Angry Angler! (1 Viewer)

[Ash1456]

Anyone who has heard or visited it (or any other one like it)...
Rothiemurchus trout farm in Avirmore, Scotland. In breeding season the Loch garten and other Ospreys fish from there (A lot, I think)
Surely a trout is worth more than the odd small rudd,roach. The people at Rothiemurchus encourage the osprey to fish there. so a cormorant cant do that much different to what an osprey does, and people dont (aren't meant to) shoot them.

Although the people from that estate do charge for people to fish the lake, photo the birds, feed the fish and other money making ideas that get them money to replace any fish taken.

Also I have heard though that a cormorant on a lake can do a lot of damage, eat small fish and just scratch/bite/or something the bigger carp etc and then they die ( the last could be an urban myth tho) a 10lb+ carp is A LOT of money and a bad loss for a small club lake so I can see why they would take the culling measure.

 

[captaincarot]

around 20 years ago i actually witnessed a cormorant take a bream, so big that it got stuck in it's throat. the result dead cormorant floating down the river trent it had actually somehow managed to choke itself on the fish.
so they will obviously go for large fish, in that case too large.
though you couldn't compare that fish with a 20lb carp which would be far larger.

 

[Jacana]

"These people may appear innocent, bedecked as they are in woolly hats, anoraks and binoculars, but be warned: they are no friends of ours..."

a priceless sentence, like many in the article that could be said on either side of the devide (if you substitue binoculars for rods)

 

[DunnoKev]

Oh dear. It looks like we'll be provide enough ammunition to be fired back at us for years to come at this rate.

The article has your basic media spin needed to speak to the spread of readers it's aimed at. Sex it up, it'll sell copies, and give both sides' general readership plenty to rant about.

But what clever spin underneath. Look at that complaint about the angling authorities not using enough clout (pun not intended) to fight their corner in the place where it matters. Obviously the author feels a need to rally his troops. He's clearly either jealous or fearful (or both) of the political sway RSPB has, and wants his boys more organised. It's really quite a neat piece of journo. After all, there's been elections in the UK where it's claimed it was 'the Sun that wun it', and if he can get more anglers active in the fight then they might get as good at lobbying as the RSPB is.

And lobby the RSPB do. Their old slogan was spot on- 'for birds, for people, for ever'. Not just for the birds then. One of the very few reasons why I renew my RSPB membership is that it actually has this strong, balanced and reasoned voice in political circles. Which is why it gets things done.

We the birding masses will carp on just like the journalist (pun intended) if anything 'threatens' our birding rights/twitching rights/chimping rights, only he's been much more effective at it in his article than we ever will be we sound off in our forums and blogs.

For my last twelve years or so of Medway Towns residence I lived next to a diamond geezer named Les, who loved his fishing. Spent every minute he could out on the private lakes he paid loadsa money to be part of, always keen to tell me about what he'd seen while fishing, would say what they were doing to try to improve the waters and would listen if I offered a conservation opinion. In return, he'd ask me what I'd been up to and what was happening with migration, even if he could never understand why I got so excited over warblers.

He is my image of what an average angler is. Normal, like most of us think we are.

There are deekheed fanatics in all walks of life. I've met loads of 'em in birding, but that's because I've met shedloads of birders. The reverse is true, the percentage of 'decent fishermen' I've met is way higher than the percentage for 'decent birders', but then I never did go out for a day's fishing with Les.

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Oh dear. It looks like we'll be provide enough ammunition to be fired back at us for years to come at this rate.

The article has your basic media spin needed to speak to the spread of readers it's aimed at. Sex it up, it'll sell copies, and give both sides' general readership plenty to rant about.

But what clever spin underneath. Look at that complaint about the angling authorities not using enough clout (pun not intended) to fight their corner in the place where it matters. Obviously the author feels a need to rally his troops. He's clearly either jealous or fearful (or both) of the political sway RSPB has, and wants his boys more organised. It's really quite a neat piece of journo. After all, there's been elections in the UK where it's claimed it was 'the Sun that wun it', and if he can get more anglers active in the fight then they might get as good at lobbying as the RSPB is.

And lobby the RSPB do. Their old slogan was spot on- 'for birds, for people, for ever'. Not just for the birds then. One of the very few reasons why I renew my RSPB membership is that it actually has this strong, balanced and reasoned voice in political circles. Which is why it gets things done.

We the birding masses will carp on just like the journalist (pun intended) if anything 'threatens' our birding rights/twitching rights/chimping rights, only he's been much more effective at it in his article than we ever will be we sound off in our forums and blogs.

For my last twelve years or so of Medway Towns residence I lived next to a diamond geezer named Les, who loved his fishing. Spent every minute he could out on the private lakes he paid loadsa money to be part of, always keen to tell me about what he'd seen while fishing, would say what they were doing to try to improve the waters and would listen if I offered a conservation opinion. In return, he'd ask me what I'd been up to and what was happening with migration, even if he could never understand why I got so excited over warblers.

