What A Barbaric Sport...

[The Anonymous Bard]

Well...

 

Having completed my first ever work party weekend (post bath... aching back reminding me) on my local lake which I have recently re-joined having last fished it some thirty years ago as a lad I can honestly say that despite naturally defending the genuine angler in general... whilst trying to keep an open mind, I have witnessed a truly broader perspective.

 

In the re-constructing of a "peg" which we happened upon that housed a nest of thriving crayfish amongst the tree roots which lay below it we then spent most of the morning dragging said nest in saturation below the very cold water to a point of almost submersion until we could rest it in a safe place where they could then continue to thrive.

 

Aaaah... but if we weren't there, interfering in the first place, we wouldn't have had to?

 

I should say that the crayfish have begun to thrive because of the water quality which in turn has improved as a result of the angling club's persistence in persuading the local farmer (who's natural lay of land drains into the lake after any significant rainfall) to moderate his use of pesticides and crop enhancing chemicals.

 

Big deal?

 

Yes the fish would have been netted and re-housed elsewhere should any plans develop for the land area but...

 

As the club in question has mortgaged the lake over a period of twenty years in the face of opposition that wanted to fill it in and build a housing estate (to the gratitude of the factory which previously owned it and drew water for cooling via means of the pump house which is still in situ) the trustees of the club have put their own roofs and necks on the line as guarentor's.

 

Where does this leave the "antis" who's only consideration seems to be that a fish (or the wider environment, although I have rarely if ever seen evidence of the wider environment being referred to by the "antis", presumably because they are incapable of thinking that far ahead?) doesn't experience any pain as they often perceive it to be?

 

Looking on in judgement and ignorance as they gently lean on their tillers (or not?) as they themselves pump damaging gasses into the atmosphere which their minds seem to be so blissfully ignorant of in their pursuit of their own enjoyment?

 

Some people seem to speak out in their defence of "compassion" whilst inadvertently adding to the problem.

 

What did you do today to help things?

 

Please... this is not a rant but some balanced, objective comment for those against in the face of the above would be most welcome.

 

Edited for a missed space and the fact that I envisage "antis" as dumb, nose pierced, benefit drawing idiots...

 

That should get it going!

Edited February 25, 2012 by The Anonymous Bard

[andywatson]

It's not as impressive as your efforts but:

A ditch alongside the cricket field where I walk my dog has been slowly collecting beer cans and food wrappers.

I've become fed up with the litter so yesterday I got my wellies on, climbed in with a bin liner and cleaned it out.

 

The amount of litter alongside roads etc is becoming depressing.

[The Anonymous Bard]

A up Andy... good man that chap!

 

Wellies were my first point of call today as I felt the cold water around my chest!

[Barry]

Something that the antis are not prepared to see (in their closed minded bigotry) is that anglers contribute to the quality of the waterways in many ways; by reporting deteriorating water condition, pollution events etc; by organising clean ups in abused locations; by actively taking part in reclamation projects. In many ways they are the eyes that the Environment Agency needs to look after our waterways for the benefit of everybody because the better the quality of the water they fish the better the quality of the environment for every thing that lives there and enjoys it.

[The Anonymous Bard]

Something that the antis are not prepared to see (in their closed minded bigotry) is that anglers contribute to the quality of the waterways in many ways; by reporting deteriorating water condition, pollution events etc; by organising clean ups in abused locations; by actively taking part in reclamation projects.

 

Ditto... but then it's easy for them to hold a lazy opinion as they watch morning tv as they endure the torment and torture, having time to consider all that is wrong with the world yet doing little about it, whilst awaiting "sign on" time!

 

Must be Hell!

 

Edited to add: For signing on and a couple of other things and...i've never in my entire life met an "anti" that was there on the bamks muckin in and actully doing somrethimg constructive!

Edited February 25, 2012 by The Anonymous Bard

[carlt]

Ditto... but then it's easy for them to hold a lazy opinion as they watch morning tv as they endure the torment and torture, having time to consider all that is wrong with the world yet doing little about it, whilst awaiting "sign on" time!

 

Must be Hell!

