Angling: a live issue

Angling: A Live Issue Jeremy MacClancy Angling, the most popular participant sport in Britain, is also among the least publicized. Though over 3,500,000 people practise the sport it very rarely gains headlines in national newspapers and almost never appears on national news programmes. Unlike football its leading practitioners are not household names and do not accrue small fortunes. The most patent reason for this apparent neglect by the media is that, at least until very recently, angling has been regarded as an essentially uncontroversial, traditional activity predominantly practised by solitary characters. In televisual terms, the sight of a man sitting quietly on a riverbank for hours on end is not a strong image. For television producers, the moments of intense excitement are too few, their timing too unpredictable. Angling, in other words, is popular for precisely the reason that makes it unsuitable television material: it is not a spectator sport for the masses but a participant activity for patient individuals. Angling writers eulogize their pastime as an all-embracing gentle activity of manifest benefit to both its practitioners and society. They claim learning to pursue fish appeals to the intellect, develops analytical abilities and stimulates constructive thinking. An aid to the formation of character, fishing offers relief from life's pressures, educates anglers in the virtues of patience, teaches calmness in the face of adversity, 'procures contentedness' (Cox 1697), 'purifies thoughts' (Cholmondeley-Pennell 1870: 15), and engenders a 'philosophical' turn of mind (O'Gorman 1845: 9). Eminently therapeutic it provides good exercise, 'like yoga with exciting bursts' (Milner 1993: 5). It supplies an opportunity to observe nature at first hand and develops anglers' aesthetic sense, opening their eyes wide to the splendours of the living world: 'A newly landed fish can be a beautiful thing. I can't help but admire some the fresh, sparkling fish which I have caught' (ibid.) It exercises our competitiveness without kindling the extremes of violence found in other sports. It supports a million-pound industry and keeps people in work and kids off the streets (Pocklington 1993: 19). It may even inspire religiosity: It may well be admitted that there is much in the contemplative character of (the angler's) pursuit, and in the quiet scenes of beauty with which it brings him face to face, to soften and elevate, as well as to 'humanize'. The rushing of white water, and the deep greenery of woods and fields, seem incompatible with what is base and sordid. They act like a tonic on the mind and body alike, and the fisherman, solitary with his own thoughts, shut out from the world, 'shut in, left alone' with himself and perfection of scenery, can hardly fail to be penetrated with the spirit that haunts solitude and loveliness. A chord is touched that must find an echo in every heart not utterly dead to gentle influences -- awakening what is good, silencing what is bad; directing the thoughts into purer channels, and leading them almost instinctively to 'look through Nature up to Nature's God' (Cholmondeley-Pennell 1870: 15). As Izaak Walton put it, fishing was a pious practice: 'employment for idle time, then not idly spent' (Walton 1971: 45). In recent years however, the stereotype of fishing as an innocent rural entertainment has been increasingly challenged by a new breed of animal welfare activists: anti-anglers. These militants wish to change common perceptions and practices. Instead of seeing angling as a socially beneficial sport of no harm to anyone or anything, they regard it as a degrading activity on a par with foxhunting and harecoursing. To them, fishing is not a placid pursuit to be promoted but an uncaring bloodsport to be banned. And they are beginning to get their message across. The aim of this chapter is to review the basis of anti-anglers' arguments and of anglers' counter-arguments. But first, I give brief histories of angling and anti-angling. *** The first English references to angling as a sport occur in the fifteenth century in such works as Wynkyn de Worde's Treatyse of Fysshynge with an Angle, published in 1496, which details the correct way to use rods, horsehair lines, and artificial flies. At this time most angling was for carp, anglers using a simple baited hook with a float and a line attached to a loop on the top of a long wooden rod. Of course most anglers then were members of the more leisured classes. Angling, viewed as a philosophical, contemplative pastime, was thought particularly suitable for clergymen (Thomas 1983: 1977). Only professionals and the well-to-do had sufficient free time to develop their angling skills for the sole sake of pleasure. Workers could not afford to regard fishing as a form of recreation. To them, it was an instrumental means to a pragmatic end: supplementing and varying the domestic diet. By the end of the sixteenth century angling became sufficiently popular to support a market in handmade rods and hooks. And by the middle of the seventeenth century it already had its greatest writer, Izaak Walton, whose Compleat Angler. Being a Discourse of Rivers, Fish-ponds, Fish and Fishing has never gone out of print. As angling slowly became more commonplace, class divisions in its practice deepened. Over the nineteenth century salmon disappeared from English rivers, mainly because of increasing pollution, and only the more wealthy among English salmon anglers could afford to travel to Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. As demand to fish the English chalk streams favoured by brown trout rose, owners of land adjoining their banks began to charge for the rights to fish from them, so excluding the majority of anglers. In the 1870s the government instituted rod licences for game-angling in order to raise revenue and halt the depletion of English stocks of trout. Also, salmon and trout anglers, partly to increase their sense of class distinctiveness, came to eschew any other kind of bait than a fly, and then came to rank themselves according to the type of fly used (wet, nymph, or dry). Since fly-fishing is much more skilled than coarse fishing, both in the casting of the line and the 'playing' and landing of the fish, fly-fishers learnt to regard their type of angling as not just the most expensive, but as the highest form of the sport as well. The more fluent among them gradually produced a literature to substantiate this claim. By the 1890s these writers has established a flyfishing philosophy about the nature of their feelings and the relationship to the rivers and fish (Voss Bark 1992: 76). Coarse fishing (where the prey are not eaten but returned to the water) only emerged as a particularly popular form of rural recreation, for the working classes, when large numbers of people moved to towns in search of work in factories. In the newly industrialized towns proletarian groups organized