P C and Anti's

Do you fear for our sport of fishing ,have the Pc and the anti's got stronger over the last five years ?

Yes.

And yes.

Jerry,

I think Pc has destroyed our country.

/forum/smilies/angry_smiley.gif

I fear for our sport /pastime, for too many years anglers have been treated like second class citizens, pushed off of waters they have fished for years, berated by mis-guided individuals and attacked by anti's, anglers are depicted badly on mainstream television and had no one to turn to with any real authority..........................................

Until this lot came along www.anglingtrust.net if your concerns are genuine and you are not a member, please consider joining the ever increasing ranks of anglers that now have an organisation they can be proud of to fight their corner.

Jerry, on both counts a resounding yes. Also would I be right in thinking this thread was spawned as a consequence of the ''Swan Thread''? Dave Slater is right, P.C. is destroying our country, and the anti's will pursue their ultimate goals with equal vigour, ergo, the need for vigilance. I have fished for over fifty years and watched the changes taking place, am I worried, you bet I am!!

Yes and no Derek found it a bit of aconcern when Anglers don't speak out for fear of who is lisening . The River Estuary's I fish getting acess is getting harder ,I check with the Harbour Master to find out what's public a whats not and ,and I still have jobsworths telling me I can't fish there. Last year a Seagull come out of nowhere and hooked it self on my floating crust, had someone taking photos of it's struggle but they stopped when I unhooked it and realeased it unharmed . Don't have a lot of luck with birds. But those pictures in the wrong hands makes you wonder.

Look at what happened to smokers, to see how it will end up. banned from everywhere and now pubs shutting at a rate of 39 per week.

Once the indignant classes get their teeth into something there is no stopping them. They dont care about anything other than their own narrow minded opinions. They hide behind "I care about others", when the reality is they care only about themselves, mostly they are socialy inept attention whores, who still live with there mum /forum/smilies/smile_smiley.gif

Fishing for pleasure WILL eventually be banned, mark my words.

I remember writing about this subject back in 1981. There was a large degree of controversy surrounding swan deaths (from lead poisoning) which fed into the anti bloodsports campaign (led by a chap called Richard Course if my memory is correct), who were keen to ban angling. The swan shot issue went away when it was discovered angler's weights weren't the prime cause (shotgun lead was) and lead was banned in certain angling weights anyway. The problem is, and always has been, is that these people are mostly social misfits, but very well led, who are single issue fanatics. In otherwords they won't go away even if they achieve their aims. They simple move on to the next related topic. Now that fox hunting has been banned they turn their attentions to angling or shooting. Being country born and raised, I never could see the point in chasing a fox half way across the shire before killing it. I always regarded those who dress up in hunting pinks as prattish so I didn't care when hunting with hounds was banned. I used to intensely resent some upper class idiot telling me, via the TV screen, that hunting with dogs was a highly efficient means of controlling a fox. It isn't - Fact. If a fox is a problem - shoot the bloody thing (and I have). The problem with fox hunting per se was that many members of the public saw it as a social event for hooray Henrys rather than a necessary task of controlling a rural predator. It did not have widespread popular support.

Angling is different. It is a pastime indulged in by working people who do not (in the main!) dress up in 17th century costume to pursue their hobby. It is seen as a benign activity by the public at large and it also has a huge public following. Yes, we must be vigilant and shout loud if we have to, but the threat is not as real as the threat was to fox hunting. Remember, you can still kill a fox. It's all down to perception and, it has to be said, a certain class envy still held dear by members of left wing socialist groups. The memories of protesters at some of the big rivermatches of the early 80s struggling out of the water having been heaved in by some burly industrial worker is still dear to me and brings a wry smile. Given the lack of public support for a ban on angling (as opposed to massive public support for a fox hunting ban), the answer is 'No' I don't fear for our sport, and 'No', the antis have not grown stronger. They are as strong as they ever were and we need to remain on guard. It's not something, however, that I lose sleep over. The days of angling, as a body,being complacent are past. We are now better prepared to argue our case.

Completly agree with all you have said (although I'm too young to remember the actual events /forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif)

I think unless we start using kittens as live bait and strive to keep our house in order, especially re litter, we'll be fine.

Whilst ever we have dead fish displayed in supermarkets etc I think angling will be safe. The biggest threat to angling is to be found within, those who treat our river/watersides as rubbish tips.

My own club is always looking for a claim for damages from the farmer whoworks the fields next to a still-water we have; long-stay anglers are forever dumping rubbish in the fields which is not found 'till it gets caught up in the harvester machinery.

The EU is the most guilty party when it comes to the subject of over-fishing globally. Fisheries ministers have been handing a public resource to a select few for so long that there's now little left. Anyone noticed that Birdseye are now making fish fingers out of farmed salmon because they can't source enough sustainable whitefish?

While consumers continueto be complicit in the rape of the world's oceans then they wont have a leg to stand on when it comes to launching an attack on sportfishermen, even those who practise catch and release. While C&R is difficult to defend (causing a fish stress simply for the pleasure of catching it)at least what we routinely do isn't causing whole species to becomecritically endangered!

So my answer is no and no. Political correctness is pathetically hypocritical most of the time - dig deep enough into any righteous preacher's past and you'll probably find some dirty luandry. As for the antis, who are they? I've never seen any while fishing. I saw loads on grouse shoots and at hunt meets, and even a few on pheasant shoots, but I've yet to hear of any angling matches or venues being systematically hounded by any of thesejobless, treehugging neanderthals.

Woebetide any political party that tries to limit or ban angling. If they woke the sleeping giant then they'd be in for a very rude shock.Anyway, I don't think any of them would bedaft enough to risk a couple of million votes under any circumstances, especially not in the current climate.

Iwouldsay no and yes.

Maybe I am naive but I don’t fear for angling in the UK as much as some of the other posters.

Out of interest, does any country actually ban angling? I have fished around a bit and I have yet to come across somewhere were there was a blanket ban on angling full stop. Also in my opinion UK anglers are the best (by far) in the way they care for their catch and their general responsible attitude to angling. Of course there will also be the minority morons out there acting irresponsibly but in general we lead the field by a long long long way. Therefore if they ban angling in the Uk you going to have to ban it everywhere else in the EU first.

As for the PCs and antis…when some non angler points a finger at me and say the age old – “your cruel” …I point a finger right back at them and ask them what THEY have EVER done for fish or water ways in general ?

The bottom line is that anglers do more for the preservation of fish stocks and the waterways than 99.9% of non anglers ever have or ever will and there is more fish and less pollution out there as a consequence of anglers.

That is why I will not apologize for what I do and if the day ever comes when they do ban angling I can assure you I will be out there with a rod and they are going to have physically drag me away from the water.

Never met an anti yet ,but have met plenty who say how do you do that ,can you show me.I have only ever had posotive feedback while fishing.

Greg, the antis exist under differing organisations. The most prominentused to be theLeague Against Cruel Sports but some of the ultra militant organisations like the Animal Liberation Front and PETA are at the fore and currently concentrating on attacking animal experimentation. They are vicious, unprincipalled andwant us allto be veggies (no thank you - anglers fart enough as it is). These groups are involved (proven in court) in activities so serious that they are on the radar of Special Branch and other internal security agencies. The main activity against angling was in the early 80s when protesters tried to disrupt some of the big matches, particularly in the east of the country on the Nene, Welland, and Witham. The trouble was, they came up against steel workers and miners who took a dim view of their sport being disrupted and acted accordingly. It was found at this time that, sadly, some of the protesters were able to swim.

You are also correct, Greg, in that angling has an underpinning of millions of votes. It would take a gutsy government to attempt any ban. Many high profile MPs are hanging on to marginal seats by a thread and the millions (let's be honest, it IS millions) of potentially lost votes scares the hell out of them. For some, even the breath of a ban would be political suicide - and they know it.

Phillip, you are correct. Many urban waterways, particularly canals in the Midlands, were cleared up, cleaned out and brought back on line as fishing venues, monitored and cherished by local angling clubs. Wildlife thrived, fishing thrived and people could walk their dogs and kids along these, now scenic,banks. Sadly, society has moved on and the places are generally full of dogshit, syringes and alchies. Shopping trolleys and empty tins of Stella and Tenants Special Brew are more evident than anglers. If only the government was aware of the price of Stella, it would sharply increase the value of benefits for some of these worthless people who choose to live an equally worthless parasitic life relying on the working man to pay his taxes so they can indulge themselves in the drug infested, alcohol haze they call life. Sermon over.

And a fine sermon it was Phil, it expresses my sentiments exactly. I witnessed one of those altercations you refer to on the River Witham. Although I saw no one given swimming lessons, three came very close. They are out there.

The PC brigade and their followers need to be rounded up and shot or at the very least they should get no media coverage as 99.9% of what they do is pathetic and just wastes time and sh1t loads of money. Yes your tax money is being squandered to help pay for this PC nonsense in its various forms andI don't remember geting to vote about whether or not to accept this PC bullsh1t.

As for the antis it will be no supprise to hear thatI have no time for them either and certainly dont loose any sleep over their ideas and threats. The fishing community and its supportersare huge and as long as we organise and conductourselfs properly then I cant see any realistic threat to our sport.

What does bother me is the infighting between fishermen thought its various disaplines.I am predominantly a game fisherman who fishes the fly butI also do a bit of coarse fishing and occasionally fish in the sea and altough not every species or method floats my boat butI wouldn't knock anyone for using methods or targeting species that I don't.

Wilbert, the "infighting" between the various angling disciplines (Specimen Hunters, Predator, Carp, Match and Pleasure), has been with us for as long as I can remember and it is certainlyunhelpful to air your dirty washing in public (the livebaiting issue is a particularlyemotive subject). Various articles in the angling press in the past have either praised orscorned, forexample, the pursuit of large named fish (barbel and carp) and accused those who single mindedly hunt down these beasties as weird. Be that as it may, in the main, the "infighting" is mostly friendly rivalry in the way the Army, Navy and RAF servicemen have always said their service isbetter than the others. I do agree, though, that editorial discretion is needed when deciding whether to publish articles which can be picked up by the antis and used against us. But when does editorial discretion become sensorship? Not an easy one to call.

