I didn't see the show either, but it seems to me that it would help if the fishing spokespeople were trained in public speaking. Public perception tends to side with the person who comes across best in any debate. Maybe some marine biologists could be used for the sake of credibility. Julian Pepperell is one that comes to mind. Good bloke, very well spoken and has case studies to support his argument that fish don't feel pain.Poor response by the bloke representing Vic Anglers
Why all the focus on whether they feel pain or not?
It always seems to be quoted by our greener cousins, but I don't see the relevance.
Everything dies sooner or later including us, not many will have the benefit of not feeling pain at the time.
Isn't a fish having its throat cut and being dead in a few seconds better off than the one that gets slowly eaten alive by another marine creature.
Are these guys also going to stop lions killing zebras because the zebras feel pain and are often partly eaten before they even die? Get real [smiley=alien.gif]
We are part of nature , not separate from it, but we can choose to kill things quickly and humanely.
Whether something is going to feel it or not has never been a consideration before I killed it.
Be warned guys....these are not looney's...at the very least they believe in what they do and are incredibley well funded ($29Million US a year budget), well staffed, researched and DEAD F%^%^$ SERIUOS.
They will make such a stink about rec fishing. Starting with "game fishing", moving on to "C & R" and finally make all forms of recreational fishing "socially unacceptable".....just like THEY did with fur coats and animal testing of cosmetics.
The only way this mob will be held back is to put fishing fairly and squarely on the voting register.
You are about to be "living in interesting times"
"I fish & I Vote" may just become the most important thing you ever do.
KC
The Fishing Party (Qld)
By trade I am an Ag Scientist, I've had similar people try and tell me that plants react to stimuli such as music. Wont be long and we wont be able to eat - AT ALL.
Originally Posted by aussiefool
too right mate
think we might be shareing a cell as no one will be telling me not to fish
truly but i think we give them way too much credit
i see fishing growing and growing each day in most countrys around the world not shrinking
KC hit nail on head. Don't just write them off as looneys. These things come and go, I agree, But this guy got time on a national breakfast news program. He selectively said they were targeting game fishing ie marlin and sharks. This is a serious one.
Very easy to convince the non fishing public that this is barbaric.
Animal protection and cruelty always starts with the larger animals.
Marine wise, we no longer chase whales or great whites.
It is rare to see billfish and large sharks weighed any more.
By targeting this area, the "loonies" will find a sympathetic ear with the general public. What makes it worse, the media only had to get a photo of that tiger shark,covered in blood, and the argument may already be over.
As a group we need to be more pro active. We need to promote our sport to the public as a healthy pastime for families and kids. This needs to be on TV. Not so much in fishing shows but in ads such as the old "life be in it" ads.
Closures and bans come about because conservationists move before we do. They do their 'research ', serve it up to a politician before we catch wind of the situation. We are left to defend our sport with no scientific research to back up our argument.
We need the science before they start their raving. This has to be in the form of fish numbers, catch rates and general health of different reef systems.
I don't have the answers, but we can no longer keep trying to fight back. That is a battle we can't win.
Promote our sport, give it a good image and lets show the public and polititians that we aren't a bunch of drunks out their brutely killing.
Jim
KC hit nail on head. Don't just write them off as looneys. These things come and go, I agree, But this guy got time on a national breakfast news program. He selectively said they were targeting game fishing ie marlin and sharks. This is a serious one.
Very easy to convince the non fishing public that this is barbaric.
Animal protection and cruelty always starts with the larger animals.
Marine wise, we no longer chase whales or great whites.
It is rare to see billfish and large sharks weighed any more.
By targeting this area, the "loonies" will find a sympathetic ear with the general public. What makes it worse, the media only had to get a photo of that tiger shark, covered in blood, and the argument may already be over.
As a group we need to be more pro active. We need to promote our sport to the public as a healthy pastime for families and kids. This needs to be on TV. Not so much in fishing shows but in ads such as the old "life be in it" ads.
Closures and bans come about because conservationists move before we do. They do their 'research ', serve it up to a politician before we catch wind of the situation. We are left to defend our sport with no scientific research to back up our argument.
We need the science before they start their raving. This has to be in the form of fish numbers, catch rates and general health of different reef systems.
I don't have the answers, but we can no longer keep trying to fight back. That is a battle we can't win.
Promote our sport, give it a good image and lets show the public and polititians that we aren't a bunch of drunks out their brutely killing.
Jim
So where are all the high profile sportfisherman that have and still are making a living from "recreational fishing".
Where are the major boat,chandlery and tackle suppliers in all this ? Dont they have the most to lose ?
I watched the guy on the TV and frankly without being too harsh if he is the best "spokesperson" we have to put against the likes of PETA and the Greens then we are in a lot of trouble. Where are the Starlos, Bushy, Woerstlings and dare I say Rex Hunts. We need some high profile attention brought to our side and start to fight off this attack on OUR Australian Way of Life ! These guys need to get on board as well and get into the media's faces now to promote the cause.
Greg
And ET and Creek to Coast etc , why do these guys never bring things like this up?
BCF is the major sponsor of Creek to Coast now, they should sponsor adds for people to get involved in the political side of rec fishing, lets face it, if rec fishiing goes, so does BCF and half of the boat manufacturers as well as all the fishing shows.
Guys
We need to treat the enemy with more repsect, as kc says they are dedicated to what they believe in and well funded.
