very worrying reading !!!!

[micky-quayle]

The Daily Telegraph has reported that: \"Anglers and commercial fishermen could risk prosecution for cruelty under Government plans to improve animal welfare protection, a Commons committee warned yesterday.

It also called for more consultation with animal welfare groups on whether greater protection should be given to the 20 million pheasants and partridges reared each year for shoots.



About 40 per cent get shot, but the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee challenged the Government\'s view that there was \"little concern generally\" about the welfare of game birds.

The draft Animal Welfare Bill was published in July this year and will be introduced in the current session of Parliament. It updates more than 20 pieces of animal welfare legislation in England and Wales and imposes on those who own or are responsible for animals a duty of care to ensure the creatures\' welfare.

The cross-party committee said the draft raised many important and complex issues which must be resolved before a final Bill was introduced to Parliament. They recommended 101 changes to the legislation.

The MPs said they considered that as the Bill was drafted there was a strong argument that a person catching a fish, either commercially or for recreation, could be liable to prosecution for cruelty, because of mutilation from hooks or nets.

 

[gag1]

Very worrying indeed Micky, will be watching this one with interest mate.

cheers.
gag1

 

[bribones]

The committee said it accepted that neither commercial fishing nor recreational angling should be covered by the Bill. Fishing should be exempted as an activity, rather than fish as a species.

But the Government should ensure that those who caught fish were not given a free reign to inflict unnecessary suffering.

full story and links

what a bleedin bunch of idiots you cant buy a pet if your under 16
slugs and snails to be protected by law
if this one gets passed then these nutters will have free reign
then again ill be crowned king of england as well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/09/ncruel09.xml

[Edited on 13/12/2004 by bribones]

 

[mark]

what a bleedin bunch of idiots you cant buy a pet if your under 16
slugs and snails to be protected by law
if this one gets passed then these nutters will have free reign
then again ill be crowned king of england as well

errr.......


at your service your majesty!

if you\'d said 10 years ago that the controls we now have on various aspects of our lives would be introduced you might have said the same then and been enthroned by now

 

[Charlton]

The main criticism of the draft report is, that the wording is so sloppy that that it could be misused in many ways.

 

[JAW]

Mickey, interesting article, however how else do these numpty\'s suggest we catch fish if not with hook or net? i know tickle their bellies :casstet:
Such a draft would be both unfeasible to monitor and will most likely be thrown out by parliament. It would appear there is an element of the anti\'s here who may be adding fuel to the fire, it\'s one thing to propose concern about the welfare of game birds which is a valid concern and another to have a dig at angling in general, a sport that contributes thousands each year to the economies tax coffers.

Cheers JAW.

 

[willywetegg]

They had better sort it out quick before the proverbial hits the fan.

Jim.

 

[jonny_mc]

It\'s a sport isnt it.
nuff said!

 

[bribones]

thats part of the problem jonny if you do it for sport its called cruel ,most of us fish for the pot or i do at least
i tried chucking just a weight out but it didnt have the same appeal somehow

 

[silvers]

I recall Lug and BrianH warning members on the old board what could happen where fishings concerened once the antis got there way with hunting,and they were shot down in flames by a few of the members at the time,are you stil with us RED5?
To the antis way of thinking life is life whether it be a fox a fish a crab a worm or the limpets we accidently stand on when fishing on the rock edges.

 

[willywetegg]

Believe me, the worms WILL become a major argument.Also the crabs that we all kill so humanly before we wrap them onto our hooks. Not a problem there is there. Well not yet. I have no doubt that some of you will once again come back with the arguement that \"IT WILL NEVER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH US\". Don\'t you believe it I was mocked the last time this came up and no doubt will be again. I can live with that. Can you live without your fishing.

Jim.

 

[silvers]

Well said Jim

 

[DaveMason]

Silvers , I got shot down at that time as well . It did not take a genious to work out who was next in line for the chop . No matter how you wrap it up nicely , we all kill fish and they are not all for the pot bri there are always casualties when putting them back .