You don't like the "antis" passing judgement and making assumptions about your pastime and then do exactly the same thing here...assuming that being anti fishing means one sits around watching tv and not acting on their concerns is, imho, a "lazy opinion"

 

i've never in my entire life met an "anti" that was there on the bamks muckin in and actully doing somrethimg constructive!

Considering Sueb's attitude to fishing and the work she has done with the WRG I think that is evidence that you are talking rubbish here.

 

I have spent hundreds of hours on the banks of the Idle, Torn, Itchen, Leam etc, with the BTCV, clearing up old discarded tackle, bin bag after bin bag of litter, peg markers that haven't been removed after a match, nests of line dumped after a tangle...

 

I'm not an "anti", btw, though I don't see the point (I like to eat my quarry so only catch the lumpy water fish) but what you have written is just as ill-informed and judgemental as those you condemn.

 

Edited to remove a word that the OP is using to distract from the main point of my post.

Edited February 27, 2012 by carlt

[Barry]

blunt as ever Carl you do make valid points

 

In my opinion, based on more experience as an angler than as a boater, there is no doubt that there are careless lazy selfish anglers who don't give a damn about anything other than 'their day out' on their own terms.

 

I suspect that exactly the same can be said of a proportion of boaters

[carlt]

 

I suspect that exactly the same can be said of a proportion of boaters

Personally I think some boaters are worse and the mess is far worse on navigable waters, than unnavigable.

 

Anglers have done loads to get their house in order, since I did it as a kid.

 

As I'm not a fish I don't know about the cruelty angle but I do know that there are more fish, birds and bankside mammals alive because anglers exist, than if they didn't.

 

They have also, possibly inadvertently, made canal restoration easier, by maintaining linear fishing pools, when there were no boats.

 

To offer the argument that all antis are "dumb, nose pierced, benefit drawing idiots..." is no less narrow minded than "antis" who draw conclusions without furnishing themselves with the facts, especially as fishing is a popular way of relieving the boredom of being jobless and I know a few anglers who are proud of their piercings.

[Slim]

It's not as impressive as your efforts but:

A ditch alongside the cricket field where I walk my dog has been slowly collecting beer cans and food wrappers.

I've become fed up with the litter so yesterday I got my wellies on, climbed in with a bin liner and cleaned it out.

 

The amount of litter alongside roads etc is becoming depressing.

 

????????????????

 

 

Last Wednesday I went up to the boat for a couple of days. In no rush I decided to use the A41 rather than the M40 . I was amazed at the amount of rubbish on the verges and central reservations. Credit to the local authorities, I passed any number of gangs of workers clearing up but why did they have to do it in the first instance? It's the same in towns and cities, litter everywhere!

[The Anonymous Bard]

You don't like the "antis" passing judgement and making assumptions about your pastime and then do exactly the same thing here...assuming that being anti fishing means one sits around watching tv and not acting on their concerns is, imho, a "lazy opinion"

 

 

Considering Sueb's attitude to fishing and the work she has done with the WRG I think that is evidence that you are talking bollocks here.

 

I have spent hundreds of hours on the banks of the Idle, Torn, Itchen, Leam etc, with the BTCV, clearing up old discarded tackle, bin bag after bin bag of litter, peg markers that haven't been removed after a match, nests of line dumped after a tangle...

 

I'm not an "anti", btw, though I don't see the point (I like to eat my quarry so only catch the lumpy water fish) but what you have written is just as ill-informed and judgemental as those you condemn.

 

Good for you too... bollocks or no bollocks.

 

Sueb's contribution is very admirable and i'm not aware of her attitude to angling either for or against but as you referred to this on the back of my comment "i've never in my entire life met an "anti" that was there on the bamks muckin in and actully doing somrethimg constructive!" i'm not really sure of the relevance as I haven't met her, which in turn enforces my statement regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

 

That, sir... in my opinion hangs the bollocks firmly on the end of your own nose.

 

It's too nice out there today and as much as I would like to enter into a marathon of dialogue with you I really can't see the point as you will fail to change my opinion as much as I will change yours but feel free to poddle on, i'm sure you will.

[carlt]

That, sir... in my opinion hangs the bollocks firmly on the end of your own nose.

