Countyside Alliance and FACT

[PhilC]

argyll:

That can't possible be true PhilC. A couple of people on this forum tell me not to worry and that fishing is safe. I bet you have another agenda PhilC

Argyll It is true! I will never write anything that does not have foundation and research to back it up, if you follow the link I posted, this is no fairy story and I have no other agenda but that of to protect our right to fish

 

Regards PhilC

[argyll]

Sorry Phil, I was kidding (hence the big smiley) I believe every word of it. It just doesnt sit well with one or two 'head up bum' posters who talk about the rest of us being bigoted and having agendas and telling the world that angling is untouchable.

[Sportsman]

I'm not exactly sure what my agenda is but I'm sure someone! will tell me

[PhilC]

Sorry argyle. the engish word can be read in many ways. but on a more serious note Graham is right in what he says "this is a fishing site" but what isimportant is the CA does have a part to play in all field sports, but I think that the subject should be kept to angling, I belive it is time to wake up and see the whole picture. I also belive that the attacks against angling will never come to political fruition.

 

Why. there is to much at stake, the river authoriteis make (and I quote )

2003/04 Sales=1,261,972 =£18,004,606

That is the licence figure from the Enviroment Agency.

Then you have all the tackle, bait,clothing etc if that is added all together that is a lot of brass, and not to forget the governments cut in all this

 

However that will not stop the potential harrasment by the fanatics, it is not the Banning we should realy worry about more so those who are determined to demonstate against it.

 

I for one am pleased that the hunt brigade are definy the law as this will keeep the Sabs of our backs for a while as they run thier vendeta against the hunts.

 

Just my tuppence worth in the vast debate.

 

Regards

 

PhilC

[chesters1]

do sabs give reductions on utility bills ,Mr Boote said he did but when i asked for some he clammed up

[Peter Waller]

I get the impression that this subject, thankfully, has just about ground to a halt

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Phil,

 

Angling does indeed generate vast amounts of income. And it’s not restricted to tackle dealers, tackle shops, government agencies, and fishing clubs/organisations either. The list of commerce connected to angling activity is quite vast.

 

Then there's the "social" aspect going for angling on its plus side. We are the “quiet” sport that bothers no one. But our almost complacent quietness could be our own downfall in the end.

 

The anti-angling groups and organisations remain very real indeed. As are the threats they pose for angling's future.

 

Who would have really thought twenty years ago a rag-tag army of hunt saboteurs and animal rights activists would bring down the fox hunting communities? I well remember reading in the "Shooting Times" how columnists of the day thought it "laughable" that a tiny minority of Hunt Sabs would ever affect hunting traditions. People generally thought it could never happen. Britain’s were after all a nation of tolerant people?

 

Personally, I used to think the threat from anti-fishing groups remained pretty low. Working in angling politics as I did I knew that the anti-fishing groups were small, lacked money and were pretty much disorganised. That’s all changed now.

 

These people are starting to get very organised and now have financial-professional help via their world wide network of allegiances.

 

It is assumed by “some” I’m sure, that my own concern for anti angling forces lies behind some covert smoke screen Countryside Alliance propaganda machine aimed at sucking angling into the “hunting” debate. Such an assumption is wholly wrong.

 

For those who reason that angling remains safe read this;

 

3rd February 2003

 

OF THE ANTIS & PETA

 

“Angling as a sport is under threat. Even prior to us being sucked into the current emotive debate about the rights and wrongs of fox hunting, angling has always been somewhat ambivalent in its attitude to hunting. I would like to talk you through where we currently stand.

 

For many years those we have been up against here in the UK have been relatively easy to deal with, as most rational people would laugh at their views because they are so whacky. To give you a flavour of their style of argument, consider these quotes:-

 

“Violence on the (football) terraces, violence on the waterways. What is the difference? Like the soccer yob’s innocent victims, fish are also victims of thuggery and violence...”

 

“If child battering is considered wrong then there is no logical reason why the same moral code should not be applied” (to fishing).”

 

These are the same people who once gleefully reported in their magazine the death of an angler from electrocution, and one even stated he would lay down his life to defend maggots! These people we can combat, and we have done for almost 20 years.

 

Contrast that now, though, with the threat which comes from the American-based action group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For those of you who may not know, PETA has funds in excess of $40M and is actively engaged in an anti-angling campaign in the USA and the UK. Its publicity material is professional and well laid out, and it puts angling in the same bracket as cruel treatment of circus animals in Russia, abuse of laboratory beagles, fur farming, and a Puerto Rican dogs home full of dead and dying, flea-ridden, diseased animals.

 

Note that PETA places us in the same league as those who are blatantly cruel to animals. This leads us back to the debate on hunting and whether or not angling is cruel. Take any group of anglers and raise this subject. It is predictable that there will be those who see angling and hunting as natural allies, and those who hold diametrically opposite views. The split is often about 50/50, and the debate invariably becomes heated, with no real conclusion.

