Countyside Alliance and FACT

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

Another thread on AN brought up the topic of ITV.Com's poll concerning popular support for fishing and shooting. Basically the poll was asking members of the public if they thought fishing and shooting should be banned now that fox hunting effectively has been?

 

So far (at time of this posting), the ITV poll results show 27.04% in favour of banning fishing and shooting in the UK whilst a resounding 72.96% are "NOT" in favour of banning fishing and shooting.

 

Of course I remain concerned that just over a quarter of the pollsters wanted to see fishing and shooting banned but never the less, 72.96% is a healthy support notification yes?

 

But hang on a minute, what about the similar ITV poll conducted "for" or "against" hunting?

 

In that poll, 38.36% of those polled supported the ban on hunting. Whilst a similar resounding 61.64" "DIDN'T" support the ban!

 

Even to Peter Waller, these two sets of figures either on the hunting issue or the fishing/shooting one display remarkably significant signatories that wholly support the continuance of hunting, shooting and fishing in the UK.

 

The difference in popular support that hunting receives akin to popular support that shooting and fishing receives remains a mere 11.32%!!

 

Overall, the support for all three sporting practices INCLUDING support for hunting remains glaringly around two thirds in FAVOUR of supporting a continuance for all three practices!

 

There can be no doubting then that the Countryside Alliance is right about the ban on hunting being a flagrant breach of popular support. A clear indication also that a minority view represents the driving force behind this ban and NOT the overall views of our nation as a whole like the anti's have always maintained.

 

Of great concern must also surely be how the media whips up minority support for contentious issues which clearly remain none contemptuous for the nation’s majority? Just over two thirds in support of all three practices confirm that our nation remains happy to allow us all our rights and freedoms. It also confirms that the nation remains unhappy about any government seeking to encroach into our rights and freedoms. A warning wake up call for forthcoming elections and leftist marginally held seats?

 

So the Countryside Alliance is right then? Right in the glaring fact that a ban on hunting "DOES'NT" have any where near the support the anti's or the government claim it has? The very same anti minorities also remain in cloud cuckoo land over any claim they might have that any ban on shooting and fishing receives popular support.

 

All morning I have been receiving communications via email concerning the ITV.Com latest poll which this time surprise surprise concerns the start of campaigns against shooting and fishing. Make no mistake, this campaign has now begun.

 

FACT and the European Anglers Alliance "ARE" responding to this because "THEY" knew attacks against our sport were just over the horizon.

 

I now call upon EVERY ANGLER to join forces with FACT and the European Alliance in concerted efforts to defend our sports future.

 

In this instance all internet connected anglers can make a start by going to the ITV.Com poll to register your vote "FOR" angling and shooting. It only takes a couple of minutes and long term WILL make a difference. EVERY internet fishing site should join together on this vote collectively. Don't make the mistake of burying your heads in the maggot bucket thinking "it will never happen to us". The threat to our sport has started already.

 

I also call upon the FACT board to clear the way for supportive contributions so we have at least the beginnings of some sort of funding to fight the anti's campaign effectively. Individual membership within FACT may well be a bridge too far at the moment but what about say, "FACT Supporters" or "Supporters of FACT" status so rank and file anglers can begin to actively support a national organisation representing them? We have to all stand together now so it remains FACT's overall responsibility to ensure past differences in NAA "DON'T" resurface ever again. I'm certain that anglers will fight for their right to fish, so long as the call comes for us to fight. "Make" that call then FACT people.

 

 

No one could surely doubt that the Countryside Alliance fought the fight staunchly in defence of hunting. They are loosing that battle.

 

Now, other sections in the CA have it all to do over again now the anti army turn their attention towards shooting. If shooting in turn are left alone to fight their battle, their way of life will be mercilessly slaughtered as well.

 

Peter Waller staunchly maintains that the CA remains responsible for "divisions" in angling. Not so. It is the anti-extremists which have skilfully master minded divisions within our nations sporting communities. Our own sport for example remained an island for fear of anti reprisals should we back other sporting practices. Public opinion has never been overwhelmingly opposed to hunting. Nor shooting. But we have allowed the anti's to infiltrate our opinions so as to split the greater army it might have had to face. The anti forces have managed to out flank us brilliantly. Our on-going neutrality will not save us from fighting to defend our own sport because the same people seek to destroy our way of life as much as they ever did hunting or shooting. These are extremely determined people working to a very carefully laid down battle plan. We need to unite NOW behind FACT because our own time to fight has arrived.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest sslatter]

So what about those who support angling, but who don't support shooting?? And vice versa?

 

The two "sports" are separate IMO, and should NOT be bunched together, despite the efforts of the CA and its supporters to do so. Angling will only be damaged by inclusion together with shooting, just as it's been damaged by its inclusion, by the CA, with foxhunting.

 

As far as all this rabid politicising goes, I don't think it should be on any fishing thread- the Non-Fishing thread would suit. After all, that is the true ethos of such organisations and their supporters- the continuance of foxhunting, with other "pursuits" way down the list of priorities..

 

..and for my part, I strongly urge any angler to have nothing whatsoever to do with such organisations... NOR that divisive poll! It might help if any like-minded anglers write and complain to ITV about that poll, just as this angler has.

 

Just my opinion.

 

[ 19. February 2005, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Graham. X ]

[GlennB]

Lee, I just can't agree with the whole basis of your argument - the online poll figures.

 

The online poll on hunting with dogs is not to be trusted. I went to the the current poll myself and registered 2 votes in a few seconds. At the time of the hunting-with-dogs poll I have little doubt that angry+threatened pro-hunters would have bombarded that site, while the antis would have known by then that the game was up and not been much bothered.

