Jump to content

countryside alliance a good idea?


Guest euan pink

Recommended Posts

Guest TheDacer

There's NO similarity between killing for pleasure and angling or killing for food.

 

People who keep clamouring for 'unity' should wake up and realise that fact!

 

I'm all for shooting for food, even for pest control - but hunting with dogs is bloody and barbaric.

 

End of chat!!!!!

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by waterman1013:

 

Christ, I am pleased some of you are not in my platoon, questioning every decision and order.

 

Sorry, but what is all this about. I spent 7 years in the Army didn't realise I'd been drafted in again.

No seriously though. Why can't angling be for anglers. It seems to me here that we have 3 separate categories here. We have the Yes camp, who I can live with. We have the No camp to which I belong. And now we have the politicians, about who I wish to make no comment because I am obviously to naive to see the bigger picture.

Lets agree to disagree, again.

 

Regards

 

D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by TheDacer:

There's NO similarity between killing for pleasure and angling or killing for food.

 

...

 

I'm all for shooting for food, even for pest control - but hunting with dogs is bloody and barbaric.

 

 

Dacer (and anyone else) - beware of sweeping statements and broad generalizations.

 

Many hunters who do hunt for food also take pleasure in the activity. Otherwise, much less expensive and less time-consuming to simply buy from the butcher's shop.

 

Many forms of hunting using dogs don't fit your last statement at all. In fact, most don't. I have personally done the following:

 

1. Hunted quail and grouse with pointing dogs. Their function is to track the birds by smell and to get fairly close (though not close enough to spook the birds) and then "point" toward the birds position - using their entire body as a pointer. If I am a good enough shot and do down a bird, they then will go and fetch it. Otherwise, too easy to lose a dead bird in the underbrush.

 

2. Hunted rabbits with beagles. They are way slower than any rabbit ever born so all they do is chase and give tongue (they are a hound breed after all). Luckily a rabbit being chased by a slow dog will run in a large circle and will pass quite close to the point he started from. Here I have to get my own rabbits though since a beagle is no good as a retriever.

 

3. Hunted racoons at night with hounds. Most of the fun here is to simply listen to the dogs as they run a coon. Said coon will eventually find a tree to it's liking and climb. The hounds don't climb well so will simply stay around the base of the tree making those lovely hound noises. I only ever shot the coon if we were setting up for a church picnic or something and coon was on the menu. BTW - if the coon was a large male and could find water, we lost the occasional dog so it wasn't a totally one-sided affair.

 

Note the lack of blood in the items above unless I caused it with a shotgun.

 

If you simply meant "hunting of foxes by Toffs using horses and dogs", then I offer no opinion.

 

If you meant hunting/killing of any sort, then may I offer the observation that similar objections could be made to raising animals so they can be slaughtered for food. In addition, the items used to feed them up could be more efficiently used directly as food.

 

OTOH, there is a strong body of evidence that plants "feel" fear and pain so maybe we should restrict our diets to only grains (plant is dead when the grain is ready) and milk or milk products.

 

Personally, I am an omnivore who enjoys meat and even more so if I have gotten it myself. However, I would in no way suggest that you should eat meat or hunt for food if these ideas offend you. Would you please do me the same honour by not suggesting (even by inference as was the case here) I avoid meat or hunting because they offend you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest trent.barbeler

Hi Mike and all,

 

Quite a forthright post coming in from Mike concerning this issue. I for one thank him for his frank remarks and would like to comment and ask Mike certain questions on what he said;

 

Quote; Lee (Trent Barbeler) correctly points out that angling would be stronger now if ALL anglers paid their dues. Unfortunately the NFA did not succeed in attracting that level of support, although SAA are now full members of NFA and as such have added our specialist members to their numbers.

 

Question; Mike is exactly right when he says that if ALL anglers in years gone by had joined the NFA as individual members and stayed as NFA members, we would now have ONE major organisation that represented anglers interests. Mike, as full members of the NFA, does this give the SAA full voting powers on the NFA executive committee?

 

Quote; NAA has the potential to become the "one" angling body representing all anglers, but all anglers must realise that any united body will not always represent their personal views. There are times in politics when one has to sup with the devil for the greater good of the long term picture. We, as individuals, may wish that that situation was different, but that is the reality of modern life.

 

Question; Yes Mike, I agree that the NAA has the potential to be the "ONE" body representing "ALL" anglers and their interests but seeing as the majority of anglers DO NOT belong to those groups that make up the NAA how is this single representation going to be achieved? Personally, I would like to see the NAA widen its membership to take on board individual members. Seeing as most of the work done for the SAA is carried out by its "individual" members, has anyone in the NAA thought of opening up the NAA to take on a section for individual members?