They are using a typical escalation approach ie start with game fishing to tap into a wider sympathy base, once the wedge is in they keep on going and so it goes. They expolit the media well - you don't get on TV if you ring up channel 9 and say that "fishing is not cruel", the media loves bad news.
However as a group that is so huge we are pretty hopelessly organised I mean when considering how damn many of us there are (I consider myself hopeless in this regard so I'm not bagging those few who do devote a considerable amount of their pesonal time to rec fish representation it is much appreciated).
Time and time again we drag out the same often weak arguments usually relying on scientific evidence that can be refuted in a TV interview situation by pointing to a new study that contradicts our argument etc. I think that its time to take a more structured value-based approach. We go fishing because it is part of our culture and our lifestyle plain and simple. We actually demonstrate how much we care about the fish that we catch and their sustainability by supporting good mangement and observing the fishing regs that are installed by governments who we vote for. Who can honestly say that people are not generally more aware of releasing fish these days as compared to when they grew up, the increase in awareness has been huge within the fishing community. If this had not occurred I would hate to think what our fish stocks would have been like. Any attempt by a minority to take this away should be veheremently opposed.
Although they will start with gamefishing as a soft target - it is a very visual sport easy to get video footage that will make a general breakfast audience squeamish etc, we cannot forget what the endgame is with these people. You are playing into theirhands if you think that just because you dont go gamefishing that this will not affect you IT WILL UNLESS WE GET BUSY NOW.
To quote sf17fisherman
truly but i think we give them way too much credit
i see fishing growing and growing each day in most countrys around the world not shrinking
Look at the experience of North Queensland when the reef closures happened, accompanied by a major advertising campaign aimed at demonising recreational fishing, participation rates fell 42% in 2 years and marine dealers went broke.
When a concerted, well organised and well funded campaign kicks in "we" end up being made feel guilty for going fishing and kids are less and less likely to start. In 20 years...all over!!
Who would have thought 20 years ago they would have banned duck hunting and the numbers now involved were less than 2000 state wide.
This is not about "us" and our generation, it is about the future of recreational fishing in the next generation. These guys have been around almost 30 years and are very good at what they do.
If they start with Game fishing it is a very difficult target to defend. Next come catch and release, which is likewise difficult to defend. Catching it, kissing it & putting it back might have been seen previuosly as the right thing to do but this will come increasingly into the crosshairs of this movement.
PETA seem to have given up on trying to stop hunting in the USA because the NRA is too powerful and votes matter.
Both presidential candidates at the last election in the USA had photo opps out hunting with the good old boys......and our 2 pretenders here had plenty of shots hugging the odd tree/reef/furry animal......imagine if it ever became a prerequisit for a potential polly in Australia to make sure he had a fishing photo op. as part of his election portfolio.
One more chance at the next election......after that it will be too late.
KC
I don't think that you can avoid scientific arguments, and simply not touch on them. In a one on one debate, if the other side is going to keep coming back to the 'pain' and 'stress' argument, they will always win unless that argument is nutralised. There are plenty of studies to counter their claims. Once their claims are quickly countered, then you can move on to the better points of rec angling.
Getting media coverage is not hard, it's just a matter of working the angles. Contact any current affairs show with the angle of 'Recreational anglers are concerned about peoples safety if protests escalate' and you will give them an angle they can run with. Once in front of the cameras you can then put any point of view across.
My thoughts: Fishing party, or any other rec angling body, need to get some financial backing (tackle manufacturers, BIA etc), find themselves a GOOD PR company (there are plenty of poor ones) and start putting a positive spin on fishing through the media. Also, no angler should be interviewed by the media unless they have had at least some media training. Better to say nothing at all than get into a media debate and get carved up.
Fafnir is right about needing recreational fishing spokespersons with some media training. It is very easy to paint someone as a red neck "good old boy" who can't string a few words together. PR is desperately needed but this does not come without money and money is something which is not yet available.
On the other issue of countering the PETA auguments with science and debate.....much more difficult. Is is not about being right, it is about the public perception. These guys would never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
I have been at the fringes of this whole ethical issue for years and it is going to be a very bitter fight and one I don't believe we can win, in the court of public opinion. The only place it can be won is in the political arena. Just like the NRA has done in the US. Make "our" vote so focussed and powerful than no matter what these animal activists achieve, it counts squat for actual government policy.
WE can talk about this forever.
WE need a starting point, such as.
A competition in all fishing publications to nominate a yearly "Face of Recreational Fishing."
This person should be a popular and recognisable personality willing to promote our sport. This promotion must be outside fishing circles.
Photos of this person fishing, releasing, and involved in clean up australia day will lift our sports profile. These photos need to crop up in non fishing magizines or high profile sporting mags. We nominate a charity and periodically send disadvantaged kids out on a charter with their favourite sporting identity or our 'face of fishing'.
Lift our profile to the non fishing public, this is where the fight back should start.
We need to get this ball rolling.
Is this a good idea???? Just my opinion.
Your point is valid, although public opinion is important, if only to break even. I also don't think there is much joy in going down the science path in depth, other than to counter their arguments in the eyes of the public. A good PR company may have other views on that of course.The only place it can be won is in the political arena
It's really two battles in one. One in the media where those non-fishing tv viewers need to hear our side of the story. The other in terms of political influence. I feel for parents whose children are brainwashed with PETA garbage.
As for the money. Well membership obviously helps, but I would have thought that the pitch to the tackle and boat manufacturers and the like would not be too difficult. Providing they could be convinced that their investment would make a difference.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote