Not Enough Fish To Eat, Not Enough Women To Fish…

Reader Steve Leibel sends word from Ye Olde Merry Englande that the Brits are spending $33 million over the next decade to lure more "women and minorities" into fishing. Some of the money will go to a pamphlet that says in part:

"Angling does not discriminate against gender, race, age or athletic ability" and the "Government is interested in angling in the context of social inclusion in deprived urban areas," the leaflet says.

There are also pilot programs, such as an effort in Swansea that taught Muslim women and children to fish by experts from the Salmon and Trout Association.

Question: What the status of hip waders for women in Islam? Whole UPI story here.

Comments

[Karen]

Given the way they're treated by the adult males in their "community," any activity that puts sharp filet knives in the hands of Brit Muslim women and children is a good thing.

[Eryk Boston]

Landing a swordfish isn't a matter of athletic ability?

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

Whenever I see anything aimed at "everyone except white men" my first thought is: Fuck you, you damned racist assholes.

[ChicagoTom]

Whenever I see anything aimed at "everyone except white men" my first thought is: Fuck you, you damned racist assholes.

Do you feel the same way about things aimed at "only white men"?

Affluent country clubs come to mind.

[TXLimey]

"Critics of the program say the funds would be better spent on increasing biodiversity in rivers"

Let me guess - they only looked for critics within the same organization. Really, mot critics would say that the funds would be better spent on [i]almost anything else at all[/i].

[mitch]

ChicagoTom,

I don't want to put words in Mr. F. Le Mur's mouth, but there is a big difference between private entities engaging in racial discrimination and governments distributing public resources in a racially discriminatory fashion.

One thing that makes me wonder about these types of programs is whether they are responding to a desire (non-white people want to fish, but can't seem to break into the field) or trying to create that desire (they are taking the initiative and trying to convince non-white people to get into fishing.) It is not hard to make a bleeding-heart progressive case for the former, but why should anybody care if there aren't many blacks in fishing, if blacks aren't keen on fishing?

Also, I initially thought this article was about the trade or profession of commercial fishing, but now I think it's about the hobby of fishing, so its even more stupid. Why should anybody care what hobbies people have?

Maybe the people who fish for fun are afraid the government will come gunning for them the way they went after fox hunters, and think that, if there are lots of non-white anglers, left-wingers in government will leave them alone. A subtle long term strategy...

[Stevo Darkly]

I would like to take this opportunity to mention an early leader in creating opportunities for women in the commercial fishing and processing industry: Mrs. Paul.

[Ted Kennedy]

I did my part. I introduced a Mary Jo Kopechne to fishing. She's still with the fishes as far as I know.

[ChicagoTom]

I don't want to put words in Mr. F. Le Mur's mouth, but there is a big difference between private entities engaging in racial discrimination and governments distributing public resources in a racially discriminatory fashion.

mitch,

What does that have to do with either what Mr. Lemur said or my response to him?

I was responding to what was stated, not to unstated beliefs about discrimination policies. Since his statement didn't have much nuance (anything is a pretty all encompasing word) I replied to his all encompasing statement.

Mr. Lemur felt that "anything aimed at 'everyone except white men'" is racist. I just wanted to know if he is consistent and believes that anything that is aimed exclusively at white men is also racist in his book.

[Viking Moose]

"I did my part. I introduced a Mary Jo Kopechne to fishing. She's still with the fishes as far as I know.

Comment by: Ted Kennedy at April 6, 2006 03:56 PM"

ohshit. omg. woah.

hokae. as a fan of the "happy tree friends", i can only belly laugh here. wow.

(good one, Stevo. reminds me of the list of phone messages from "Splashed")

[Mike Heinz]

Mitch,

I thought the same thing you did - that some goof was trying to attrack women to a career of back-breaking manual labor in the north seas.

Tom, I suspect F. Le Mur is merely a troll; a let it ride.

[me]

If angling doesn't discriminate, how come it sounds so much like "anglo?" huh?

[Larry A]

Actually a more comprehensive program was invented at University of Wisconsin Stevens Point in 1991, after studies showed that many women wanted to become active in outdoor activities but lacked an entry point.

From the website at http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/bow/

"Becoming an Outdoors-Woman (BOW) means becoming more competent, more confident, and more aware. BOW is an outdoor skills program that offers women a chance to grow. 20,000+ women attend BOW events every year.

More than 80 weekend-long workshops are held all across North America annually. The workshops introduce women to a variety of activities equally balanced between hunting and shooting, fishing, and non-harvest sports like canoeing and camping. Participants choose from a list of over 20 activities.

