Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter Waller

A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.

Recommended Posts

Roy Westwood, editor of Anglers Mail is, I think, the most politically astute of all our angling editors. In his recent 'Editor's End Peg' he wrote the following:-

 

Quoting Roy Westwood,

 

'If ALL hunting with dogs was banned throughout Britain tommorow, where would that leave the Countryside Alliance? In my judgement they would be stranded without a unifying cause for the large majority of their most enthusiastic supporters.

 

I cannot see the network of influential Allience followers throwing their whole weight and considerable finances behind coarse angling & reinventing themselves as defenders of bleak & bream.

 

They principally exist to protect and promote the interests of hare coursing and fox hunting. If you follow the hounds, then support the Alliance. But if you coarse fish, why bother?

 

Recruiting carp and barbel anglers figures high on the Alliance agenda, purely for reasons of political muscle.

 

Public perceptions of angling are currently positive but would that change if we joined forces with supporters of hare coursing?

 

That's one possible risk. The other is that the Alliance believes it has a mandate to speak on our behalf which I believe is counter productive to our conservation cause and potentially confusing to the public at large.

 

Angling at national level does not need the Alliance to defend our corner. We have the resources to do that job perfectly well.

 

I mention all this yet again because the National Angling Alliance appears to believe it is sound tactics to collaborate with the Countryside Alliance in angling issues.

 

I do not belive the majority of coarse anglers in England and Wales share that view.' ROY WESTWOOD.

 

I for one entirely agree with Roy. Especially re allienation from public support if we continue with this unholly link that isn't, so we are told, a link!

 

Those of you who are involved with the SAA, NAA, NFA et al, please note Roy's words.

 

As things are angling is not united, it is devided by the unwelcome intrusion of the CA.

 

Why are our political warriors pandering to the CA? :confused: :confused: :confused: and very :confused:

 

Do they not have the courage to say 'no' to the CA? Do they wish anglers to be painted with the very same brush as fox hunters, despite the publics very obvious objection to such hunting?

 

[ 29 March 2002, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

The NAA haven't joined forces with the CA, they have jointly signed a 'Memorandum of Understanding'.

 

I understand that the reason for doing so was that the CA was increasingly making statements 'on behalf of the country's anglers', without any consultation with the recognised angling bodies.

 

The memorandum recognises our common interests (the CA agenda isn't exclusively about hunting) and leaves the NAA as the authority to speak on issues regarding angling.

 

Many anglers are understandably reluctant to have any dealings with what many regard as simply a front for fox hunters, but the alternative was to risk becoming political enemies with a well organised and funded lobby group who might otherwise feel free to comment on angling issues, and to use angling as cannon fodder in the blood sports debate.

 

By recognising and working together on common interests outside of the fox hunting debate, and having the CA recognise the NAA as the authority to speak on countryside matters regarding angling, we as anglers are making the best of a situation that is not entirely to our liking.

 

Those within angling who have negotiated with the CA on behalf of angling should be congratulated on negotiating a difficult political minefield and not castigated for the spin put upon what has been achieved by sensationalist reporters.

 

I must adnmit that I haven't had sight of the memorandum of understanding signed on behalf of all anglers by our governing body.

 

Anyone care to post it here for all to see?

 

Tight Lines - leon


RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm totally opposed to fox-hunting and, therefore, to the CA which I do see as a front for the hunting sect.

 

Nevertheless I think Leon makes a very valid case for the NAA/CA alliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phil hackett:

Pete my views on this subject are well known and documented on this site.

I also endorse all that Leon has said.

Your views Phil. But when you speak as the SAA do you put forward the views of anglers or the views of Phil Hackett? I'm sorry if you see this as a blunt and very direct question. It certainly is not intended to be antagonistic but I'm afraid that is how I see the situation.

 

Leon, you put forward a convincing and reasonable case for this unholly link which is not a link! However, I do take issue with the point about 'spin' generated by sensationalist journalists. Firtly I don't consider that Roy Westwood has written in a manner that in anyway can be construed as 'sensationalist'. His is a reasonable assessment of general opinion which has been put over in a non sensational manner. I believe his view is representative of the majority.

 

The reasoned and reasonable replies by both yourself & Phil, and you are both perfectly entitled to your opinions, illustrates my major concerns. That Angling is split, we are devided. We are devided for one reason only, because of the uninvited intrusion of the CA.

