PDA

View Full Version : Recreaction Fishing Ban



agro
27-02-2006, 07:12 AM
Did anyone watch channel Nine this morning on the Today show where this animal activist wants to ban recreactional fishing is this bloke for real >:( >:( what are your thoughts. He says that fish have feelings and that we shouldn't hunt them well in that case we shouldn't eat sheep,cattle or chicken is that right ?????? What do You guys reckon.

nonibbles
27-02-2006, 07:16 AM
He's a looney. He's entitled to his opinion. He has his standards and should not try and impose them on others.

Barrymundi
27-02-2006, 07:16 AM
Poor response by the bloke representing Vic Anglers

Al

Black_Rat
27-02-2006, 07:44 AM
Yeah caught the back end of it :o worrying stuff [smiley=uhoh.gif]

Lone_Wolf
27-02-2006, 08:13 AM
Each to their own, I guess that's his stance on the matter. Fortunately, it's only his opinion and will always be in a small minority that think this way.

lock
27-02-2006, 08:19 AM
I just tried to look it up on there web site could not find anything on it :-/ So I hope that shows how much his opinion is worthe.

fish_outta_water
27-02-2006, 09:22 AM
unfortunatly loons like these form pressure groups , who though a minority generaly bitch and whine (and vote ) more than the majority . its easy to lose your rights when these loons get the ear of an eager member of parliment

PAYNE
27-02-2006, 10:04 AM
Hellooooooooo. No-one thought they'd close 33.3% of the Great Barrier Reef to fishermen, or the same in the Great Sandy Straits and now Moreton Bay's on the hit list. These are the loonies we have to watch out for. ::)

PAYNE
27-02-2006, 10:10 AM
Hey Agro,
Check out the "Fishing News" chat boards. There's a lot of information contained within that section about what we anglers have to contend with - mostly bad and ugly stuff!
The Looney you mentioned is just one of many. Believe me, they're not going to be happy until we've all stopped fishing, camping and four wheel driving!

Louis
27-02-2006, 11:00 AM
Unfortunately I did not see the segment being referred to.

But from what you have said it is my opinion that he sounds like a Looney Tune.

But as the others have stated:

The Looney Tunes of this world join and form pressure groups and whilst they are in the minority, history has shown us that governments are all too happy to sell out the majority to please the minority.

It is a sad fact of life that their is a growing anti-fishing movement out there and it is getting stronger every day.

In my opinion the best way to fight back is to join the Fishing Party and I encourage all ausfishers to do so.



Louis

Bosunsmate
27-02-2006, 12:10 PM
They are all too common these days, we also have one of these loosers here in Townsville, she reckons Barra have feelings and feel pain when caught, so we should ban barra fishing..........she sprooked in the local paper and got a right royal blitzing.

Poor demented things, you gotta have pitty on their feeble mindedness.

gone_phishin
27-02-2006, 01:51 PM
I think you all need to look at the News section where the "loony tune" shows up as from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), which is causing havoc worldwide with their out there ideas. Have a look at some of their websites and you'll see just how scary this lot are!!

Geoff

aussiefool
27-02-2006, 02:10 PM
the day they ban fishing is the day I start to spend a lot of time behind bars ..... no-one will tell me I'm not to fish #$%kem

DR
27-02-2006, 02:29 PM
pretty sure he was from PITA, sorry, PETA.
he chose his words to describe fish/sharks very carefully to have the most impact.
describing them as 'magnificent' 'wonderful' etc. etc. etc..
reckons they had a shark hanging from a "gaff" at some gamefishing tournement on the weekend (must have been a pretty cheap sort of a thing, most use gantrys :D) with blood oozing out of wounds all over it's body..
the other fella didn't really have much in defence..

Fafnir
27-02-2006, 02:46 PM
These loons are winning the battle though. It all comes down to votes, and nothing to do with commonsense. There have been enough studies that show that fish don't feel 'pain' in the way that humans, or animals do. Yet they go on with crap like 'you wouldn't stick a hook in the family dog and drag it around the streets', as if fish have the same brain functions.

