Jump to content

countryside alliance a good idea?


Guest euan pink

Recommended Posts

Guest Davemc1

I think we shuld be in with the countryside alliance. We are all hunters in our own way, if I am fishing and see a rabbit I will try and have it, it's food. The antis will try and have us soon, land and sea fishing so I urge you to reconsider, Piker.

 

Dave Mc

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest waterman1013

If only for better reporting in the press!

 

The agreement between NAA and CA is about co-operation between the two bodies to enable them to work together on furthering their individual missions and the interests of their individual members. It will help prevent duplication of effort, in the future, and make the defence of angling easier.

 

The NAA have recognised that CA is the principal organisation in defending all country sports in the context of rural livelihood and liberty.

 

The CA recognises that the NAA is the principal organisation representing and promoting angling and the interests of anglers.

 

It simply determines which organisation is responsble for what when it comes to angling.

 

The CA has a number of partnership members, which include the ACA. NAA have not joined CA and CA has not joined NAA. I understand that the Carp Society recently joined CA. So angling's leaders are not letting the emotive issue of hunting with dogs get in the way of maximising the defence of angling and the resources available to us. The CA has resources which are not otherwise available within angling. If anglers had historically paid more for their sport and supported the Governing Bodies with individual membership then we would be in a better position ourselves to afford the resources available within CA.

 

The agreement to work together in defending angling does not imply angling is supporting hunting or shooting, although in my opinion we should.

 

Like any agreement of this type there are potential dangers to each party. But then life tends to be like that there is a good side and bad side to most things.

 

Oh, and before anyone asks the question. This is a personal view.

 

The SAA view is that it is up to individuals to decide if they want to join CA.

 

Mike Heylin

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Waller

Anglers are being forced into this unholly allience of self interest by the CA.

 

National news on TV the other day, the CA spokesman blatently advocated that every youngster in the country should be taught to shoot, and thus to be able to kill.

 

Are these really the people we wish to be associated with?

 

We are fast heading for a situation where grass roots anglers will be represented by bodies holding views that are not those of said anglers.

 

Re the aledged 'class war', it might exist in some quarters, but for the majority of us it is NOT an issue. Thankfully most of us now judge a person on their face value and social behaviour, not on their pedigree.

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 13 February 2002).]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Chris Shaw

I do not agree with that at all, who's interest is that in? Can I ask.

 

Maybe that's a silly question.

 

Think about it for one minute, there are not that many people involved in countryside pursuits compared to angling. Get the anglers on your side and you instantly gain 3 million to your cause.

 

Not good news in my book I am afraid.

 

As Peter as said the anglers views will be put forward by people who's views loads of anglers do not agree with.

 

I do not know who is going to gain from this, but I will tell you something, It will not be the anglers in this country

 

They want to take us down with them, but then again, I do not think they will be taken down anyway. Foxhunting bans only rear their heads when there is going to be an election, just to get votes, then it all dies down again.

 

Too few people with all the money involved in country pursuits as they are called, for them to be banned, can you see then banning something that the people who make, and write the laws of this land are involved in?

 

------------------

Chris Shaw

The reel handles spun in unison as they played on.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Chris Shaw (edited 13 February 2002).]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it astonishing that anglers would wish to align themselves with the type of person who advocates killing animals for fun. The vast majority of anglers fish for sport and are interested in conserving their quarry, whereas those who hunt with dogs, be it fox hunting or with ferrets and lurchers have no interest in conservation whatsoever.

 

To my ultimate shame I have hunted with lurchers and terriers in the past and have captured foxes to be released for hunts, I was actually paid by the hunt for this. I now live in a part of the country which is all but devoid of foxes, hares and rabbits due to the irresponsibility of those who would seek to promote the agenda of the CA. The CA state that they are there to represent the countryside, however living as I do in a rural area I can honestly say that they do not represent me.

 

A vote is taking place today in Scotland to outlaw hunting with hounds, if this succeeds, which it probably will then it will be only a matter of time before this legislation will be mirrored in the rest of the UK. When this happens the CA will cease to be a political force and will not be any use to anglers in any event of our sport being put at risk.

 

There are far more anglers in the UK than the combined might of the CA and as such we should stand separate from those who can only tarnish the good name of angling.

 

[This message has been edited by Tommy (edited 13 February 2002).]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest poledark

C'mon you anti's, look around you, do you think that the countryside just happened to develop that way?

It has evolved almost completely due to hunting and shooting as a side issue to farming. Many farms only survive as viable units because of the rents paid for the sporting rights.

If a landowner sets aside a certain part of his property as wildlife habitat so that he can shoot SOME of them then surely that benefits the other species that are not shot.

I am fortunate that I am surrounded by shooting country, woods and fields, small sections of some field left wild, in short what is referred to as COUNTRYSIDE.

 

No doubt the farmer would find it more economical to rip out all the hedges and woods to plant some more cash crops, but if you live in a town you wouldn't notice so what does it matter?

 

Den

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Peter Waller:

... National news on TV the other day, the CA spokesman blatently advocated that every youngster in the country should be taught to shoot, and thus to be able to kill.

 

Are these really the people we wish to be associated with?

 

Obvious hyperbole Peter. There are certainly some youngsters who cannot learn to shoot properly. Blind or quadriplegic or similar.

 

Still, isn't it sorta rough to condem the man for not qualifying his statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest euan pink

peter i am not trying to be funny but did`nt national service teach people to shoot and kill?

without shoots i think south norfolk would be a far more barren place than it currently is.

 

------------------

ANMC FOUNDER MEMBER

SAVE MONEY ON YA FISHIN JOIN TODAY

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest waterman1013

Newt

 

On the TV report I saw the man did qualify his statement.

 

He wanted all inner city children to learn the discipline which guns need in a civilised society where citizens are considered mature enough to hold arms. Apparently the Britsh Government, and a large number of the public, do not consider us to be sufficiently mature as a nation to any longer permit hand guns to be legally held in private ownership.

 

Of course since we banned private ownership of handguns, the use of handguns in street crime has multiplied nearly tenfold. The Government seems incapable of getting illegal weapons under control! 'Nough said.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...