TheDacer

Who said that those who are opposed to hunting with hounds don't have a clue what they're talking about? Whilst those who do hunt are best able to judge whether or not their pursuit needs regulating/banning? What nonesense! Let's stick to facts not fantasy! [ 07 April 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: TheDacer ]

Who said that those who are opposed to hunting with hounds don't have a clue what they're talking about? Whilst those who do hunt are best able to judge whether or not their pursuit needs regulating/banning? What nonesense! Let's stick to facts not fantasy! [ 07 April 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: TheDacer ]

Greed was invented before her, yes. But worshipped? Nope. That was pure Thatcher.

Greed was invented before her, yes. But worshipped? Nope. That was pure Thatcher.

Hmm, for anyone who had any doubts, surely the fact that the Tories and the CA are hand-in-hand is sufficient reason to steer as clear of the CA as possible?!! Likewise, the fact that the majority of hunt-with-hounds are tories just gives me another reason to want to see it got rid of. Sadly, it will be with us - like the Tories - for many years to come. (Just goes to prove how utterly slim are the chances of angling ever being banned too!)

Hmm, for anyone who had any doubts, surely the fact that the Tories and the CA are hand-in-hand is sufficient reason to steer as clear of the CA as possible?!! Likewise, the fact that the majority of hunt-with-hounds are tories just gives me another reason to want to see it got rid of. Sadly, it will be with us - like the Tories - for many years to come. (Just goes to prove how utterly slim are the chances of angling ever being banned too!)

Seems like a good enough reason to vote Tory? NOTHING is a good enough reason to vote Tory!! They should all be taken out and shot for what they did to this country in the 1980's!

Seems like a good enough reason to vote Tory? NOTHING is a good enough reason to vote Tory!! They should all be taken out and shot for what they did to this country in the 1980's!

Chesters I do know people die from hard drugs. I've lost a couple of mates from the use of them. I also happen to know one or two people who are doing very nicely indeed and have been using, in one case, Heroin for 20 years. I also know of people who have been killed through alcohol..

Waterman I think I agree with you. Better to be in **** out than in **** in. Even when the inside for many of us - myself included - is something we are very much against. In other words, I think angling should have a voice within the CA to shut their mouths up when it comes to speaking about angling. If that's what the NAA are doing then that's a good idea. If, on the other hand, the NAA are actually acting with and for the CA then they should surely get out and stay out because there are many anglers out there who are against the hunt-oriented CA and do not want to be associated with it.

Waterman I think I agree with you. Better to be in **** out than in **** in. Even when the inside for many of us - myself included - is something we are very much against. In other words, I think angling should have a voice within the CA to shut their mouths up when it comes to speaking about angling. If that's what the NAA are doing then that's a good idea. If, on the other hand, the NAA are actually acting with and for the CA then they should surely get out and stay out because there are many anglers out there who are against the hunt-oriented CA and do not want to be associated with it.

Vagabond and others, I know many people who use Cannabis who do not and have not gone on to harder drugs. So, in the main, I don't think that's a genuine concern. (In fact I also know one or two people who have been using those harder drugs for years - with little ill-effect. So I don't believe even these 'hard' drugs are as bad as the media decide to make out. Tho', doubtless, they are much more dangerous than Cannabis). Oh, and Vagabond, as you can spell analogous, you should next learn to identify a genuine analogy.

Apologies Lee, I'm being too obscure. My post was very shorthand for:- There is an argument that it is better to change things from the inside. In this thread you've mentioned that arguement in the context of the CA/NAA agreement. As, presumably, anyone who uses this argument should - to be consistent - also apply it elsewhere to any similar situation, I just wondered whether you personally would do so. (For example, as in the case of further EU integration) The reason I ask is because I would say, with regards to the EU, that we should change things from the inside. Therefore, to be consistent, I should agree that - as regards the CA/NAA agreement, which I'm more or less against - it would be better, as you say, to change things from the inside. Yup! My previous post was very shorthand...

