been successfully prosecuted for criminal acts against people (not fish) on numerous occasions, to get your information. Didn?t you think that the information they give out would be somewhat biased? Surely it would have made much more sense to refer to the proper authority, the Environment Agency, where you could also have checked just how many anglers have been prosecuted for using lead shot. Go on, surprise yourself.
This email from me is biased too, being as I?m the editor of the UK?s most popular angling website, but I can assure you that what you may read from me is the absolute truth.
The real truth about lead shot is that anglers do NOT use it in the banned sizes, and legal smaller sizes pass through birds while the larger sizes allowed are too large to be swallowed. However, the shot used in shotgun cartridges, which get sprayed over waters by the thousand, are a different matter. As for birds eating the shot left in the mud before the ban, well, if there is any truth in that or not, banning angling now won?t alter that one jot will it?
Your AR412 policy calling for a ban on angling (although you spin it as ?a call for a voluntary ban?) has more holes in it that a landing net. Anglers do more to protect fish against pollution and other threats than all the anti-angling organizations (and I now include the Green Party) on the planet. If you did a proper study into angling, in the areas where you would get at the truth rather than anti-angling campaigning websites, you would soon realise this.
One influential angler I know had this to say yesterday:
(Extracted from Phil Hackett's posting)
?I was going to vote Green, as I personally know two of the Candidates standing in my area. One of which is not anti-angling, but as he is standing on a ticket that wants angling banned, both have lost my vote, and likely another 100 besides through the community groups I?m involved with. I will now make it very public knowledge within those community groups about their stance on angling. The Green Party knows that it stood a good chance of at least getting one of its members elected in the NW this time, and 100 votes might just have taken it over the required 10% it needs to gain that seat. The Green Party has lost a potential 3-4 million direct votes from anglers, but it forgets that each angler can probably influence two other people at least, and probably more. Therefore it has mathematically lost itself between 9-12 million votes by its anti-angling stance.?
You really do need to revise your stance on angling if you hope to make any headway in government. You see, anglers are great conservation people, many of whom have voted green, until AR412 that is, but who are now doing their best to influence people NOT to vote for the Green Party, which is a pity as many of your other policies are worthwhile and far from misguided.
Regards
Graham Marsden
Editor,
www.fishingmagic.com