 

The answer becomes irrelevant, though, because whatever you believe about hunting, the antis themselves are in no doubt whatsoever. We are not on the top of their priority list but as soon as hunting has been banned, we are likely to become one of the main targets of their campaigns.

 

If you doubt this, remember that PETA already attacks angling in its magazines, which have included using Linda McCartney (the late wife of Beatle Paul) in an anti-angling advertisement - all very high profile, emotive and designed to catch media attention.

 

These fanatics are also seeking to discourage youngsters from taking up fishing in the first place, with wide-spread anti-angling literature going out to schools. In the UK, the anti-angling group Pisces sent out anti-angling packs to many schools a couple of years ago.

 

I would now like to quote from PETA on their long-term aims.

 

• On pets: PETA says

“companion animals.....we would no longer allow breeding........would be (completely) phased out”

 

“The cat, like the dog, must disappear.....”

 

“Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation”

 

• On terrorism:

 

“Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are `acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause”

 

“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down”

 

• On meat eating:

 

“......stabbing Mother Earth to death with (your) fork. He hasn’t got the message that the single most important thing anyone can do to save her is to become a vegetarian”

 

“Purrs (congratulations) to UK (former) Minister of Sport Tony Banks for writing in The Independent `I am convinced that, in years to come, we will regard eating animal flesh in the same light as we now regard cannibalism”

 

Quotes of this nature are legion and usually extreme.

 

PETA is well funded and highly organised, and it will be increasingly active in the UK, although many other organisations share the same objectives and ideals. Their agenda of activities to outlaw is well documented and - in order of priority - reads as follows;

 

 

• hunting with dogs

• hunting/shooting generally

• fishing

• pet ownership

• meat eating!

(objective vegetarianism-veganism for preference)

 

Many anglers disagree with the premise that we have common ground with hunting, but the fact remains that appeasement to eradicate one section of the antis’ ‘shopping list’ may well bring more pressure to bear on us as anglers, not less. There is no ideal compromise on our stance with hunting, but it is the case that hunting takes the brunt of PETA’s attacks at the moment. If these are successful angling will be forced to become more defensive, and there are precious few funds in our ‘war chest’ to help us fight back.

 

Whatever your views that is a situation that should cause you concern. At the very least, please ask yourself: “How can I help angling?”

 

That is what a small group of concerned anglers did almost 20 years ago, when the lead poisoning of swans issue gained continuous, widespread publicity, the image of angling deteriorated and the antis mounted their first real campaigns against our sport. Interestingly, it was members of the former National Association of Specialist Anglers (NASA) who were at the forefront of the fight, notably David Bird, Bruno Broughton, Barrie Rickards, Keith Barker and others. An Angling Fighting Fund of almost £20,000 was established within a year through voluntary donations and fund-raising initiatives, pro-a large variety of angling literature was produced and distributed widely, and the national and regional campaigning on behalf of angling began in earnest.

 

That work has continued ever since, with the active involvement of the Specialist Anglers’ Conservation Group (SACG) and – now – the Specialist Anglers’ Alliance (SAA). Indeed, the original Fighting Fund has been used so carefully that it still provided finance for some of the recent initiatives.

 

The SAA is one of six member’s organisations of the National Angling Alliance (NAA), each of whom pool their expertise on this and associated issues. Within the NAA, the SAA has played a leading role in protecting angling anti-angling attack. This has enabled the NAA to:-

 

 Compile and maintain a huge, up-to-date library of scientific and other literature on relevant aspects of fish biology, behaviour, neurobiology, anatomy & physiology

 

 Establish a large literature resource on cruelty, pain and allied issues

 

 Prepare copious briefing information – in various forms - for all forms of media

 

 Prepare and issue press releases when attacks are made on the sport

 

 Monitor the local, regional and national media, and respond – as appropriate – whenever anti-angling material appears

 

 Provide spokespeople for radio and television when debates are held.

 

 Prepare and distribute pro-angling material and codes of conduct for the sport

 

 Forge links with environmental and conservation groups

 

 Establish and maintain dialogue with the Countryside Alliance to agree how any pro-angling action can be co-ordinated (and not duplicated)

 

 Participate in political action at local, regional and national level by meeting politicians, lobbying on behalf of the sport and seeking protective action where it is merited

 

Most of this is set against a background of constant monitoring of the anti-angling organisations, their likely actions and their allegiances. This is unglamorous and tedious work, but it is also vital preparation for future attacks on angling.”

 

Now obviously the above document wasn’t written by the Countryside Alliance. It was written by Chris Burt of the SAA, a man whom I have the utmost respect for when it comes to defending any aspect of angling. Chris and the rest of his colleagues in SAA and FACT all believe the future threat to UK angling is real. I agree.

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Sportsman]

Thanks Lee, an interesting, thoughtful and balanced post

Regards

Dave

[Newt]

Lee - I suppose the question is how to best combat

 

[peter mccue]

Well said Lee,

 

An intelligent well thought out post that should be made compulsive reading for some of our more complacent, & quite honestly frighteningly naive posters.