fishing

WARNING!! MORE ANTI-ANGLING APATHY !!
Coming as I do from a family of very ardent anglers I or rather we were very disappointed indeed to read the remarks and recommendations by Graham Marsden about how to tackle the Anti-Angling Brigade.

The future of angling can only be secured by a firm, righteous i.e. legal and proactive stance at the very least as prominent if not more so than that of the Antis.

In my personal opinion and those of many other anglers that I know, Graham?s remarks were negative and defeatist: picking-up your tackle and walking away is just being lily-livered; it?s just what they want and is playing right into their hands; walking away is for wimps. As my Dad used to say ?The meek may inherit the Earth but in the meantime us tough b*******s have got to look after it!? Anarchy would reign if everyone followed Graham?s (bad) advice: ?Don?t get involved?.

It?s definitely not a matter as Graham says of sinking to anyone else?s level, it?s a matter of standing up for your rights and beliefs and helping to ensure that the law is followed. You don?t have to have the brain of much more than a pea to realise what would happen if everyone walked away from such issues. Of course any violence on either side is illegal and should be seen as such. It?s just a matter of doing everything that?s necessary and possible within the law.

Oh, and one final point .... friendly rivalry between angling websites is fair enough except when it descends to un-truths. FM may be good but it?s definitely not always first with everything as Graham frequently claims, no doubt tongue in cheek; this is evidenced for just one example by the fact that the threat of the Anti-angling brigade at this time of year has been prominent on other angling websites for some time. Come on, behave and play the game, please! And please STAND UP TO THOSE ANTIS!

Yours sincerely
The Coopers

In reply to your criticism of Graham,may I say that having fished with him for over 30 yrs,I can assure you that he is anything but lily-livered or apathetic.
Surely even you can understand that you cannot publicly encourage violence and and it was published more as a warning to any hot-heads amongst us not to land in court giving the antis more ammunition against us.
If you were to speak face to face with Graham,Im sure you would realise his passion in defending this hobby which we all enjoy.
To call him apathetic is both completely wrong and an insult.

Caroline, you obviously don?t know me, nor anything about me, otherwise you?d realise that I don?t run away from anything - most of all the fanatical anti-angling brigade.

But what did you expect me to say in the editorial you refer to? Thump ?em? Chuck ?em in?.

If your answer is yes then you haven?t thought about it very much, for as editor of this web site I have a responsibility to ensure that what I say and encourage people to do is legal.

Listen, I?ve been there when these idiots have descended on a water and most of them are just sheep that need a cause to follow. They?re generally a pathetic bunch that don?t listen to reason. It?s impossible to have an adult, logical argument with them. Try to, and you just end up throwing punches.

Believe me, I know.

You?re wrong, picking up your tackle and walking away is NOT what they want. What they want is to get as many as possible of us into court where they can spout their fanatical beliefs, and make us look like violent morons, and then make sure the story gets in the papers. And then they?ve won.

I?ve written many thousands of words in many publications about how to deal with anti-anglers. I?ve written scores of letters to politicians , organisations, newspapers and magazines in reply to anti-angling propaganda. Does that sound like apathy?

So please, don?t call me apathetic. I?ll fight for angling and anglers as hard as any man or woman ? but I?ll make sure I do it in a way that doesn?t give the anti?s any more weapons they can use against us.

What would be the point in that?

And as for your comments about me claiming that Fishingmagic is always first with the news, I?ve never said we?re ALWAYS first. But we?re probably first most often.

The remarks made in the responses by Mr Marsden and Mr Bibby are disingenuous in the extreme. Clearly neither has done me the courtesy of reading precisely what I wrote before they responded.

In contrast, my comments were specifically based SOLEY on exactly what Mr Marsden originally wrote, and I note that my comments and my subsequent response to Mr Bibby, Mr Marsden now admits to having removed from one of the Sections; I read his explanation with some cynicism.

It is fatuous to suggest that I, or anyone else for that matter, should base any comments on matters about which I can not have had any knowledge i.e. the respective ages of Messrs Marsden and Bibby and how long they have known each other, and whether or not correspondents have extensive personal knowledge of the Editor and friends and their reputations: indeed judging by Mr Bibby's presence and abundant comments elsewhere on the website, his comments appear to me to smack of sycophancy and so carry little credible weight with me.

As someone practised in English Law and I might add thus very au fait with the relevant and current Statutes, I would venture to suggest that perhaps I might have more direct experience of dealing with breaches of the law by such offenders as Anti-Angling activists than either Mr Marsden or Mr Bibby, but then, how could I expect either of them to be aware of that!