Unfortunately, right or wrong, unless the Fishing Party gets enough members to gain some political clout the greenies will win.

Fafnir
27-02-2006, 03:45 PM
Poor response by the bloke representing Vic Anglers

I didn't see the show either, but it seems to me that it would help if the fishing spokespeople were trained in public speaking. Public perception tends to side with the person who comes across best in any debate. Maybe some marine biologists could be used for the sake of credibility. Julian Pepperell is one that comes to mind. Good bloke, very well spoken and has case studies to support his argument that fish don't feel pain.

SeaHunt
27-02-2006, 03:45 PM
Why all the focus on whether they feel pain or not?
It always seems to be quoted by our greener cousins, but I don't see the relevance.
Everything dies sooner or later including us, not many will have the benefit of not feeling pain at the time.
Isn't a fish having its throat cut and being dead in a few seconds better off than the one that gets slowly eaten alive by another marine creature.
Are these guys also going to stop lions killing zebras because the zebras feel pain and are often partly eaten before they even die? Get real [smiley=alien.gif]
We are part of nature , not separate from it, but we can choose to kill things quickly and humanely.
Whether something is going to feel it or not has never been a consideration before I killed it. # :-?

kc
27-02-2006, 04:03 PM
Be warned guys....these are not looney's...at the very least they believe in what they do and are incredibley well funded ($29Million US a year budget), well staffed, researched and DEAD F%^%^$ SERIUOS.

They will make such a stink about rec fishing. Starting with "game fishing", moving on to "C & R" and finally make all forms of recreational fishing "socially unacceptable".....just like THEY did with fur coats and animal testing of cosmetics.

The only way this mob will be held back is to put fishing fairly and squarely on the voting register.

You are about to be "living in interesting times"

"I fish & I Vote" may just become the most important thing you ever do.

KC
The Fishing Party (Qld)

stonecold
27-02-2006, 04:11 PM
By trade I am an Ag Scientist, I've had similar people try and tell me that plants react to stimuli such as music. Wont be long and we wont be able to eat - AT ALL.

sf17fisherman
27-02-2006, 04:17 PM
the day they ban fishing is the day I start to spend a lot of time behind bars ..... no-one will tell me I'm not to fish # #$%kem


too right mate
think we might be shareing a cell as no one will be telling me not to fish

truly but i think we give them way too much credit
i see fishing growing and growing each day in most countrys around the world not shrinking

jim_farrell
27-02-2006, 04:50 PM
KC hit nail on head. Don't just write them off as looneys. These things come and go, I agree, But this guy got time on a national breakfast news program. He selectively said they were targeting game fishing ie marlin and sharks. This is a serious one.
Very easy to convince the non fishing public that this is barbaric.
Animal protection and cruelty always starts with the larger animals.

Marine wise, we no longer chase whales or great whites.
It is rare to see billfish and large sharks weighed any more.
By targeting this area, the "loonies" will find a sympathetic ear with the general public. What makes it worse, the media only had to get a photo of that tiger shark,covered in blood, and the argument may already be over.
As a group we need to be more pro active. We need to promote our sport to the public as a healthy pastime for families and kids. This needs to be on TV. Not so much in fishing shows but in ads such as the old "life be in it" ads.

Closures and bans come about because conservationists move before we do. They do their 'research ', serve it up to a politician before we catch wind of the situation. We are left to defend our sport with no scientific research to back up our argument.
We need the science before they start their raving. This has to be in the form of fish numbers, catch rates and general health of different reef systems.

I don't have the answers, but we can no longer keep trying to fight back. That is a battle we can't win.
Promote our sport, give it a good image and lets show the public and polititians that we aren't a bunch of drunks out their brutely killing.

