Countryside Alliance and FACT in the dock.

[slodger]

'This is my main point that the CA does not cater for those anglers fishing the canals and park lakes of major towns and cities as they simply have no relevance.'

 

That may well be a fair point Peter, but to suggest that angling isn't a field sport on the grounds that it also takes place in urban areas seems ludicrous to me. Is a fox no longer a fox because it hunts rats on Wimbledon common or raids the bins in city gardens? 'Field sports' is, as I'm sure you must realise, a generic term. In the context in which it is being used here, it suggests that angling is a sport that takes place in the open air, nothing more. Does the term 'Game fishing' suggest to you that people set about angling for pheasants with rod and line?

 

The bottom line, as I see it, is that we set about interacting with a wild creature against it's will. How can you possibly make a distinction between that and any other form of hunting?

 

The fact that we mostly adopt a catch-and-release policy in the modern day is irrelevant. More importantly in my opinion, the catch-and-release ethos, if anything, only weakens our case in the eyes of a non-fishing public. Many people see that as an unneccesary cruelty. 'Why bother distressing the fish at all if you don't even want to eat them?'

 

Is anyone out there about to declare that fox hunting would be okay if they released the fox at the end of the hunt? If not, how can we expect to claim the moral high ground over hunters? That has to be arrant hypocricy in my view.

 

While hunting with dogs is no longer something I wish to be part of, I believe we are treading very dangerous ground when we try to elevate ourselves morally above other hunters.

 

[ 26. March 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: slodger ]

[northern mark]

Fishing is fishing is fishing is fishing.

 

We all try to catch a fish with a hook.

 

Unless of course some of you know different.

 

The CA represent it's members, some 25 000 anglers.

 

FACT represents how many? I have no idea.

 

The NFA as I see it supposedly assist match angling, match anglers aren't exactly over the moon with the NFA. Look for any threads on any match forums to do with Fishomania tickets.

 

The Carp Society supposedly represent Carp Anglers. Carp anglers are trying to overturn the commitee (or were last I heard, maybe they've kissed and made up now) because they are not happy about the way the commitee is doing it's thing.

 

Other commitees I don't know about so perhaps if someone else does they can inform us of any harmony or otherwise amongst their ranks.

 

It seems that by being a member of any of the groups under the FACT umbrella the main thing I can do is pour scorn on other organisations, going on this thread.

 

If I join the CA I can at least get insurance, if I join any of the FACT groups I can put some letters after my name.

[Peter M]

I think the general public do not mind fishing as most will either know someone who fishes or they fish themselves. I don't think they really mind about shooting either, even the shooting of foxes, what they didn't like (and i don't want to get into this stupid row about how much support there was in the country for a ban of fox hunting) what people didn't like was the image a pack of dogs being let loose to savage a wild animal to death. They percieve the CA as an organisation who support this (what they see ) as a barbaric practice. I really think that to associate ourselves with the CA is therefore foolish.

[northern mark]

Sorry forgot.

 

The ACA seemed to fall apart over the James' occurence.

[Alan Stubbs]

trent.barbeler:

Dear All,

 

Whilst I continue with my gardening, something to think about;

 

The support for hunting in the wake of the ban has been outstanding, and hunts will be looking forward to next season with increased determination. The Hunting Handbook*, produced by the Alliance in conjunction with the Council of Hunting Associations, has been instrumental in providing a way forward for the hunting community until the Hunting Act is erased from the Statute Book. A new edition will be published soon, as will a strategy for hunting in the future. We are confident of both of our legal challenges, which return to the courts later this year"

 

"The Challenge to the validity of the 1949 Parliament Act will be heard by nine Law Lords in the House of Lords on 13th-14th July. The application for Judicial Review of the Hunting Act under European Human Rights legislation has been accepted by the High Court and will be heard later this year."

 

Now if the above remotely surrenders to Alan Stubbs opinion that the Countryside Alliance has lost its battle with regard to hunting that opinion is wrong.  It is also clear now that a overal majority in this country don't support a ban on hunting either.

 

And can Alan seriously imagine FACT going to the lengths that the Countryside Alliance has in order to fight for their memberships?  Their predecessors couldn't even drum up moral support that costs nothing for the North West predator anglers!!

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

ermmm. Lee, they are challenging the result, because they lost. A hard concept to grasp when it doesn't suit your argument. I understand that.

 

Where did your quote come from? The CA or the thoughts of Chairman Lee?

[slodger]

You've got to step back and laugh at us all sometimes really. Beating our heads against the wall, all trying to achieve the same thing really. It makes you wonder if we need the antis to p**s on our bonfire at times.

[Alan Stubbs]

slodger:

You've got to step back and laugh at us all sometimes really. Beating our heads against the wall, all trying to achieve the same thing really. It makes you wonder if we need the antis to p**s on our bonfire at times.      

I totally agree. It's just that I can't follow people who haven't made a case I can accept.

 

Argyll asked a while ago if I had a private agenda. I haven't - unless you call asking people to read between the lines of angling politicians' statements before committing themselves.

 

The logic of some of the statements (probably including some of mine, it must be said) doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

I make no bones about having been angered by some of the insulting assumptions made by posters on this thread which presume to know that I have a particular agenda, and have made claims which don't address the issue in an attempt to justify their own biased viewpoint.

 

How can angling be best served by that?

[slodger]

I wouldn't take it to heart if I were you Alan, we all overstep the mark occasionally and say things we shouldn't, that's the nature of angling forums. Afterall we're all very passionate and we all think we're right.

 

Take me and Pedro for instance, we often get snotty with each other, but I don't stay miffed for long, I like to think Peter has the same view. He's actually a 'Good Egg' really, and no one can deny he loves the sport. Okay he's usually wrong when I'm arguing with him, but I'm a big hearted chap and I soon forgive him.

 

If someone says something to upset you just take it with a pinch of salt. I know I do.

[GlennB]

argyll:

If you're talking about the 'public' Peter, ie the non fishing public then they must see fishing as a field sport. 'hunting , shooting, fishing', thats the expression that always springs to mind and whether its fishing at Canary Wharf or on a Hampshire trout stream, the public at large see us part of the same country sports fraternity, whether we like it or not. its important to recognise that, if we wish to influence the way that the publc perceive us and vote.

Would have to respectfully disagree, argyll. In spades.

Historically (and I don't think very much has changed) I'd say the public perception of a typical angler is of some flat cap type geezer fishing for bits on the local canal. Times move on of course. Maybe now the typical perception is of a lad down at the local carp lake, but "the lad" will still be brewing up tea and frying bacon on the camping stove.

As it happens, I'd also say that's why angling is safe. Too many people know an angler or three, and know that they're just ordinary bods.

 

cheers

 

Glenn

[Casey]

Argyll

quote:

---

Not even a glimpse of the ready wit that you scousers are noted for

---

Alan, have you enlightened Gerry to the fact you aint a scouser?.

the two of you are sacked for lack of observation.