otters

[David Gauntlett]

Then again, there are the self righteous lot who come on forums merely to condemn all other anglers (sometimes the whole of humanity it seems ) making sweeping generalisations about one and all. How they can justify such accusations without knowing anything about the folk they pour scorn upon has always been a mystery to me. But then, that sort of person usually doesn't see a need to justify their actions in my experience. Hey ho, never mind

The Irony

Neil, as you seem have gone on a personal mission to jump in on virtually ever post I make, disagreeing with every point no matter what the subject, with ever lamer bursts of sarcasm (see your earlier posts in this thread for instance) I thought I might try and work out exactly what you were trying to say, what exactly it is that has got your dander up this time round. I chose your latest gem (above) as an example worth analysing, as it left me perplexed as usual.. As it consisted of only two words, and the first is self explanatory, I found an easy to understand meaning on google for the other half of your message, just to help thing along. See below.

"A simple way of putting it is that irony usually signals a difference between the appearance of things and reality. For instance, here is how Wikipedia defines it: “Ironic statements (verbal irony) often convey a meaning exactly opposite from their literal meaning. In ironic situations (situational irony), actions often have an effect exactly opposite from what is intended.â€

There now, even I can understand that Perhaps then you could explain to me exactly what it was you thought it meant, then we can perhaps understand what your message was meant to convey. I just really would like to know what it is you object to about everything I say. Hell, you may even have a good point for all I know

Cheers

 

[David Gauntlett]

aren't forums fun, totally different to when we meet on the bank, put an angler in its natural enviroment and its a a much friendlier more helpful creature than forums might lead you to believe I think computers are bad for anglers

Why on earth do you use them then Robert

Cheers, Dave.

 

[Neil Smart]

Neil, as you seem have gone on a personal mission to jump in on virtually ever post I make, disagreeing with every point no matter what the subject, with ever lamer bursts of sarcasm (see your earlier posts in this thread for instance) I thought I might try and work out exactly what you were trying to say, what exactly it is that has got your dander up this time round. I chose your latest gem (above) as an example worth analysing, as it left me perplexed as usual.. As it consisted of only two words, and the first is self explanatory, I found an easy to understand meaning on google for the other half of your message, just to help thing along. See below.

"A simple way of putting it is that irony usually signals a difference between the appearance of things and reality. For instance, here is how Wikipedia defines it: “Ironic statements (verbal irony) often convey a meaning exactly opposite from their literal meaning. In ironic situations (situational irony), actions often have an effect exactly opposite from what is intended.â€

There now, even I can understand that Perhaps then you could explain to me exactly what it was you thought it meant, then we can perhaps understand what your message was meant to convey. I just really would like to know what it is you object to about everything I say. Hell, you may even have a good point for all I know

Cheers

I was in the middle of replying..and thought ''what the hell'' Suffice to say David, leave it at that and let's not get too personal, it was never my intention to have a pop at you.
Folk are just not interested, it's a glorious day go and enjoy.

 

[David Gauntlett]

I was in the middle of replying..and thought ''what the hell'' Suffice to say David, leave it at that and let's not get too personal, it was never my intention to have a pop at you.
Folk are just not interested, it's a glorious day go and enjoy.

I have nothing against you at all Neil, and had no intention of getting personal at all....it's not my bag, other than to reply to those who 'get personal' with me. Mind you, I am at a loss to understand how you can claim that "It was never your intention to have a pop at me" when you read your posts in this thread, and many others.

However, I completely agree that other folk see this personal bickering between members as intensely boring and annoying (probably because it is ) so, if your post was your way of saying you will stop with the poinless digs....then I am more than happy with that outcome....peace bro As far as 'Its a glorious day go and enjoy'.... I just got back from an early morning attempt at partially rectifying what turned out to be 'The trip from hell' last night (One lost rod and reel, one broken rod, one broken landing net...no fish) I really should give serious consideration to golf as an alternative to fishing, as a suitable pastime for the old and senile....I get worse

 

[Howard Hutchins]

Originally Posted by Robert Richbell
aren't forums fun, totally different to when we meet on the bank, put an angler in its natural enviroment and its a a much friendlier more helpful creature than forums might lead you to believe I think computers are bad for anglers

Ive found anglers bankside,no different to here to be honest,allways approach
stooped and quiet,......How you doing???....and often end up chatting to
some very friendly fellow piscators.

On the other hand,my smiley,good morning,results in a very unfriendly glare,
suggesting i should pi$$of and mind my own business.

Leopards dont change thier spots,so id suggest,that any miseries posting here,
(if any??)and not suggesting there are will act the same bankside

 

[Rhys Perry]

How'd you manage to lose a rod and reel Dave!?

