Massive Hunting Turn Out

[jason fisher]

ian you have talked the biggest load of bollox i have ever heard on this thread.

fly fishing is a blood sport yes when the fish are killed, but up until now no one has shown any evidence that fish feel pain when being hooked, on the other hand i have a feeling that a fox at the point of being torn to pieces by the hounds does feel a lot of pain and distress.

I will not stand side by side with you and the hunting loby, we have nothing in common, the sooner you lot in the CA piss off and leave fishing alone the better. we do not stand with you, many of us stand against you.

 

[MaNick]

"Unfortunately though, who you as an individual choose to associate or not associate yourself with doesn't actually make a difference."

It makes a BIG difference to ME Ian!

"However, how the general population perceives your association to any given activity (or label) is how consensus of opinion is formed and then manipulated to serve political purpose."

So the penny has finally dropped?... WHY ON EARTH would ANGLERS want to associate themselves with something that is about to become an ILLEGAL activity? Something percieved by many people a cruel and barbaric? and something which has NOTHING TO DO WITH FISHING.

I respect anyone who feels they have the right campaign (peacefully), demostrate (peacefully), complain about laws that are passed that they feel strongly about. But PLEASE dont drag ME, and my FELLOW ANGLERS who feel it's nothing to do with us in to the argument.IT will be anglings downfall if we get involved.

 

[Nigel Moors 2]

Ian - as regards bias and my use of Tory reference. I voted Tory for 3 elections in a row, didn't vote labour at the last one either so any perceived bias is incorrect. More a case of me being able to look back at those times and realise that there is much more a "I'm alright jack" and "leave me alone to do as I wish no matter how distasteful" attitude about those Tory days that to me -IMHO at least- has more parallels with the pro-hunting brigade.

Ron - there are an awful lot of voices on here now statingn that they feel no alliance to hunting at all. Are they all going to stand by and do nothing when the angling 'ban' comes?

 

[Nigel Moors 2]

Jason - spot on!

 

[Ian Michaelwaite]

That's fair enough Jason, but I'm not in the CA or any other pro-hunting group. Jumping up and down and having a tantrum isn't going to change facts, angling is associated with hunting. You search for, attract and trap a wild animal - the arument about pain is irrelevant - the fish can't shout, but do have nerves - and they do feel and react to stress.

Make yourself a nice cup of tea and have a watch of this http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=angling&Player=wm&speed=_med

Then tell me you are not involved and don't want to be involved in educating the majority with facts regarding blood and field sports (yes, that is all forms of hunting and shooting, as well as angling) instead of mindless rhetoric.

 

[ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)]

My word --what an argument they put up-- I see John Bailey got quoted in the film too--

 

[GrahamM]

I've just watched this film and it's a masterpiece of twisted facts and rhetoric. If you're not an angler you'll be swayed by it, of that there is no doubt. It claims the film gives the facts from a fish's point of view.

The film claimed that waters were polluted with rotten baits, that we're litter louts, bird killers and even killed cats and dogs.

It showed shots of kids ill treating an eel and put it across as though we all behave like that.

There was footage of John Bailey's articles where he pleads with anglers to give up keepnets, etc.

It claimed we gut hook fish and if the hook doesn't come out easily we just tear it out.

It was full of claims that fish feel pain and that it has been proved scientifically that they feel pain and stress.

More worryingly it said words to the effect that it will be difficult to ban angling outright, and that they should first get keepnets and livebaits banned before moving in for the kill.

There was a definite suggestion that the best way to attack us is to whittle us down until we're too weak to fight back.

It's why I keep saying, fight every battle and we'll win the war. Don't concede anything.

 

[Wag]

Ian says:-

"Make yourself a nice cup of tea and have a watch of this http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=angling&Player=wm&speed=_med

Then tell me you are not involved and don't want to be involved in educating the majority with facts"

I'll quite happily explain and defend angling to anyone, but I find it totally impossible to defend chasing a wild, panicked animal for miles then ripping it to shreds with dogs.

I have no problem with 'hunting' as in stalking and shooting wild animals for food, or even sport, and have done my own fair share over the years. It is the chase part that I find unnecessary. If you want to control foxes then flush them out and shoot them - don't dig them out, keep them in a cage overnight, then release them the next day so you can chase them all over the countryside before ripping them limb from limb. The speed of the kill is not the problem - the barbarity of the whole thing is the issue.

I also think the CA focus on the single issue of fox hunting is doing a great disservice to the plight of people who live in the countryside. There are serious issues which do need addressing, such as poverty wages, loss of jobs, the lack of affordable housing, loss of local services due to second home buyers from the cities etc, but the fox hunting furore does nothing except deflect the focus from these problems. The CA promote the impression that people who live in the countryside spend all their spare time dressed in red, chasing wild animals on horseback across the fields in a rage of bloodlust, which may be true of a small minority, but bears no relevance to the vast majority, who spend most of their time struggling with the realities of modern life - low pay, high transport costs, poor public services, local school closures, loss of post offices and banks. If the CA really gave a toss about rural affairs they'd spend some of their huge PR budget on addressing these, instead of defending the rights of their rich patrons to continue their irrelevant and indefensible pastime.

