Angry Angler! (1 Viewer)

[thenorthernmonkey]

I am both a Birdwatcher and a Fisherman,

AHH -

as a fisherman you could shoot a Cormorant to preserve your stocks then beat yourself up in the car park as the birder in you comes racing to the surface :-O:-O

 

[John Cantelo]

Theres only really 3 options, an animal rights activist, a birder or a random member of the public that did it for no real reason so until its proven it wasnt a birder then its one of the only options to consider.

I’ve no doubt that rather more options could be suggested than the rather obvious three highlighted particularly if we knew more than is given in this very partial example of journalism. The point is not so much whether it was a birder ‘what done it’, but rather that the journalist has constructed a splenetic attack on birdwatchers in general on the basis of very thin evidence. In layman’s terms he’s been making mischief on the back of this despicable assault.

On a pedantic note, I must confess that a number of posts here (as elsewhere) have been rather difficult to understand due to a lack of punctuation, the erratic use of capitals and poor spellings. Without punctuation some postings come over more as a stream of consciousness than a carefully worked out and presented case. OK, we all make errors (me in particular!) in our haste to post our opinions, but I would suggest that some might do well to check their compositions before they post simply to ensure that it makes sense and is easily understood,

 

[Adam W]

Maybe the old gent was firing from private land across a water body towards a public right of way, which does make me wonder if this is a) legal or b) safe. I wouldn't want to be standing on the public side whilst Mr Magoo was firing his blunderbus in my direction...

Maybe that was more to do with it, than a twitcher getting upset over a cormorant.

I mean - a hard core lister has ticked and forgotten cormorant by the first hour of new years sunlight, surely?

It would certainly be legal unless he was extremely close to the public right of way(less than 50m) and even then it wouldnt automatically be illegal and we can only assume safe or else the shot would not be fired(unless he was a complete idiot which we have no reson to believe he was)

Maybe this did have something to do with it but that would be more to do with the personal reaction of the attacker than the person doing the shooting actually doing anything wrong.

 

[John In Ireland]

I am a keen angler myself and also a keen birdwatcher. Some anglers have always been an enemy of the Cormorant. Probably because it's the only fish eating bird they know. In my opinion, more danger come to fish come from below the water not above. I would put money on it that more fish are lost due to pollution, Pike, and overfished commercial fishing venues. These man made pools are overstocked with big carp for commercial gain. The fish are caught on a regular basis, and so more damage is caused by the careless angler. Don't get me wrong, most anglers care for the fish and their conservation, but in unexperienced hands the fish can suffer. And pools like these are full of inexperience anglers because it's easy fishing. I cannot see a Cormorant making any impession on a 30lb carp as someone put it! More likely that dead fish found on the banks with holes in them are those that have not been handled properly by poor anglers and died. The birds and animals are then just feeding on a dead fish washed up on the bank. I like my fishing, I like my birdwatching and this article is not doing either any good! I am against shooting Cormorants and I am against birders attacking folk so there are no winners here. I know this is a dam and not a carp lake, but this is where anglers can get brainwashed about Cormorants. Before commercial fishing, when we fished natural rivers, lakes and canals most anglers didn't know what a Cormorant was.

 

[Jos Stratford]

... we can only assume safe or else the shot would not be fired (unless he was a complete idiot which we have no reson to believe he was)

You like your assumptions Adam.

From the outset you have made the assumption he was a birdwatcher with actually no evidence either way, now it is automatically taken that the reported shooter couldn't have been acting incorrectly too.

So, with no evidence either way, nor any actual evidence that this story is actually true, you have taken the opening position that (a) it was a birdwatcher that assaulted him, (b) he was acting completely without cause to raise concern.

If we're going to start making unsubstantiated caims, backed up by no evidence, I will add my own. This shooter, an unpleasant foul-mouthed sort, having shot his Cormorant, saw a Buzzard and took a pot shot. Now a nearby angler, a responsible one who also carried binoculars, saw this and went over to confront the man. For his troubles, the anger was told to f.... off and in the discussion that followed, had the shotgun waved in his face. At this point the understandingly pissed angler had had enough and gave the objectionable hunter what he thought he deserved.

Yes, it's a story almost certainly total tosh, but actually it fits the story equally well any other scenario at this stage, because the only reports of it are from a lopsided report in a totally biased article by someone who obviously has a grudge.

 

[ChrisKten]

Just in case it went unnoticed; if you want to comment on any "facts", see the link I posted here, as this is the original article. The article, that this thread is (was) about, was a reaction to the first article (check the dates).


Jos: please check my punctuation.|=)|

 

[Adam W]

You like your assumptions Adam.

From the outset you have made the assumption he was a birdwatcher with actually no evidence either way, now it is automatically taken that the reported shooter couldn't have been acting incorrectly too.

So, with no evidence either way, nor any actual evidence that this story is actually true, you have taken the opening position that (a) it was a birdwatcher that assaulted him, (b) he was acting completely without cause to raise concern.

