Penelope Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 14 hours ago, spanj said: This sort of division WILL spell the end of fieldsports Playing devil's advocate, old bean. I'm a coarse angler too and have argued til I'm blue in the face (at the time of the Hunting with Dogs Act, with other coarse anglers) that there was no moral difference, between fox hunting and coarse angling. The vast majority of coarse anglers don't get it, and that as they don't kill their quarry, it's all good. But if you want to split hairs, coarse angling is the least defendable. That's a fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHenry Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 (edited) 3 hours ago, Penelope said: Playing devil's advocate, old bean. I'm a coarse angler too and have argued til I'm blue in the face (at the time of the Hunting with Dogs Act, with other coarse anglers) that there was no moral difference, between fox hunting and coarse angling. The vast majority of coarse anglers don't get it, and that as they don't kill their quarry, it's all good. But if you want to split hairs, coarse angling is the least defendable. That's a fact. I agree, but only to a point - like shooting, fishing often brings with it benefits regarding habitat creation / maintenence. Those are goods in their own right, and we do it a bit of a disservice is we start categorising it as the least defensible. I know this is perhaps more psychological than anything, but there would be less wedges driven / hackles raised if we put the onus on shootings best points, than some of fishing more arguable ones. It you wanted to insist that it was the least defensible - its always possible to take succor from that fact that it maintains a far greater social license than other field sports. I'm sure there's something we can extrapolate from that. Edited February 6 by PeterHenry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted February 6 Report Share Posted February 6 6 hours ago, PeterHenry said: I agree, but only to a point - like shooting, fishing often brings with it benefits regarding habitat creation / maintenence. Those are goods in their own right, and we do it a bit of a disservice is we start categorising it as the least defensible. I know this is perhaps more psychological than anything, but there would be less wedges driven / hackles raised if we put the onus on shootings best points, than some of fishing more arguable ones. It you wanted to insist that it was the least defensible - its always possible to take succor from that fact that it maintains a far greater social license than other field sports. I'm sure there's something we can extrapolate from that. Agreed. An awful lot of coarse anglers are hypocrits, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.