Antifishing folk....

[W+T]

I like to read the threads here and i see a lot of posts are by Antifishing folk, if so against fishing why read on here, nevermind post replys that you dont like fishing. Please dont get me wrong, i am not after a barny just puzzles me what folk do at times.

 

Can i ask why are you Antifishing?

[Barry]

I think it's not that anti-fishing people deliberately look in the Fishing Cycling and Walking forum, it's rather that a lot of people just hit the View New Content button when they log on. The fishing threads are then on the list of stuff with all the others and so get read in turn

[NB Alnwick]

 

>snip<

 

Can i ask why are you Antifishing?

 

Some people just do not approve of anything that causes harm to other creatures.

 

Bear baiting, dog fighting, badger baiting, cock fighting and fox hunting were all once legal 'sports' in this country but all have been banned because of the pain and suffering caused to the creatures concerned.

 

Even if (as some anglers maintain) fish caught on a hook do not experience pain, fear or anxiety, there is still a case for banning angling as a 'sport' based on the suffering caused to wild fowl and waterside mammals when they swallow or become inadvertently caught up in carelessly discarded fishing tackle.

[Gibbo]

Can i ask why are you Antifishing?

 

I'm not anti fishing as such. But I am "anti fishermen fishing at lock landing" and "anti fishermen fishing at lift/swing bridge moorings" and "anti fishermen telling me to slow down when I can't because there's a strong side wind"

 

Have you ever tried to man-handle a 20 tonne boat, in a side wind, with a fast by-wash, round a fisherman just because the selfish prick is fishing exactly where the boat needs to be?

[Grace and Favour]

Some people just do not approve of anything that causes harm to other creatures.

 

Bear baiting, dog fighting, badger baiting, cock fighting and fox hunting were all once legal 'sports' in this country but all have been banned because of the pain and suffering caused to the creatures concerned.

 

Even if (as some anglers maintain) fish caught on a hook do not experience pain, fear or anxiety, there is still a case for banning angling as a 'sport' based on the suffering caused to wild fowl and waterside mammals when they swallow or become inadvertently caught up in carelessly discarded fishing tackle.

 

Hear hear

[casper ghost]

Some people just do not approve of anything that causes harm to other creatures.

 

Yep, and i'm one of those people.

Casp'

[W+T]

Ah so its mainly Antifisherman/woman not Antifishing, except for a few as they say it hurts the fish, i believe its has been scientificaly proved it doest hurt them, but then i duno.

More chance of banning football than fishing, i hope LOL ( i am antifootbal, therefore i dont watch it )

 

It bugs me when fisherfolk fish in stupid places whern there miles of canal to fish, just some ignorant brain dead idiots about, but thats folk init.

Edited July 7, 2011 by W+T

[The Anonymous Bard]

Even if (as some anglers maintain) fish caught on a hook do not experience pain, fear or anxiety, there is still a case for banning angling as a 'sport' based on the suffering caused to wild fowl and waterside mammals when they swallow or become inadvertently caught up in carelessly discarded fishing tackle.

 

I have to agree that there are the mindless few within angling just as there are within the boating community and neither should represent the overall caring and considerate majority.

 

It is easy to condemn anglers for what they do but few may remember/know that anglers, through the ACA, were one of the first and few to take legal action against industrial polluters before the Environment Agency got to grips with things and via their own voluntary contributions from their own pockets over twenty years ago this preserved the lives of possibly millions of fish and other creatures when wholesale industrial pollution was happening seemingly unchecked to many of our waterways.

 

What, exactly, were you doing back then to achieve the same effect?

 

Anglers have also been first on the scene on countless early Summer mornings to find a lake or canal pound had become de-oxygenated with thousands of gasping fish lay on the surface before enlisting the help of the local Fire Brigade to pump oxygen back into the water... whether or not they are judged to be doing all of this for their own selfish reasons is up to anyone but the fact remains that the environment benefited as a result.

 

Edited to add: The following link and quote... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglers_Conservation_Association

 

"The ACA fights pollution and the resulting damage to fisheries on the freshwater waterways, rivers and lakes in the UK. The Association takes private legal action against polluters to the House of Lords and the European Court if necessary, but most cases are settled out of Court. Usually where the Environment Agency has not proceeded against the polluter. The burden of proof in civil legal actions is different to those in criminal legal actions."

 

If anyone (not referring to Graham) but aimed at anti-anglers in general wants to dip their hand in their pocket and provide the funds which caring anglers have provided to replace what was originally the ACA and in turn provide for the environment what the ACA contributed should angling be banned for its own or "wider" issues become reality, please let them step forward...

 

Any takers?

 

Thought not!

 

It's a bit of a "put your money where your mouth is" scenario... we did, how about you?

