The Government has pledged a virtual ban on hunting with dogs. But, argues local conservationist BARRY POTTER, country sports have a vital role to play in preservation of the countryside

FIFTY-six Cecil Road, Chadwell Heath, Essex. That address burned itself into my memory more than 40 years ago. It appeared each week in Exchange And Mart under an advertisement for 'Fishing Outfits' and I read it longingly because, with a passion I did not understand, I wanted very much to fish.

My father, who had no interest in fishing himself, eventually accepted this was no passing childhood whim and one day the longed-for parcel arrived.

It was rather a disappointment; a short, poorly made bamboo rod, cheap plastic reel, some line and a small assortment of hooks, weights and a float. But it caught me fish from Kent's river Darent, a 40-minute bus ride away from my home in South East London; and it transformed my life.

My angling friends and I came to know that river well. From urban beginnings, I grew to love the countryside and its wildlife and out of that love came a determination to do what I could to protect them.

As regular users of the water environment, anglers know only too well the effects of water abstraction and pollution on aquatic wildlife and first as the Anglers Co-operative Association, then as the Anglers' Conservation Association, they have fought these twin evils since the 1950s.

Thus, when Yorkshire Water PLC planned to abstract ground water in the Vale of York and pump it into feeder streams of the Ouse, something which would have badly damaged their ecology, anglers formed SOS (Save the Ouse System) which fought and ultimately stopped the proposals.

And when City of York Council engineers were determined to install a drainage system at the Rawcliffe Bar park and ride which would discharge polluted water into the Ouse, backing from the York Amalgamation of Anglers helped by the York Natural Environment Trust forced the council to abandon its plans in favour of an environmentally sustainable drainage solution involving settlement ponds and reed beds.

Calls by animal rights campaigners to ban hunting make country sports very much a debating point.

Nevertheless, much as I respect some of the animal rights campaigners, I feel that in concentrating their efforts on protecting from hunting a few individuals of the more photogenic species, they may be missing the point.

Those who fish, shoot or hunt cease to be mere observers of nature and become a part of the process. They are therefore frequently the most effective conservationists because they understand that it is wildlife and its habitat as a whole that must be protected. Collectively, they do this in the most effective way possible, by fighting pollution, protecting and enhancing existing habitats and creating new ones. They may do this out of interest in particular quarry species but the outcome is of benefit to a very wide range of wildlife.

If animals do have rights, surely foremost among these must be a place to live, to shelter, to feed and to bring up their young? Yet while loss of wildlife habitat is undoubtedly the single greatest threat to our wildlife, it is something I have never heard referred to by animal rights campaigners.

The British Association for Conservation And Shooting (BASC) points out that in the UK, an area the size of Scotland is managed for shooting with considerable habitat creation advantages. New tree planting takes place on 68 per cent of land where pheasants are released for shooting as against only 19 per cent of other land. Shooting organisations now work closely with conservation organisations such as county wildlife trusts and the RSPB to ensure this habitat creation benefits a whole range of wildlife, from water vole and grey partridge to brown hare.

The RSPB admits that if it wasn't for upland shooting and gamekeepers many other species of bird would have declined or disappeared.

When angler Roy Hart found the River Crouch which borders his Essex home polluted with effluent from an Anglian Water sewage works, he brought a private prosecution which took even the Environment Agency by surprise. The EA, still preparing its own case, become involved too and the result was a fine of £200,000 for Anglian Water.

I can only ask, when this caring angler was fighting his lone battle for the wildlife of the River Crouch, where was the animal rights movement then?

Updated: 10:52 Wednesday, April 03, 2002