If you could join FACT as an individual, would you join?

[Elton]

Chesters, as a 'webmaster' who has had to 'endure' you for years, put up with your confrontational posts and deal with those who've objected to you, I demand the right to pay at least £100!

 

[ 25. February 2005, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Elton ]

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter,

 

You said;

 

"Just a thought, I wonder if the CA would have come into existence had it not been for the threats to fox hunting?

 

And if it had, would it have been so keen to encompass angling?

 

Of course we can only guess but I reckon 'no' would be a pretty fair guess, wouldn't you?"

 

The CA existence came about not dissimilar to that dream which we-anglers-desire on a unified front. For years the field sports organisations argued the toss about having an umbrella organisation in place that unified all field sports interests. They to sat round tables for years unable to find a unifying answer.

 

Fox hunting became threatened by government legislation to outlaw it and for the first time everyone involved in field sports heard its wake up call which confirmed efforts to unite field sports previously were well founded. The CA was NOT formed by fox hunters. It was formed by all field sports coming together in total support for each other. The fox hunting fraternity was/is in fact a minority within CA and are dwarfed by the rest of the CA none fox hunting majority.

 

So in answer to your questions Peter;

 

Yes. The CA came into being because of the threat to fox hunting. The grey area being the CA ideal was talked about for year’s way before this government came into power this time.

 

Within the original talks at unifying field sports years ago, it was always thought generally that fishing would join the effort. This was years and years before NAA going back to the late seventies. Indeed, the old country descriptive of rural activity always spoke about "hunting, shooting and fishing" did it not? It’s anything but new to include fishing along side hunting and shooting. So when the CA was formed it historically became unthinkable that fishing would remain outside the perimeters of field sports generally seeing as it had always been there anyway.

 

Now I'm fully aware that this might not sit well Peter but it’s always been the case of the Hunting, Shooting, Fishing fraternity being there way before the CA was even dreamt of. Or NAA and FACT or its predecessors for that matter.

 

Rustic country folk had H.S.F first Peter. The question should be therefore who hijacked what first?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest sslatter]

Well.. fishing came millenia before foxhunting with hounds ever did, so I think that answers that question.

[Peter Waller]

Huntin, shootin and fishin certainly came first, and that was a long time ago. Your point being? That should open a can of worms!

 

Yes, I can remember the attempts by some super rich American lawyer to make loads of dosh out of UK country sports types. Always thought those early beginnings left a rather nasty taste in the mouth.

[Guest sslatter]

Hunting mammals and fishing came long before shooting Peter, but I was specifically referring to hunting foxes with horse and hounds, as I wrote..

 

Open up a can of worms? Have I missed something? Have people been arguing? :confused:

[Newt]

Sportsman:

Lee.

(Sorry, don't know how to do that technical stuff with quotes, but I am sure someone will tell me)

As you guessed, someone certainly will tell you how to do the 'quote' thing.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Sportsman]

Thanks Newt

[SteveH]

One of the main reasons we in the Uk allow ourselves to suffer from the insipid inertia that forestalls most attempts at putting past wrongs right, and the progress and change that could be ours if only we were willing to try things is the attitude of "we tried that before, it didn't work".

 

If something didnt work once perhaps the conditions werent right at that time, just because something didn't work doesn't mean it wont work now. So for all those that think past splintering of opinions and faction formation etc will prevent the eventual unity of angling interests I put this to you. Why not keep trying? surely thats better than simply sitting on the sidelines and saying tried that, failed, lets give in. My self, I'm a pessimistic optimist, I don't expect things to work, but hope springs eternal.

 

If FACT can eventually provide the proof that it IS a truly representative body, via membership for individuals, or even supporter status etc, then I say lets give it a go. In the meantime I'm content to wait for them to sort out their working practices and to hammer out how they mean to represent us. If they get the ground work right then maybe, just maybe we may end up with an umbrella organisation that is representative AND has clout!

 

SteveH

[chesters1]

quote:

---

Chesters, as a 'webmaster' who has had to 'endure' you for years, put up with your confrontational posts and deal with those who've objected to you, I demand the right to pay at least £100!

---

you have the ability to shut me down at the press of a key

mind you the £100 gets you the super duper all channel + porn and other "hidden" delights as well as all the other afformentioned subscription rights including exclusive bivvy service

[wearyone]

How much for a life membership, chesters?

 

I would suggest the CA came into being to give the British Field Sports Society a more acceptable face. (or should that be mask)