angling trips to the nearby countryside. Public houses and working-men's clubs ran angling competitions, with winners receiving cups, medals and prizes, and participating teams betting on the results. Some of these competitions became so large that hundreds of anglers participated simultaneously, each being allotted a specific position on the riverbank. By the beginning of this century nearly every pub in northern England had its own angling club; in London there were over 600 pub-based clubs. In 1869 the Angling Association was founded to safeguard coarse anglers' interests. In late Victorian times they successfully urged their Members of Parliament to lobby for a close season, from the middle of March to the middle of June, when fish might spawn in peace. Competitions became so popular that the National Federation of Anglers (NFA), formed in 1903 to protect the sport, took over the management and co-ordination of all annual national and divisional championships. These came to be sponsored by industrial (and, later, fishing-tackle) companies, which offered substantial prize money. Competitions declined during the First World War as did pub-based clubs, which were afterwards replaced by company angling clubs. Since the Second World War most company-based clubs have been superseded by local clubs who own or lease the rights to fish a particular stretch of water. Competitions have regained popularity. However, since the late 1960s, anglers no longer compete to catch the largest individual fish but the greatest combined weight of fish. At the same time, some anglers have developed an alternative form of competitive fishing: specimen hunting. Their aim is to catch the largest examples of particular species, especially carp, pike, and tench. In recent decades the commercial development of angling has been further stimulated by the stocking of flooded gravel pits and reservoirs. In 1994 the government bowed to pressure from entrepreneurs who wished to exploit their resources throughout the year by abolishing the close season for fishing in still waters. There are at present attempts to abolish the close season for fishing in streams and rivers as well. The majority of members of the National Federation of Anglers are opposed to this attempt. . Much of this potted history relies on Billett 1994: 185-202 While there is a long tradition of opposition to the hunting of animals because of the pain suffered by the prey (Spencer 1993), the history of anti-angling is much more patchy, mainly because many people are unsure whether fish have sensation. During the eighteenth century many protested against the crimping of fish, i.e. cutting their live flesh to make it firmer. In 1799 Charles Lamb branded anglers 'patient tyrants, meek inflictors, of pangs intolerable, cool devils' (quoted in Thomas 1983: 177). Benjamin Franklin (1964: 87) considered fishing 'unprovoked murder'. Byron, in a notorious passage, called angling 'that solitary vice', 'the cruelest, the coldest, and the stupidest of pretended sports': Whatever Izaak Walton sings or says; The quaint, old, cruel, coxcomb, in his gullet Should have a hook, and a small trout to pull it. Don Juan, Canto xiii But those who specifically spoke out against the practice were relatively very few. For instance, Henry Salt, a turn-of-the-century campaigner for animal rights, only devoted one phrase of his book on the topic to fishing (Salt 1892: 77). The emergence in recent decades of organized anti-angling is a direct by-product of the modern animal rights movement. The initial stimulus was a letter of protest against angling by Bill Maxwell Brody to The Times in March 1981, which led to a gathering at the Friends' Meeting House, Euston, London. Ronnie Lee, a co-founder in 1976 of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), was among the participants. At the meeting it was agreed to establish the Council for the Prevention of Cruelty by Angling (CPCA), to be headed by Maxwell Brody. Repeated bouts of ill-health, however, forced him to resign in mid-1983. His successor, Richard Farhall, directed the organization until 1989 when he became General Secretary of the Vegan Society and editor of The Vegan. With his departure the organization almost folded, for lack of actively involved people to run it. However in 1991 it was effectively relaunched when a new group of anti-anglers assumed its leadership. A major, initial problem for the Council was that of being taken seriously. Many organizations concerned with animal rights would not associate themselves with it in any way because they were scared of looking ridiculous, and they refused to help disseminate its leaflets. In order to overcome this problem, the Council produced a newsletter, Hookup, which provided detailed arguments against angling as a cruel practice. To demonstrate the seriousness of its endeavour, it also campaigned against the use of leadshot, livebait and keepnets, and protested about the amount of tackle litter left by anglers. Each edition of Hookup included a policy statement that the CPCA did not condone 'non-violent, illegal, direct action in pursuit of animal rights' while also carrying a series of reports about 'direct action': for example, the use of paint-stripper on a fishmonger's van; the release of trout from fish farms; the disturbing of fishing competitions; the painting of anti-angling slogans; the gluing of locks to fishing tackle shops. In mid-1985 members, considering that the full name of the Council was too clumsy and unspecific, changed it to the Campaign for the Abolition of Angling (CAA). Shortly afterwards, they renamed the newsletter Pisces. These changes heralded the initiation of new campaigns. Pisces started to carry critical articles on organizations which were believed to be supporting anglers or, at least, not strongly condemning them: for example, Friends of the Earth, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Green Party, the Council for the Protection of Rural England. After criticizing the League against Cruel Sports (the largest animal rights organization in the country), Richard Farhall agreed to meet with a League representative. Given that their ulitmate aims were similar, they resolved that each organization would stop criticizing the other. In the summer of that year the CAA launched its first annual 'letters campaign', in which at the summer opening of the coarse fishing season hundreds of local newspapers were sent letters of protest against angling. The CAA also started to produce a series of information leaflets for its members to distribute. Topics included: basic information on angling; how to persuade councils to restrict angling; a list of trout farms in operation. The changes in the name of the organization and its newsletter also heralded a hardening of attitudes, as evidenced by its new policy statement, included at the beginning of each issue: 'The CAA neither condones nor condemns the use of illegal action