 

[Red5]

Sorry Silvers but like I said in the past the fundemental difference between chasing an animal for miles to be torn to shreds is a world apart from fishing...something man has done since he climbed down from the trees to FEED himself.
I\'ll belive any attempt to ban angling when the legislation goes thru parliament. Until then it\'s business as usual!

 

[silvers]

Sorry Silvers but like I said in the past the fundemental difference between chasing an animal for miles to be torn to shreds is a world apart from fishing...something man has done since he climbed down from the trees to FEED himself.
I\'ll belive any attempt to ban angling when the legislation goes thru parliament. Until then it\'s business as usual!
Two points here Red5,firstly try telling the antis theres a fundamental difference,they could as you put it tear that to shreds.
Secondly,the topic wasnt about a total ban but the restrictions which could be placed on the use of live bait,try telling them a nice big lug or ragworm doesnt experiance a degree of pain or discomfort when been threaded on,never mind the use of crab,get my drift?probably not as some men you just cant reach.

 

[willywetegg]

Sorry Red5 but as long as you treat this subject as lightly as you do we will continue to be in trouble. The anti\'s must be laughing there heads off at that post mate. If you think that we have nothing to worry about then all I can say is watch this space. Just my humble opinion but I think you have got it oh so wrong. These people will take it as far as they possibly can. Just ask them, if they have the bottle they will answer.
Not on here though as they would much rather do it surreptitiously. Or are they going to prove me wrong. I would love to see at least one of them have the guts to sign in here and have their say.

Jim.

 

[Red5]

About the topics Silvers, you singled me out for comments I made in the past about a ban on hunting, not the other 70% of members who also seemed to be against a ban.
I have my views and so does everyone else anti\'s can laugh at my comments as Willy said or others may think I have a point.

 

[micky-quayle]

fishing as a sport over the coming months and years is going to be in the firing line from many sides, whilst i think an outright ban on angling is extreemly unlikely i think a slow errosion of our rights as anglers could make angling a lot more difficult.
some of the antis have had success at getting livebaiting banned in several areas of the country for pike anglers, believe me this is only the thin end of the wedge, we must on no account concede ANY ground to the antis, the antis will never be satisfied until we\'re all lentil eating, longhaired, unwashed layabouts. the scary thing is these groups such as PETA were once only minority organisatios but now they are very much mainstream organisations, with jubious recruitment techniques trying to recruit active members at schools etc by giving a one sided biased point of view to youngsters at a very impresionable age.
believe me we have a long hard fight ahead of us to preserve the rights we have today and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to wake up quikly.
if you doubt what these people are about visit one of their websites
http://www.fishinghurts.com/
see what i mean !!!!

[Edited on 21/12/2004 by micky-quayle]

 

[Davyred]

Totally agree Mickey. These people will not be happy until they stop any sport which they think involve cruelty. I, for one, would love one of them to come up to me - I\'m sure I could find a new home for my rod stand!

 

[Chippy]

The antis will, IMHO, turn on angling as soon as fox hunting is completely out of the way. A major problem with these people is that they only see things in black and white, this is bad and that is good. I would expect (but don\'t want) a ban on using live baits (except worms) before my four month old son is old enough to come fishing with me, they have a similar ban in The Netherlands already. Personally, I could live with that although I agree with Mickey that not one inch should be given.

What seriously worries me is the attitudes of some, not all, anglers , from leaving litter and gutted fish behind to the mis-treatment of catches, we\'ve all seen it and this counts against all of us. However with a little thought, the misgivings of the public could be lessened, I\'ve lost count of the number of times I\'ve seen anglers killing their catch in front of non-anglers, or had a dozen dead fish displayed for all to see. Some anglers think that the antis will never come to angling in the same way they did to hunting with dogs, make no mistake about it, they will.
Who remembers the study \'proving\' that fish feel pain by injecting them with bee venom? As a scientist myself, I believe that this was a flawed piece of research, but by shouting louder than anyone else the antis made useful political capital out of it.
The animal rights people, or some of them, apparently value an aminal\'s life as more important, not equal, but more important than that of a human. As people who often enjoy our sport in quiet, out of the way locations such as rock marks or the end of Shields Pier, this worries me.