Jim

jim_farrell
27-02-2006, 04:52 PM
KC hit nail on head. Don't just write them off as looneys. These things come and go, I agree, But this guy got time on a national breakfast news program. He selectively said they were targeting game fishing ie marlin and sharks. This is a serious one.
Very easy to convince the non fishing public that this is barbaric.
Animal protection and cruelty always starts with the larger animals.

Marine wise, we no longer chase whales or great whites.
It is rare to see billfish and large sharks weighed any more.
By targeting this area, the "loonies" will find a sympathetic ear with the general public. What makes it worse, the media only had to get a photo of that tiger shark, covered in blood, and the argument may already be over.
As a group we need to be more pro active. We need to promote our sport to the public as a healthy pastime for families and kids. This needs to be on TV. Not so much in fishing shows but in ads such as the old "life be in it" ads.

Closures and bans come about because conservationists move before we do. They do their 'research ', serve it up to a politician before we catch wind of the situation. We are left to defend our sport with no scientific research to back up our argument.
We need the science before they start their raving. This has to be in the form of fish numbers, catch rates and general health of different reef systems.

I don't have the answers, but we can no longer keep trying to fight back. That is a battle we can't win.
Promote our sport, give it a good image and lets show the public and polititians that we aren't a bunch of drunks out their brutely killing.

Jim

Sportfish_5
27-02-2006, 05:22 PM
So where are all the high profile sportfisherman that have and still are making a living from "recreational fishing".

Where are the major boat,chandlery and tackle suppliers in all this ? Dont they have the most to lose ?

I watched the guy on the TV and frankly without being too harsh if he is the best "spokesperson" we have to put against the likes of PETA and the Greens then we are in a lot of trouble. Where are the Starlos, Bushy, Woerstlings and dare I say Rex Hunts. We need some high profile attention brought to our side and start to fight off this attack on OUR Australian Way of Life ! These guys need to get on board as well and get into the media's faces now to promote the cause.


Greg

SeaHunt
27-02-2006, 05:27 PM
And ET and Creek to Coast etc , why do these guys never bring things like this up?
BCF is the major sponsor of Creek to Coast now, they should sponsor adds for people to get involved in the political side of rec fishing, lets face it, if rec fishiing goes, so does BCF and half of the boat manufacturers as well as all the fishing shows. #:o

cheno
27-02-2006, 08:12 PM
Guys

We need to treat the enemy with more repsect, as kc says they are dedicated to what they believe in and well funded. #

They are using a typical escalation approach ie start with game fishing to tap into a wider sympathy base, once the wedge is in they keep on going and so it goes. They expolit the media well - #you don't get on TV if you ring up channel 9 and say that "fishing is not cruel", the media loves bad news.

However as a group that is so huge we are pretty hopelessly organised I mean when considering how damn many of us there are (I consider myself hopeless in this regard so I'm not bagging those few who do devote a considerable amount of their pesonal time to rec fish representation it is much appreciated). #

Time and time again we drag out the same often weak arguments usually relying on scientific evidence that can be refuted in a TV interview situation by pointing to a new study that contradicts our argument etc. #I think that its time to take a more structured value-based approach. #We go fishing because it is part of our culture and our lifestyle plain and simple. We actually demonstrate how much we care about the fish that we catch and their sustainability by supporting good mangement and observing the fishing regs that are installed by governments who we vote for. Who can honestly say that people are not generally more aware of releasing fish these days as compared to when they grew up, the increase in awareness has been huge within the fishing community. #If this had not occurred I would hate to think what our fish stocks would have been like. #Any attempt by a minority to take this away should be veheremently opposed. #

Although they will start with gamefishing as a soft target - it is a very visual sport easy to get video footage that will make a general breakfast audience squeamish etc, we cannot forget what the endgame is with these people. #You are playing into theirhands if you think that just because you dont go gamefishing that this will not affect you IT WILL UNLESS WE GET BUSY NOW.

kc
27-02-2006, 10:29 PM
To quote sf17fisherman

truly but i think we give them way too much credit
i see fishing growing and growing each day in most countrys around the world not shrinking

Look at the experience of North Queensland when the reef closures happened, accompanied by a major advertising campaign aimed at demonising recreational fishing, participation rates fell 42% in 2 years and marine dealers went broke.

