R
D
David OLoughlin
Guest
I followed a thread they had where they wrote about research (??) identifying that every 2 weeks we loose 36,000 pieces of line that measure up to km's of line.
Does anyone know if any of the so called research they quote is actually true. It would be useful as my neighbour (who I get on with) is anti-fishing. If they or anyone else I know came out with any 'Peta quotes' at least I would be able to catagorically rebut them. I suppose the key thing is that they rarely if ever give a proper reference.
Does anyone know if any of the so called research they quote is actually true. It would be useful as my neighbour (who I get on with) is anti-fishing. If they or anyone else I know came out with any 'Peta quotes' at least I would be able to catagorically rebut them. I suppose the key thing is that they rarely if ever give a proper reference.
K
Kevan Farmer
Guest
Got it in one David. Their references are so twisted and convoluted.
Kevan
Kevan
B
Bob Car
Guest
I spoke to my sister tonight as she is a qualified vet and I showed her the PETA site and asked her for her views on the research test on lead intake by wildlife caused by absent minded fishermen/women(just for Wendy). And in her opinion looking at what they said she is going to open a tackle shop as she feels that they must make a lot of money selling weights.
Her exact words were "What a load of dangly bits" Although we are possibly to blame the figure would be less than 1% most of the blame can be put on the people who discard waste and toxins into the rivers.
Just wanted to share her views with you.
Her exact words were "What a load of dangly bits" Although we are possibly to blame the figure would be less than 1% most of the blame can be put on the people who discard waste and toxins into the rivers.
Just wanted to share her views with you.
R
Rodney Wrestt
Guest
They don't need to tell the truth or prove the things they say to get air time or column space, but even when disproved they are very rarely criticised by the media. The media love to court controversy and will continue to do so even though they should be embarrassed at the lies & misinformation they permit these fools to spout to their readers and viewers.
N
Nicky Garbutt
Guest
the worst thing is they have got souts to do things for em. they just wanna get a desend hobbie like fishing.
D
David OLoughlin
Guest
I think the most remarkable thing that these people refuse to acknowledge is that for all extent & purpose we don't use lead in freshhwater environments. What is it Rodney (If I remember didn't you give us the sizes?), sizes 8 to 1oz(?) must be non-lead???
R
Rodney Wrestt
Guest
Yes David, any shot or weight between a size 8 up to a 1oz is not legal and a substitute compound is used.
K
Kenneth Dovey
Guest
I have been looking with interest at some of the comments about PETA.
the one thing I find which people don't seem able to accept is that regardless of the truth of any of their claims and regardless of who puts our case for us the simple thruth is that there are many people out there who have no idea of what fishing is all about and care even less,
They will be easyly convinced by a lie and will be inclined to think that anything we say in response is going to be the sort of thing we would say, would'nt we.
These people may one day be the very ones who will deciding our future so god help us when we get to that stage because I,m convinced that they won't.
You can take the arguments over fox hunting as a very good example, there is only one side as nobody is prepared to give the other side any space on their programmes or papers.
Ken Dovey
the one thing I find which people don't seem able to accept is that regardless of the truth of any of their claims and regardless of who puts our case for us the simple thruth is that there are many people out there who have no idea of what fishing is all about and care even less,
They will be easyly convinced by a lie and will be inclined to think that anything we say in response is going to be the sort of thing we would say, would'nt we.
These people may one day be the very ones who will deciding our future so god help us when we get to that stage because I,m convinced that they won't.
You can take the arguments over fox hunting as a very good example, there is only one side as nobody is prepared to give the other side any space on their programmes or papers.
Ken Dovey
A
Alan Roe
Guest
Reading all the above convinces me......... not that I needed convincing! that we should not be wasting out time bleating about peta in angling media as this allows them to set the agenda.
Look at what you have written about above moaning about what peta have said they have set the agenda for this thread without trying!! See what I mean??
The way to deal with these pillocks is not to defend angling at all it does not need defending it is always harder to defend than to attack.
What you have to do is to attack peta for some of their antics and mouthings. Expose them for the lying twisted bunch of hypocrites that they are. Flag up their dodgy finacial records ...They fact that they spend more of their funds on legal bills than they do on welfare. The fact that they murder the vast majority of the pets that are handed to them by people who think that they will look after them.
The list of attack points is endless as thankfully they constantly provide us with a stream of such items because like good greedy pompous egotistical little prats they are thankfully essentially stupid in many ways and too full of their own self importance to see it.
Look at what you have written about above moaning about what peta have said they have set the agenda for this thread without trying!! See what I mean??
The way to deal with these pillocks is not to defend angling at all it does not need defending it is always harder to defend than to attack.
What you have to do is to attack peta for some of their antics and mouthings. Expose them for the lying twisted bunch of hypocrites that they are. Flag up their dodgy finacial records ...They fact that they spend more of their funds on legal bills than they do on welfare. The fact that they murder the vast majority of the pets that are handed to them by people who think that they will look after them.
The list of attack points is endless as thankfully they constantly provide us with a stream of such items because like good greedy pompous egotistical little prats they are thankfully essentially stupid in many ways and too full of their own self importance to see it.
K
Keith Williams
Guest
More good info for the sport.
we should set up a UK branch of the american site www.pissonpeta.com and make our arguments heard as loudly here as in the US.
Anglers over there have basically beaten PETA off through various approaches and this rebuttal site gives plenty of info on how to go about it
Spread this website about as much as possible, it can only do good
we should set up a UK branch of the american site www.pissonpeta.com and make our arguments heard as loudly here as in the US.