 

It's too nice out there today and as much as I would like to enter into a marathon of dialogue with you I really can't see the point as you will fail to change my opinion as much as I will change yours but feel free to poddle on, i'm sure you will.

I think we share the same opinion on anglers and you might agree, if you read my post properly.

 

What we don't share is your hypocritical way of passing judgement on people opposed to your pastime.

 

It is no better than those who condemn angling and anglers, without looking into the facts.

 

Oh and why start a discussion and then patronise someone for wanting to join in?

Edited February 26, 2012 by carlt

[The Anonymous Bard]

1. I think we share the same opinion on anglers and you might agree, if you read my post properly.

 

 

 

2. Oh and why start a discussion and then patronise someone for wanting to join in?

 

 

1. The fact that you have failed to read my post properly in the first place has led to your first comment.

 

In your initial post you run with my quote that I have never met anyone who is "anti" and then refer to someone in an attempt to overturn the point except the person you refer to I HAVE NEVER MET!

 

It's not rocket science, there will doubtless be a number of ladies by the name of Julie living in Lancarshire and I have never met them either yet I don't question their existence, simply as in the point I had made about me never having met an "anti" under the circumstances being discussed and not implying that these people don't exist which appears to be the idea that you taken from the posting and run with.

 

2. My apologies if my reply came across as patronising, it was actually meant to be offensive in the same context that I had taken the introduction of the terminology, by you, to be in post 6... I know I shouldn't stoop to that but on this occasion at least I thought that if you are happy to dish it out then you should be equally capable of taking it in return.

 

You know full well that your comments are both welcomed and invited along with anyone elses but when they are delivered in the manner that one certain comment was then you have set your own tone for kind of reply which you can expect.

[carlt]

2. My apologies if my reply came across as patronising, it was actually meant to be offensive in the same context that I had taken the introduction of the terminology, by you, to be in post 6... I know I shouldn't stoop to that but on this occasion at least I thought that if you are happy to dish it out then you should be equally capable of taking it in return.

 

You know full well that your comments are both welcomed and invited along with anyone elses but when they are delivered in the manner that one certain comment was then you have set your own tone for kind of reply which you can expect.

 

Edited for a missed space and the fact that I envisage "antis" as dumb, nose pierced, benefit drawing idiots...

 

That should get it going!

My apologies too, if I misinterpreted the above.

 

I thought that this offensive, judgemental crap, in your very first post, rather set the tone and you got exactly the response you expected, and wanted.

[Guest wanted]

Just so there is no confusion I'll start by letting you know that I am anti coarse fishing ( or any other blood sport)

 

What I don't get about your argument is what you want out of it all. Is the pay off for your conservation work the right to pull fish out and put them back? I have worked long and hard on various conservation projects solely for the satisfaction of knowing that the area has been improved. I didn't do it to trade the right to cause pain and suffering.

 

If fishing were banned tomorrow would you still help to conserve the environment?

[carlt]

1. The fact that you have failed to read my post properly in the first place has led to your first comment.

 

In your initial post you run with my quote that I have never met anyone who is "anti" and then refer to someone in an attempt to overturn the point except the person you refer to I HAVE NEVER MET!

If you have ever bothered to take notice of the fishing discussions you have previously participated in, here, you will have met Sueb, virtually, and should know her opinions on fishing.

 

If you have ever bothered to take notice of the forums in general, here, then you will know the huge amount of voluntary work she has done, with the WRG, restoring, cleaning up and maintaining the waterways.

 

As an active participant in this website I assumed you would have caught on to the way the internet has redefined the term "met".

 

I apologise for overestimating your powers of recollection and interpretive skills.

Edited February 27, 2012 by carlt

[The Anonymous Bard]

If fishing were banned tomorrow would you still help to conserve the environment?

 

That's a good question.

 

Without doubt I would be as interested in protecting the environment but would I have gotton off my backside and undertaken the level of work which has been put in over the last weekend?

 

Probably not to be honest although I am certain that I would participate to some degree.

 

Carl... nothing less than I had anticipated really.

 

It's not about sueb or her attitude towards fishing, if you wish to storm in with language based on that which you used then don't come moaning if the reply contains the same regardless of whether or not you think that I have nothing better to do than recall the contents of previous forum discussion.