The program began in 1991, offered through the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. The first workshop, held at Treehaven Field Station near Tomahawk, filled to capacity with over 100 participants. This successful program, founded by Dr. Christine Thomas, has become popular in more than 40 states and several Canadian provinces.

?The growth of BOW means we are reaching more women and providing them with a venue to learn not just outdoor skills, but also more about themselves,? says Assistant Director Peggy Farrell. ?Women all across the country have told us, ?BOW has changed my life.? That?s a powerful endorsement telling us the program is even bigger than learning how to set up a tent or tie a fly.?"

Not saying that the Brit program is equivalent, and noting that BOW is gender, not racially based.

[Ruthless]

Is it politically correct to talk of women and fish in the same sentence?

[JD]

Larry A - Funny thing, I was looking at some web pages mentioning BOW just the other day. I don't think too many people would argue against activities that let women/minorities/anybody start participating in activities they really want to do. But a government program? Of all the things governments are instituted to do, I didn't think "ensure a racially balanced population of anglers" was usually too high on the list.

[The Real Bill]

The UK is fucking nuts (or at least The Labour Party is). Have any of you read about the decriminalization of burglary, assault, and other crimes in the UK?

[Bob Mologna]

They may come to regret this move... In Dublin the local carp fishermen are at war with the Chinese community. It seems the Chinese like to actually EAT the fish they catch. Makes sense to me, but the Irish don't like it.

[DavidS]

That's right Real Bill. Murder has just been decriminalized over here too. It's a hoot! All us fucking crazies running around gunning each other down, with the police only stepping in to mandate equal opportunity killing.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

I don't want to put words in Mr. F. Le Mur's mouth, but there is a big difference between private entities engaging in racial discrimination and governments distributing public resources in a racially discriminatory fashion.

Exactly.

Currently, essentially every entity at the various levels of US gov't (and UK, too, probably) engage in anti-white and anti-male discrimination: they give it a cutesy name, which makes it "OK."

The fabled (I challenge anyone to find me one) "whites only" country clubs are private, and have the (mostly violated) right to discriminate as they see fit; unlike gov't entities, they don't take any money out of the pockets of the people they're discriminating against, nor do they claim to represent the people they're discriminating against.

Truly private clubs/orgs for women only, men only, blacks only, whites only, people under 5' tall only, are pefectly fine with me.

[Isaac Bartram]

The UK is fucking nuts (or at least The Labour Party is). Have any of you read about the decriminalization of burglary, assault, and other crimes in the UK?

My first reaction is that you must be kidding, but I find nothing in your words or context that sets of my sarcasmometer.

Actually the UK and "New Labour" are "cracking down" on crime. Enforcement and surveillance are becoming more intense. While there is no capital punishment and prison terms tend to be shorter, it is possible that since conditions in jails there are worse than the US punishments might be considered more severe.

Not to mention ending longheld traditions like unamimous juries and double jeopardy and the extension of the nanny state far beyond anything the old traditionalists wanted.

[Larry A]

JD: But a government program? Of all the things governments are instituted to do, I didn't think "ensure a racially balanced population of anglers" was usually too high on the list.

I half agree. In a perfect Libertarian world there would be little or no government involvement in hunting and fishing.

However, if Texas has a Parks and Wildlife Department which oversees hunting regulations, manages large tracts of property where people hunt and fish, and licenses participants in these sports, then providing entry points so that more residents can participate doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Particularly if the program is self-funding.

Isaac: Actually the UK and "New Labour" are "cracking down" on crime. Enforcement and surveillance are becoming more intense. While there is no capital punishment and prison terms tend to be shorter, it is possible that since conditions in jails there are worse than the US punishments might be considered more severe.

I've noticed that the "crackdown" stories from Britain concentrate on catching and convicting criminals. IOW more police, more surveillance, fewer liberties protecting the individual. But then they cite examples of British burglars and robbers who tend to rack up a couple of dozen convictions over a decade.

If the part of the system they're "fixing" catches and convicts many criminals every six months or so, it already works. But that statistic also reveals that once convicted, many offenders are simply released to go about their illegal business.

Increasing police and surveillance and further reducing legal protections to the point where robbers are convicted every five months instead of every six months isn't going to reduce the violence.

[Isaac Bartram]

Increasing police and surveillance and further reducing legal protections to the point where robbers are convicted every five months instead of every six months isn't going to reduce the violence.

I agree. But having short sentences is not the same thing as "decriminalization".

The lax punishment regime is a much older problem. They are, in fact, part of that 60s mentality that it was society's fault that criminals offend. That arritude might be passe here, but it is alive and well in Europe. The backlash is just later in coming (and, of course, it will probably manifest itself differently). Stories of the revolving door justice system are becoming much more common.

Of course, British attitudes towards self-defense have not helped one bit.