In Hugh's defence , the word that's missing from your post above is "some" - some anglers carry out conservation work, some don't - just as some obstruct footpaths, fish where they aren't supposed to , and leave acres of line and, hooks weights lying about caught in trees (when I worked in Milton Keynes I once collected 32 weights and hooks, and over 300m of line from 3 lakes over the course of a weekend, and that wasn't by any means exceptional).
Also claiming that you do conservation work as a justification for the hobby, is in itself inviting a comparison with canned hunting whose proponents often claim they are providing "sustainability" and or protecting the wild populations by providing an alternative ( as if just not shooting lions was not also an alternative)
And finally to claim that without anglers all the UKs rivers and streams would be wildlife deserts choked with weed etc , is I'm afraid complete cobblers - there are many streams and rivers that aren't fished which have thriving wildlife.
Bottom line for me , is Angling as bad as canned hunting , no - because on the whole the fish aren't killed, and they also aren't particular endangered, but are there legitimate parallels ? yes there are because its a pursuit that has no real need to be carried out , which involves inflicting unnecessary suffering on wild or pseudo wild creatures, and which also has the potential to impact negatively on the surrounding 'non target' species
(oh and btw I'm a countryside management professional with 21 plus years experience , so don't lets waste time going down the "you don't know what you are talking about " route)