 

'Normal' independent polls (Mori, Gallup etc) over many years have shown a healthy majority in favour of a ban on foxhunting etc, while those I've found online also show a similar majority against a ban on fishing. I believe that the end to hunting with dogs and the continuation of fishing is a totally fair reflection of public feeling.

 

Millions fish, and those millions have family and friends who are at least vaguely aware that the fish go back alive. At a pinch it would be easy to demonstrate that fish welfare is hugely important to anglers (a thousand TV episodes of Wilson,Hayes,Young etc for starters). The fox and stag hunters could never do that. Whatever the rights and wrongs, killing was always the objective of their sport.

 

I personally don't believe that angling is under any threat whatsoever.

 

Regards

 

Glenn

[Paul Boote]

GlennB:

Lee, I just can't agree with the whole basis of your argument - the online poll figures.

 

The online poll on hunting with dogs is not to be trusted. I went to the the current poll myself and registered 2 votes in a few seconds. At the time of the hunting-with-dogs poll I have little doubt that angry+threatened pro-hunters would have bombarded that site, while the antis would have known by then that the game was up and not been much bothered.

 

'Normal' independent polls (Mori, Gallup etc) over many years have shown a healthy majority in favour of a ban on foxhunting etc, while those I've found online also show a similar majority against a ban on fishing. I believe that the end to hunting with dogs and the continuation of fishing is a totally fair reflection of public feeling.

 

Millions fish, and those millions have family and friends who are at least vaguely aware that the fish go back alive. At a pinch it would be easy to demonstrate that fish welfare is hugely important to anglers (a thousand TV episodes of Wilson,Hayes,Young etc for starters). The fox and stag hunters could never do that. Whatever the rights and wrongs, killing was always the objective of their sport.

 

I personally don't believe that angling is under any threat whatsoever.

 

Regards

 

Glenn

Very sound, glenn.

 

Angling is safe, now and in the long term -- if we continue to get things RIGHT.

 

Catch this article about what the Hunts Sabs will go after when all the current argy-bargy is over. Catch it quick as Independent newspaper links tend to die.

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/sto...sp?story=611699

[Guest sslatter]

Paul Boote.. did you actually read that article? The only mention of angling is:

 

".. and anti-angling campaigners have reportedly disrupted fishing by putting on waterproof gear and jumping in to scare off the fish."

 

That was it. The only mention amid a whole page of other stuff. What are you on, for pete's sake? What is your agenda?

[Peter Waller]

I'm sorry Trenters, my friend, I'm not being drawn on this one! Tally-ho and off I go, tootle pip and all that squit, what! Cheerio, for now , time for a harry snifters old boy!!

 

[ 19. February 2005, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[GlennB]

Graham. X:

Paul Boote.. did you actually read that article? The only mention of angling is:

 

".. and anti-angling campaigners have reportedly disrupted fishing by putting on waterproof gear and jumping in to scare off the fish."

 

That was it. The only mention amid a whole page of other stuff. What are you on, for pete's sake? What is your agenda?

Can't quite see that Paul even sugested there was anything about angling in there. There's a fair bit about shooting, various other animal welfare issues like importing endangered species, battery farming etc, but precious little about fishing.

I think that was his point, that the "antis" will go after targets other than angling.

[Paul Boote]

Graham. X:

Paul Boote.. did you actually read that article? The only mention of angling is:

 

".. and anti-angling campaigners have reportedly disrupted fishing by putting on waterproof gear and jumping in to scare off the fish."

 

That was it. The only mention amid a whole page of other stuff. What are you on, for pete's sake? What is your agenda?

My agenda, Sonny Jim, is that I will defend Angling to the last. Have been defending it, indeed, quietly but very effectively, for a number of years, protecting it from interests that would have taken (and could still) US down with them, by representing Anglers to lots of people (some, rather important) in the real world as not merely just another a bunch of cranky hobbyists, weirdo trainspotters and fat-chewers.

 

When the Sabs / Anti Bloodsports / Animal Rights freaks come for Angling, I'll be waiting for them. You don't know the background to a lot of this -- I do, having put my life on the line over the past few years to ensure that we're - Anglers - around in the far future when some others, maybe, will not. Enough from me, now, on this; I'll leave it to you huffers and puffers.

 

[ 19. February 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Paul Boote ]

[Colin Brett]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Boote:

[QB]

having put my life on the line

---

Me thinks we should drop this subject lest we drop Paul into deep s**t!

 

That's if I'm reading between the lines correctly?

 

Colin

[Guest sslatter]

Paul Boote:

My agenda, Sonny Jim, is that I will defend Angling to the last.

You could have fooled me sunshine.. you come over as one of those bitter losers, trying to drag angling back down into your gutter..

 

Paul Boote:

Have been defending it, indeed, quietly but very effectively, for a number of years, protecting it from interests that would have taken (and could still) US down with them...

Don't include me in with you pal..

 

Paul Boote:

..by representing Anglers..

You certainly haven't been representing me son.. the day I let the likes of you represent me as an angler will be a cold day in hell, let me tell you...

 

Paul Boote:

When the Sabs / Anti Bloodsports / Animal Rights freaks come for Angling, I'll be waiting for them.

So they're all "freaks" are they?

 

I know this must be difficult for you, [Personal insult removed - next time the thread closes - John S] but take it from me, the face of "angling" that you are displaying will be relished by those "antis" looking for ammunition.. your extremist intimidatory tactics do angling a great disservice. Your agenda seems as plain as day.

 

Paul Boote:

You don't know the background to a lot of this -- I do...

Don't assume you know all about what I do or don't know.

 

Paul Boote:

..having put my life on the line over the past few years to ensure that we're - Anglers - around in the far future.....

 

Paul Boote:

Enough from me, now, on this; I'll leave it to you huffers and puffers.

That's right.. throw your little grenade and slope off..

 

[ 19. February 2005, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: John S ]