Anglers over there have basically beaten PETA off through various approaches and this rebuttal site gives plenty of info on how to go about it
Spread this website about as much as possible, it can only do good
K
Kevan Farmer
Guest
Alan has the right idea, don't let PETA set the agenda. Wrong foot them for a change. This what I tried with my posters. Instead of constantly having to defend angling - when the poison has already been laid - use PETA's own tactics. with a difference of course. We do not need to resort to shouting or ranting in public or indeed telling any lies. As Alan has pointed out look at that PETA does to the majority of pets they take in. Now make sure of the facts, I said majority of pets. They do re-home a small minority this is the sort of thing we must make sure of. If we claimed that they 'euthanised' - their own word - all pets they could come back on us by stating that Mr & Mrs So and So have had Barney the dog for so many years succesfully re-homed by PETA. They don't have to try defending there main policy of 'euthanising' the rest of the dogs etc that they receive. That is just and example there are other areas where they can easily be shown for what they truly are; money making prats.
Kevan
Kevan
P
Paul Kendall
Guest
I have to show you this from one of PeTAS websites - enjoy.
What about Jesus and the fish? Didn't Jesus eat fish?
Probably not: There is strong evidence suggesting that Jesus was a vegetarian. The only stories depicting Jesus eating fish took place after the resurrection, and most Biblical scholars agree that they are very late additions to the Gospels. The scribes who added the stories were not, apparently, averse to eating fish. But since this is the only depiction anywhere in the Gospels of Jesus eating any animals at all, it seems that he was a vegetarian.
The stories of Jesus multiplying pieces of dead fish to feed to the masses are also sometimes cited to justify cruel practices toward fish, such as sport fishing. Although it would not contradict the technical definition of a vegetarian to multiply fish who are already dead to feed people who aren't opposed to eating fish, there is strong evidence that, this story did not originally include fish. For example, the earliest (pre-Gospel) accounts of this miracle do not include fish, and Jesus, when he refers to it, refers only to the bread (e.g., Matthew 16:9-10, Mark 8:19-20, John 6:26).
Fish were added to the stories by Greek scribes, probably because the Greek word for fish, ixous, is an acronym for the phrase "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior." Indeed, the fish is still a symbol of Christianity today. In this very likely interpretation, the multiplication represents a prediction of the burgeoning church and has nothing to do with eating animals (or torturing them by impaling them on a hook).
So what did Jesus definitely have to say about fishing? Jesus calls multiple fishers away from their occupation of killing animals and pleads with them to show mercy to all beings, quoting Hosea: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." In each instance, they immediately abandon their occupation of fishing to follow Jesus (e.g., Mark 1:16-20). This resembles Jesus' call to others who are engaged in activities that are not in line with his message of mercy and compassion.
We all understand that it is immoral, antithetical to Christian mercy, to torture dogs and cats. It is equally un-Christian to torture or kill (or pay others to torture and kill) fish and other animals. Although they may not be able to scream out in pain, fish have the same capacity for suffering and the same right to our compassion as do dogs, cats, and other human beings.
What about Jesus and the fish? Didn't Jesus eat fish?
Probably not: There is strong evidence suggesting that Jesus was a vegetarian. The only stories depicting Jesus eating fish took place after the resurrection, and most Biblical scholars agree that they are very late additions to the Gospels. The scribes who added the stories were not, apparently, averse to eating fish. But since this is the only depiction anywhere in the Gospels of Jesus eating any animals at all, it seems that he was a vegetarian.
The stories of Jesus multiplying pieces of dead fish to feed to the masses are also sometimes cited to justify cruel practices toward fish, such as sport fishing. Although it would not contradict the technical definition of a vegetarian to multiply fish who are already dead to feed people who aren't opposed to eating fish, there is strong evidence that, this story did not originally include fish. For example, the earliest (pre-Gospel) accounts of this miracle do not include fish, and Jesus, when he refers to it, refers only to the bread (e.g., Matthew 16:9-10, Mark 8:19-20, John 6:26).
Fish were added to the stories by Greek scribes, probably because the Greek word for fish, ixous, is an acronym for the phrase "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior." Indeed, the fish is still a symbol of Christianity today. In this very likely interpretation, the multiplication represents a prediction of the burgeoning church and has nothing to do with eating animals (or torturing them by impaling them on a hook).
So what did Jesus definitely have to say about fishing? Jesus calls multiple fishers away from their occupation of killing animals and pleads with them to show mercy to all beings, quoting Hosea: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." In each instance, they immediately abandon their occupation of fishing to follow Jesus (e.g., Mark 1:16-20). This resembles Jesus' call to others who are engaged in activities that are not in line with his message of mercy and compassion.
We all understand that it is immoral, antithetical to Christian mercy, to torture dogs and cats. It is equally un-Christian to torture or kill (or pay others to torture and kill) fish and other animals. Although they may not be able to scream out in pain, fish have the same capacity for suffering and the same right to our compassion as do dogs, cats, and other human beings.
P
Paul Kendall
Guest
Excellent - hadn't read that one Graham.
J
Joe Foxall
Guest
just been on a peta site, activists more like lay abouts, im not even going to worry about them, the site was a good laugh.
heres something for you these peace lovin hippies [lol] have been increasing there attacks on course anglers in the north west, especailly th out of way places, one behaves like an interested passer by and he comes later with friends to beat you up and destroy your tackle, what brave soldiers, be carefull if you fish the lakes/ lancaster canal areas
heres something for you these peace lovin hippies [lol] have been increasing there attacks on course anglers in the north west, especailly th out of way places, one behaves like an interested passer by and he comes later with friends to beat you up and destroy your tackle, what brave soldiers, be carefull if you fish the lakes/ lancaster canal areas