Jump to content

countryside alliance a good idea?


Guest euan pink

Recommended Posts

Cheers Steve

 

I tried to post a reply as we discussed but I think Elton and JB must have been making the changes to the board at the time. Anyway my machine did not want to play and then Eileen called dinner and I have only just got back here to sort out for tomorrow.

 

Thanks for clarifying that it was not a VP.

 

I hope we speak soon of things angling and piscatorial. Good luck tomorrow.

 

Mike

Join the SAA today for only £10.00 and help defend angling.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Eelfisher - unity is a state of mind. Unity is looking at the main issues effecting our sport with in depth knowledge gleaned by reading, listening, understanding and being prepared to ignore the petty differences that currently fragment our sport. Most of these differences are subjective and petty and used by those who should know better to avoid making commitment or worthwhile decisions.

It comes down to looking at the sport as a whole and reasoning where your actions will effect ALL anglers to the good or bad.

Too many so-called angling gurus sit on the sidelines and snipe at whatever angling's leaders do or say and think they're being clever at doing it.

When will they realise that their selfish witterings influence others, an so on.

Its a big subject and I'm not a fast typist so will keep it short.

Where do I stand on the CA/NAA debate?

I'm personally against any liaison at all. Mike Heylin disagrees with me but we continue to work together WITHIN the SAA for what we believe benefits ALL of angling.

If you want a chat some more please give me a call.

David Bird

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mike,

 

Quote;

"Lots of questions but as yet I have not seen your opinion on CA being brought closer to NAA on fishing matters. Where do you stand?"

 

Well Mike, firstly let me announce and make plain that I have NO strong feeling concerning foxhunting either "for" or "against". This is not fence sitting from myself just merely how I feel. I am NOT opposed to shooting either especially as nearly all of friends and family shoot although I do not myself. I hold the view that bans on anything just add to the furtherment of Englishmens rights being erroded that will lead to God knows where.

 

So, on the face of that, one could easily assume that I am pro the CA. Once again Mike, I have no stance on the CA as an organisation either way. I am neither "for" or "against" the CA.

 

I AM against angling being involved with the CA though. Why? Let me explain Mike.

 

When the present government came to power, they brought with them their hatred of fox hunting. As I say, I have no views on this issue but the government and the general public DO. Also, cabinet ministers as high up as John Prescott have critisised the CA openly. Like it or not, the present political reality is that many members of the present government ARE anti CA. As yet, the present government embrace angling for what it clearly is, a social activity that is acceptable to the general public. And there Mike, is the vital key in this issue.

 

Anglers enjoy public acceptance along with the present governments acceptance. For the most part, this is NOT the case with the CA due probably to the fox hunting issue.

 

Why then, would the NAA or the SAA for that matter want to jeopardise our good relations with either the general public or the present government with any kind of allegiance with the CA?

 

Because of public opinion and the governments opinion, I am TOTALLY against angling forming any allegiance with the CA.

 

Clearly, in my personal opinion which takes on board any position I may hold within angling, the NAA's decision with regards to the CA has been a major political blunder. For the life of me, I cannot see any advantage for angling associating itself wth the CA but I CAN see MAJOR dissadvantages coming for angling if this goes ahead.

 

I know that you mean well Mike and know full well that your own input which is considerable, is for the good of angling generally. But I am beginning to regret resigning from the SAA as head of its rivers group because frankly Mike, you lot seem to be in need of a kick up the backside!

 

So chuck the rope over the nearest tree and hang me high Mike but those are my opinions.

 

Further to those, I will be emailing you personally soon Mike with some more of my thoughts but for now, I am going fishing.

 

Get the "allsorts" ready Birdy cos you may just be needing them.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Anti" lobby is far better organised and financed than the various Groups they are opposed to.

As has been stated previously, they have a professional salaried machine to carry out their lobbying and publicity campaigns.

 

I find it hard to accept that they will stop and disband, if they are successful in getting hunting with dogs banned.

 

Do you remember the poster of the labrador with the hook in its mouth?

"I gotta go where its warm, I gotta fly to saint somewhere "

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Countryside Alliance is purely and simply an anti-Labour organisation, run by fox hunters. They have no support for coarse anglers except for the resulting numbership boost that might help them to support their political machinations.

 

Proof of this was shown during the televised anti fox hunting debates of the last few years. Without exception, CA representatives dragged angling into the debate by claiming it was far more cruel than fox hunting. This ingenuous defence was repeated with such regularity, that it was obviously part of the official CA crib sheet, designed to be regurgitated by their media spokesperson whenever the going got tough, and their argument was being successfully demolished.

 

If you want to march with a crowd of horn blowing sadists and their equally pathetic hunt followers then so be it. I personally want nothing to do with them, and resent anyone attempting to align me with them in any way.

English as tuppence, changing yet changeless as canal water, nestling in green nowhere, armoured and effete, bold flag-bearer, lotus-fed Miss Havishambling, opsimath and eremite, feudal, still reactionary, Rawlinson End.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reminder Peter. I too remember the CA spokesperson suggesting that angling is far less desirable than fox hunting. Personally I shall be writing to the PAC & ACANS, bodies that I belong to, suggesting that they withdraw from the NAA whilst the NAA & CA have this objectionable accord.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee

 

As always I appreciate your thoughts. You make a very coherent case and one which I respect.

 

I have regretted your resignation from SAA, as you know, since the day you announced it and the need for committed anglers to be involved remains as strong as ever.

 

I think it highly unlikely that the guys in white sheets will appear on your front lawn looking for the nearest tree. Fortunately the extremists in angling tend to steer clear of organisations of any kind.

 

It may be that what you fear comes to pass, but the three Governing Bodies and the other three members of NAA, feel that some control of those who claim to make statements for angling, from outside angling, is needed. As I have said, on this thread, before, sometimes, for reasons which may not be obvious, one makes arrangements with those you might otherwise chose not to do business with. If the world was a perfect place, it might be otherwise. But for all its faults NAA has to live in the real world and deal with it as it is.

 

The S&TA have closer relations with CA than, for example NFSA. NFA has recently accepted CA sponsorship of the Disabled Angling Match Team. So for some time there has been dialogues between the two bodies, NAA and CA, and the constituent parts of NAA, at various levels. What we have now done is to formalise those dialogues so that NAA can more easily control its angling destiny and establish its right, over others, to speak for angling across the country and across the different practices.

 

I repeat that NAA has not signed up to support CA. NAA has reached an agreement regarding who speaks for angling, NAA, and who speaks for the countryside, CA. That is as far as it goes and the only way the public will get a different slant on the facts is if coarse anglers continue to bicker about the detail.

 

I heard a statement made on Radio 5 on Friday from a hunter denigrating angling and at least with the new arrangements in place I will be able to confront the CA with the damage they continue to do to angling by using such pathetic arguments in defence of hunting. Something I would much rather do face to face than by writing a letter of complaint.

 

There are much better defences of hunting than attacking angling and by having CA at the NAA table we are more able to exert some influence on their arguments. If they do not withdraw their angling defence of hunting they will be getting very short shrift from me, and, I am sure, from others at the table.

 

Waiting your mail

 

Mike

Join the SAA today for only £10.00 and help defend angling.

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...