Neither Mr Marsden nor his long-standing friend Mr Bibby seem to have read my original comments properly before responding and I therefore quote from them directly: " .... any violence on either side is illegal and should be seen as such ..." and so, Mr Marsden, my answer to your rhetorical question is of course "No, I am not suggesting that you encourage violence"

What I am suggesting, though, is that a responsible Editor should take a responsible attitude and encourage law-abiding citizens to behave in a responsible way in protecting the well-being and legal rights of the populous and to assist Officers of the Law in executing their duties. Walking away is hardly an example of this! Of course avoiding any physical confrontation is sage, but if offences such as obstruction, behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace and/or aggravated trespass are being committed or appear to be about to be committed, then it greatly assists the Police Force and the Crown Prosecution Service if witnesses record valuable information rather than simply walking away.

Surely if there was a threat or potential threat to your person, your family, your property, your vehicle and/or your fishing tackle, YOU would want witnesses to provide assistance albeit it totally passive? Then why not extend this wish to others?

I say "Please DON'T walk away. Call the Police if you believe an offence has been, is being or is about to be committed and take note of all relevant facts and supply these to the attending Police Officer(s)."

With respect Mr Marsden, there is no grey area in which to stand in the matter of the law: you are either within it or without, and so it is with respect to the activities of pressure-groups and activists alike and the current Statutes that are in force.

Accordingly, if by your very words, rather than age, reputation or experience, you appear to put yourself in the position of not reinforcing the need to assist in the enforcement of the obedience of the law, then how can you expect the Police Courts and the Courts ensure justice for plaintiffs and victims. I applause programs such as Crime Watch, Crime Stoppers and others of that ilk. I do not applaud the apparent stance of Mr Marsden as evidenced by his written words alone on the Internet, and I can assure you that I am not alone in my views.

[this message was shortened to fit new size restrictions - contact the poster for full details]

Perhaps my words should have read 'walk away if threatened and then report
the matter to the police, ' rather than to have assumed the anglers being
threatened would do this anyway.

I think that is the only possible error I made, and for that I duly
apologise.

I think it is far more important that we realise we have a common enemy in
the anti-anglers and that we fight them rather than each other.

Caroline, Mr Bibby here,but everybody else calls me Eddie, instead of all this attacking of me and particularly Graham,why didn't you,right from the start,just point out where you thought he was wrong and then make some constructive suggestions about what we can do when confronted with anti-anglers.You seem to have all the answers and surely that would have been more useful than all this falling out amongst ourselves.Instead you've dished out words like'untruths','cynicism','sycophancy','not-credible','lily-livered','negative','defeatist',etc,etc. A little saying I once heard seems to be very appropriate,it went something like this, " However true the words may be,they say more about you than they do about me"

Dear Caroline,

While I agree with some of your sentiments, I do think your arguments would be easier to understand were you to insert an occasional paragraph break.

At the moment your postings come across as a seamless rant which detracts from the seriousness of your case. If anything, I'd say that your views do not go far enough. All this havering around over what is reasonable or unreasonable is simply a waste of time. I appreciate that as a woman - or so you say - you may not be in a position to stand up for yourself in any manner other than verbal, but I can assure you that anyone foolish enough to interfere with my right to fish will get a right good pasting.

I'm not joking by the way, I have been forced to take firm action in the past but I found my local constabulary to be basically sympathetic and no further action was taken. I'm not suggesting violence as a first resort of course, but I've often found that the subtle promise of 'more to come' can work wonders with the antis.

Obviously if you're outnumbered, you should think twice about getting stuck in, but in a fair fight, you should stand up for your rights. In my experience most antis are all mouth and no waders and a quick tap soon sorts them out.

Doubtless some will think I am advocating violence, but please be clear that I am advocating violence 'AS A LAST RESORT'

Jon

Dear Caroline

I think you have some very intersting things to say in your column. I am for one a bit of a hot head and prone to loosing my temper, especially to people who insist on shoving there values down my throat.

If you are a friend of angling why not write a short piece on what we should do if we come across this kind of incident. If it was a shot concise piece I for one would keep a copy of it on my person while fishing an refer to it if I came across a crowd of people causing a disturbance.