 

My second concern is a simple one, that our angling Politicians are out of touch with the ordinary angler on the bank. In other words they do not represent the general opinion of those that they choose to represent.

 

As for being fodder in the blood sports debate, it appears that that is what we already are, judging by comments in the media by CA spokespeople. Perhaps we should be more worried about antagonising the general public rather than the CA.

 

I would respectively suggest that the NAA & its puppets have relented to the very professional 'spin' generated by the CA.

 

I'm afraid that whilst the NAA continues this unwelcome 'understanding', or link by anyother name, that there is a very real likelyhood that very many anglers will look for an alternative body to represent their views at government level.

 

[ 30 March 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete the views I represent at the SAA are the views of the group that delegate me to be there. On this issue they fully accept and understand the need to be pragmatic for the reasons Leon has outlined.

 

When I write on this site you’ll note the name Phil Hackett appears and I speak in a personal capacity not for the group I represent, nor for the SAA, but for myself. If I am making a statement on behalf of either of the above I’ll say so!

 

Incidentally would I be right in assuming that you only make statements on behalf of yourself, or have you the mandate so speak on others behalf?


phil h.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phil, bit late, but what the heck! No Phil, I don't speak with a mandate. However I do listen to the views of others and if my view is similar, or the same, I will express it. Whilst I was elected to the committee of ACANS it is without the mandate of a club. I was proposed at the inaugrel AGM & I accepted as I saw a need for a non club person to represent non club people. At ACANS committee meetings I have always made it clear when I voiced my opinion or when I voiced what I considered to be clearly a popular opinion. Not an ideal situation but I suppose its rather like being an Independant in Parliament, I'm free of Government Whips! In the case of the NAA / CA 'understanding', if thats what you wish to call it, I feel passionately that the NAA has badly mis-judged the opinion of the majority, and for this reason have climbed onto my soapbox. Anyway, its late, that's it for tonight. Happy dreams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Waller:

I do take issue with the point about 'spin' generated by sensationalist journalists. Firtly I don't consider that Roy Westwood has written in a manner that in anyway can be construed as 'sensationalist'. His is a reasonable assessment of general opinion which has been put over in a non sensational manner. I believe his view is representative of the majority.

Pete,

 

My comments weren't directed at Roy Westwood, but at those who have (mischievously?) represented the agreement as an enthusiastic bedding down together of the NAA and the CA.

 

Had the story been presented for what it was, when it first broke, then anglers may not have been so agile in jumping to one side of the fence or the other.

 

But reporting 'sensible decision taken, not much impact, successful damage limitation exercise, congratulations to everyone involved' doesn't have the same impact as 'NAA and CA join forces!' Nor does it generate heat and debate for the letter pages; always useful for getting circulation figures up.

 

I think we need to look elsewhere for those responsible for dividing the opinions of anglers.

 

Tight Lines - leon


RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Waller:

I do take issue with the point about 'spin' generated by sensationalist journalists. Firtly I don't consider that Roy Westwood has written in a manner that in anyway can be construed as 'sensationalist'. His is a reasonable assessment of general opinion which has been put over in a non sensational manner. I believe his view is representative of the majority.

Pete,

 

My comments weren't directed at Roy Westwood, but at those who have (mischievously?) represented the agreement as an enthusiastic bedding down together of the NAA and the CA.

 

Had the story been presented for what it was, when it first broke, then anglers may not have been so agile in jumping to one side of the fence or the other.

 

But reporting 'sensible decision taken, not much impact, successful damage limitation exercise, congratulations to everyone involved' doesn't have the same impact as 'NAA and CA join forces!' Nor does it generate heat and debate for the letter pages; always useful for getting circulation figures up.

 

I think we need to look elsewhere for those responsible for dividing the opinions of anglers.

 

Tight Lines - leon


RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are very fortunate that we have access to information such as we are able to share here - unfortunately the vast majority of anglers are not!

 

What can be explained as a "memorandum of understanding" between the NAA and the CA on here, is not seen in the same way elsewhere!

 

People I have spoken to that do NOT have access to the internet, and therefore sites such as AnglersNet, see this "memorandum of understanding" as a LINK!

 

I feel it becomes more important that angling/anglers are not seen to be linked in any way to hunting with hounds by the general public, and Joe Bloggs will only see this "memorandum of understanding" as one thing that the two ARE LINKED!

 

This unholy alliance should cease immediately.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...