in pursuit of animal rights, but sympathises with the sense of frustration behind such activities.' In 1987, following a proposal by Ronnie Lee, the statement was changed to 'The CAA does not take part in illegal activities but appreciates the effectiveness of direct action and sympathises with those who carry it out.' Pisces continued to run reports on ALF activities against angling interests. The issue for January 1986 included an article entitled 'It's More Fun by Post' which pointed out that nuisance could be caused by having junk mail directed to 'anyone you love to hate'. In the issue for October 1988, an ALF activist was quoted as telling the CAA office, catapults 'are really nifty for breaking tackle shop windows'. Menacing calls were made, in the name of the Campaign, to the president of the NFA. At much the same time, the leadership of the CAA began to receive death threats. Not all of the CAA membership were happy with the hardening of approach. In 1988 Pisces started to publish letters opposing violence and 'direct action'. In the issue for April 1988 Ronnie Lee responded to these critics. He argued that since the majority of the British public did not appear to be opposed to angling, It is difficult to see how angling can be ended, or even very significantly reduced, without the use of direct action. . . A very large amount of damage can be caused in quite a short time by only a fairly small number of people. Those who make or sell equipment for angling are not going to continue to do so if their profits are destroyed by property damage and those who take part in the so-called sport will be discouraged from doing so if they know there is a good chance of their continued participation leading to personal economic loss (quoted in Barker n.d.: 3). Since the relaunch in 1991 of the CAA, no further letters of protest by members about direct action have been published. The new leadership of the CAA, which was responsible for its relaunch, is much more organized and effective than that of its predecessors. The original 'letters campaign' at the opening of the fishing season has now been expanded into a National Anti-Angling Week, during which CAA representatives give over fifty interviews to journalists while groups in different parts of the country set up street information stalls, picket tackle shops, and go 'sabbing' (carrying out acts of anti-angling sabotage). Styles of sabotage vary according to circumstance. As one exponent told a journalist: If we've got a large number, like thirty or forty, then we'll do fishing tournaments, but if there's only a few of us then we'll do individual pleasure anglers. . . .These blood junkies see us coming along and they can't believe it and their first reaction is just to turn to violence ('Anglers avoid campaigners' net', The Guardian, 19 June 1995, p. 6). In 1992 the CAA commissioned the professional production of a video, Angling. The Neglected Bloodsport. Its distribution has boosted enormously the attention the organization has received from newspapers and television companies. Representatives of the CAA travel the country giving talks and their recently produced fact and project sheets for primary and secondary schools are much solicited by pupils and teachers. The CAA value these presentations to schoolchildren highly: The response from this group is very positive, with many young people choosing to do projects and essays on animal abuse. They seem to be much more aware of all issues of human, animal and environmental abuse than past generations and do not immediately make artifical distinctions between those animals it is acceptable to eat/abuse and those that are favoured species such as pets (Macdonald 1993: 15). . In reaction to this strategy of the anti-anglers, angling bodies have also started to take their message into schools. And they have a supporter in the Royal Family. Page Two of the 2 November issue of Angling Times was headlined: 'Charlie is our darling! Fight antis with education says Prince.' In 1994 the Campaign's newly formed Youth Group began to produce its own magazine. Pisces appears more regularly and in a more professional format. It continues to provide reports of 'sabbing activities' as well as news of angling malpractice, and of keepnet and angling bans by local councils. It also supplies the names and the addresses of companies which, the Campaign believes, ought to be boycotted because they sponsor angling matches. Though the management of the organization and its activities has become much more competent and its aims are taken seriously by a wider section of the population, the CAA remains a small group. In 1986 it had 157 members; nine years later it had 350. . Unlike most angling associations, whose female membership is about 10%, the membership of the CAA is divided almost equally between men and women. Angling in Britain is a very male-oriented sport, e.g. 'If you fancy fishing in a country where it's pure "boy's own fun" then Sweden is the place for you!' (Taylor 1994b). It is often a sexist one as well (e.g., see Mills 1985: 75). In Paterson and Behan (1990) Peter Behan, a professor of pharmacology, argues that the only explanation for the otherwise 'extraordinary' fact that women hold most of the British salmon fishing records is the fishes' attraction to the pheromones produced by female anglers. During October and November 1994, Angling Times, one of the two bestselling angling papers in the country, ran a weekly bingo competition. All instalments of the contest included a photograph of a young blonde with banknotes stuffed between her body and her clothes. As the competition progressed she was portrayed wearing less and less. The back page of the 16 November issue was headlined, 'Next week. Bingo. Debbie reveals all -- and YOU could be a winner.' Many are strict vegans, avoiding all animal products in their diet, clothing and toiletries. As far as the Campaign's leadership is able to judge many of its members are not on the dole but gainfully employed, and believe in animal welfare rather than animal rights, i.e. they believe in reducing animal suffering rather than allowing all animals to live a natural existence, free from human interference. The present challenge facing its leadership is how best to expand. One problem is that fish are not as photogenic as mammals. Watching a programme on the catching of roach does not stir the emotions as much as one on the clubbing to death of doe-eyed baby white fur seals. Sabbing may gain the organization attention (especially when a wet-suited anti-angler disturbs a fishing competition at a position on the riverbank where a television camera team has been told to station itself) but that kind of publicity may put off more potential recruits than it might attract. . In February 1993 the angling press took pleasure in reporting that three of the CAA's 'National Officers' had been imprisoned on a charge of criminal damage to a meat-processing