He is my image of what an average angler is. Normal, like most of us think we are.

There are deekheed fanatics in all walks of life. I've met loads of 'em in birding, but that's because I've met shedloads of birders. The reverse is true, the percentage of 'decent fishermen' I've met is way higher than the percentage for 'decent birders', but then I never did go out for a day's fishing with Les.

Good post Kev

 

[louisfh]

I'm intrigued that centuries of philosophical musings never managed to find an answer that satisfied yet now courtesy of this article I'm relieved to find there is a god, his name is Lee Evans and he is apparently also some sort of angling anti-christ. Along with claims that there is some kind of media conspiracy to portray birders as "heaven-sent conservationists" and "some kind of symbolic martyr" (which is surely tortology) this guy clearly has some serious issues.

It was an incident that shouldn't have happened but this guy has no right to turn it into an inter-hobby war! Although if it comes to that though I have no fear the 'armies' of pager carriers headed by a war-painted kate humble and with the paramilitary on flanking manoeuvre could deal with this angling problem no worries.

Just my 2p.

 

[Jacana]

Although if it comes to that though I have no fear the 'armies' of pager carriers headed by a war-painted kate humble and with the paramilitary on flanking manoeuvre could deal with this angling problem no worries.

ahh but you forget, we might have Humble, but they have priests! :smoke:

 

[Adam W]

Pleased to meet you Adam W.... I'm wondering what the 'W' stands for but I could take an educated guess.

Well i think that petty statement just confirms my original comment on you!

I dont doubt you have had unpleasant experiences with some irresponsible anglers but thats no excuse for that ridiculous article and jumping to the assumption that all anglers are the same when clearly nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[username]

Seems like i've missed a good verbal 'pie-fight' whilst i was down the boozer last night...[i did read a bit of 'this stuff' when i got back but i didn't trust my typing fingers to comment at such a late hour]..B !
Agree with the hidden..[or not so hidden]...agenda of the author of this article as suggested by Dunnokev..

The punch-up incident is obviously a very serious matter and whoever the assailant was...i'm presuming there's a description of the attacker? If this assailant is eventually apprehended then it will be interesting to later learn of his motivations....whatever they may have been.
As to the theory that 'he' was a hired heavy..??!...is the author of this article suggesting that there's a 'real' birding mafia?...some sort of 'bald-headed leader' of Tony Soprano like disposition..? It's a thought that only makes me laugh. If the author is going to suggest this then maybe it won't be long before some comes up with a theory suggesting that the whole incident was set up by the head of the 'angling mafia' in order to drum up publicity....[but who in their right mind would do that]..?

 

[Runaround]

So clearly there isn't a single obsessive fisherman anywhere in the UK?

I used to work for Mercury Marine in Fond du Lac, WI. They make outboard boat engines. The VP of Sales used to joke that their best customer was a 30/30/30. $30,000 boat towed by a $30,000 truck parked in front of a $30,000 house.

 

[rosbifs]

In some countries using a Cormorant is a legimate way to fish!! I have seen the advert.

There is no excuse for an attack like this in any way or capacity. The guy should be locked up - end of argument. He should be thankful the bloke didn't shoot him.....

As for the reporting of the incident what a load of drivel - in some countries he could be charged with inciting hatred. I like the quote the 'cold facts of the incident' and then 'almost certainly a birdwatcher' without any culprit or facts to support that.

As for finger pointing don't think all birdwatchers have a good name when it comes to petty 'vandalism' or creating mess!!!

 

[John Cantelo]

. Obviously the author feels a need to rally his troops. He's clearly either jealous or fearful (or both) of the political sway RSPB has, and wants his boys more organised.

He is my image of what an average angler is. Normal, like most of us think we are. QUOTE]

DunnoKev and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I think his post - particularly the parts quoted here are spot on.

I have never felt any annimosity from anglers (although, to be honest, my contact with them has been relativly limited). I certainly don't feel any animosity towards them. A good friend of mine (an expert ecologist) does watch gravel pits locally which are run as fishing lakes. I know from his testimony (and have witnessed myself) that the management religiously consult him about managing the area to the benefit of all wildlife. As a result orchids, and other forms of wildlife, have flourished. I know too that any 'angler' who left rubbish (inc. abandoned fishing line) would very quickly get their marching orders. I'm not saying that bad practice doesn't happen, but that it can't be taken as the 'norm'.

Obviously, both anglers and fishermen have different goals, but I also think we have a fair bit of 'common cause'. Neither of us would want water pollution, excessive or insensitive building at vulnerable sites and so on,

 

[Barred Wobbler]

Apology accepted.

I have to be honest - I cant really take the original article seriously. Mindless violence isnt the best of ideas but neither is attacking some-one carrying a gun!!

I'd have thought the person least at risk of repercussions in a conflict between someone carrying a shotgun and one without in this country is the person who is unarmed.

He pops a bloke holding a shotgun, and the worst that will happen is that he gets done for assault. He's not going to get shot unless he's in an inner city location and the gun has sawn off barrels. He's as safe as houses.