If we're going to start making unsubstantiated caims, backed up by no evidence, I will add my own. This shooter, an unpleasant foul-mouthed sort, having shot his Cormorant, saw a Buzzard and took a pot shot. Now a nearby angler, a responsible one who also carried binoculars, saw this and went over to confront the man. For his troubles, the anger was told to f.... off and in the discussion that followed, had the shotgun waved in his face. At this point the understandingly pissed angler had had enough and gave the objectionable hunter what he thought he deserved.

Yes, it's a story almost certainly total tosh, but actually it fits the story equally well any other scenario at this stage, because the only reports of it are from a lopsided report in a totally biased article by someone who obviously has a grudge.

I dont know wether to laugh or cry.

I am wrong to even dare to suggest it may have been a birder because there isnt proof it was although it is a feasable option with one or two things to suggest it may have been, not proof by any means but enough to suggest we could at least consider it as an option.

However i'm also wrong to suggest the angler/shooter might be not guilty just because there is not conclusive proof he's innocent, make youre mind up you cant have it both ways.

Also i should think it extremely unlikely that the person with the gun was doing something illegal and we are yet to hear about,i'm quite sure numerous people would have lept at the opertunity to publicise that fact.

 

[Scousemouse]

I dont know wether to laugh or cry.

I am wrong to even dare to suggest it may have been a birder because there isnt proof it was although it is a feasable option with one or two things to suggest it may have been, not proof by any means but enough to suggest we could at least consider it as an option.

However i'm also wrong to suggest the angler/shooter might be not guilty just because there is not conclusive proof he's innocent, make youre mind up you cant have it both ways.

Also i should think it extremely unlikely that the person with the gun was doing something illegal and we are yet to hear about,i'm quite sure numerous people would have lept at the opertunity to publicise that fact.

Adam, I think the point is, and others feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that it is unwise to assume ANYTHING here.

 

[Adam W]

Adam, I think the point is, and others feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that it is unwise to assume ANYTHING here.

Fair point but just because we cant assume doesnt mean it didnt happen and as i said i genuinely think we can assume the shooter did nothing illegal or else we would certainly be aware of it by now.

Its fair enough to say i cant make assumptions but not at the sametime as making the assumption that the angler/shooter could well be guilty of something just because he's one of those nasty angler/shooters.

 

[Matt Prince]

"I am wrong to even dare to suggest it may have been a birder because there isnt proof it was although it is a feasable option with one or two things to suggest it may have been, not proof by any means but enough to suggest we could at least.."

lynch a random birder ?

 

[Scousemouse]

Fair point but just because we cant assume doesnt mean it didnt happen and as i said i genuinely think we can assume the shooter did nothing illegal or else we would certainly be aware of it by now.

Its fair enough to say i cant make assumptions but not at the sametime as making the assumption that the angler/shooter could well be guilty of something just because he's one of those nasty angler/shooters.

OK, my first attempt mustn't have been written very well,
Even though you are "genuinely thinking", you are still assuming.
And we all know what happens when you assume

 

[Adam W]

"I am wrong to even dare to suggest it may have been a birder because there isnt proof it was although it is a feasable option with one or two things to suggest it may have been, not proof by any means but enough to suggest we could at least.."

lynch a random birder ?

Where have i even suggested that? I have said all along that it may not have been a birder and as a fellow birder i would love to think it wasnt but it has to be considered as a possibilty thats all i'm saying.

Its not at all unreasonable to consider it as a possibilty something i as a birder am happy to do. The problem i have it the fact so many people on here seem unwilling to accept it may have been a birder but i dont believe thats because they really think its not possible but rather that they dont want to admitt that 'one of us' could do such a thing or they dont want to be seen to be taking the side of an angler/shooter over that of a birder.

 

[Adam W]

OK, my first attempt mustn't have been written very well,
Even though you are "genuinely thinking", you are still assuming.
And we all know what happens when you assume

As i said in this case i think we can assume as we would most certainly be aware by now if this was not the case.I think i'm right in saying thats the only assumption i have made because i am happy its a safe assumption to make, its a safe assumption that the shooter of the Cormorant did nothing illegal, of course its not safe to assume it was a birder but i have never attempted to do so only ask that we consider it as a possibility.

 

[Scousemouse]

As i said in this case i think we can assume as we would most certainly be aware by now if this was not the case.I think i'm right in saying thats the only assumption i have made because i am happy its a safe assumption to make, its a safe assumption that the shooter of the Cormorant did nothing illegal, .

Why can we assume this?
How would we be aware by now?
The only two people involved were the shooter and the attacker. The attacker has gone to ground, and the shooter isn't going to confess if he was in the wrong in any way. He has just told one side of the story perhaps, which is what we are reading. We might never find out the truth.

Even people in St.Helens can't find out more about any of this story,
But still you keep filling in gaps, and adding extra snippets.