factory by fire. The charges were dropped several months later. Most sabbing methods were legal until 1994 when the Criminal Justice Act came into force. The Act specifically outlaws the disruption of angling; it states that all waterways are private land and makes an offence of 'aggravated trespass'. Even before the introduction of the Act, arrests were often made for a variety of public order offences. According to the National Secretary of the Campaign, 'It seems likely that the popularity of angling in the police force was a strong motivator in the high humber of arrests that took place' (Macdonald 1993: 16). In 1995 in order to broaden its membership the CAA changed its name to Pisces. . In this article I usually refer to the CPCA/CAA/Pisces as the CAA because that is the name under which it has operated during most of the period I am discussing. The leadership decided to make this change because they felt the inclusion of the ultimate aim of the organization -- the abolition of angling -- in its title sounded too extreme and edged on the cranky. 'Pisces', they thought, would be more acceptable to the general public. The editor of the newsletter itself has decided to concentrate its content on anti-angling in particular rather than animal rights in general. It is hoped this softening of its image without dilution of its message will increase their chances of success. The original idea of the Council was to work closely with angling groups. Through education, it would stimulate change in the cruellest of angling practices. These early attempts at dialogue did not meet with any degree of success and the Council soon redirected its efforts from reforming anglers to informing the general public. The absence of productive dialogue between the two groups has led to them stereotyping one another in public. In Pisces anglers are presented uniformly as uncaring sadists obsessively concerned with satisfying their predatory desires. The only exceptions admitted are disgusted fishermen who provide useful quotes about the barbaric practices of some of the more singleminded anglers. Committed opponents of the anti-anglers publicly typecast their adversaries in a similarly oversimplifying manner, branding them as extremists with terrorist tendencies. Members of the CAA, however, are prepared to admit that not all anglers are of the same kind. As far as they can ascertain, the majority of participants would classify themselves as pleasure anglers, who get as much enjoyment from 'getting away from it all' and savouring the peace of the countryside, as from the actual process of outwitting and catching a fish. This group ranges from the family party who fish on holiday to the more regular weekend participant. 'From the CAA's experience, they are the people who are most open to compassionate arguments, if they can be convinced that the suffering to fish outweighs the pleasure they get personally' (Macdonald 1993: 8). Pisces usually makes no comment about flyfishing because it is thought game-anglers generally treat their prey with more compassion and more skill. Unlike some of their coarse-fishing brethren, they do not try to catch and recatch the same fish purely for the sake of their own pleasure but cast their flies for prey they will dispatch and eat quickly once landed. Pisces does criticize sea-angling because it 'seems to attract people with a particularly callous attitude. . .Big game and in particular shark fishing seems to appeal to the very worst "macho" attitudes of proving yourself by catching and killing a large predatory animal in an extremely brutal way' (Macdonald 1993: 9). Angling representatives dispute some of these statements. They point out that shark-fishermen are increasingly turning to 'catch and release'; the survival rate of returned sharks is said to be 'good'. But as Des Taylor, a columnist for the Angling Times, lamented: Sea-fishing has been abused in this country, and I have witnessed many occasions in the past when hundreds of pounds of dead fish have lain in the bottom of the boat, most ending up in the dustbin. Some charter-shippers and anglers are pioneering new thoughts on conservation in sea-fishing. . .pity they could not have seen the light twenty years ago! (Taylor 1994a) The CAA is particularly opposed to match fishing because it attracts anglers who are highly competitive while 'the incentive of cash prizes means that the fish caught are treated with even less consideration than normal. . .These incentives mean that few are open-minded enough to listen to any arguments against their chosen pastime. Greed is a very compelling motive to continue!' (Macdonald 1993: 9). Angling spokesmen contest these comments, and claim that match fishing is good for angling in general: just as motor sports stimulate technical improvements in cars, so matches promote good angling techniques. For instance, the move from barbed to barbless or semi-barbed hooks was spurred by the practice of match-anglers. These spokesmen for the sport also argue that match-fishers, far from treating fish with less consideration than normal, treat them with much more than normal. They have, after all, to keep their prey alive for them to be counted in their catch. The Campaign is against specimen hunting for similar reasons: the use of fish as pawns by competitive humans attempting to gain fame as record-breakers. A reporter for The Guardian neatly illustrated the attitude of one of these 'suburban Hemingways, the domestic equivalent of big-game hunters': For some, Monday was the culmination of several weeks of planning. Rob, a professional angler and editor of Big Carp magazine, has been coming for six weeks, throwing bait out to the same spot every day, hoping to lull the carp into a false sense of security. 'They love it. It's like someone was leaving Big Macs around for us. You eat them all, every day, and then suddenly one burger hooks you in the gob and jerks you through the ceiling. Brilliant' (Leedham 1992). *** Anti-anglers argue that their opponents are unfeeling killers of sentient beings whose desire to practise their pastime overrides any avowed concern for the environment. Anglers counter-argue that their sport is a traditionally established practice of benefit to society, the British economy and nature. As far as they are concerned, angling should not be threatened with prohibition but actively promoted by the government and sponsored by British businesses. The first campaign mounted by the CPCA was against livebaiting, because it was one of the most visually abhorrent of anglers' practices. Livebaiting is the use of living fish as bait to catch predators such as pike or perch. The living fish is impaled on a treble hook and then cast into the water. Once in the water, the hooked livebait remains there until it is eaten by a predator or 'succumbs to the injuries inflicted on it in the course of attachment. It is not unusual during casting for a live bait fish to tear free