 

Actually, now you come to mention it wasn't that the one where you became abusive for no apparent reason and accused me of trying to trip you up until I challenged you... where you were then unable to demonstrate no such thing?

 

Good evening.

 

Edited to add: Yes this was the thread, post no.45 but then given your comments and recollections of previous forum discussion then I guess you already knew this or is this just a simple case of others not meeting your personal standards which you refer to in your quoted post during that discussion?

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=39422&st=40

Edited February 27, 2012 by The Anonymous Bard

[carlt]

That's a good question.

Edited to add: Yes this was the thread, post no.45 but then given your comments and recollections of previous forum discussion then I guess you already knew this or is this just a simple case of others not meeting your personal standards which you refer to in your quoted post during that discussion?

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=39422&st=40

Not at all and I stand by what I said.

 

Sue's contradictory attitudes to fox hunting and fishing are truly bizarre.

 

The language I used was entirely in keeping with your disparaging comments about a group of people you have judged, purely because they disapprove of your hobby.

 

... presumably because they are incapable of thinking that far ahead?...

 

Looking on in judgement and ignorance as they gently lean on their tillers (or not?) as they themselves pump damaging gasses into the atmosphere which their minds seem to be so blissfully ignorant of in their pursuit of their own enjoyment?

 

Some people seem to speak out in their defence of "compassion" whilst inadvertently adding to the problem.

 

What did you do today to help things?

 

Please... this is not a rant but some balanced, objective comment for those against in the face of the above would be most welcome.

 

Edited for a missed space and the fact that I envisage "antis" as dumb, nose pierced, benefit drawing idiots...

 

That should get it going!

Ignorant, judgemental, offensive and ill-informed twaddle,. and you know it, hence the "That should get it going!" tacked on at the end.

 

You do this time and time again and then accuse others of resorting to language and behaviour that you have already used.

 

Classic trolling.

 

Despite your pseudo intellectual forum name you are boorish, ignorant and a stirrer.

 

I have made my comment about the fishing issue, which is obviously a minor matter to you as it actually doesn't differ greatly from yours, and your OP stands as testament to you being a complete hypocrite.

Edited February 27, 2012 by carlt

[The Anonymous Bard]

Not at all and I stand by what I said.

 

Sue's contradictory attitudes to fox hunting and fishing are truly bizarre.

 

The language I used was entirely in keeping with your disparaging comments about a group of people you have judged, purely because they disapprove of your hobby.

 

 

Ignorant, judgemental, offensive and ill-informed twaddle,. and you know it, hence the "That should get it going!" tacked on at the end.

 

You do this time and time again and then accuse others of resorting to language and behaviour that you have already used.

 

Classic trolling.

 

Despite your pseudo intellectual forum name you are boorish, ignorant and a stirrer.

 

I have made my comment about the fishing issue, which is obviously a minor matter to you as it actually doesn't differ greatly from yours, and your OP stands as testament to you being a complete hypocrite.

 

Again... transparent, flimsy and petty cat calling.

 

You cannot point to where the type of language introduced by you had actually been written by me prior to it and you know it.

 

You amazingly then try and imply that I have met sueb on a "virtual" basis when all that we would have done is exchanged opinions on a discussion forum despite the fact the the statement you are so predictably overlooking and incorrectly jumped on in your abusive manner from post 5 clearly states that I was referring to physical meetings of people at the waterside.

 

C'mon Carl... clearly whatever it is that you accuse me of doing time after time doesn't seem to cause the amount of fuss of where you yourself were quite recently with a an ex-forum member/s (?) now does it?

 

Whatever the pattern I personally don't subscribe to past members views on this though I do question if a pattern is developing?

 

If you... or anyone for that matter, can't interract in a forum discussion without being or becoming abusive then why not follow the very excellent advice given at the bottom of your own posts and simply hit the ignore button?

 

You're actually becoming the source of amusement now with your petty personal insults, i'm sure that more will follow and will laugh those off later.

 

Edited for typo.

Edited February 28, 2012 by The Anonymous Bard

[carlt]

I merely made the error of feeding the troll.

 

The last sentence of your op confirms your intent to cause a row and I bit.