 

Are the "anti's" just gonna spout an endless tirade of drivel in lazy protest or will you actually do something that financially reflects your convictions and actaulally (in fact) benefits the environment... a bit like we did?

 

If it were not for the donations and actions of the ACA many waterways would arguably have no or little wildlife to protect... above or below water.

 

Doubtless it has ever occurred to those that object to angling that they may be enjoying the wildlife on a waterway that may not have contained it were it not for the actions of those anglers that contributed to the cause to help it happen, but then it is easy to criticise.

 

But hey, that's just my uninformed opinion

Edited July 7, 2011 by The Anonymous Bard

[W+T]

I have to agree that there are the mindless few within angling just as there are within the boating community and neither should represent the overall caring and considerate majority.

 

It is easy to condemn anglers for what they do but few may remember/know that anglers, through the ACA, were one of the first and few to take action against industrial polluters before the Environment Agency got to grips with things and via their own voluntary contributions over twenty years ago… this preserved the lives of possibly millions of fish when wholesale industrial pollution was happening seemingly unchecked to many of our waterways.

 

Anglers have also been first on the scene on countless early Summer mornings to find a lake or canal pound had become de-oxygenated with thousands of gasping fish lay on the surface before enlisting the help of the local Fire Brigade to pump oxygen back into the water… whether or not they are judged to be doing all of this for their own selfish reasons is up to anyone but the fact remains that the environment benefited as a result.

 

You know, i am ashamed to say i forgot about that but now remeber that, as said there are numb headed anglers as in all aspects of life but the majority are good folk, that look after there catch.

[zenataomm]

i believe its has been scientificaly proved it doest hurt them, but then i duno.

 

 

Let's start a new thread on all of the things that have been scientifically proven ...... like the safety of asbestos or Thalidomide. How about the safety of British Servicemen observing Atomic Bomb detonations in the 50's?

 

Apart from that I have no problem in slaughtering animals for consumption.

However I do have immense problems with people who are mindlessly cruel to animals which would include dragging them out of their natural environment and then restricting their freedom for hours in cramped nets.

 

Anybody else boated through a section the day after a fishing match, and marvelled at all of the fish corpses ? Still it's good to know their demise was scientifically proven to have been painless.

[The Anonymous Bard]

You know, i am ashamed to say i forgot about that but now remeber that, as said there are numb headed anglers as in all aspects of life but the majority are good folk, that look after there catch.

 

Exactly... and if we all went on the extreme cases of the mindless few angling would be banned.

 

Along with boating, beer, chips...

[W+T]

Let's start a new thread on all of the things that have been scientifically proven ...... like the safety of asbestos or Thalidomide. How about the safety of British Servicemen observing Atomic Bomb detonations in the 50's?

 

Apart from that I have no problem in slaughtering animals for consumption.

However I do have immense problems with people who are mindlessly cruel to animals which would include dragging them out of their natural environment and then restricting their freedom for hours in cramped nets.

 

Anybody else boated through a section the day after a fishing match, and marvelled at all of the fish corpses ? Still it's good to know their demise was scientifically proven to have been painless.

 

 

Now lets not get tetchy, i did say ` i dunno`

 

I have fished over near 30 years and never seen this happen, but then i have fished lakes not canals in matchs.

 

You cant argue your way sorry, i believe in animals for for slaughter for food, but if you agree with caged/couped chickens then its no nuch different to me. Free range is better for the life of animals.

 

Sorry but a bit of contradiction to me there.

[The Anonymous Bard]

 

Apart from that I have no problem in slaughtering animals for consumption.

 

So it's ok to run a blade up a live fishes stomach and wrench out its guts with your fingers on a trawler (don't mention the "black fish" that have to be returned dead) in the name of human consumption but don't throw it alive into a keepnet only to be returned later to its habitat no worse for wear?

Edited July 7, 2011 by The Anonymous Bard

[W+T]

Exactly... and if we all went on the extreme cases of the mindless few angling would be banned.

 

Along with boating, beer, chips...

 

 

........and fishing

 

So it's ok to run a blade up a live fishes stomach and wrench out its guts with your fingers on a trawler (don't menton the "black fish" that have to be returned dead) in the name of human consumption but don't throw it alive into a keepnet only to be returned later to its habitat no worse for wear?

 

Exactly, these folk are good at contradiction. cant have ot both ways can we.

 

i bet a lot have had a kebab in the past...........wheres my cat gone LOL

[The Anonymous Bard]

........and fishing

 

 

 

Exactly, these folk are good at contradiction. cant have ot both ways can we.

 

i bet a lot have had a kebab in the past...........wheres my cat gone LOL

 

Double maggot and a pint... deadly combination

[carlt]

 

Exactly, these folk are good at contradiction. cant have ot both ways can we.

 

i bet a lot have had a kebab in the past...........wheres my cat gone LOL

Why do you assume there's a contradiction?

