The Threat to Fishing

I suspect that at least some of Kevin?s article was written tongue firmly in cheek, but he raises a number of points that should be debated.

First of all I don?t believe the overall picture is anywhere near as gloomy as the one he paints. Yes, the majority of anglers are an apathetic bunch, but I firmly believe that like all sleeping dogs if we were roused we could bite with the best of them, and probably a lot harder. If any serious threat to angling came along that looked like it was going to succeed then I think we?d be out of the kennel and biting like a rabid beast.

One salient point we should always remember is that wars are won by winning a series of battles; win enough of them and you win the war. Where angling is concerned Kevin?s points about keepnets, livebaits, barbless hooks, etc, are spot on.

We should not allow any more ?battles? to be won. Put aside your own personal feelings about livebaiting, keepnets, barbed hooks, etc and support their use. Don?t let the anti?s win these battles because the next one (live maggots, worms, landing nets?) may be a battle that affects you and you?ll want anglers who use keepnets, barbed hooks and livebaits firmly on your side.

Never forget that every time something is banned there will be some anglers, like Kevin, who will say, ?sod it, I?ve had enough.? And get out of the sport altogether. Our numbers will dwindle and eventually there will be so few of us we won?t have any bite at all.

Kevin bemoans the fact that we pay a licence fee, and the fact that most other sportsmen, including most other water sportsmen, don?t.

I think our paying a licence fee is a massive point in our favour.

Like the revenue from tobacco has been a major factor regarding the government?s reluctance to ban smoking, the revenue from licences will be major factor when considering banning fishing. It also gives us that extra lever in any debates, as in, ?we pay for our sport, what do you pay for yours??

Of course, how the licence fee money is spent is another question and another debate, and one that we should be raising at frequent intervals. That Kevin has tackled the EA over issues that concerned him is more than most of us have done.

Kevin writes that we are facing a fishing future that ?I feel will be ever more constrained and restricted.?

He may be right, but that will only happen whilst we allow the antis to keep winning the smaller battles. So don?t let them do that, let?s come out of the kennel snapping and snarling every time they try to ban something. Not when it?s too late and we have no teeth left.

Never mind when they try to ban something, what about when we ban certain things amongst ourselves?

We are, at times, our own worst enemy!

That was a strange article Kevin and I can't say I enjoyed reading it, probably because of the truth of it.

Apathy is our worst enemy, so is the fact that different angling bodies refuse to unite and fight for the same cause. How long will it take the dog to bite back? Will it be too late?

Don't sell your gear Kevin, just put it away in the garage. When you're too old to take one on the "box" and can't manage to get up the ladder to do the DIY, you will wish you hadn't sold your tackle.

Angling will still be alive and kicking for many, many, years to come.

Come on Kevin, cheer up my friend.A year on your local council will surely have you back on the bank as a means of restoring your sanity.I appear at council committees regularly but at least I get paid for it!

Graham, you could however take another viewpoint and argue that if angling does administer its own governance (e.g. standards of mesh, keepnets etc) we could then argue that we are policing our sport effectively, to the benefit of fish.

And are these "battles" really against the anti-angling bodies??

Also, I dont think you can equate licence revenue to tax from smoking revenue. It is in a different league altogether. I do think there is a much wider issue in terms of number of jobs etc associated to fishing (which is considerably more than the jobs associated with hunting, which was actually very small).

I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't be self-governing, but I am saying that we shouldn't ban aspects of our sport that will ultimately lose a great many anglers simply because some of us don't agree with those aspects of it.

Yes, they are battles against the anti-angling bodies, but some of them are battles instigated by ourselves that the anti anglers take great delight in and are only too pleased to feed the flames.

It was self-governing and giving in to pressure that got lead shot banned. And has it done any good? Has it hell! Every time a swan dies in mysterious circumstances anglers lead shot is still at the head of the blame queue.

No, I'm not saying that tobacco revenue and licence revenue are the same. I'm saying that any kind of revenue makes a difference.

I'm saying it is now time to stop trying to appease public ignorance and time to stand up and be counted. And to stand up for what we believe in rather than what others would like us to believe in.

Kevin has made some very good points.

I will make a prediction.

Unless we do something about it, these laws may come in the not too distant future.

1: A ban on keepnets and match angling.

2: No fish to be returned alive to the water.

3: A test to be passed before you are issued with a licence.

Don't think this will never happen because it has - in Germany - one of the most influencial members of the EU.

Graham,

Are you thinking of a particular issue at the moment?

I am not aware of any pressure from within the angling community for a ban on anything?

Only the keepnet and livebait issues, which are not yet under significant pressure but the anglers who want them banned are out there in more numbers than I think are healthy for the sport.

Got to go out now, will catch up later.

I have met many anglers who want to ban keepnets. And I've read several articles in the past where some quite well known angling writers have condemned the use of keepnets.

And on the subject of live baiting, even **** Walker and Fred J Taylor often condemned it.

The possibilties of a ban on certain aspects of angling are a specter that seem to haunt many.

But ask yourself this, in a country that see's thousands fishing without licences, day tickets or permits, people taking fish for the table, people breaking existing rules and getting away with it 99% of the time, who would enforce such a ban and would such rules even be adhered to ?

I don't think we've got much to worry about, with an aready overstretched EA and legal system that fails anglers and the public in so many ways already, to add extra burden would be like lighting the fuse to the inevitable self destruction of all regulation in the sport. The point will come when so many will be "getting away with it", such rules, laws and bans will become farsical and the general angling public will take the "sod it" attitude and do what they want based on their own morale and ethical code of practice.
Which given the curent state of affairs paints a grim picture I know, but hey, you can only try to do good and hope for the best, strive on with awarness !.

Graham, I don't see pressure for either to any great extent.What we do have is groups such as the Barbel Society seeking to regulate the use of keepnets in certain circumstances.

The only time I ever use a keepnet is in the one match I fish each year at Clattercote.I would not support a ban however on the basis that if other choose to do so it is a mtter for thier conscience.

I do livebait occasionally and would hope that others who do not would take the same view as I do to the use of keepnets.

The pressure for livebait bans in the Lakes and now in Scotland has come not from anglers but from the environmental impact on fish movement through foreign species being introduced by unscrupulous predator anglers in the past.

I can see where Graham is coming from with his argument.If we are however to effectively fight off external pressure for an end to fishing, which will increase, then we do have to keep our house in order and regulate activities which are obviously harmful to fish welfare.This is not weakness but a stregth.Who gorgebaits these days for example?

The more we can regulate our own sport the greater the argument for no one else doing it.If this means shining a torch on some not too pleasant angling practices then on balance it is a price worth paying.The argument of course arises in respect of what those should be?

Deleted duplicate post.

If there is one thing about the Barbel Society's rules that I oject to it is the one on keepnets.

I suggest they modify the rule to "No Barbel in Keepnets."

They make the assumption that the waters they control are only going to be fished by barbel anglers. That is not true. There is excellent roach fishing on many of the waters they control and I see nothing wrong with putting roach into keepnets as long as you adhere to the keepnet code of the SAA.

Anyone who fishes for roach will know that if you release a roach straight back to the water, odds on it will spook the whole shoal.

One of the things we need is more bailiffs like myself.
People like me who will take the time to explain to anglers the importance of keeping a clean house.
And try to knock some common sence into them.

Eddie has it right,we are our own worst enemy at times.

Far too much self regulation in my opinion.

As has been said, it started with lead. we should have said Bol**ks to you, we use lead and will continue to do so ( i still have a good stash, bought in Holland, and will continue to use it when I want)


'Safe rigs' - what the hell is that all about ? absolutely no such thing,the only 'safe' rig is no rig at all.

Dont get me wrong, I look after the fish I catch to the best of my ability. But if I want to use a keepnet I will, If I wanted to live bait then I would, private fishery rules allowing I will use whatever type of hook I want.


At some stage you have to say 'I fish, I stick a hook in a fish and pull it from the water and I dont care wether or not you think its right or wrong, its what I do, and I enjoy it'

and any one who questions any aspect of what they do should not be doing it in the first place.

I'll ban you if I catch you.

Well said Beccy.

There are plenty from the anti keepnet bragade about and many on this site.

I am a user when conditions are appropriate, although not a match man. I get fed up with people quoting instances of keeepnet misuse as a valid reason to ban them.

Someone could mis-use any item of gear with terrible consequences, but is that good reason to take that item away from those who are responsible?

They have begun their campagne within the biggest angling club in this country, with a proposed ban for barbel in keepnets at the next AGM. The club already has a sensible 'no fish over 5lb to be retained' rule.

It's been openly stated by some on that website, that they see this as phase one, with a complete ban their ultimate aim.

The sad fact is, if they achieve it, retaliation is inevitable. The anglers this will affect will immediately look at the practices of these sad individuals and will return fire........

Its a pity they are so short sighted to not see that as a natural human respose.

Agreed Paul, so how will "we" ever unite???

"United we stand, divided we fall..."

Or is it the other way around???

"Devided we stand, United we fall..."