from the tackle, inevitably increasing the severity of its impalement injuries' (Medway 1980: 31). A live bait fish may also succumb to stress because of the extended prolongation of its natural flee response (Verheijen and Buwalda 1988: 37). Many anglers are well aware of the very questionable nature of livebaiting and the ethics of the practice has long been the subject of dispute amongst them. Pisces frequently quotes the negative comments of anglers on the practice: 'The plain fact of the matter is that livebaiting is cruel and don't let anyone tell you otherwise' (Watson 1990); 'I livebait and I bet you do too. It's barbaric and we shouldn't but we are there to catch pike' (Bailey 1991); 'Livebaiting is a sensitive subject, with the likes of ALF types about -- if needed they should be used with discretion' (Anon 1991). The Medway report, which stated that the practice was not essential for the capture of predatory fish since other efficient methods were available, recommended that it be banned (Medway 1980: 31). Further reasons for the abolition of the use of livebait are worries about the possible risk of spreading disease since the livebait may come from waters other than those in which the anglers fish for pike, and about the introduction of alien coarse fish, such as spore-eating ruffe and poke, to certain local waters, where they endanger rare species, such as the powan in Loch Lomond and the charr and the vendace in Furness and South Cumbria. It seems that popular repugnance of the practice, anti-anglers' campaigns against it, and fears about the transmission of disease and upsetting of the piscatory balance are having an effect. In the last five years an increasing number of local authorities and angling clubs have introduced their own bans on the use of livebait, despite protests by the Pike Anglers Club. Several rivers authorities are at present considering whether to impose bans. Also, an increasing number of anglers now use single, instead of treble, hooks when fishing with livebait. The CAA has also continued to campaign against the use of keepnets: long mesh nets staked out underwater, used above all by match anglers to keep any fish caught until the weigh-in at the end of the competition. It claims that these nets often cause distress and even death through overcrowding, a build-up of waste products and de-oxygenation of the water; that the outer mucus layer on the surface of fish and even their scales are sometimes damaged; that disease can be transferred from fish to fish. In 1991 the NFA, aware of the ambivalence of many of its members towards the practice and wishing to fend off any criticism by its opponents, commissioned the Institute of Freshwater Ecology to investigate scientifically any changes in the quality of water in keepnets during the confinement of fish. The Institute, whose report was endorsed by the National Rivers Authority, found that the changes in the chemical quality in the water within the keepnets used in their experiments were not at a level which posed any ill threats to the confined fish (NFA 1991). The only consequent recommendations made by the Federation were that nets should be cleaned after each use and that where high catches were expected, for example during matches, it was advisable for anglers to use more than one keepnet. The CAA questioned the Institute's report on the grounds that it had not been independently commissioned. The Campaign also stated that its findings were counter to the numerous reports it received about anglers' abuse of fish in keepnets. If these reports were unfounded, it argued, why had Germany and several British local authorities banned the use of keepnets? The NFA has since introduced a 'Keepnet Code', a copy of which is now included in every keepnet sold in the country, advising anglers on the best way to stake out their nets, place fish in them and return them to the water. The problem for the Federation here appears to be that while the proper deployment of keepnets has yet to be shown conclusively to be damaging to confined fish, inconsiderate anglers may still use this potentially damaging piece of equipment -- if poorly laid out, overfilled, wrongly emptied or inadequately cleaned after each use -- without sufficient care for the animals they confine within them. It may also be very difficult for anglers to meet the requirements of the Code in certain settings, for example where the water flows very slowly or where it may be very difficult to stake out the net, such as watersides with particularly steep banks. The most successful of the anti-anglers' campaigns has been that against the use of leadshot as weights. The CAA, together with other groups concerned about animal welfare, argued that the British swan population was declining, especially in central and southern England, because the birds were poisoning themselves by ingesting leadweights left by anglers. In 1986 in reaction to this sustained campaign the Government's environmental watch-dog, the Nature Conservancy Council, warned anglers that unless they adopted lead substitutes voluntarily, it would have no option but to recommend statutory intervention. The NFA had resisted any form of ban until a substitute as dense and malleable as lead had been found. But on receiving the government warning, the NFA rapidly agreed to ban the use by its members of leadweights between O.O6 and 28.35 grams. But since not all anglers are members of the NFA and since the complaints persisted, the following year the Government introduced legislation -- the Control of Pollution (Anglers' Lead Weights) Regulations, which prohibits the supply and import of leadweights between the afore-mentioned parameters. In the subsequent nine years the swan population of Britain has increased dramatically. Some anglers have started to complain that there are now so many in certain favoured habitats, such as stretches of the Avon, that they are stripping the waters of reeds essential for the survival of the fish (The Times, 22 April 1995: 5). Anti-anglers might take a certain degree of pride for their contribution to the successful outcome of this campaign, but to them leadweights are only a specific instance of a more general problem: tackle victims. The CAA has long complained that nylon line is often discarded when it becomes tangled during casting, and that it frequently breaks when hooks became snagged on underwater obstructions or bankside vegetation. Even the most careful, skilful angler cannot avoid some loss of line. Since it is only very slowly biodegradable, the Campaign argues that it is the: cause of death and injury to millions of animals. Waterfowl are especially vulnerable. They pick up hooks, line and weights while feeding and slowly starve to death. Entanglement in line can sever wings and limbs. Pets and livestock are also frequently affected. It is left to animal organisations to pay for the rescue and rehabilation of the lucky minority of tackle