Pilgrim’s Progress

He is also a very keen angler, having come back to the sport five years ago following a break of several years. In this regular column he will tell us about his progress as an angler – his thoughts about the sport, what he learns, the fishing trips he makes, the anguish, the humour, in fact everything he experiences as his angling career develops.

Pilgrim’s Progress – read it everyThursday!

Anti’s, Hunting And Fishing

Since the start of the year, particularly, there has been a lot ofdebate and discussion within the angling world concerning theanti-angling fraternity. The high profile given to the subject wasdue mainly to the proposed bill put through Parliament to ban foxhunting. As someone who has contributed to the discussion it is notedthat anglers fall, generally, into two camps. There are those whowish to distance themselves from fox hunting, believing it isbarbaric and cruel, and indeed, should be banned. Then there arethose who would like to see angling allied with the wider countrysports alliance.

Whilst I respect and understand the views of the former, thereality of the situation is that it’s NOT what we think, it’s how themind of the anti operates. To the anti, fishing and hunting are oneand the same. We are all blood thirsty, callous killers, who need tobe stopped by whatever means possible. To the anti, the end and themeans justify each other. By attempting to distance ourselves fromhunting, we are not going to score points with these people.

Now I’m not saying that we should necessarily be pro-active in oursupport for country sports. I accept that many anglers feeluncomfortable with these things, whether for reasons of conscience,political persuasion, or whatever. However, I must come back to thepoint again, it’s not what we think that is the issue. The scenarioof fox hunting being banned will not cause the anti movement todisband, with their assignment completed. No, it will simply spurthem on to more action, with the sense of victory in their nostrils.And, believe me, the fall of fox hunting will mean that angling willbe targeted far more than it is now. The truth is that hunting is abuffer for angling. It offers a cushion against the venom of theanti’s.

There is no doubt that the British way of life has changedconsiderably in the last 30 years. There has been a social revolutionthat began earlier but manifested itself in the 1960’s. This haschanged every strata of society. One of the negative aspects of thesocial change has been the rise of the anti, as attitudes towardsanimals have changed.

Just for example, many of us from my generation above (I’m 38) canremember the poultry that were kept in the back yard, perhaps by ourgrand-parents, as in my case. When the family wanted chicken forlunch, out went the father and killed the bird with his own handsbefore bringing it in to his wife, who then proceeded to pluck andprepare the next meal at the kitchen sink. It was then eaten by thewhole family.

The advent of supermarkets and refrigeration (not to mention thebig raise in standard of living and incomes) means that scenario hasdisappeared from the British way of life (certainly in the urbanareas, where most of us live). What happens now is that the housewifevisits the local store and buys a nice packet of cellophane coveredchicken. All she needs to do is put it in the oven and the meal isready. There is no blood, no guts and no preparation involved. And nokilling. At least not by the family that eats the chicken. (Now, letme add that I’m not being critical of our modern way of life, justpointing out how things have changed.) So for most of us there is agulf that has developed. We’re no longer in direct contact with thefood chain.

Also, from the 60’s, there was a change in the way animals wereperceived. I remember as a kid going to watch the movie Bambi. It’sbeen a long time ago, but I recall the scene where the mother deersays something like ‘Danger…man in forest’. Then you hear a gunshot, the mother is dead and poor little orphaned Bambi is left aloneto fend for himself in a big bad world where humans are the onlyenemies.

How many people, affected by this scene, turned to vegetarianism?The effect of a cute, big eyed baby deer surely had a subliminaleffect on the minds of many. The bad guys were the hunters, portrayedas cruel, ruthless, blood thirsty killers. And the ‘humanisation’ ofanimals in the movies doesn’t help either. Have you noticed how theyall have very likeable and cute voices?

The more recent animated series Animals of Farthing Wood, asanother example, gives animals character. It breaks down the barriersbetween man and animals that have always existed within our cultureand mind-set, making us the same. In many cases, making animals thehigher level of being. In one scene, Mr and Mrs Pheasant are crossingthe road and the hen gets run over. The cock bird breaks down in anuncontrollable sob ‘My wife, my wife….she’s dead’.