 

Quote; I would be interested to know how many of those commenting against the memorandum of understanding, which is all it is; not an agreement to join forces, not an agreement to merge, not an agreement to support hunting with dogs, are members of one of the constituent bodies which make up NAA. I have said it before and I am sorry to have to repeat it, but if you are not a member of one of the bodies concerned then they do not represent you. They represent the interests of their members, those who subscribe and support. If you wish the angling bodies to reflect your view of the world then you have to join one of them and persuade them of your opinion.

 

The reality is that if you don't pay you don't have a voice which will be heard.

 

That is life!

 

Comment; Thank you Mike for clarifying this point. This aspect really does need hammering home to anglers that are NOT members of either the SAA or one of the bodies that make up the NAA. Simply put, if anglers are NOT members of one of the six that make up the NAA, they have no say in angling related matters that the NAA are involved in.

A problem arising from that of course is the plain fact that the majority of anglers in this country just DONT belong to anything.

 

Quote; When I prepared the SAA response to the Common Fisheries Policy many coarse anglers wanted to know why I had been "wasting" my time on the topic when they considered that there were many issues in coarse angling which needed attention. Yes, there were and still are, but the state of our seas, exploiting a common resource for commercial reasons with taxpayers subsidy and the uncontrolled destruction of sea bed habitat and breeding grounds by commercial operations are things which should concern ALL anglers.

 

Comment; Let me make it known that I was one of those who critisised Mike concerning his input on the CFP given his remit as the SAA secretary. Personally Mike, I think you will find that the over exploitation of our sea's concern a great deal of the residents on our planet who are NOT anglers. Even so, you are quite right to be concerned as an angler yourself.

 

Quote; We should all be writing to Elliot Morley protesting this ongoing problem, as I have spent this morning doing, but the reality is that very few of us do, so we express our own opinion and spend our own time doing what we think is best and right.

 

Comment; As you say Mike, you are representing those who are in the SAA so you have no need to justify who you are writing too.

 

Quote; If you don't think the same as me or the NFA, NFSA or S&TA then join them, become active within them and get change from within but please do us all a favour don't come here bleating about this and that if bleating is the extent of your actions. Do something positive!

 

Comment; Oh dear. Are those last comments designed and structured to tempt anglers to join something Mike?

 

Quote; Other anglers have been trying for generations to pull all of angling together and the moaning minnies have always pulled in the other direction. We had it with the original legislation introducing the closed season for coarse fish with London fighting Sheffield, we had it with the death of NAC, with small minded people pulling in different directions, and apparently the destroyers are hell bent on damaging NAA, even before it has had two years in existence.

 

NAA is what angling has. It is the best option the sport has available at the moment and because anglers let emotion get in the way of understanding we may yet see its demise, but not if we all pull together and support it through thick and thin. Christ, I am pleased some of you are not in my platoon, questioning every decision and order.

 

Comment; Well, I bet that last comment has anglers rushing to join something.

 

Quote; If this offends - tough. It is the way I see the world. Simple and pretty straightforward.

 

Comment; I am pretty sure that it does offend Mike. Still, as you say, thats tough.

 

Quote; Too many politicians want to tell you what you want to hear instead of giving leadership. I did not get involved in angling politics to please or satisfy other anglers, or even because I believed that angling was democratic, I got involved because there are issues out there that I think I can make a difference to.

I think that is important in life.

I think that is worth upsetting a few people for.

I think that is why we were put on this world. To make a difference, so join me, and others, who feel the fight is worthwhile, who don't always agree with each other but accept we have different views on some topics but get on with the job of promoting and defending angling.

 

Comment; WOW! You did not get involved in angling politics to please or satisfy other anglers! Just exactly why DID you become involved then Mike? I would have thought that above all else, the satisfaction of other anglers was a vital component for those who you represent surely. Added to which, in the world of angling politics, even those anglers that are not represented have an opinion as is their right. As such, one should always be careful what one says given their position and the resonsibility they carry. I am sad that you believe, or appear to believe that angling is not democratic. If democracy is not present within any organisation, then it rapidly becomes a dictatorship. If that is the case within angling, then no wonder that the majority of anglers WONT join anything.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Waller

A group that represents grass roots anglers is in its formative stages, I think! I, for one, am watching the progress of the R.S.S.G., details of which have been posted on A.N.

 

The C.A. has less than 100,000 members, the N.A.A. represents about 1,000,000 of us. Why should we need them?

 

The C.A. recently suggested ALL inner city kids be taught to shoot. Do we really need to encourage a gun culture?

 

I wonder, what are the views of the C.A. regarding the proposed lakeland bait ban?

 

With a director of the N.A.A. being elected onto the executive of the C.A. then how can we honestly say that there is not a coming together of the two bodies?

