There are two main front runners: the Shooting fraternity and us, the Angling fraternity.
To those who believe that there is no direct threat and are adopting an Ostrich stance, take a look at the following.
The Opposition
Currently there are four organisations that have the banning of angling on their published agenda, and these are: P.E.T.A, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Hunt Saboteurs Association (HAS) and the Campaign for the Abolition of Angling.
The Hunt Saboteurs Association stated at the end of last year that: “Campaigns against fishing and shooting have always been in our remit. We are against all bloodsports; it is just a natural progression”.
So there you have it, those who mistakenly believed that having won their particular battle that they would pack their kit and retire from whence they came now know better!
As far as the Campaign for the Abolition of Angling is concerned their antics are notorious for their direct and often violent (and illegal) activities to disrupt lawful sporting activities.
Given the perceived successes of the HSA (who have used violence and illegal activities to bring about the introduction of the Bill to ban Fox Hunting) we would be more than stupid to think that this organisation will now even consider a change of tactics and I firmly believe that we can expect this group to be far more active than in the past.
PETA, as we know, have backed the preparation and distribution of an Anti Angling Package for schools in the UK and their history of public demonstrations in both the UK and the USA are also well documented.
As far as the Campaign for the Abolition of Angling are concerned, here is an extract from a press release from their website dated June 12th 2000:
“It is sickening that people still torment fish for pleasure,” said spokesman David Shaw. “Angling is barbaric and should be consigned to history. It’s not just fish – 2000 swans are among the thousands injured every year by anglers.”
“Science is on our side,” continued David Shaw. “The anglers blatantly lie when they claim that fish cannot feel pain. Their own report on this issue could not justify it, despite their claims.”
“Focal point of the week will be calls for the practice of live-baiting to be banned. This is when a live fish is impaled on several hooks and repeatedly cast as bait. Elliot Morley has said in the angling press that he is considering a ban on ethical and practical grounds.
The CAA is encouraging litter picks at local fishing venues as positive actions for the environment and wildlife which undo some of the destructive aspects of angling.”
That most of the above is either totally inaccurate, blatantly wrong or simply ‘spun’ to make a cheap point is pretty obvious, the point though is that the intentions and aims of this group need no further comment from anyone!
The Animal Liberation Front was started in Great Britain in 1970 and has spread to the USA and throughout the world. Their tactics of targeting not only those directly involved in what they consider to be violence against animals but also those indirectly involved such as supporting banks, shipping companies, catering companies, etc, are well documented.
So much so in fact that the Secretary of State for the Home Office is preparing legislation to prevent this type of harassment and I can only hope that the government will speed this Bill through Parliament as expeditiously as they did with the Fox Hunting Bill.
Sadly, I think that my ‘hopes’ can be counted at two; Bob Hope and No Hope, and Bob Hope is dead!
Either way, at least anglers can take some satisfaction in the knowledge that the tactics employed by this group may at least be deemed to be illegal, although, until and unless this Bill is passed we anglers are at the mercy of these illegal acts.
It is incontrovertible that these groups are not only very well organized but also supremely funded by both private and public contributions. Furthermore, their members are zealous, passionate and totally committed and are more than happy to spend their own money in pursuit of their nefarious aims.
Make no mistake, these people have few other interests and all of their spare time can, and will, be devoted towards our sport.
Our Side
Conversely the Angling world is served by a number of relatively disorganised groups and organisations who appear to be more concerned with their own in-fighting and inter group politics than they are in becoming a conjoined force for the good of angling as a whole.
Moreover, we are already discretely sub divided into Coarse, Game and Sea Anglers and even within these major groupings there are many factions who seemingly do not, or cannot, learn to coexist, eg, carpers who decry match Anglers and vice-versa, those that bitch and moan about pole anglers, etc, etc. etc, ad nauseam. Until we can join together in one united, well funded and strong organisation we will be easy pickings for the anti brigades!
There is of course the argument that there are up to four million active anglers and the fact that there is a thriving tackle industry behind us, and that the anti brigades will not be prepared to take us on in a direct fight.
The problem I see on this reliance is that the only statistic that you will see on the anti brigade’s web sites will be the number of EA licensed anglers (1 million according to the EA web site) which is in actuality only four times the number of all the people in the UK who are directly connected with Fox Hunting. As Graham rightly said on the forum the other day, it is amazing what can be achieved with the right amount of ‘spin’.
To date the tackle trade have been most conspicuous by their absence in any of the debate (or argument) with the anti angling groups. I have no idea as to why this has been the case, but it may be indicative that some of the larger manufacturers, Shimano for example, derive much of their income from non-angling-related products and that they may well be concerned that their other markets would suffer from taking a particular stance.
Alternatively, the manufacturers may well be of the belief that the time is not yet right to take a stance. I sincerely hope that this is the case, although I remain to be convinced.
We can always point to the fact that anglers accomplish many environmentally friendly projects and that we are the unofficial ‘protectors’ of our lakes, streams, rivers and accompanying countryside. Furthermore, a lot of our activities are undertaken on private land, but then again the fox hunters have just lost that particular argument, haven’t they.
Is There a Threat?
I think it should be pretty obvious even to those who believe that any threat to angling only exists in the minds of ‘others’ that there is indeed cause for some considerable concern.
Whether the attack will come on the broad front, or as Graham implies, by nibbling away at some of angling’s outer fringes, I do expect that the first shots will be fired a lot sooner than some people might imagine.
Either way it is a sobering thought that it only took 12 years from the introduction of the first Anti Hunting Bill (excluding the notorious failure from 1948) until a banning bill was finally passed.
In many ways I hope that I am totally wrong and that my grandchildren and their children will be able to enjoy the delights of a day float fishing on the Avon or a couple of nights in the bivvy after carp, tench and bream.