When a concerted, well organised and well funded campaign kicks in "we" end up being made feel guilty for going fishing and kids are less and less likely to start. In 20 years...all over!!

Who would have thought 20 years ago they would have banned duck hunting and the numbers now involved were less than 2000 state wide.

This is not about "us" and our generation, it is about the future of recreational fishing in the next generation. These guys have been around almost 30 years and are very good at what they do.
If they start with Game fishing it is a very difficult target to defend. Next come catch and release, which is likewise difficult to defend. Catching it, kissing it & putting it back might have been seen previuosly as the right thing to do but this will come increasingly into the crosshairs of this movement.
PETA seem to have given up on trying to stop hunting in the USA because the NRA is too powerful and votes matter.
Both presidential candidates at the last election in the USA had photo opps out hunting with the good old boys......and our 2 pretenders here had plenty of shots hugging the odd tree/reef/furry animal......imagine if it ever became a prerequisit for a potential polly in Australia to make sure he had a fishing photo op. as part of his election portfolio.

One more chance at the next election......after that it will be too late.

KC

Fafnir
28-02-2006, 07:26 AM
I don't think that you can avoid scientific arguments, and simply not touch on them. In a one on one debate, if the other side is going to keep coming back to the 'pain' and 'stress' argument, they will always win unless that argument is nutralised. There are plenty of studies to counter their claims. Once their claims are quickly countered, then you can move on to the better points of rec angling.

Getting media coverage is not hard, it's just a matter of working the angles. Contact any current affairs show with the angle of 'Recreational anglers are concerned about peoples safety if protests escalate' and you will give them an angle they can run with. Once in front of the cameras you can then put any point of view across.

My thoughts: Fishing party, or any other rec angling body, need to get some financial backing (tackle manufacturers, BIA etc), find themselves a GOOD PR company (there are plenty of poor ones) and start putting a positive spin on fishing through the media. Also, no angler should be interviewed by the media unless they have had at least some media training. Better to say nothing at all than get into a media debate and get carved up.

kc
28-02-2006, 02:56 PM
Fafnir is right about needing recreational fishing spokespersons with some media training. It is very easy to paint someone as a red neck "good old boy" who can't string a few words together. PR is desperately needed but this does not come without money and money is something which is not yet available.

On the other issue of countering the PETA auguments with science and debate.....much more difficult. Is is not about being right, it is about the public perception. These guys would never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

I have been at the fringes of this whole ethical issue for years and it is going to be a very bitter fight and one I don't believe we can win, in the court of public opinion. The only place it can be won is in the political arena. Just like the NRA has done in the US. Make "our" vote so focussed and powerful than no matter what these animal activists achieve, it counts squat for actual government policy.

jim_farrell
28-02-2006, 04:12 PM
WE can talk about this forever.
WE need a starting point, such as.

A competition in all fishing publications to nominate a yearly "Face of Recreational Fishing."
This person should be a popular and recognisable personality willing to promote our sport. This promotion must be outside fishing circles.
Photos of this person fishing, releasing, and involved in clean up australia day will lift our sports profile. These photos need to crop up in non fishing magizines or high profile sporting mags. We nominate a charity and periodically send disadvantaged kids out on a charter with their favourite sporting identity or our 'face of fishing'.

Lift our profile to the non fishing public, this is where the fight back should start.
We need to get this ball rolling.
Is this a good idea???? Just my opinion.

Fafnir
28-02-2006, 04:24 PM
The only place it can be won is in the political arena

Your point is valid, although public opinion is important, if only to break even. I also don't think there is much joy in going down the science path in depth, other than to counter their arguments in the eyes of the public. A good PR company may have other views on that of course.