 

Unless anyone else has something to say I will no longer be contributing to this thread.

[Guest wanted]

Again... transparent, flimsy and petty cat calling.

 

You cannot point to where the type of language introduced by you had actually been written by me prior to it and you know it.

 

You amazingly then try and imply that I have met sueb on a "virtual" basis when all that we would have done is exchanged opinions on a discussion forum despite the fact the the statement you are so predictably overlooking and incorrectly jumped on in your abusive manner from post 5 clearly states that I was referring to physical meetings of people at the waterside.

 

C'mon Carl... clearly whatever it is that you accuse me of doing time after time doesn't seem to cause the amount of fuss of where you yourself were quite recently with a an ex-forum member/s (?) now does it?

 

Whatever the pattern I personally don't subscribe to past members views on this though I do question if a pattern is developing?

 

If you... or anyone for that matter, can't interract in a forum discussion without being or becoming abusive then why not follow the very excellent advice given at the bottom of your own posts and simply hit the ignore button?

 

You're actually becoming the source of amusement now with your petty personal insults, i'm sure that more will follow and will laugh those off later.

 

Edited for typo.

Whilst I know that Carl is more than capable of sticking up for himself I support his stance here. You clearly wanted to stir things up because of the last sentence in your first post. I challenge you to ignore the rest of your OP and explain what you mean by it...

[AjW]

Lovely thread,

 

Could you confirm the species of crayfish involved? Hopefully you didn't just move a nest of signals when you should have taken them out and bludgeoned them with a brick

[Taslim]

Lovely thread,

 

Could you confirm the species of crayfish involved? Hopefully you didn't just move a nest of signals when you should have taken them out and bludgeoned them with a brick

 

Or eaten them.....just to make sure they didn't spread of course!

 

taslim.

[The Anonymous Bard]

Whilst I know that Carl is more than capable of sticking up for himself I support his stance here. You clearly wanted to stir things up because of the last sentence in your first post. I challenge you to ignore the rest of your OP and explain what you mean by it...

 

I'll expand a little further back to the last two sentences as I think it might provide a broader answer.

 

I meant that I have what could be perceived by some as a bigoted, stereo typical opinion of "antis", whether justifiably so or not and I acknowledged back in post 12 that this was not always the case... I was happy to confirm that my non-stereo typical anti existed and that it was a case as originally stated in post 5 that I had never personally met one of them by the waterside.

 

I'm happy with that, if this is perceived to be bigoted then I will be none the worse for wear and just as happy with it.

 

The last sentence itself was introduced to encourage a lively (not an abusive or foul languaged) discussion, it's as simple as that.

 

Lovely thread,

 

Could you confirm the species of crayfish involved? Hopefully you didn't just move a nest of signals when you should have taken them out and bludgeoned them with a brick

 

Lol... no, they were very definitely our own native species and not the Signal.

[carlt]

 

The last sentence itself was introduced to encourage a lively (not an abusive or foul languaged) discussion, it's as simple as that.

 

And if you hadn't used abusive language, in your original post, it would have stayed that way, it's as simple as that.

 

You insulted people.

I criticised something somebody said using a word that you find unacceptable but I found appropriate.

 

There is a distinction that makes what you said personal abuse and what I said an impersonal criticism.

 

If aimed at me, I would not take "you're talking bollocks" personally as it is an attack on something I said, not the person I am.

 

Dismissing a whole group as " dumb, nose pierced, benefit drawing idiots..." is, however a insult that has no bearing in fact. Just an ill-informed personal snipe.

 

I have removed the word that has upset you so much (bless) and replaced it with "rubbish" as that is just as appropriate.

 

Now if you'd like to defend your original post, instead of throwing a hissy fit at one word, then I am happy to join in.

Edited February 28, 2012 by carlt

[Sir Nibble]

Just as an aside, if someone concientously opposed to bloodsports gets a job, does that mean that all of a sudden they like fishing? How about if starting from a position of no particular opinion, one becomes persuaded that fishing is cruel, is it then compulsory to get a rivet put in your nose?

Mr anonymous, you have by airing this ludicrous predjudice, whether ironically or not, completely devalued anything you have to say on the subject; forever.