Apologies Lee, I'm being too obscure. My post was very shorthand for:- There is an argument that it is better to change things from the inside. In this thread you've mentioned that arguement in the context of the CA/NAA agreement. As, presumably, anyone who uses this argument should - to be consistent - also apply it elsewhere to any similar situation, I just wondered whether you personally would do so. (For example, as in the case of further EU integration) The reason I ask is because I would say, with regards to the EU, that we should change things from the inside. Therefore, to be consistent, I should agree that - as regards the CA/NAA agreement, which I'm more or less against - it would be better, as you say, to change things from the inside. Yup! My previous post was very shorthand...

Lee, I take it you would offer the same 'change from the inside' argument to persuade the UK to further european integration then?

Lee, I take it you would offer the same 'change from the inside' argument to persuade the UK to further european integration then?

Leon & NigelT You both make good points. And I think it would only be fair if fisheries such as yours, NigelT, did get the help they need to protect themselves against Otter predation. Unfortunately, as you say, we live in a highly-managed society, and I imagine more or less everyone could stake a claim for financial assistance against this or that problem. But where, then, would all the funding come from? Sadly - as Thatcher ruthlessly demonstrated during the early '80s - a commercial business has to stand on it's two feet without such subsidy. (Though quite why Farming is exempt I don't know?!) In other words, now that the Otters are there, you'll have to cope. As to further releases - I would agree that fishery owners should be given due notice, and not just find the Otters eating their Carp one fine sunny morning - but the Otter should still be released. Like it or not, it has primary fishing rights in the UK - over and above those of a club/commercial water. [ 02 April 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: TheDacer ]

Leon & NigelT You both make good points. And I think it would only be fair if fisheries such as yours, NigelT, did get the help they need to protect themselves against Otter predation. Unfortunately, as you say, we live in a highly-managed society, and I imagine more or less everyone could stake a claim for financial assistance against this or that problem. But where, then, would all the funding come from? Sadly - as Thatcher ruthlessly demonstrated during the early '80s - a commercial business has to stand on it's two feet without such subsidy. (Though quite why Farming is exempt I don't know?!) In other words, now that the Otters are there, you'll have to cope. As to further releases - I would agree that fishery owners should be given due notice, and not just find the Otters eating their Carp one fine sunny morning - but the Otter should still be released. Like it or not, it has primary fishing rights in the UK - over and above those of a club/commercial water. [ 02 April 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: TheDacer ]

If you go swimming you should expect to get wet. Not complain about the fact that you get wet. Likewise, if you own a fishery, you should expect Otters to eat some of your fish. We have to live with our environment - not destroy everything that happens to get in our way.

If you go swimming you should expect to get wet. Not complain about the fact that you get wet. Likewise, if you own a fishery, you should expect Otters to eat some of your fish. We have to live with our environment - not destroy everything that happens to get in our way.

I think it's an excellent service. Having just realised tonight - Sunday, 31st March, at 8:40pm - that I need a licence for first thing tomorrow morning; I can buy one on-line now! Top stuff!

I think it's an excellent service. Having just realised tonight - Sunday, 31st March, at 8:40pm - that I need a licence for first thing tomorrow morning; I can buy one on-line now! Top stuff!

Bloody 'ell! Who are all those who have said it should NOT be legalised?? Get a grip! It's virtually non-toxic, non-habit forming and leads people to feel - when not mixed with alcohol - generally laid-back and peaceful. How many of you who are paranoid about drugs use alcohol, I wonder? A far, far more dangerous drug.

I'm totally opposed to fox-hunting and, therefore, to the CA which I do see as a front for the hunting sect. Nevertheless I think Leon makes a very valid case for the NAA/CA alliance.

I'm totally opposed to fox-hunting and, therefore, to the CA which I do see as a front for the hunting sect. Nevertheless I think Leon makes a very valid case for the NAA/CA alliance.