Jump to content

A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.


Peter Waller

Recommended Posts

Peter

 

Your apparent naivety astounds me. Would you really rather, in the words of General Patton, have the CA outside **** into the tent than inside **** out?

 

Just as you doubt the agenda of CA, I am sure there are many at the NAA table who have doubts about CA. If there were no doubts the MOU would not have been needed. Try putting yourself in the same position and see what you would have done then. Try to gain some control of the situation or have a loose cannon going off every time you turned around? Angling has enough loose cannons without one operating a national level.

 

Your comments, do little to support those who are trying to do what they think is best for angling at the moment. They may be wrong, you may be right. Time will tell, but if CA are more controlled in the future by the MOU with NAA then that will be a good thing for angling.

 

As far as the general public are concerned, for the vast majority hunting with dogs is not even an issue, see the recent national surveys from various sources. The fact that NAA is working with CA on angling issues means nothing to most anglers, let alone the general public. If it meant so much to so many anglers where are all the letters of complaint to the constituent bodies of NAA. I can tell you there are none!

 

Mike

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I probably should stay out of these murky waters, but having spent the last few days reading this thread I think, as a humble pleasure angler, I assume of the type you are referring to Peter, I should also be entitled to a comment.

 

I have no interest in the CA, I do have friends who are members, but have never seen the CA as representing me.

 

Having read the various posts, some helpful in raising issues, some not, I would suggest that General Patton's comments as paraphrased by waterman, describe my stand.

 

As a lone angler with no group behind me and having done little to assist angling, I am releived that the likes of Bruno and Waterman are out there. The comments made by the CA that Alan Roe refers to are embarressing to me, I am glad that some principle has been agreed wherebye the CA will butt out on angling issues and allow people, who's genuine first love is angling, to defend angling without the CA standing on our toes.

 

Peter, you may have an issue, your first comments were well made, they have now been answered admirably by the people who are actively doing something, without pay, because they love our sport.

 

I take my hat off to them and only hope that other anglers eventually learn of what difficult times some are going through for their benefit.

 

It doesn't matter whether one individual wants them to do it, they are acting, as they feel, in anglings best interests, and so long as that remains their guiding light I will back them up whatever they do, I only hope that others will too.

phil,

JOIN ANMC TODAY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waterman

 

I think I agree with you. Better to be in **** out than in **** in. Even when the inside for many of us - myself included - is something we are very much against.

 

In other words, I think angling should have a voice within the CA to shut their mouths up when it comes to speaking about angling. If that's what the NAA are doing then that's a good idea.

 

If, on the other hand, the NAA are actually acting with and for the CA then they should surely get out and stay out because there are many anglers out there who are against the hunt-oriented CA and do not want to be associated with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David I don't understand how anybody can possibly mistake you for the other Bird!!! You being such a quiet shy retiring soul and all!! :D

 

More seriously we have to have some sort of control within the CA as I have already pointed out.

 

Frankly I do not see this as being a long standing issue as once the fox hunting issue is finished the CA will wither away and vanish.

 

However can I suggest to all of you who have some care for the issues that angling faces to please join the angling body politic be it as individual members of the SAA or whatever niche you feel that you can work best in.

 

Phil Dean and Martin Salisbury....that means you as well!!!

Who knows betwenn you there might be a living in sueing the antis! :D

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical

minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which

holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd

by the clean end"

Cheers

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan - you know how modest I can be.

I can only hope you are correct: when hunting with hounds is banned the CA will disappear - please dear God!

When they go, I can only hope its with the fizzle of a damp squib.

DCB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Alan Roe:

[QB]Frankly I do not see this as being a long standing issue as once the fox hunting issue is finished the CA will wither away and vanish. /QB]

Alan, this is precisley the reason we should have nothing to do with them!

 

They are only interested in our numbers! Nothing more nothing less!

 

[ 03 April 2002, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: mpbdsnu ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

waterman1013:

As far as the general public are concerned, for the vast majority hunting with dogs is not even an issue, see the recent national surveys from various sources. The fact that NAA is working with CA on angling issues means nothing to most anglers, let alone the general public. If it meant so much to so many anglers where are all the letters of complaint to the constituent bodies of NAA. I can tell you there are none!

 

Mike

Mike, how many of the general 'angling' public were notified that the NAA were even considering signing this MOU with the CA? I dare say the answer will be none!

 

How many of the NAA membership were consulted or even notified? I dare the same answer applied!

 

The bottom line as I see it is that an undemocratic decision has been made here, which is wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

I strongly disagree with the opinion that once, if indeed ever, foxhunting is banned, the CA will "wither and die". If anything, it will become stronger than ever before as every person not already a CA member with a vested interest in field sports come forward in their thousands to join the CA.

 

Does anyone out there seriously think that people involved in field sports WONT take the banning of foxhunting as their "wake up call"? Obviously some do for some reason. And this concerns me.

 

Now I live slap bang in the heart of some of the most famous, or infamous given your opinion, foxhunting and shooting territory in the WORLD.

 

I have the Belvoir Hunt on my doorstep, and the Quorn Hunt only a few miles away. These are world famous hunts and many from all over the world come to ride with them. Extremely rich and famous people with clout. Serious clout. Royalty, merchant bankers, shipping magnates, industrialists. You name the label with the money on it, and some wearing it goes hunting.

 

Sandwiched all in between, is some of the very best pheasant beats that shooting has to offer anywhere in the world. And once again, French, Italian, American, German, Dutch, Spanish,Arabian, Swiss, Austrian shooting parties drop out of the clouds in their helicopters to pay £3000 plus per day to attend these shoots. Make absolutely NO MISTAKE. This is a multi million pound business and there are plenty, infact, more than enough takers to come over here to shoot.

 

A awful lot of these same people by the way, also have their helicopters drop in on the very best salmon fishing as well.

 

I talk regularly with these captains of industry that spend their money to shoot pheasants. I talk to the local gentry, the farmers, the gamekeepers, the country folk. And everysingle one back the CA.

 

Exactly the same can be said in thousands of other rural area's where the depth of country feeling is just as strong.

 

Now apathy is strong in angling. We all know that. Just the same, there is a similar level of apathy within those who partake in various aspects of field sports. If foxhunting goes, you just watch this apathy turn to rage, then turn into fear as all these none CA apathetic field sports participants rush to join the CA.

 

And if anyone doesn't think that this would happen, you are at best naive, or worse completely out of touch with rural opinion.

 

Get rid of foxhunting and a rage will sweep through the countryside. Not because of foxhunting in particular being gone, but because field sports participants would know, absolutely, that their chosen activity would be next.

 

If you want to see some real solidarity, ban foxhunting. And if you want to then see the CA grow, and I mean REALLY grow, keep an eye after any ban on foxhunting on the CA membership figures. Because where ever their headquarters are, you will see the building soar up into the sky on top of the mountain of subs coming in.

 

So, does this make me the only clever bloke on the block? Am I the ONLY one to see this coming?

 

I dont, or wont, believe that.

 

And; Am I getting warmer?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to comment
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...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.