However, if the shotgun owner were to take a swing at another person, then he's in trouble. Not only does he get done for assault, but he also loses his shotgun permit on being convicted of a violent act - even if his gun was safely locked up in its cabinet at home at the time of the assault. I've known people who have had this happen.

Assailant in the first case loses a few quid in a fine and collects a record.

Assailant in the second case loses a few quid in a fine, collects a record and loses the means to carry out his hobby and possibly his job.

 

[purple highflyer]

. Obviously the author feels a need to rally his troops. He's clearly either jealous or fearful (or both) of the political sway RSPB has, and wants his boys more organised.

He is my image of what an average angler is. Normal, like most of us think we are. QUOTE]

DunnoKev and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I think his post - particularly the parts quoted here are spot on.

I have never felt any annimosity from anglers (although, to honest, my contact with them has been relativly limited). I certainly don't feel any animosity towards them. A good friend of mine (an expert ecologist) does watch gravel pits locally which are run as fishing lakes. I know from his testimony (and have witnessed myself) that the management religiously consult him about managing the area to the benefit of all wildlife. As a result orchids, and other forms of wildlife, have flourished. I know too that any 'angler' who left rubbish (inc. abandoned fishing line) would very quickly get their marching orders. I'm not saying that bad practice doesn't happen, but that it can't be taken as the 'norm'.

Obviously, both anglers and fishermen have different goals, but I also think we have a fair bit of 'common cause'. Neither of us would want water pollution, excessive or insensitive building at vulnerable sites and so on,

The nail hit well and truly on the head !

PH

 

[Adam W]

I'd have thought the person least at risk of repercussions in a conflict between someone carrying a shotgun and one without in this country is the person who is unarmed.

He pops a bloke holding a shotgun, and the worst that will happen is that he gets done for assault. He's not going to get shot unless he's in an inner city location and the gun has sawn off barrels. He's as safe as houses.

However, if the shotgun owner were to take a swing at another person, then he's in trouble. Not only does he get done for assault, but he also loses his shotgun permit on being convicted of a violent act - even if his gun was safely locked up in its cabinet at home at the time of the assault. I've known people who have had this happen.

Assailant in the first case loses a few quid in a fine and collects a record.

Assailant in the second case loses a few quid in a fine, collects a record and loses the means to carry out his hobby and possibly his job.

Thats a very good point and something anybody wishing to carry out attacks like this are probably well aware of.
I have been unfortunate enough to have a few encounters with poachers while out with the gun and its not a pleasant position to be in.

 

[DunnoKev]

DunnoKev and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I think his post - particularly the parts quoted here are spot on.

Gawsh and lawsy John, grudging praise accepted, sooo pleased to know I can receive your stamp of approval once in a blue moon- I'll certainly print this and frame it.

But you do realise I'm gonna have to start each and every new reply of mine in a similar vein now... :-O

DunnoKev
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The almighty JC and I have had our disagreements in the past, but I think his post - particularly the start, the end, and the middle are complete..."

 

[thenorthernmonkey]

I'd have thought the person least at risk of repercussions in a conflict between someone carrying a shotgun and one without in this country is the person who is unarmed.

He pops a bloke holding a shotgun, and the worst that will happen is that he gets done for assault. He's not going to get shot unless he's in an inner city location and the gun has sawn off barrels. He's as safe as houses.

However, if the shotgun owner were to take a swing at another person, then he's in trouble. Not only does he get done for assault, but he also loses his shotgun permit on being convicted of a violent act - even if his gun was safely locked up in its cabinet at home at the time of the assault. I've known people who have had this happen.

Assailant in the first case loses a few quid in a fine and collects a record.

Assailant in the second case loses a few quid in a fine, collects a record and loses the means to carry out his hobby and possibly his job.

I tend to agree with Adam W when he quoted your post Barred Wobbler. Makes sense...

 

[ColinD]

They are a bunch of thugs in St.Helens though...not a decent birder amongst 'em.

Nah, there are no problems here now Chris. We deported all of our criminals to an offshore prison colony years ago......

 

[John Cantelo]

Gawsh and lawsy John, grudging praise accepted, sooo pleased to know I can receive your stamp of approval once in a blue moon- I'll certainly print this and frame it. [/I]

Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't grudging although the graceless response (scarcely at all moderated by the fig leaf of a smiley) probably ensures that I won't bother in future,

 

[Sancho]

The assault referred to is criminal, and I hope the perp gets apprehended, whether or not he´s a birder. I know a lot of anglers, and some angler/birders, and have never been aware of any conflict, quite the contrary in fact. So I´m a bit surprised by the tone of the article. Birders hiring "heavies"? Hiring a car is often beyond the capabilities of birder-groups. The guy seems desperate to unearth a vast UK/RSPB conspiracy; perhaps he´s read too much Dan Brown. (Tune in next issue for "Birders and the Cathar Heresy").