I don't know how many members Australia's fishing associations have, but I
would imagine it's in proportion to any threats to their right to fish. Duck
shooting is always under threat, as is gun ownership in general, but angling is
usually only under threat of local restrictions.
While I believe angling is cruel too, there are some big differences. The main
one is the number of birds/fish that are left wounded and dying. Apart from
that, the differences are cosmetic - fishing is done very quietly, and the
struggle occurs under water where it can't be seen.
Peter
Dave Torr wrote on Friday, 15 January 2010 8:50 AM:
> Interesting that they are bemoaning the power of the birding lobby
> compared to their harmless sporting lobby - only a week or two back
> we were complaining about how strong the shooters were here (and at
> the risk of great controversy is there much difference between
> shooting birds and catching fish?) compared to our birding lobby.
>
> 2010/1/15 Alan Gillanders <>
>
>> It is also interesting that a search for Malcolm Rigby and assault
>> only shows up this article and one that quotes it. No local paper
>> reported it. The BBC did not report it.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Dave Torr" <>
>> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 7:10 AM
>> To: "Tim Jones" <>
>> Cc: "birding aus" <>
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] FW: [Surfbirdsnews] Derogatory article on
>> twitchersin latest AnglingTimes
>>
>> To quote from the article
>>>
>>> "We kill birds. This is, of course, utter nonsense." Having just
>>> described how they had (apparently legally) just killed a cormorant
>>> for daring to eat fish!
>>>
>>> 2010/1/14 Tim Jones <>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thought you might like to see the following (see link below in the
>>>> chain). Just shows that there it doesn't matter which side you are
>>>> on, there are always ignorant idiots who will stop at nothing to
>>>> make a point. I like the clever tactical mention of 'cold clear
>>>> and precise detail' in the first paragraph. It's possible that the
>>>> second and third paragraphs are factually correct (although
>>>> 'almost certainly a birdwatcher' might be just a tad
>>>> presumptuous). After that? All cold, clear and precise detail? No
>>>> wonder the guy hasn't got a job with a real newspaper (well maybe
>>>> I could think of a couple of rags who would happily employ him).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If any of you rabid animal liberationist twitchers visit the UK,
>>>> suggest you watch out for the retaliatory attacks from the
>>>> reactionary FFFFF (factionary fascist fly-fishing front)!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course I am not personally condoning the attack itself...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Happy twitching!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-Times/Section/News--Catches/Gener
>>>> al-News/January-2010/Steve-Partner-The-dark-heart-of-twitching/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:
>>>> To: ; ;
>>>> ; ; ;
>>>> ; ;
>>>> ; ;
>>>> ; ;
>>>> ; ;
>>>> ; ; ;
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Surfbirdsnews] Derogatory article on twitchers in
>>>> latest AnglingTimes Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:52:48 +0000
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm a fisherman almost as much as I am a birder, I naively thought
>>>> the two went together as fundamentally its an understanding of
>>>> nature, pursuing a quarry, and the being out in the great outdoors
>>>> but it looks like I'm the exception to the rule!.
>>>>
>>>> Note how there is absolutely no evidence that this assault was done
>>>> by a birdwatcher but they just presumed that the attacker was most
>>>> probably a birdwatcher. Why?? No mention made of a scope or bins,
>>>> almost certainly not a birder at all, and I will risk putting my
>>>> head above the parapet and say that most birders are not that
>>>> passionate about the plight of a single Cormorant either.
>>>>
>>>> Back now to my little bubble world - its nicer there!
>>>>
|