Oh dear, oh dear, it's all getting a bit out of hand isn't it?
Which is a shame because I think personal insults and psuedo legalistic banter to one side, we all feel much the same about this - with the exception of Jon.
Clearly we should not advocate the use of violence as a means of dealing with antis. Amidst all the flying mud, the stick your ground and walk away schools seem to have missed a crucial point, and that is that all situations are different. An angler's response to antis will depend on where you are, who you are with, how many antis there are and in what manner they approach you. To call an angler who feels him or herself to be in serious physical danger a "coward" for leaving peaceably and reporting the matter to the police is grossly unfair.
Of course, if it appears to be a storm you can weather then great, stick to your guns, we certainly don't want everyone packing up their kit at the merest whiff of unpleasantness. BUT it is up to the individual angler to judge the situation and make a call on how to respond, no-one can give a blanket prescription on how to deal with such situations. They are all different and will all require a different response.
Caroline, you clearly don't like other people telling you what you should or shouldn't do, so please, be careful not to do the same to others.

Maria. Of course you are right and I did say something of the sort myself. You should never start a fight unless you're pretty sure you can win, but I'm telling you this, a good tap on the jaw often has an impact that is greater than any amount of careful reasoning.

I'm not a violent man, but the one thing I can't abide is some oaf interfering with my fishing. LIberals like Caroline and Graham Marsden can argue till the cows come home or simply pack up and walk away, but I'll still be there, fishing.

well it seems that we all care deeply about our fishing,which is the right way to be...i sent an e-mail to this anti-angling group this week and tried to have a reasonable conversation with them..no on your life nelly!!!!..they just told me i was a person with no morals and that i should respect all living thing..i said i did and only for us fishing,keeping an eye on pollution etc,,that they would not have a cause to fight.
i myself live in ireland and only for the clubs around,there would be no fishing at all in dublin,as this area is highly populated and prone to pollution.i explained this to the anti's and offered them an invite to any of our competions or AGM'S..

from this mail i got a one line response.." is this a threat of violence"..now from recent experiences i do not think verbal arguing will NOT get us anywhere..i agree with JON ..

LET THEM COME...I WILL BE FISHING FOR AS LONG AS I CARE TOO...

eddie and graham have got a hard time lately as i have just read..but we have to understand graham, in his position cannot express his opinions upon us even though he would like too.we all can fight this cause in whatever way we deem right,,but fight it we should..angling is not just a sport its a passion and a way of life for many of us .....

I am so sorry to see all this bad feeling being aimed at Graham. Is he the one we should all pick on? Of course not, for crying out loud, "knock it on the head."
Graham, I too am involved with, and have been since I was 18, the law, and I find nothing wrong with your suggestion of "walk away" and I strongly advise all to do the same. I will never lower myself to their antics and tactics.
I hope I read this correctly, but by walk away a assume you mean to another part of the lake and start again. This is what I would do, and I do not advocate violence of any shape or form, and before being called chicken or whatever, I am 6`1" and 17 stone and fear no one, but i will still WALK AWAY.

Wise words Kevan. It often takes more courage to walk away than it does to lash out and join the attackers in their own violent game. And yes, you're right, I neglected to mention in the first place that you walk away from the violence and THEN do something sensible about it, such as informing the police.

I'm 6'3" and 20 stone of muscle, I have been visited by anti-anglers on 6 different occasions and when I've stood tall in my combat gear not one of them has had the slightest word to say to me. Like all cowardly sheep they slink off for easier prey. I'm not a violent man, when you're my size you can't be, but I have battered them before when 4 of the scum picked on a 14 year old lad and beat him to a pulp.
That is where their 'respect all living creatures' trash falls down.
Two wrongs don't make a right in the eyes of the law, but if I saw a thug hitting an old lady, I'd batter him as well, and the papers would praise me for it.

Dear Carp Angler. Remind me never to p*** you off!!

Sorry that my posting sounded like the rantings of a thug. I am generally very peacable, but if someone tries to take away my right to fish, I will fight with everything at my disposal (lawfully at first) to defend this fantastic part of my life.

David and goliath?

I came to FM for the first time today after trying hundreds of other angling websites and can honestly say it excells by far any other site on the net. Graham Marsden is absolutely spot on to advise walking away from "antis". If we oppose their views out on the peg, the we have no chance of making them realise that what they are saying is wrong. By attacking the representatives on the waterways, we will have no effect on the major activists, and so there is little point in failing miserably in an attempt to change one person's viewpoint.
Nick Bennett

Thanks for the good words about Fishingmagic Nick, and you speak some wise words about the antis.

i have just ages typing a constructive if critical answer to MS cooper only to have the message failed to open come up and loss it all!!! so i will try to send the last few lines of coments. my advice is to walk,regroup,fight from another angle and win the battle. i was taught to know my enemy because they may be anywhere!so perhaps MS cooper can tell us all NOW what colour a tutti is???