Countyside Alliance and FACT

[Sportsman]

Why, do you know anything about angling? you certainly don't know anything about hunting, thats obvious. As for the rest of your post I thought that a forum was a meeting place to exchange ideas, or is that only if they agree with yours?

I joined this site to read and contribute ideas to and from other anglers, I didn't start this thread but when I see things that need challenging I will challenge them, whether you like it or not

BTW thanks for that warm welcoming feeling

[Jim Roper]

Graham. X:

It's what is known in the trade as a "troll".

What trade is that, then?

[Guest sslatter]

"Sportsman": "I didn't start this thread but when I see things that need challenging I will challenge them, whether you like it or not.."

 

..and so will I.. and that's exactly what I was doing.. whether YOU like it or not. Get it?

 

[ 21. February 2005, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Graham. X ]

[Eddie]

Angling unity eh!!

 

A belated welcome to Anglers Net Dave.

[rodman]

Just logged on and read the link to the Independant supplied by Paul and was ecouraged to read this section:

 

quote:

---

However, while the hunting ban united the animal welfare lobby, campaigns against shooting are likely to divide it. Two of the organisations, those with the most money and public support - the IFAW and the RSPCA - are unequivocally against a campaign.

 

"We have no plans to campaign against shooting in the UK," says IFAW's Gill Sanders. "The RSPCA has no plans whatsoever to do any work on hunting or fishing," echoes David Bowles, the organisation's Head of Campaigns. "It's simply a myth that we're going to move on to shooting and fishing. It would be silly for us to open up a whole new area when there is no public and political support for it," he says

---

Now, seeing as the RSPCA, IFAW etc all work together, and have no plans to target fishing, I don't think we really have much to worry about just at the moment.

 

But if one of these groups sees all the bickering going on between ourselves, (and you would have to be very niave to think they don't monitor these sites), then they might just decide to stir things up a bit... and before long you would be reading a headline in one of their diatribes - that one of you wrote on this site!

 

After all a threat to close a topic by our own moderators might be a bit of a laugh to you, but it's amunition to the antis!

 

So cool it guys and lets present a better face to the world!

[Guest sslatter]

There are those who would argue that such "disunity" can only be healthy for the future of angling. It shows that not all anglers support the pro-hunting/shooting lobby, which is a very good thing IMO, and I fervently hope that any passing "antis" do notice this, and that they also note that many of these posters are so far removed from the angling that I know as to be unrecognisable.. or should that be "more recognisable"- as hunters first and foremost.

 

What gets me is all these "new posters" turning up, all seeming to know each other, all continuing to stir things up to their own pro-hunting agenda. I for one will not sit by and let the pastime I love be hijacked by those whose agenda is clear: hunting, and damn all the rest.

[Peter Waller]

Sportsman:

I'm sorry Trenters, my friend, I'm not being drawn on this one! Tally-ho and off I go, tootle pip and all that squit, what! Cheerio, for now , time for a harry snifters old boy!!

 

A bit sterotypical don't you think?

Posibly your class prejudice is showing!

I suppose that all coarse fishermen wear flat caps and have whippets on bits of string.

The antis must love you

Hi Sportsman, welcome to AN.

 

So what is my 'class'? What is my 'class' prejudice? Why, indeed, should I have a class prejudice?

 

Whilst I accept that the 'class issue' is relevant, to some very small minded folk on both sides of the fence, I would like to think that it does not apply to me, nor to other AN posters.

 

Might my stereotypical comment not have been rather tongue in cheek? Afterall, Lee and I have never met, but we do have an understanding, so to speak!

[Peter Waller]

Graham. X:

"Sportsman": "I didn't start this thread but when I see things that need challenging I will challenge them, whether you like it or not.."

 

..and so will I.. and that's exactly what I was doing.. whether YOU like it or not. Get it?

Not like you to be less than welcoming Graham!

[Sportsman]

First of all, I do not, have never and have never had a desire to hunt. I do not have a pro hunting agenda. I do however shoot and fish and accept shooting and fishing are fieldsports along with hunting.

With regard to your class Peter I neither know nor care, but using words like "Tally Ho" toodlepip and "Harry Snifters" in the context you did certainly sounds like you assume all hunters are some kind of upperclass twits. Been reading too much propoganda from the antis!!

If antis do indeed monitor this site I don't think that they will be particularly pleased by the differing views, what will please them is the head in sand attitude of all those who think that angling is not a fieldsport and that it is forever safe.

If all of the contributors who say they abhor killing were really serious they would all be non-fishing vegans. By fishing for and catching fish, whether you release them or not, you are using and abusing sentient creatures for fun, and that is a fact.

Finally Peter, imagine a world where there were no pike anglers, just match fisherman and game fishers, all of whom hated Pike and saw them as vermin to be eradicated. This is exactly the situation with the fox once hunts are removed from the picture. Farmers and keepers will have no reason to have foxes on their land and so will shoot, poison, trap and snare until they are all gone. Maybe all we will have soon will be disease ridden urban foxes living off Big mac papers. Then the so called "animal lovers" can catch them all up so that they can be released into the wild, to be shot, snared etc by the farmers and keepers. Did someone not think something through?

[GlennB]

northern mark:

GlennB

 

I only asked as vermin don't get eaten.

By vermin I meant rats mainly

Regards

Ah I see what you mean.

To sum up my position I suppose I'd have to say that killing other animals would have to be 'purposeful' to be justified. Food, pest control, population control for the long-term benefit of the animals themselves, etc.

But even then it gets complicated. When I light a decent bonfire in the autumn I'm probably killing millions of invertebrates and I'm really not going to worry about it. Burn that stack in January and I might be killing hibernating hedgehogs, and that does bother me.

We all make a judgement about where we start worrying.

 

Regards

 

Glenn