ACA Mag. Bailey's piece???

[slodger]

'To whom it may concern,,

 

Opinions are not given weight by being discourteous, insulting or abusive. Quite the contrary, in fact'

 

If that is aimed at me Jim, I think it's probably a fair comment. On reflection my posting was perhaps unneccesarily aggresive. The result, I'm afraid, of some heartfelt sentiments and a rushed reply. I apologise for the tone of my post, though I stand by the content.

[Colin Brett]

Well done Jim, you have an apology!

That's something I have been waiting for since Slodger [whoever he is] posted personal details about me on this forum!

 

Sorry to hijack the thread!

 

Colin

[Andy Nellist]

Its a shame Steve wasn't writing instead of JB.

 

I don't know JB but I hate the way he writes which I find utterly patronising. Walker was a genius yet managed to get his message accross without being patronising.

[slodger]

'That's something I have been waiting for since Slodger [whoever he is] posted personal details about me on this forum!'

 

It's Chris Hammond Colin, and I haven't got a clue what you're talking about??? :confused:

 

You've got my e-mail address, perhaps you can mail me to explain?

 

[ 07. October 2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: slodger ]

[Steve Walker]

Andy Nellist:

Its a shame Steve wasn't writing instead of JB.

What, me or another Steve? I don't write half well enough for that kind of thing. Anyway, I don't subscribe to the view that we should censor ourselves because of who might be looking. Imagine how much bad publicity we could have avoided if we'd dealt with the lead shot issue before those bastards at the Mirror picked up on it. We still get unfairly accused of poisoning swans today.

 

Haven't read JB's piece, but in some ways I'd rather read something I disagree with than something which confirms my prejudices - so long as it isn't ill-informed, which it sounds like might be a fair criticism of the article.

 

quote:

---

I don't know JB but I hate the way he writes which I find utterly patronising. Walker was a genius yet managed to get his message accross without being patronising.

Now that's definitely not me, that's got to be RW, and I agree wholeheartedly. We have to face the fact that we aren't likely to get another of his ilk. We need him now more than we ever did

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

As an ACA life member, I’ve not posted on this thread until I read John’s piece in the “Annual Report” first. Having now read it twice, I have this to say.

 

But before I do, I’d just like to say I was impressed by the Reports overall appearance and content. Well done to the ACA for that.

 

I didn’t like John’s article at all.

 

This is not what I feel the ACA “should” be about. As such, I regret the articles whole content and regret any possible damage it might do to the ACA’s membership recruitment drives in the future.

 

In personal protest at the live baiting opinion expressed within the article, I now withdraw any future fundraising efforts I might have made for the ACA. I staunchly stand with predator anglers over their right to use live baits and anglers rights to fish how they choose within their legal boundaries.

 

Not a single step backwards.

 

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Jim Gibbinson]

While I understand the "don't give an inch" philosophy of some posters on this thread, I think they are mistaken. I respectfully suggest that they take an objective look at how livebaiting makes us extremely vulnerable to attack from the antis. Consider, too, how the general non-angling public will react to the subject.

 

Were I anti-angling, I would regard the practice of livebaiting as a gift to the anti-angling cause.

 

And I repeat what I said earlier - I think livebaiting is cruel and indefensible.

[Peter Waller]

I agree with what Lee has just said, and I have a great deal of sympathy with Jim's opinion. However, I think that Lee hits the nail on the head, fairly and squarely.

 

Have you, Lee and other ACA members let the ACA know of your feelings?

Go to:

http://www.a-c-a.org/contactus.html and tell them. I have.

[Dave Lumb]

Jim Gibbinson:

 Consider, too, how the general non-angling public will react to the subject.

 

And I repeat what I said earlier - I think livebaiting is cruel and indefensible.

Ah, but you used to livebait once upon a time if my failing memory serves me right. I certainly remember you talking about (at the second PAC conference stocking your freezer with coarse fish for deadbaits. How does spending a couple of sessions catching fish so you can kill them and freeze them look to the antis?

 

Anti anglers don't give a toss about angling becoming more acceptable, they simply want it stopped. 'Cleaning up our act' is a pointless excercise.

 

I respectfully suggest that all anglers support all currently legal methods - if for no other reason than each one is a brick in the wall that the antis have to chip away at.

[Peter Waller]

But, Dave, what is your opinion of John Bailey's condemnation of Live Baiting? He is the Vice President of the ACA, remember that the ACA is also a member of FACT and that his rambling was published in the ACA's annual report.