 

[Chris Turnbull]

Originally Posted by Robert Richbell
aren't forums fun, totally different to when we meet on the bank, put an angler in its natural enviroment and its a a much friendlier more helpful creature than forums might lead you to believe I think computers are bad for anglers

Ive found anglers bankside,no different to here to be honest,allways approach
stooped and quiet,......How you doing???....and often end up chatting to
some very friendly fellow piscators.

On the other hand,my smiley,good morning,results in a very unfriendly glare,
suggesting i should pi$$of and mind my own business.

Leopards dont change thier spots,so id suggest,that any miseries posting here,
(if any??)and not suggesting there are will act the same bankside

The friendliest reply I ever got from asking an angler how it was going was "I don't like people!"

 

[David Hall]

The friendliest reply I ever got from asking an angler how it was going was "I don't like people!"

so you met paul boote then....

 

[David Parker]

Craig is right . Most members of the public don't understand angling or it's attraction . At best anglers are viewed as harmless sad chaps who like sitting in the rain for hours , others regard us as cruel heartless individuals who inflict pain on innocent fish . It's my guess that most none angling members of the public would regard the thought of culling birds and god forbid otters to preserve sport for anglers as distasteful , even abhorrent . Despite all the predator action group fuss and angling celebs signing up to it's cause , you don't see any politicians swelling the ranks . Like it or not politicians change things and there are none who will support a predator cull

Spot on.

It's perfectly fine, and quite natural, for anglers to complain about losing access to good quality fishing due to otter predation, or cormorants, whatever. I grumble about it too, or feel sorry for others who've been affected by it.

But I can't envisage any scenario where a predatory animal (especially one that's fluffy and well-loved by the general population) would be legally culled so that we might sit on a riverbank, catch a fish only to release it afterwards. It just doesn't compute for most people, the idea that our pleasurable pastime should be given priority over a living creature hunting down a square meal. Buzzards aren't nearly as popular as our furry friends and the con-dems were soon in U-turn mode over them for exactly this reason.

For Joe Public otter culling would simply make no sense whatsoever, and anglers will be very easily portrayed as a crowd of rather childish whiners. I don't think that is what anglers are (by and large) but it IS what we'd be set out as being if this otter issue ever made front page news. Once this debate was properly raging it would be angling that came out the loser. At the very least we'd be expected to always play second fiddle to predatory birds and mammals, but at worst we might be on the slippery slope to angling being banned altogether.

 

[Andy Bridgeman]

The friendliest reply I ever got from asking an angler how it was going was "I don't like people!"

Best ive had when making a friendly enquiry was
Cheeky C**t.

 

[Simon Lush]

the friendliest reply i ever got from asking an angler how it was going was "i don't like people!"

m g ?

 

[Chris Turnbull]

m g ?

No, not him. This one was is a Norfolk inbred on a bike! lol

 

[Robert Richbell]

Why on earth do you use them then Robert

Cheers, Dave.

Dave

go to do something when i am not fishing

 

[Jim Foxall]

Well, back to the otter thread etc. Cormorants are ugly birds in every respect and for this reason, I believe that we anglers have a chance of doing something about them.

As many forum members have made plain, otters are seen as the equivalent of teddy bears. Opinion can turn, for example, most of joe public now see the "pretty grey nutkin" as a pest, probably because of their detrimental impact on the reds and the press coverage of the damage that greys do.

For this reason, in relation to otters, a more subtle approach is required. If it could be demonstrated that otteres were mutilating each other due to overcrowding or insufficient food to sustain a population then perhaps a limited programme of sterilisation would be to the otters' wellbing. I'm sure that this approach has been adopted in relation to tigers/lions in safari parks. Anglers have to be seen as responsible, environment friendly custodians of our rivers. There is no place for the slash and burn mentality, this is out-dated thinking and will garner no support whatsoever. The voice of reason must be our clarion call irrespective of our private thoughts. A far more subtle approach is required, softee, softee ...

 

[David Gauntlett]

Well, back to the otter thread etc. Cormorants are ugly birds in every respect and for this reason, I believe that we anglers have a chance of doing something about them.

As many forum members have made plain, otters are seen as the equivalent of teddy bears. Opinion can turn, for example, most of joe public now see the "pretty grey nutkin" as a pest, probably because of their detrimental impact on the reds and the press coverage of the damage that greys do.

For this reason, in relation to otters, a more subtle approach is required. If it could be demonstrated that otteres were mutilating each other due to overcrowding or insufficient food to sustain a population then perhaps a limited programme of sterilisation would be to the otters' wellbing. I'm sure that this approach has been adopted in relation to tigers/lions in safari parks. Anglers have to be seen as responsible, environment friendly custodians of our rivers. There is no place for the slash and burn mentality, this is out-dated thinking and will garner no support whatsoever. The voice of reason must be our clarion call irrespective of our private thoughts. A far more subtle approach is required, softee, softee ...