 

[timwootton]

Ok Adam, then I ask you one question;
If you are behaving within the law, with the weight of the law behind you, why would you go about such an activity as shooting a bird (protected, under normal circumstances) surreptitiously and in a clandestine manner? If I saw someone behaving in that manner, I would assume they had something to hide; that they were, in fact, breaking the law - wouldn't you?
Isn't it better to advertise the fact that a cull is to be undertaken, to go to the site prepared and even with the support of a law-enforcement agency and/or the landowner and to perform the cull professionally and in 'broad daylight', so to speak - using the opportunity to express your point of view (and that of the law )so there could be no misunderstandings or reprisals.
Which is best - an open-air discussion on the points of law? - or some poor old guy getting a smacking from some zealot who's wired up a bit wrong????

''The person in question was acting within the law and had the full weight of the law behind him but look what happened to him.Any sort of hunting wether it be shooting fishing or this sort of culling is obviously done in a discreet way both to stand any chance of success and to not disturb and upset others.''

Ok - firstly we only know he was acting within the law because of the subsequent (unfortunate) action of his shooting - ie; being assaulted and thence going to the press. It would be wrong to assume that anyone found shooting wild birds has a license to do so and it is right to challenge anyone undertaking such an act.

''Culling is done in a discreet way to stand any chance of success''

Is that because cormorants are very easy to frighten away? - if this is the case, then there would be no need to shoot them; simply scare them away, instead!

. . . and not to disturb or upset others . . .

this is quite clearly a ridiculous argument as that is exactly what happened here (allegedly); someone got very upset indeed.

''Going out of you're way to make people aware of what you are doing is alot more likely to result in a smack in the face''

Once again, your argument falls on its face - because (allegedly) the guy got a smack whilst apparently following your advice.

 

[ChrisKten]

[...]It would be wrong to assume that anyone found shooting wild birds has a license to do so and it is right to challenge anyone undertaking such an act.[...]

It would be incredibly stupid to challenge someone in possession of a gun, who might be committing an illegal act. Take photographs if possible - yes, report it - yes.

 

[Adam W]

''The person in question was acting within the law and had the full weight of the law behind him but look what happened to him.Any sort of hunting wether it be shooting fishing or this sort of culling is obviously done in a discreet way both to stand any chance of success and to not disturb and upset others.''

Ok - firstly we only know he was acting within the law because of the subsequent (unfortunate) action of his shooting - ie; being assaulted and thence going to the press. It would be wrong to assume that anyone found shooting wild birds has a license to do so and it is right to challenge anyone undertaking such an act.

''Culling is done in a discreet way to stand any chance of success''

Is that because cormorants are very easy to frighten away? - if this is the case, then there would be no need to shoot them; simply scare them away, instead!

. . . and not to disturb or upset others . . .

this is quite clearly a ridiculous argument as that is exactly what happened here (allegedly); someone got very upset indeed.

''Going out of you're way to make people aware of what you are doing is alot more likely to result in a smack in the face''

Once again, your argument falls on its face - because (allegedly) the guy got a smack whilst apparently following your advice.

If he knew he was in the wrong by not having a licence he wouldnt have reported the incident.
Cormorants like any birds that are shot i dare say would be easy to scare away but they would just as easily retrun and continue to cause the same problem when you have gone something they cant do if they have been shot.

I said making people aware would be more likelly to cause upset and result in a smack not that it wouldnt occaisonally happen anyway like in this case.

 

[timwootton]

It would be incredibly stupid to challenge someone in possession of a gun, who might be committing an illegal act. Take photographs if possible - yes, report it - yes.

What on earth are on? - Why would it be stupid? are you expecting to get your head blown off????? I'm talking about someone shooting wild birds - not holding up a fecking bank!

 

[Adam W]

Why can we assume this?
How would we be aware by now?
The only two people involved were the shooter and the attacker. The attacker has gone to ground, and the shooter isn't going to confess if he was in the wrong in any way. He has just told one side of the story perhaps, which is what we are reading. We might never find out the truth.

Even people in St.Helens can't find out more about any of this story,
But still you keep filling in gaps, and adding extra snippets.

We can make the assumption because the incident would not have been reported if he knew he was in the wrong aswell, if he had been stupid enough to do so it would have been found out that he was in the wrong and that most definatley would have been publicised,the RSPB probably heading the queue waiting to do so.

 

[ChrisKten]

What on earth are on? - Why would it be stupid? are you expecting to get your head blown off????? I'm talking about someone shooting wild birds - not holding up a fecking bank!

Ah, so you are making assumptions about both the motives, and the character, of the person shooting the birds. What are these assumptions based on?

They have a gun, so are you assuming that they are licensed?

They are shooting wild birds, are you assuming that they don't just like to kill things?

Are you assuming that they are not a crack-head? Are you assuming that they are not a violent lunatic?

Seems like a lot of assumptions to me.

And I would have expected a much more measured response than: "What on earth are on?"