It's really two battles in one. One in the media where those non-fishing tv viewers need to hear our side of the story. The other in terms of political influence. I feel for parents whose children are brainwashed with PETA garbage.

As for the money. Well membership obviously helps, but I would have thought that the pitch to the tackle and boat manufacturers and the like would not be too difficult. Providing they could be convinced that their investment would make a difference.

Fafnir
28-02-2006, 04:29 PM
Is this a good idea???? Just my opinion.

I think it's a good idea. Would still involve $$$ though. But getting the non-fishing public onside is always a good idea. Plenty of sporting identities and tv personalities that fish.

Jim_Tait
01-03-2006, 12:56 PM
Please refraim from calling animal rights mob greenies :-/

Greenies - although most used as a deogratory term comes from people concerned with 'green' issues i.e. ecology, and particularly nature conservation.

Animals rights and issues associated with animals feeling pain is not about ecology. E'g duch hunting debate - those who have pursued the end of duck hunting are animal rights - thouse who pursue the conservation of wetlands ( the real issue underpinning waterfowl population survival) - are greenies (or conservationist).

Real greenies (i.e. nature conservationists) are natural allies of fishers (although many posting on this board may not believe it!) - as it is impacts to nature and ecosystems that ultimately pose the biggest threat to the sustainability of our fisheries. We should build bridges of support between all lovers of nature - fishers and greenies alike (can be the same people) if we want to have the political strength to diffuse the emotive based arguments of the urban based animal rights intelligensia.

Also I think it is wrong to go down the path of denying that fish feel pain. They are vertebrate animals with a developed nervous system and if you hurt them they'll feel it - but that is part of prey - predator reality and we shouldn't shy away from being proud predators - we've been doing it for a million years so why start denying pain is involved. Witness a eagle pulling the entrails out of a half alive rabbit - sure its feeling pain - but that doesn't intrinsically make the eagle bad??

As intelligent humansd we should seek to minimise the suffering our prey experience where ever possible but that should not go to the ridiculous extreme of giving up being predators - lets start claiming our hunting and fishing practices (and predatory nature) as part of our spiritual relationship with the earth (as long as we practice it sustainably - there should be no case to answer) - just as emotive stuff and the animal rights mob can come up with and they go and stuff themeselves as long as they don't gain the support of the majority - something they're more likely to do if we behave like ignorant (greenie hating) rednecks or reality denying ignoramasous - my opinion anyway!!

Regards Jim

Fafnir
01-03-2006, 02:59 PM
Also I think it is wrong to go down the path of denying that fish feel pain. #They are vertebrate animals with a developed nervous system and if you hurt them they'll feel it

Not according to this study http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Fishwelfare/Rose.pdf

dazza
01-03-2006, 10:01 PM
hi all,
don't for one minute think that the likes of peta (Please Eat The Animals ;D ;D) haven't got the governments ear already.
The latest rec fishing survery has a very interesting group of questions
I quote directly from the survey

"I don't fish more often because
a) I believe increasing my fishing activity would be bad for the resource
b) I don't like to kill fish
c) catching fish causes too much injury to the fish
d)when fishing i feel uncomfortable of self conscious
e) i don't feel it is appropriate to fish more often
f) at times fishing can be stressful
g) i don't have the necessary fishing skills"


there are a few very worrying questions asked by the state government, god knows what they will do with the data

can just see it now,
mr/ms politician up in front of the tv saying "recreational fishing hasn't declined because of new restrictions and green zones, xx% of respondants to out most recent survey said they don't fish more often because it causes too much injury to the fish.............................."

very scary stuff
cheers
dazza

dasher
02-03-2006, 07:22 AM
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/134

Try out this site, also check the links on the left of page.

Just one of the additional links: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Maybe could start a campaign against them.

hussy
25-03-2006, 09:12 PM
i hope they dont ban fishing in queensland , cause we will have to bury our rods packed grease like the gun nuts. and keep them for when we get invaded ,to defend ourselves with .bob h