The reality is that animals (or fish) don’t have the sameemotional capacity as humans. In the real world, Bambi wouldn’t bepining for his Mother because animals don’t have the same feelings offamily affection that humans do. And Mr Pheasant wouldn’t cry for hiswife. When fish spawn, it is purely and simply because of instinct. Itis has nothing to do with the human desire to ‘start a family’. Infact, after spawning, fish will then eat their offspring.

I know that the anti’s point to the behaviour of some humans asbeing worse than animals. One can’t argue with that, of course. Whatsort of person plants bombs underneath meat industry workers’ cars,or attacks laboratory workers, or sends parcel bombs to pet shopowners…I could go on. Still, the point I am trying to make is thedifference between animals and humans, not to discuss the depravityof mankind. The humanisation of creatures is one of the by-productsof the secularisation of our society. (But I’ll come on to that inmore detail next week).

But just who are these anti’s, what makes them tick? I’ve recentlybeen checking out their web sites to glean some information. I do notexaggerate the point if I say we are up against a bunch of fanaticalextremists. The words ‘reason’, ‘compromise’ or ‘discussion’ do notenter their vocabulary. To them, we as anglers are no more than abunch of sadistic and cruel torturers, who get our pleasure fromimpaling poor little innocent fish on sharp hooks.

Which is why any attempt on our part, in relation to the anti’s,to ‘self-regulate’ is a non-starter. To take, as some anglers do, theroute of banning livebaits, saying keepnets are cruel, etc, will notscore any Brownie points with these people. They want angling banned.Period. Let’s be careful, as fisherman, that we don’t actually ‘shootourselves in the foot’. The Bible has a saying, ‘A house dividedagainst itself will fall’.

I certainly don’t feel pessimistic however, about the future ofangling. BUT, we need to wake up, and wake up fast. Every one of usneeds to recognise that we are indeed ambassadors for the sport. Ifwe all play our part, however small, the common good will benefit.How can we do that?

Just one small example : Next time we’re out fishing in a publicarea, say a canal towpath, public park etc, remember a smile at apasser-by doesn’t cost anything. They’ll leave us thinking ‘he’s anice guy’. That will leave a positive impression of angling withthem. A grumpy angler who has an invisible sign over his head saying’Leave me alone’ actually does no good whatsoever for the image offishing.

We also all have contacts that we can affect in a positive way. Inmy office at the SICM Missions Centre I have a number of A4 size bigfish photos on the wall, as well as numerous smaller ones on thenotice board behind my desk. It certainly creates conversation. Ihave been able to deal with misinformed people who asked ‘That’s abig fish, how long did it take to die?’. That was in reference to aphoto I have of a 20lb pike. I was able to tell the person that thefish went back in unharmed. This surprised him, but it opened thedoor to talk about the role of angling in conservation. Now, wheneverI see that person he asks me the question, ‘Caught anythinglately?’.

Now, we may never convert our contacts to actually becomefisherman, but if we can get in there before the poison of the anti’sdoes, it’s a case of mission accomplished. Although we live inchanging times there’s no reason why angling should be seen as arelic of the past, a monument of man’s cruelty, which is the visionof the anti. BUT, we all need to play our part and promote fishing asa modern, conservation-minded and environmentally friendly pastime.The truth is that we need to win the general public over. The anti’swill never be changed, but if we can promote a positive healthy imageof angling to the man in the street, the future of fishing will besafe.

Will you play your part?

After this week’s political PP, next week I go all religious, as Iconclude my thoughts on the anti’s. In, I turn my thoughts to a couple of PETA web sites that claim Jesus was a vegetarian and was anti-fishing.

See you next Thursday with PETA…Pilgrim Extends The Attack

The Reverend Stewart R Bloor
Sedgley International Christian Ministries
PO Box 1216, Dudley. DY3 1GW.
Telephone : 01384 – 828033
Web site : www.sicm.org
e-mail : missionscentre@sicm.org