Anti Anglers at it Again

The animal rights movement never give up and it is important that anglers and SAA never give up defending and promoting our sport.

See the latest attempt in this letter to the Reading Chronicle and the SAA response below.

Reading Chronicle 1.9.06

We've made no secret of our horror of shooting

RG SEYS tells us that animal rights supporters would like to ban shooting and fishing (We said shooting and fishing would be next, Chronicle, August 24) as if this were an amazing revelation of some hidden agenda.
In fact the animal rights movement has never made any secret of its opposition to all bloodsports, including hunting, shooting and fishing. They all involve the suffering and death of sentient creatures in the name of so-called sport.
Something most people may not know about shooting is the extent to which pheasants are now reared using intensive factory-farming techniques.
Millions of pheasants are mass-produced every year in breeding units to provide enough birds for all those who want to shoot at them for fun. A video or DVD about this, called Fowl Play, is available from Animal Aid on 01732-364546 or www.animalaid.org.uk.
However, a ban on the rearing of birds for shooting is not impossible: such a ban already exists in Holland, where the practice was considered morally and environmentally unacceptable.
Incidentally, pro-hunting folk are always telling us how cruel it is to shoot foxes: why do they find it OK to shoot birds, I wonder?
As far as fishing is concerned, a ban would obviously be unworkable.
However, as we now know for certain that fish feel pain, it's up to the decent instincts of the general public as to how long it remains an acceptable pastime.
DEREK GREATREX
Harrogate Road
Caversham


Sir

Derek Greatrex (Chronicle 1.9.06) may believe that by claiming, without foundation or reference, that fish feel pain that he can persuade the public that angling is, as a consequence, cruel.

Pain, as defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain, is purely a conscious experience, with a sensory component and a component of emotional feeling (suffering). Dr James D. Rose of the Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming has demonstrated that in order to show that a fish (or any organism) experiences pain, it is necessary to show that a fish has consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no pain.

Even DG could not possibly claim, with any reason, that a fish has consciousness.

A bull can be lead by the nose with a rope and nose ring, responding to the pressure on the nose ring by following its leader. A fish, when hooked, swims away from the hook, in a automatic “flight” response, which in a bull would increase any level of pain, yet fish prove by their own actions that they do not experience pain in these circumstances.

Derek needs to study more carefully and more widely before making claims he cannot substantiate in public forums.

Anglers have been the eyes and ears of our waterways for generations and if it were not for anglers many of our rivers, including the Thames, would still be little more than open sewers. False claims of pain in fish will not persuade the public to change its opinion of angling, which is generally highly supportive of the angler and his presence on the river bank.

Yours sincerely

Michael Heylin
Secretary
Specialist Anglers Alliance