I agree entirely Jim, and have said so until I am blue in the face. Sadly, I am still seen as a rabid 'kill 'em all' fanatic, probably due to my battles with a certain 'ex' member who had the rather unique power of infuriating me into making comments I later deeply regretted. You would think at my age I would know better, but there's no fool like an old fool

Cheers, Dave

 

[Jim Foxall]

Hi Dave, you're not a fool or an old fool, far far from it. There will be differences of opinion and as a result, from time to time, we probably lose some friends on the way. We can't all agree all of the time and that's probably healthy. It's all down to how harsh the exchanges become. Enough said! I am about to tack a very interesting fishing tale on to your escapade!

 

[David Hall]

Spot on.

It's perfectly fine, and quite natural, for anglers to complain about losing access to good quality fishing due to otter predation, or cormorants, whatever. I grumble about it too, or feel sorry for others who've been affected by it.

But I can't envisage any scenario where a predatory animal (especially one that's fluffy and well-loved by the general population) would be legally culled so that we might sit on a riverbank, catch a fish only to release it afterwards. It just doesn't compute for most people, the idea that our pleasurable pastime should be given priority over a living creature hunting down a square meal. Buzzards aren't nearly as popular as our furry friends and the con-dems were soon in U-turn mode over them for exactly this reason.

For Joe Public otter culling would simply make no sense whatsoever, and anglers will be very easily portrayed as a crowd of rather childish whiners. I don't think that is what anglers are (by and large) but it IS what we'd be set out as being if this otter issue ever made front page news. Once this debate was properly raging it would be angling that came out the loser. At the very least we'd be expected to always play second fiddle to predatory birds and mammals, but at worst we might be on the slippery slope to angling being banned altogether.

angling won't get banned, otters won't be culled and it doesn't really matter if it's con-dems or millepede and balls up.

 

[Nick Tuckey]

The friendliest reply I ever got from asking an angler how it was going was "I don't like people!"

If its who I think it was the comment may have been directed at you Chris.....LOL

 

[Chris Turnbull]

If its who I think it was the comment may have been directed at you Chris.....LOL

Always nice to have your pennies worth Dick (LOL). So seeing as your always so keen to stick your oar in, tell me who you think it was?

 

[Lee Fletcher]

Apparently.

Apparently,

UK Angling contributes around 9 billion pounds to the economy?. In 2008 annual spend by British anglers was estimated at being between £7.0 and £7.5 billion per annum.

Now lets imagine how much the taxable percentages of this amount is worth to the UK treasury? Hardly peanuts is it.

UK recreational angling relies on just one commodity to make it viable and that is healthy fish stocks. So whether you are a sea, game or coarse angler you ultimately rely on healthy fish stocks for your sport.

They say, that some members of the ethnic minorities have plundered our fish stocks to a point there are very few large pike left in the fenland drainage systems for example. Apparently, a lot of these wild fish have been taken not with rod and line but with the use of illegal "set lines". Even nets have been used with the fish caught this way destined for fish mongers slabs who sell a lot of their wares to the ethnic minorities that live in their areas. Apparently, its a similar story right across the country.

Apparently, very little has been done to stop this illegal practise.

Captive bred otters were released into the wild to fanfares and trumpets from the Otter BAP's, their supporters and the UK public generally. Make no mistake about it, otters receive MASSIVE support from the general public. In any head to head contest between anglers and otters when the general public would become referees we would get very few points on the public's score card.

Does the general public actually know what a cormorant is? Or are they even aware there is an issue between angling and cormorants? I doubt it. Cormorants are not high up on the pretty bird list but even so that could all change if the Spring Watch team decided to film them along with the blue tits and barn owls. Public perception can change very rapidly when sat in front of the telly.

Apparently, the general public absolutely love watery places and will drive miles and miles to walk along the edge of water with their children and dogs. Indeed, its become a national pastime. Dig a hole, fill it with water and sure as eggs are eggs, the world and his wife will turn up to walk around it.

So given that we anglers have been frequenting watery places since man first learned how to catch a fish thousands of years ago, why is it we have not learnt to form an alliance with the general public seeing as we both adore our watery environments collectively?

Apparently its all about angling having this thing called "effective PR" and the fact that we actually don't have any.

The watery walking appreciation society just don't have a clue about issues that affect our sport simply because there is no one who tells them.

Given its 2012 and given UK angling number in their millions why are we still so absolutely rubbish at promoting our sport and the issues that affect it?

Apparently UK angling is worth around 9 billion pounds. That's 9 billion and rising year in, year out.