victims that are found (CAA 1993: 4--5). There are no overall figures for the number of animals injured by tackle annually. Two examples may give an idea of the scale of the problem: in its 1992 report the Westmorland branch of the RSPCA stated that its inspectors regularly had to attend to swans tangled in fishing line or which had swallowed hooks or other tackle -- in Cumbria alone 92 swans had to be rescued, 18 of which had to be put down; during the 1991--92 fishing season the National Animal Rescue Association had to treat 670 waterfowl and other birds, over three-quarters of them maimed by tackle (the number of those found dead on site was not recorded) (Pisces January 1993: 5--6, October 1993: 3). The CAA argues that fishing tackle is only one form of the litter that is left by anglers, all of which endangers wildlife and children, and detracts from the beauty of the countryside. While each issue of Pisces usually contains a long series of reports of the latest examples of tackle victims, there has been only one quantitative study of this problem to date. At a lake in Llandrindod Wells, Wales, it was found that although the site was used by visitors other than anglers, 64 percent of the number of litter items (93 percent of the total surface area of litter) were recorded in those parts of the shoreline (18 percent) predominantly used by anglers. An island in the lake, used exclusively by anglers, was particularly affected by litter (Forbes 1986). Anglers counter-argue that they have learnt to be more tidy. In the early 1990s the NFA introduced a 'Nylon Line and Litter Code' for its members, which angling clubs have tried to enforce strictly. The Federation likes to quote the longitudinal results of the tackle-clearing projects run in 1978, 1982, 1989 and 1994 by the Young Ornithologists' Club, the youth section of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Comparing results over the 17 year period it appears the amount of line left by anglers has declined by 95 percent, the amount of weights by 90 percent, the number of hooks by 76 percent (RSPB 1994). While anti-anglers acknowledge that their opponents might have become somewhat neater in their habits, they dispute the comparative conclusions of the RSPB project, for neither the areas covered nor the methods used for removal of litter were exactly the same each time the survey was carried out. (Angling representatives reply that if the same area was covered each time the amount of litter removed on each occasion would be even less.) Anti-anglers also argue that even if the results of the project could be accepted uncritically, the number of anglers taking their litter home is still woefully insufficient, as the continuing work done by animal welfare organizations tragically demonstrates. Anglers often claim they are conservationists, deeply concerned about the state of waterway environments, and that without them there would be few fish today in British rivers. . Some anglers have very particular interpretations of the 'nature' they claim to protect. As John Parkman, consultant to the British Field Sports Society, told a reporter, 'All this nonsense about lead in swans and tackle maiming birds and all that rubbish, of course it happens, but then in nature these things happen all the time' ('Anglers avoid campaigners' net', The Guardian, 19 June 1995, p. 6). The CAA admits that some anglers do good work monitoring waterways, pressing fisheries to clean up and taking polluters to court. But it argues that, on closer examination, anglers' claims to be committed aquatic environmentalists ring very hollow. Besides the tackle they discard and the litter they leave, anglers, by their very presence, threaten the habitats of otters. . Izaak Walton's fisherman states, 'I am, Sir, a brother of the Angle, and therefore an enemy to the Otter: for you are to note, that we Anglers all love one another, and therefore do I hate the Otter both for my own and for their sakes who are of my brotherhood' (Walton 1971: 4). (Anglers counter that they tend to keep away from these areas, because they know they will have fewer fish.) Fish-eating birds are at even greater risk: since 1993 the Government, under pressure from angling bodies, has granted licences for the shooting of cormorants, a previously protected marine species driven inland by commercial overfishing of the North Sea; Tweed fishermen recently campaigned successfully for licences to shoot goosander, another previously protected species, because it was thought they harm salmon stocks. The CAA also protests against the damaging consequences of specimen hunting. . The commercial interests involved in specimen hunting are now so great that rustling big fish has become a growth industry (Leedham 1992). These anglers' desire to catch exceptionally large fish has led commercial fisheries to import carp though health checks are, as anglers admit, inadequate (Green 1994). At the same time it seems many carp are being brought into this country illegally. The result of all these imports is that a killer carp disease, Spring Vireamia, is now spreading through British waters. Fisheries are also importing other kinds of huge fish, including alien species, which may upset the delicate balance in a fishery. For instance, channel catfish, a recent import, grow remarkably quickly and are notorious for the voracity of their appetite. As Des Taylor (1994a) complained, 'Some fishery owners are so greedy, they have risked all by bringing in foreign fish, which could lead to the greatest ever disaster in angling history.' Angling bodies might try to defend their sport by saying that they issue detailed codes of practice which they do their best to enforce. At the same time, they would admit that they are unable to police all anglers all the time because it remains an essentially solitary sport and because many anglers are not members of any association, nor even pay the government's annual rod licence. However some anglers contend that the ethos of the sport is changing fundamentally and that codes of practice have only been instituted in an attempt to halt a decline in standards: Rule and law breaking are prevalent in angling. It is openly boasted about, even published on occasions. It seems to be okay if you can get away with it. Tackle stealing and the illegal removal of fish seems to be on the increase, as are selfish and antisocial attitudes commonly found by river and lake, much of which stems from that fish-at-any-cost way of life so many anglers now possess (Pocklington 1993: 12). As far as the CAA is concerned, all this evidence demonstrates that anglers are only concerned with conservation to the extent that it serves their own interests, and in order to be able to catch the fish they want when they want how they want, they are prepared to change and even damage the environment and do their fellows down in the process. *** Even if every single angler in Britain stopped using