Now it's OUR turn...

The foxhunting debate is over, bar the shouting. It?s now time to get on with creating positive PR for angling, as we will be next to come under fire from the animal rights activists. Everybody reading this post should take a look at www.anti-angling.com. They?ll be watching us, so why shouldn?t we keep an eye on them? A lot of what they say is uninformed nonsense, as one would expect - but when did the truth ever get in the way of a good rant? It?s a good-looking site, with real potential to convince people that angling deserves to be banned.

We cannot afford to be complacent. Many commentators claim that anglers needn?t worry ? there are so many of us that the government wouldn?t dare to try to bring in a ban. This is badly misguided ? anything is possible if public opinion becomes strong enough. Two quick points come to mind?
? We mustn?t kid ourselves that Joe Public will uncritically agree with us that angling isn?t cruel.
? The foxhunters could claim with (some) legitimacy that they are pest controllers. We can make no such claim. Angling exists purely for the pleasure of anglers.

So what can we do to promote angling? For one thing, we can try to present a united front, while simultaneously being positively self-critical. Foxhunters were too stubborn to be self-critical, but we certainly are not. We have always debated amongst ourselves. This is a real strength and we must embrace it. Let?s get on with it!

Hear , hear. I don't know what others think but my idea on this is a two fold strategy. first we need to promote the good things that angling does. such stuff as getting kids off the street and concentrating their minds. Educating them towards a proper understanding of the countryside and the way it works. The amount of good done for disabled people - children and adults alike. The job front - there are amny, many more people emplyed in the angling industry than ever there were in the fox hunting industry. Then we need to tackle the supposed issue of cruelty. At this stage I do not propose starting a slanging match with the anti brigade. Rather than this we should just state that "some people feel angling may be cruel". Well it is not. There is no scientific evidence/proof that a hook in a fishes mouth hurts them in any way. Does a fish feel pain when it feeds? Despite sucking up all manner of detritus from the bed of the water? Of course not. This empty argument is the same as trying to say that a horse feels pain when it has nails hammered into its foot when it is shod. Ok, I do realise that strictly speaking the nails are hammered into the hoof but its the same sort of silly argument.

The second approach I think we should take it is to counter all the anti's together. Forget trying to defend angling in the same breath just show the public the hidden agenda of the anti's. Discredit them and show them up for what they really are. Perhaps start by saying that nobody wants to see animals used or abused for the testing of cosmetics. That shows the campaign in a favourable light from the word go. Once you have the public on side then the more contentious subjects can be brought into play. Perhaps the use of animals for medical research. I fully support this where no other method is suitable. This is the case in some areas. Of course it needs to be properly backed up. Any slip at this stage and you lose all the backing that has been carefully nurtured. Show the public that ultimately the anti's want pet ownership abolished that they want everybody to become vegetarian. There are plenty of things that the anti brigade want to see happen but do not make full public knowledge at this stage. They are co-ordinated by some very clever people, don't forget that. Another thing to remember is that nowhere in this separate campaign is angling mentioned. Do that and you give them ammunition. They will immediately pull the wool over the public's eyes with their usual propoganda.

Anyway, this is just my idea. I may be totally wrong so let's hear some more suggestions.

Kevan

Kev, a lot of what you say is right. Your points about education and aid for disabled people are a useful start. I for one don?t know enough about these aspects. Perhaps some body could point out a website or whatever where we can all find out more. I think we ALL need to know the arguments, not just leave it to a few articulate front-line individuals to do all the talking.

Having said that, I believe we DO need to mobilise any sympathetic media voices, if they are prepared to speak ? they do exist, as we all know. Public Relations works in all sorts of ways on all sorts of levels. To go further, the tackle manufacturers, the angling media, commercial fisheries and angling clubs could appoint (and pay for?) a PR company to run a frontline campaign. If joined together, the financial and political clout of the angling world would be massive. We have to actually get on with doing all this or we?ll be caught with our pants down, like the foxhunters. THEY thought they were protected by privilege, but the days when being upper class protected anyone from anything are long gone. I hope we have more sense than to rely on that sort of nonsense. We?re just ordinary, practical, working folks - from all walks of life.

Any scientific arguments about whether fish feel pain are best put forward either by scientists or professional media people. Unfortunately the scientific evidence is nowhere near as clear-cut as you believe. The problem with scientific evidence is that it often conflicts. Unless one side?s arguments are compelling and conclusive to the spectator, then the best-presented arguments win, regardless of truth. This is why the politicians are addicted to spin. Well, like it or not, we?ve got to use it too. In our case, none of the arguments presented by either side will be conclusive. So the best-presented scientific case will probably win the media battle.

Chris it is good to see that you want get involved in the forefront of the positive promotion of angling.

There are a dedicate committed group working on all aspects of the activity in the SAA
you can get meaningfully involved in this process by joining the SAA at
www.saauk.org

Good idea to join the SAA Alan - I'm a member myself! However, it all comes down to the voice of one man then, supposedly representing the views of us all. I don't know that this side of it is good at all?

For those who wish to know a little more about the work being done for disabled anglers try this website:

http://www.anglinglink.co.uk/

The founder - Terry Moseley - is himself disabled. He was a prominent member of the British disabled international fishing team until his disability got worse. The site gives a good insite into the work done for other disabled anglers both young and old alike.

Kevan

Ive just had a look at the SAA site. I didnt know it existed. Ive only recently returned to angling after quite a long absence. I probably will join it. Has anyone had experience of the SAA?

Malcolm said earlier that he is concerned by the prospect of too much power being centralised in one place. This is only a problem if the members dont support the leadership. At the same time, nobody should forget that, just as we stand and fall together, each individual angler represents the rest of us at any one time. Anybody who rings up a radio phone-in or writes a letter to a newspaper is representing the sport/activity/hobby/pastime of angling to the lay public. S/He really needs to be aware of that.

In the same way, we are all responsible for educating anglers in safe and responsible practices. We all know the vast majority need no instruction, but there are a few who DO. A couple of notions occur in this regard. Occasionally, people can be seen landing fish without a landing-net. If the fish really are tiddlers, then it's ok, but...Also, I always carry a few spare disgorgers so I can give one away if need be. Also I am very pleased to read that so many people pick up other people's litter.

It would be good to see a more positive image of angling on the TV. I mean the main channels not satalite. A bbc re run of a Passion for Angling would be a good start.

I remember when it was first shown from programs like "Points of View" many non anglers loved it, and the anti's hated it!

However I think the main TV companies are afraid of angling, and apearing to look un-PC (the Bob Nudd Sports Personality thing shows that). Mind you they always seem all too keen to put the anti's side. Maybe it's time for the cellebrity anglers to start throwing their weight about.

Like it or not most people get their info off the telly.

i dont know if anyone else has noticed the way people of a pc persuasion always get very hot under the collar if somebody else presents a view on the media which they arent asked to reply to - or more likely dont notice. they complain that only one sides views have been represented, and how dreadful that their point of view wasnt asked for and demand to know if its another example of censorship of enlightened views by old-world dinosaurs?

what im saying is that every time some anti gets up to say how dreadfully cruel etc that fishing is, there should be a STORM of reponses to said media organ, whatever it may be. THAT will make the media sit up and think about the approach theyre taking.

I did email a very well known TV radio presenter/angler about his views and thoughts of hosting a angling program,also on how other celeb and top anglers could be involved.
I recived a reply from a PA saying fishing was his way of relaxing and getting away from things and would not wish to mix work and hobby.
This i can understand,he is a very saught after celeb and a all round nice guy.As well as very proficient all round angler.
If PR within angling was to be taken seriously,who and how would it be funded?
which body will be the official governing body?

Who would be the public face/figure head?

Would we get cross political party suport?

Would match results national/international get a mention along with other sports results?

Would the media sponsor/present more angling programs?

Whith all things combined and a better informed /educated public, would others have a better understanding of what we anglers are all about?

But then again,I read and hear the same arguments,comments and suggestions every week and have done over several years now, and am yet to see some action from those with influence and the funding.