There will be a backlash, in the fullness of time, against the ridiculous direction Political Correctness is taking us. It's started, but there is still some way to go. When you consider that some local education authorities banned children's nursery rhymes which referred to Baa baa black sheep because they feared it would offend some ethnic minority groups, you have to turn your head to the wall and say 'for Christ's sake, how much more?' Or have I just inadvertentlyoffended some christian fundamentalists?

The anti brigade and their fellow animal rights activistswill always command media attention, not least because some of their activities are criminal and violent. However, some aspects of the media are overtly pink and fluffy and I place the BBC firmly in this group. They claim to be a public service broadcaster (which they are, that's why we pay a licence fee) and are serving the public interest by providing air time to the anti this and anti that groups. The trouble is, of course, they are slow to respond to that most basic of even handed journalistic practice - The Right To Reply. Until the BBC (and other media groups) begin to understand the underlying popularity of angling, we are going to be under represented when it comes to putting our views on air. Two things in this world you don't piss against - the wind and an electric fence, and getting the BBC to accept the reality of angling's popular support is like doing both at the same time.

It seems every time this topic raises its head, the old argumentsabout "PC gone mad", "pinkos", etc, etc are dragged out of retirement. We live in a democracy - everyone is entitled to their views, however misguided or ill-informed. We need to counter the misinformation in an intelligent and rational manner. We have to do a bit more than resort to the same tired old cliches if we want to defend what we do. So let's examine a few facts.

1. Whilst the anti-angling brigade are vocal, they are not numerous. The noise they make is far out of proportion to their size or the influence they wield. This is partly due to the fact that they are technologically and media savvy and many are from the sharp-elbowed middle classes and know how to manipulate the opinion forming devices available to them. It's up to us to become equally savvy and put across a well-arguedcase with as much force as they use. Save the jibes about "PC gone mad" for another day. They don't advance our cause. Lets' concentrate on promoting the good things angling offers and does, rather than replying on jibes andname calling.

2. The BBC is not "pink", "fluffy", etc, etc. Isn't it funny that everyonewho doesn't see the Beebpromoting their particular point of view rushes to accuse it of bias? The right claims the Beeb is full of commies, the left that it's a quasi-fascist organisation. Crazy. We need to make friends with the Beeb and the media and show them, and hence the world, that we're normal, OK people with a valid point of view.

3. Yes. The Angling Trust is great. So was the ACA that preceded it. But how many anglers sign up and pay a sub'. Er, not many. We can't really complain that we don't get a fair shake in the media or when policy is being formualted if we can't even be bothered to get off our arses, get involved, pay a trifling sum to an organisation which is pledged to promote and protectus and STOP WHINGEING. Can we?

Rant over.

And it was a rant. The 'PCs gone mad' and 'pinkos' are a very real presence and factor seamlessly into this discussion. These are people who want to change the way you live and impose their ideas on youwhether you like it or not. That's a fact. And, by the way, many of them are not part of the electoral system but self imposed and self appointed guardians of right and wrong. Unelected members of quangos who remain prominent in our political and educational systems. They are unelected so not part of the democratic system and, in truth, should be.

You are SO wrong about the make up of the anti brigade. They are savvy and they are media aware andtheir leaders may well be from the sharp elbowed middle classes but their foot soldiers are from much lower down the scale. The make up of the people I used to meet at the League Against Cruel Sports demonstations showed them to be ready for a confrontation whatever the circumstances they met. Many came from the so called 'Traveller' community and many were just thugs just out for a scrap. Unless you ignored it, the Hunt Saboteurs were mainly made up of the same ilk with a few more 'respectable' faces thrown in to present the aura of peaceful democratic protesters going about their business. There were some horrific acts of violence carried out during that campaign. Don't be lulled into the belief that anti angling protesters are something different to the groups involved in hunting protests. But, yes, I do agreewith you that they are not large in numbers although they do shout loud.

Sorry, disagree again. The BBC IS biased against many things. It's reporting tone and stance has been subject to much criticism across a raft of different subject matters. It, again, regulates itself and, althoughsubject to oversight, the knuckle is only rapped when a high profile case of poor behaviour is screened nationwide (Jonathan Ross and Russel Brandincident). Personally, I don't particularly care whether the BBC is stuffed full of commies or fascists, all I want is even handedness of reporting with a consistent approach. Many agree that we have some way to go with this, but it's a personal view.

Whilst we agree on certain things, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on some.I hope we all see an opportunity for the AT to present a joined up publicity campaign for the undoubted benefits angling brings. But as for convincing the BBC that angling is worthy of recognition as a great British pastime, with some anglers, and teams of anglers,worthy ofeven a mention in the Sports Personality of the Yearawards, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

By all means don't hold your breath, but don't give up either.