livebait, threw away their keepnets and lead weights, and always took home all their tackle and every scrap of litter, anti-anglers would still be deeply dissatisfied. They might be pleased that anglers had learnt to give up some of their more unattractive habits, but they would continue to campaign strongly for the total abolition of angling. For they believe -- and this is the crux of the matter -- that fish are capable of experiencing pain and that in a society with any pretensions to civility people should not be allowed, for the sake of their own pleasure, to inflict pain habitually on other sentient beings. Committed supporters of angling as a pastime dispute strongly these claims about the supposed capacity of fish. Of course, the central problem in this acrimonious debate is how to ascertain definitely whether or not fish feel pain. The first hurdle to overcome is that of anthropomorphism. All too often people readily project their emotions and intentions onto some animals, and just as readily refuse to project them onto others. But this uncritical projection of human feelings and experiences, or the witholding of such empathy, can lead easily to a misreading of an animal's suffering. The subjective experiences of an animal, if it has any, may be totally different from our own, reflecting the different way of life and the different ways in which its body works (Bateson 1992: 30). To many Britons, pets are to be loved and almost all mammals to be treated considerately. Fish they tend to regard as cold, slimy, voiceless inhabitants of an alien, unknowable environment, incapable of stimulating emotion in humans. Many people who eschew meat but eat fish still call themselves 'vegetarian'. Anglers who do anthropomorphize fish usually do so in self-interested ways: I do not believe that salmon or any other fish feel very acutely, a reassuring theory for the tender-hearted fisherman. . .The desperate struggle of the fish confirms the same view. Not all the instinct of self-preservation would induce a man to put a strain of even a pound on a fishing-rod if the hook was attached to some tender part of his flesh (Gathorne-Hardy 1898: 22). Fish do not feel very much from the hook. . .There is no way that fish would leap about so energetically if it hurt (Milner 1993: 7). I will never be convinced that a fish feels pain from a hook in the lips. . . Fortunately for anglers, fish have small brains, little intellect and short memories (Pocklington 1993: 20). In response to such comments, the CAA argues that 'fish fight vigorously when hooked because they are unable to make the connection between the hook and the angler. Frenzied struggle is the result of fear of the unknown (or for those who remember being caught, fear of being dragged out of the water) and their inherent will to survive' (CAA 1993: 3). Yet the Campaign does not provide any scientific evidence to back these almost equally anthropomorphizing claims. Spokesmen for angling bodies claim that hooked fish do not fight out of fear, but simply because they are restrained. Some anglers argue that since it has been known for fish to be caught twice in the same day angling cannot be an unpleasant experience for the fish. The CAA counter-argues that: anglers go to great lengths to disguise hooks with maggots, fake flies, etc. to trick the fish into biting. Many anglers will admit that it requires unusual skill to entice a fish which has been repeatedly caught to take a baited hook. Although the fish may become wary if the same type of bait is used, it does have to feed to survive (CAA 1993: 3). Here, both anglers' argument and anti-anglers' counter-argument rely on angling lore, for there has been no scientific study made of the subsequent feeding behaviour of fish which have once been hooked and released. An associated argument deployed by anglers is a quasi-biological one, based on the comparatively primitive position of fish in the vertebrate evolutionary scale, e.g. 'fishes are low in the order of living things so they do not feel fear and pain as higher creatures do' (Arnold 1969: 104). One commentator on human affairs, the distinguished newsjournalist (and avid angler) Jeremy Paxman, has stated that 'the fisherman's quarry is a stupid, cold-blooded creature, so far down the evolutionary scale that his pursuit seems an absurd waste of the talents of homo sapiens' (Paxman 1994: xii). Yet simply because fish occupy a relatively lowly rung among vertebrates on the evolutionary ladder does not necessarily imply that they do not experience pain in a manner analogous to that of humans. It is very revealing that though many anglers will deny that fish feel pain, many angling practices are intended to minimize any pain a caught fish might possibly suffer. . One lifelong fisherman told a reporter, 'I will say that when I've caught a salmon that's run all the way up the river and you've fought it for perhaps half an hour, there's always a moment of regret when you bang it on the head, but that's forgotten when you have a nice smoked salmon sandwich' ('Anglers avoid campaigners' net', The Guardian, 19 June 1995, p. 6). In this context of badly-argued controversy between pitted opponents where anthropomorphism and a superficial neo-Darwinism are deployed as modes of debate, the most appropriate and least emotive approach is to review what scientists themselves consider relevant neural homologies and justifiable behavioural analogies. . It is revealing that copies of one of the rare experimentally based articles on the behaviour of fish when subjected to noxious stimuli (Verheijen and Buwalda 1988), whose interpretation relies heavily on the use by analogy of models of pain perception developed by researchers in human psychology, were given to me by both anti-anglers and their angling opponents. The 'conclusion' they reach is that hooked carp (the fish used in their experiments), when caught by skilled anglers who do not play the animal for an unduly prolonged period, experience 'mild to moderate discomfort'. To anti-anglers this level of pain is unacceptable; to their angling opponents it is both acceptable and a good example for their argument that all anglers should be properly trained. The Cambridge physiologist Patrick Bateson, Professor of Ethology at Cambridge and member of the Insitute of Medical Ethics working party on animal experiments, argues that no single criterion provides an all-or-none test for the existence of a subjective sense of pain. This means that in order to build up a useful picture of a particular animal's capabilites all the relevant evidence needs to be considered as a whole. For Bateson, the best that scientists can do is provide criteria that are based on measurements of an animal's behaviour and analyses of the way its nervous system works. His committee compiled a list of seven criteria, all of which are associated with the experience of pain in humans. It is then simply a question of passing down the