Countryside Alliance Angling Forum
Posted 16 February 2003 - 03:19 PM
Blackworm, no I don't see fishing as a blood sport. And for the record I'm not opposed to blood sports as a whole. I've said it before, I am opposed to the pagentary and delight that some sectors of the the hunting fraternity show at the kill, and the complete disregard and hypocrisy shown by the fox hunting fraternity towards their prey. It is claimed that fox hunting is pest control, e.g. getting rid of pests. That being the case then why rear foxes in captivity to release into the wild solely to be hunted? I do kill some fish that I catch, I take no pleasure in doing so, and I certainly won't celebrate their death. What are your views?
[ 16. February 2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]
Posted 16 February 2003 - 04:38 PM
Interesting stuff for a Sunday morning.
Firstly, I noticed that the supposedly "Gone-Fishing website which one might easily assume would be about "fishing", is pretty much dominated by the fox hunting issue. Now thats a real surprise!
I have read the hunting bill in its different forms and I can confidently say that in my opinion, its drafting is still full of holes and remains blatantly open to great interpretation dependant on which judge might sit on cases should the act be called upon in legal cases. All this time to get the thing right and its still far from it. Now thats another real surprise!
Life is full of surprises today.
Posted 16 February 2003 - 05:17 PM
Re the CA site, as Lee says, now there's a surprise. I really don't know what else the organisers could have expected :confused: . It's a bit like the Labour or Conservative parties putting up open forums, bound to attract both supporters and detractors. Personally I think it is a real gift to those of us who oppose the CA's hi-jacking of anglers .
Have just gone back and had a good read of the postings on the CA angling forum. I'm convinced that every single subject that has been posted was put together my a spin doctor. One fellow has been off fishing due to his back playing up, poor Ken, if it's true then I can sympathise. But 'Ken' goes onto say that his lay off made him realise his potential loss if angling is banned!!
Sorry Ken, I'll accept that what you are saying is true, but I'm not falling for it!! SpinSpinSpinSpin!!!!!!!
I'm sorry, I'm old enough, and wise enough to see right through it all !
[ 16. February 2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]
Posted 16 February 2003 - 07:10 PM
No fishing for me today as the weather up here has been enough to freeze the whatsits off a brass monkey. But like a hawk, I am soaring around just waiting for my chance before the season comes to a close once more.
Also, I completly forgot about Saint Valentine and his day off so I am paying a penance for my sins after the event involving something called "washing up"?
Back to the issue though.
My personal view on the CA remains unchanged regarding this organisations ability to protect the interests of the hunting/shooting fraternity. In this regard, they are undoubtedly an effective organisation. However, I have serious doubts as to its abilities on the fishing front. These doubts could be fuelled via the creation of the MOU which basically said to the CA and NAA, "keep out of our back yard and we'll keep out of yours". Such an idea would undoubtedly be the reason behind why the CA didn't bother to answer my questions posed to the CA "angling side" last year.
Someone mentioned the recent developments in scientific research that proves fish cant feel pain. And that this revelation protects angling from any "pain" argument/amendment provided for in the bill or its amendments. This research however, is far from new as there has been papers produced on this subject already over the years.
On any angling perspective that the CA might wish to promote or indeed "fuel" for what some might take as "alterior motives" or otherwise as might be the case, their angling side leaves a lot to be desired. On the fish feeling pain issue, I recal the time when one of its representatives whilst being interviewed on a radio programme got brow beaten into admitting that fish "felt pain"! And all this when there WAS scientific evidence available that already proved otherwise. Doesn't say much for this representatives ability to be "well read" on the subject does it? Or being prepared prior to being interviewed to have information to hand to counter questions effectively that might come from a "sharp hack". Can anyone seriously consider the prospect of Bruno for example becoming brow beaten on any subject matter within his field of expertise?
Therein lies the major difference between anglings "recognised" body and that of the CA in my humble opinion.
Not that I base my doubts here on any foxhunting context, either hidden or openly connected, just that compared to the NAA in a fishing context they dont come close.
Over the last year or so, I have witnessed our own angling representation forge powerful links with angling organisations world wide. There can now be no doubting, that these moves will provide our own governing body, the NAA, with an extremely wide platform as it continues to work with global angling organisations on issues that DO effect us all in our own homeland.
Angling on a world wide basis, is now hurtling fast towards the joining of hands. A major consequence of this is that angling world wide will be able to deal with issues effecting it more effectively working as a single unit, and will become more powerful in terms of strength in numbers.
If these valuable steps forward continue as a trot, then a race for the attainable goal, all of us will have nothing to fear from forces as yet fully determined to see not only an end to our own sport, but the end for many other passtimes as yet unrevealed by the banning culture.
I seriously doubt that there will be an outright ban on foxhunting or indeed the outright ban of hunting with dogs. The wording, and re-wording of this bill points strongly to that.
And as for the CA being in with a chance of trying to "hi-jack" angling? They have more chance of hi-jacking a skateboard in my opinion.
Posted 16 February 2003 - 10:39 PM
Or have I miss read his initial reply?.
Posted 17 February 2003 - 06:19 PM
Posted 17 February 2003 - 06:37 PM
I am quite sure that there are no more veggies in the Labour Party that in the Tories, and the Labour Party seem to be far more pro-active in their support of angling than any of the others.
I always suspected that the Countrydide March was just a front for fox hunters and right-wingers.
Posted 18 February 2003 - 02:53 AM
pw,if you dont class fishing as a bloodsport,what happens when you strike a hook into a fishes mouth?
Answer..9 times out of 10 it bleeds,so if thats not a bloodsport iam not a angler.
ok match anglers pile massive amounts of fish,[carp or silver fish]into keepnets for long periods of time,in hot weather,
carp anglers take there catch out of the water to be all loveydovey with them[iam not against that bye the way]put some clinic in there mouths and return them.
Game anglers catch there trout or salmon,either nock them on the head or put them back,if they are coulored up.
If you look at all these examples they all cause the fish stress or suffering,yet you go ahead and do it without a blink of the eye.
as for the releasing of fox's into the wild,I think somone has been telling porkies,the only people that release them are the animal groups.
It may sound like i am having a go but iam not,iam just telling it how i have seen it,alot of people believe what they read or hear,which is usually somthing the anti's have made up
Posted 18 February 2003 - 03:13 AM