 

1 million anglers all paying £5.00 each per annum, now there's a thought.

 

The C.A, is allying itself to us, in doing so all its achieving is arguement within the ranks.

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 15 February 2002).]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Newt

 

I feel the dacers comments go some way to show how strongly some people feel about this particular issue.

 

The problem exists that many people vehemently oppose the hunting of not only foxes but also deer with hounds.

 

Trying to look at this impartially, what benefit will anglers get from associating with people who choose to do this. This thread goes some way to prove what a devisive issue it is. Not only from the public perception but also within the ranks of what we are starting to call grass roots anglers. I will admit that I am not politically savvy, and maybe cannot see the wood for the trees but angling should be for anglers.

 

I have many friends and not one has challenged me on the morals of angling. But I would say all have an opinion on fox-hunting.

 

The ban on fox-hunting will come. The government has a manifesto promise to say it will. The public want it to happen. Who wants an angling ban. A bunch of fruit cakes who try and feed whale meat to our children at the school gates.

 

I may be flippant, and yes the threat to angling is there. But I think it would take a major change in public opinion to force it through.

 

I just hope the politicians in our sport know what they're doing.

 

Regards

 

Dex

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 'eelfisher'

Dear ALL

 

Well, well........

 

It took nearly two pages before someone...Peter...to spot that in Chris Burt's post, where he placed the statement about the two organisation making this accord together, that the Chairman of the NAA joined (JOINED) the board of the CA and the Chief executive of the CA only (ONLY) attends meetings of the NAA.

 

Surely the NAA shouldn't be allowing their Chairman to be joining the CA.

 

That does look like a wrong 'un to me.....has he JOINED the board of the CA so that he can become completely impartial when the two organisations discuss issues that they think benifit both parties.????????

 

Mind you, if angling politics are not about democracy, then there's no need to worry is there.?

 

I would suggest that perhaps Mr. Tony Bird should consider his position in the NAA....or maybe the rest of the committee should review their statement wording.

 

Looks to me like a political PR boob.

 

Interestingly, I have a copy of one SAA meeting where SAA committee personell stated that they should stay off the Anglers Net forum rather than get involved in replies etc....and a copy of the SAA newsletter where the same feelings were aired as a matter of fact.

 

Never saw it minuted that this stance had been reversed...or revisited.

 

Mind you, before the NASA and SACG merger took place, this site was awash with political spin doctoring.....its that beast again my friends......ugly or not...POLITICS.

 

Some comments on these pages are interesting....more interesting is the 'spin' that is coming in from certain parties.

 

I shall leave it there folks.....I am lurking and learning plenty......only one post disapointed in its content and I was worried about that...David 'Bassett' Bird never said the word 'UNITY'. Perhaps he is realising that it is not attainable in reality.....I for one am seeing just that reality becoming crystal clear.

 

In nearly two pages, one word was mentioned once....and that is the fundimental problem out there.

 

Well done Peter.....still a sharp tack.

 

Yours With Respect....as ever

 

Steve.

 

PS...I can say all the above as I am a member of the NAC, the ECS, the SAA and as such also the NAA.

I am NOT a member of the CA....and I am not happy with becoming closer to this without consultation....maybe there are other members out there who feel the same.

I am convinced that there are now FEWER potential members for the NAA out there after some of these posts.

A thought...."Representatives of anglers with shotguns shooting themselves in the foot".....there appears to be some bonding there then!!!!!!!!!

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

As at this moment in time I feel that both Steve & Lee, Trent Barbeler & Eeelfisher, have hit some nails well & truly square on. I had had great hopes for the SAA & the NAA. Where to now?

 

Perhaps the SAA committee members should have stuck to their own ruling re posting on AN. I'm rather glad that they didn't, Mike's comments, especially, have been truly enlightening!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest waterman1013

Peter

 

I would appreciate your concerns regarding SAA and NAA if I had posted in my offical capacity. I have not once posted on this thread as representing SAA. I have in each instance posted under my name Mike.

 

As I explained in another thread a few weeks ago I post as Mike Heylin SAA, when I am expressing an SAA view.

 

Sorry, but I am of the opinion that I have the right to express my personal opinion on these boards just as strongly as others and my position in a voluntary post does not preclude me from doing that. My opinions have no bearing on the view which SAA may take of the matters concerned, and, on which, I may post officially after the meeting this Sunday.

 

So to draw an opinion of an organisation I happen to serve because I, personally, hold opinions you do not like, is IMO wrong in the extreme and is the foundation, surely, of the debate we are having. That is that we may individually hold different views to those of the organisations we represent, or are members of, on some matters, but in the interests of angling we should sublimate our views for the greater good.

 

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...