 

You may lose that bet with many people who care that their food is sourced ethically.

[The Anonymous Bard]

Why do you assume there's a contradiction?

 

You may lose that bet with many people who care that their food is sourced ethically.

 

What do you define as "ethically" in relation to fish?

[W+T]

Double maggot and a pint... deadly combination

 

 

Maggots are to expensive now for me kida, you can 2 loafs of blue warbies for that now

 

Why do you assume there's a contradiction?

 

You may lose that bet with many people who care that their food is sourced ethically.

 

 

Hi Carlt, i say this to the folk that go on about `cruelty to animals` but eat chickens, bacon etc etc, the majority is kept in bad confines, worse than than the anglers catch which is for a few hours, a few hours stress ` if said` is a whole lot worse than a life of being stuck in a small field/coupe not cared for properly then being slaughtered, what ever you wish.

 

MOST fisherfolk take pride in looking after there catch, a whole lot more than the owners of consumed animals, and the consumers who dont give a hoot.

[carlt]

What do you define as "ethically" in relation to fish?

I don't.

 

I don't have any great objection to coarse angling because I believe that the vast majority of anglers behave responsibly and care not just for the fish they catch but their immediate environment as a whole.

 

Our rivers, lakes and even canals would be a lot worse off, if there were no anglers.

 

Like boaters, and every other identifiable group, there are the irresponsible few that cause everyone else to be tarred with the same brush (hence a similar anti-boating slant you often see in anglers' forums and other media).

 

I would hazard a guess that most people (except the illogical few) who oppose angling, are also pretty careful where their food comes from, too.

 

What do you define as "ethically" in relation to fish?

I would add, though, that every fish I eat is line caught and humanely dispatched.

[The Anonymous Bard]

I don't.

 

 

OK... fine, so what did the people who you referred to in post 16 define as "ethically" produced food?

 

Edited to add: For example, did they read the label on the tin and see "line caught Tuna" not realising those lines stretched many kilometres out into the ocean with thousands of baited hooks and an operator who had no control over what was taking them which in turn snared fish and birds that were both commercially worthless and were subsequently tossed back dead over the sides of the "ethically" fishing" boats?

 

I wonder if it were the same uninformed minority that would like to see angling banned, safe in the knowledge that they have done their bit as they crunched obliviously on their grilled Tuna on toast... ?

Edited July 7, 2011 by The Anonymous Bard

[W+T]

OK... fine, so what did the people who you referred to in post 16 define as "ethically" produced food?

 

 

I guess he means `nicely`

[carlt]

OK... fine, so what did the people who you referred to in post 16 define as "ethically" produced food?

 

I have no idea. I have this thing where I prefer to think the best in people and, if they have made a conscious decision to oppose the (perceived) mistreatment of one animal, I would like to think that they would dedicate some thought to the welfare of all the others.

 

I am happy with my position, regarding where I choose to source my food from and choose not to pass judgement on other peoples' choices.

 

I guess he means `nicely`

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

Is it a dig?

Edited July 7, 2011 by carlt

[The Anonymous Bard]

I have no idea. I have this thing where I prefer to think the best in people and, if they have made a conscious decision to oppose the (perceived) mistreatment of one animal, I would like to think that they would dedicate some thought to the welfare of all the others.

 

I am happy with my position, regarding where I choose to source my food from and choose not to pass judgement on other peoples' choices.

 

 

 

So... where do you get your "ethically" sourced fish from?

 

Tesco or Sainsburys doesn't count...

[muddywaters]

Some people just do not approve of anything that causes harm to other creatures.

 

Bear baiting, dog fighting, badger baiting, cock fighting and fox hunting were all once legal 'sports' in this country but all have been banned because of the pain and suffering caused to the creatures concerned.

 

Even if (as some anglers maintain) fish caught on a hook do not experience pain, fear or anxiety, there is still a case for banning angling as a 'sport' based on the suffering caused to wild fowl and waterside mammals when they swallow or become inadvertently caught up in carelessly discarded fishing tackle.

In that case there is an arguement for banning boating when wild life become poisoned by polution from boats be it fuel / oil leaks or empty coal bags and other materials dumped by careless boaters

[The Anonymous Bard]

In that case there is an arguement for banning boating when wild life become poisoned by polution from boats be it fuel / oil leaks or empty coal bags and other materials dumped by careless boaters

 

Funnily enough there was an investigation many years ago into Swan deaths through lead poisoning, suspected to be from anglers weights but later concluded that it was from lead contamination in the water from boat emissions (no, not vintage engines!).

 

This really could take some unexpected twists now...

 

Edited to add: Not forgetting fish that are known to drown when sucked under lock gates when paddles are opened.

 

Yes, definitely... we must ban boating now based on the same principal for the wider gain of the environment

Edited July 7, 2011 by The Anonymous Bard