The C.A., this is who they are.

[Peter Waller]

Very muted response or is it a total lack of interest! Look past the 'spin', the facts, for that is what they are, are there for all to see. Heaven help angling if these people take the upper hand from us.

[Alan Pearce]

Well done Peter for posting such a good advertisment for the CA, better onside than against methinks. By the way I didn't think you were anti field sports?

 

Unity is the way forward.

 

Alan.

[Peter Waller]

Alan Pearce:

Well done Peter for posting such a good advertisment for the CA, better onside than against methinks. By the way I didn't think you were anti field sports?

 

Unity is the way forward.

 

Alan.

Hi Alan. I don't think any angler would actually like, or support 'corporate watch' as a body, but I believe their information is valid. I didn't much like what I knew about the CA, & I like less what I have read. No, I'm not anti field sports, as such, I take part in them. Its just unfortunate that the CA is the CA, with the history of the CA! But I am anti-fox hunting, totally. I was about to say that it is a pity there is not another field sports society rather than the CA but that seems rather pointless! We have the NAA, that should be enough! At the end of the day I posted this thread to allow people to make their own minds up. It seems the pro CA lobby have posted their support, whilst the anti CA, for whatever reason, & it puzzles me as to why, have e-mailed me rather than going public, strange world!

[Newt]

I think I am a fairly neutral observer on this whole issue. Pro-hunting certainly but with no serious bias for/against the CA.

 

I have read the article carefully - twice now.

 

The main knock the web site seems to have on the CA is one of money. If it is well funded, has governing members who are successful, and gets funds from people/businesses that are wealthy, this has somehow been seen as a bad thing. I have no clue whatever about this particular bias but it seems to me that an organization governed by people who are successful should be a good thing.

 

There is also a big to-do made of the fact that many CA folk are pro-hunting. Well Duh. I would imagine that many country people (of all financial situations) are pro-hunting. And I would hope that even the governing members who are personally non-hunters and even dislike blood sports would not try to force their opinions on others who feel differently.

 

My Opinion: Even if every single word there is absolute, total truth, I didn't see anything that would put me off the CA or being connected with them.

 

Surely, there are a few items that I would like better if done differently but on balance, I am much more impressed with the CA now than before when I knew less about them.

 

I do have to say the author(s) of that document are pretty good at writing loaded phrases though.

 

quote:

---

The Countryside Business Group aimed to persuade businesses which would be threatened by the demise of bloodsports to donate a percentage of their annual turnover to the cause of defending them ....

---

Well what a surprise. Asking a business that would be hurt by something to support measures to keep them being hurt.

 

quote:

---

Lord, David Steel was its first chairman..... His position on hunting was mixed:

 

"If I were confronted with an opinion poll and asked to tick a box to approve or disapprove hunting, I would have to say that I disapprove,but that is not the point. The point is whether I use my vote in the House of Commons to ban an activity in which I personally do not wish to take part when others might use their votes to ban activities in which I do wish to take part."

---

Doesn't seem a mixed position to me. He does not personally like hunting but does not want to deny it to those who do like it.

 

quote:

---

David Reynolds

Master of the Woodland Pytchley Hunt, David Reynolds is so keen to defend hunting that according to the East Northants. Anti-Bloodsports, he has tried to ride over saboteurs on a number of occasions

---

Well good on him I say. Saboteurs of any stripe don't get any sympathy from me.

 

Enough said.

 

[ 17 May 2002, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[miasma]

Newt...you are a pro-hunting angler who finds the

CA impressive,whilst I am a anti-hunting angler

who questions their sincerity.

For you,and it would seem,most of the posters on

this thread,the spin has worked..For me,at least,

it has not.

Be Lucky!....miasma..

[Tim Kelly]

How about if you stop worrying about hunting and look at the CA as a resource. They are very media aware and seem able to produce people who can handle the media well and get the point across eloquently. If fishing uses them as a resource for the good of fishing and throw some enthusiasm into the promotion of fishing through them, how can it do any harm?

Fishing, as a whole doesn't seem able to produce a united front about anything, maybe if it was all channeled through an organisation like the CA there would be a more cohesive message being put out to the general public.

In an ideal world an organisation like the CA would be the first port of call for government, media etc then they would inform the relevent groups down the line who would be able to advise properly. At present there is no working structure, take the Lake district livebait fiasco as an example. The government put a quango together which seemed to consist of the EA and a few other, mainly game fishing representatives. They decided between themselves to ban the use of live, or dead freshwater fish in the nominated lakes. If there had been a good structure the governent might have asked for the EA and the CA (For example) to consult and the CA would have informed the PAC and other relevent bodies about what was going on and got them involved.

As there is no structure, just a lot of disperate groups all trying to work independantly at the moment I'm sure a lot of things are allowed to slip through unchallenged.

I couldn't give a monkeys if the top group is the CA or any other organisation, but it seems to me that they have a very good working infrastructure and it seems silly not to take advantage of it.

[miasma]

CA's recent history concerning media coverage and

Angling hardly fills me with hope...why was the

MOA considered necessary in the first place?

Be Lucky!....miasma..

[Andy Nellist]

I am not presently a member of the SAA or the ACA (having previously been a member of the NASA and the ACA) and will not join either until they sever their ties with the CA since I do not wish to be counted as a supporter of hunting with dogs. If you need to kill foxes/stags etc. then shoot them!

[Peter Sharpe]

It's sad to see Bob James's name on the CA board. It looks as if he's revelling in the new found high life that he's latched on to through contacts made in his unfathomable senior position in the ACA.

[Alan Pearce]

Good responses to this post by Newt and Tim, Peter why not ask the CA to post there response so that a balanced veiw can be read here?

 

Alan.