A democratically elected Government has passed a law, get over it, and start fighting for issues which REALLY matter to country folk.

 

[MaNick]

I agree Graham...

BUT...

WE MUST FIGHT THE ANGLERS BATTLE,

NOT THE BATTLE OF OTHER UNCONNECTED GROUPS!!

 

[GrahamM]

It's difficult for me to argue against country sports being as I was brought up following most of them, including shooting, ferreting, snaring, fishing of course, and respecting other people's pursuits. I was brought up at a time when you could walk along country lanes with an uncovered gun, wander through miles of woods and not meet another soul, shoot rabbits, duck, pheasants and crows and take most of them home for the pot or sell them down the pub.

There were no tree huggers and bunny lovers (not wild rabbits anyway) and country sports were just as acceptable as a game of cricket and football.

I accept that times have changed and you can't do that anymore. But don't ask me to make a stand against those who follow those pursuits as best they can today. I'm a countryman and although there are aspects of country life I don't agree with, I respect another person's choice.

The only stand I make is not to follow those aspects of it I dislike. First and foremost I'm for freedom of choice.

It's not too many years ago that me and Ed were in Ireland enjoying an afternoon's shooting for rabbits and pheasants. The sense of freedom was marvellous compared to the shackled state of shooting over here.

Yes, we do have to be careful whose battle we fight, and maybe it is better in some repects to keep some country sports separate from fishing. I'm not sure though, for there are so many people who think that fishing is a blood sport and when enough of them gang up on us we may wish we'd have stuck together.

 

[Jeff]

Sorry Graham, but surely, given the choice, a fox would like to have his freedom... ;0)

 

[ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)]

Yes Gra' I really enjoyed that, and in fact at the time we were saying how we wouldn't mind taking it up as a hobby when we got back home.
But after enquiring and finding out all the rules and regulations about owning a shotgun and what you had to have to keep it secure etc.it just wasn't worth the hassle ....

 

[Ian Michaelwaite]

Carl, I agree there are a lot more important issues both in the countryside and urban areas than fox hunting. But that isn't the discussion in this thread.

There is a flaw in your argument regarding the chase, one the anti's already have an answer for. By your reasoning it is cruel and barbaric to pursue a terrified animal for a length of time, but OK to momentarily terrify them, or play a large fish for 10 minutes until it is exhausted and pulled from its' environment - what is the acceptable time limit for a wild animal to be terrified before it is captured or killed?

As I've already stated I don't belong to the CA, I'm not a strong pro hunt supporter - I don't wave a banner, chase hunts or ride in them. But what really pisses me off is the fact that a government ignores the facts that it's own research proves and passes a law based mainly on 'information' found in the literature of the HSA, PETA, LACS etc.

How many people (especially children) on seeing that film would follow the links from the Peta site, get onto the HSA site, see that they bought down fox hunting by active disruption, and look there's a section on how to sabotage fishing. How about Pisces (formerly CAA), how to get angling banned from local municipal waters - http://www.pisces.demon.co.uk/factshe4.html.

Or the Green Party Policy Report from June this year :
Blood Sports

...would ban all hunting with hounds, coursing, shooting and snaring and would strive to promote the wellbeing of all wild creatures. We would work actively to bring about an end to angling through public education programmes.

 

[GrahamM]

Jeff, course he would.

So would a fish, but I'm not packing up fishing.

 

[Ian Michaelwaite]

and Jason, before I piss off. Does your statement mean that as soon as there is proof that fish feel pain, you'll stop fishing? Whose proof will you accept - the anti's already have their own scientific evidence, from the same sources as they gathered most of their evidence regarding hunting.

 

[GrahamM]

Me and Ed with Dinner.

 

[Jeff]

Point Graham!

It is a really fine line that we anglers are walking... If we do stand side by side the fox hunter then we may be tarninshed with the same brush.

To me, fox hunting are as different from fishing as Football is from Chess. It's simply not our fight so we should stay out of it.

or those of you that fish and fox hunt, well perhaps it is not good to try any put all of the countryside persuits under one banner as this allows us to be attached more easiliy and us anglers can be persecuted for things that are not of our doing or interest...

 

[ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)]

"Sorry Graham, but surely, given the choice, a fox would like to have his freedom"

And surely given HIS choice a huntsman would like to hunt!!

 

[ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)]

The argument should be about having your choice taken away from you ---Nobody MAKES a person go hunting --if you dont choose to, you don't go

 

[Jeff]

Again a valid point ED,

I suppose those that don't hunt, don't understand the appeal or desire to hunt.

Those that don't fish... same again...

I don't agree with it, that's me... As much as I don't agree, I would NEVER march or even openly stand against it because I would not want someone to do that against the fishing that I enjoy...

I just think that anglers should distance themselves from this perspective time-bomb as we may get caught up in something that could result in us all suffering...