evolutionary scale and noting how many criteria each type of animal fulfills. One immediate consequence of this use of multiple criteria is that the boundary between pain and its absence is not clear-cut but very fuzzy. As Bateson confesses, it is more or less arbitrary at which point on the scale we decide that animals are fulfilling insufficient criteria for us to be able to say that they are capable of experiencing pain (Bateson ibid.) Fish are a particularly contentious case for they meet three of the criteria while it is still unproven whether they fulfil the remaining four. Firstly, fish have brain structures analagous to the human cerebral cortex; secondly, they associate neutral stimuli with noxious one; and thirdly, they have opoid-type receptors. (Opoid substances are implicated in the control of pain.) It is unknown whether fish have noiceptive systems. (Noiceptors are the distinct neuronal receptors found in humans which are responsible for the perception of pain. As yet they are morphologically indistinguishable from other unspecialized thermo-or mechanoreceptors.) Consequently it is unknown whether fish, like humans, have noiceptors connected to the higher brain structures. Also, it remains to be demonstrated conclusively whether the responses of fish are modified by analgesics, and whether their responses to noxious stimuli persist (ibid.) *** Until further scientific work is done, we are unable to state conclusively whether fish do, or do not, feel pain. Anti-anglers may take the evidence so far available as sufficient for them to be able to argue that angling must be abolished, and the sooner the better. In turn their angling opponents may argue that the jury is still out, and that in Britain plantiffs are innocent until proven guilty. Given our present level of ignorance about what exactly fish experience, the only conclusion we may draw is that the question about angling will remain, for the time being, a primarily moral one: is it right to hook, play and keep fish in nets if we are unsure whether they suffer in the process? Anti-anglers are getting their message across and are no longer universally trivialized as 'cranks'. As one fisherman recently lamented: Forget the tweedy wisdom of Mr Crabtree, casting for chub in cartoon idylls. Angling now demands an attitude . . .It is no longer politically correct to seek tranquility with rod and line. Fish have feelings and it would be as well to know -- or, at least, to have an opinion -- whether or not their cerebral cortex registers pain when the hook goes in (Oakes 1995). But was angling ever so innocent? Izaak Walton intended his portrayal of fishing as a source of peace and promoter to be a personal protest at the depradations of the Civil War. The well-to-do and aspirants to that level used forms of fishing to reinforce class distinctions. Today, the sexism of much angling serves to underline outdated gender stereotypes while big-game fishing allows its practitioners to demonstrate their support for a strong-armed machista ideology. It could thus be argued that angling has never been an innocuous pastime rather, that has been part of its ideological representation. Anti-anglers threaten to undermine that ideology by exposing publicly the values which underpin it. No wonder that angling spokesmen contest their words and actions so much. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Keith Barker, David Bird, Richard Farhall and especially Marianne Macdonald for assistance. References Anon (1991), Letter, Angling Times. 11 December Arnold, R. (1969), The book of angling. London: Arthur Baker Bailey, John (1991), Letter, Coarse Fisherman. May Barker, Keith (n.d.), A Brief History of the Development of the Campaign for the Abolition of Angling. Specialist Anglers Conservation Group. Cyclostyled pamphlet Bateson, Patrick (1992), 'Do animals feel pain?', New Scientist, 25 April, pp. 30--33 Billett, Michael (1994), A History of English Country Sports. London: Robert Hale Campaign for the Abolition of Angling (1993), Angling -- The Facts. Cyclostyled pamphlet Cholmondeley-Pennell, H. (1870), The Modern Practical Angler. London: Routledge Cox, Nicholas (1674), The Gentleman's Recreation. London Forbes, I. J. (1986), 'The quantity of lead shot, nylon fishing line and other litter discarded at a coarse fishing lake', Biological Conservation, vol. 38, pp. 21--34 Franklin, Benjamin (1964), The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. L. W. Labaree, R. L. Ketcham, H. Boatfield and H. Finneman (eds) New Haven: Yale University Press Gathorne-Hardy, A. E. (1898), The Salmon. London: Longmans Green, Kevin (1994), 'Beware dodgy imports', Angling Times, 23 November, p. 15 Leedham, Robert (1992), 'Hooked on a fishing line', The Guardian, Weekend Supplement, 20 June, p. 16 Macdonald, Marianne (1993), Angling. An activist's view of this bloodsport. Paper given at the Institue of Social Anthropology, Oxford University Medway, Lord (ed.) (1980), Report of the panel of enquiry into shooting and angling. London: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Mills, Derek (1985), The Fishing here is great! A light-hearted discourse on the social history of angling as depicted on old postcards. London: Wilson Milner, Judith (1993), The Woman's Guide to Angling. Stoke Abbott: Harmonsworth National Federation of Anglers (1991), Changes in water quality within anglers' keepnets during the confinement of fish. Cyclostyled pamphlet Oakes, Philip (1995), 'Angling with attitude', The Guardian, Weekend Supplement, 5 August, p. 47 O'Gorman, James (1845), The Practice of Angling, particularly as regards Ireland. Dublin: William Curry Jnr. Patterson, Wilma and Peter Behan (1990), Salmon and Women: The Feminine Angle. London: Witherby Paxman, Jeremy (1994) Fish, Fishing and the Meaning of Life. London: Michael Joseph Pocklington, Bruce (1993), The Pleasures of Coarse Fishing. An Angler's Pitch. Tunbridge Wells: Spellmount Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (1994), Tackle tackle: A young people's survey of discarded fishing tackle. Cyclostyled pamphlet Salt, Henry S. (1892), Animals' Rights considered in relation to Social Progress. London: Bell Spencer, Colin (1993), The Heretic's Feast. A History of Vegetarianism. London: Fourth Estate Taylor, Des (1994a), 'Angling, or a load of carp?', Angling Times, 16 November, p. 9 ---(1994b), 'Trip to remember', Angling Times, 30 November, p. 11 Thomas, Keith (1983), Man and the Natural World. Changing Attitudes in England 1500--1800. London: Allen Lane Verheijen, F. J. and R. J. A. Buwalda (1988), Do pain and fear make a hooked carp in play suffer? Utrecht University Voss Bark, Conrad (1992), A History of Flyfishing. Ludlow: Merlin Unwin Walton, Izaak (1971 (1653)), The Compleat Angler. Being a Discourse of Rivers, Fish-ponds, Fish and Fishing. London (Facsimile of the fifth ed., pub. 1676) London: Scolar Press Watson, John (1990), Letter, Coarse Fishing. November Endnotes