Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear Guys,

 

I feel that no matter what is said about the CA, some peoples minds are so set on being anti-CA that no matter what anyone says, anti CA opinions will remain staunchly the same.

 

Thats fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

I tend to be slightly different on this particular subject because I like to keep an open mind. Of course, I am perhaps more fortunate than most because I get told the CA story by such a diverse amount of CA supporters. For them, or at least the overwhelming majority that I know personally, foxhunting is NOT their reason for joining the CA. Yes, admittedly, these people will march and support foxhunting because for them, hunting is part of their surroundings. Part of the fabric that surrounds their way of life. Just the same as driven pheasant shooting is. And just about everything one can think of that country folk enjoy.

 

At the end of the day, people WILL fight to protect or preserve their particular sport. Their particular way of life. Much the same as SOME anglers do when they attend fishing meetings and so forth in efforts to protect and preserve THEIR sport. It has to be said though, the numbers of active anglers fighting to help preserve our sport pales poorly in comparison to the numbers who actively go out of their way to help organise events, fund raising etc, in the CA.

 

CA PR? It seemed to have started strongly. But now has appeared to dropped off. As a seeker for the truth, my question is why? Could it be that like some suggest, particularly the two Peters, the CA "IS" indeed foxhunting based. So could it be that they see the foxhunting issue being lost to them so are starting to wind down the CA PR machine? If this "IS" the case, then there are a great many country folk that I know personally who will feel dreadfully let down.

 

I suppose the real truth will only out with the passage of time.

 

But what if foxhunting "DOES" go. What then?

 

For a moment, lets assume it does get banned, and the CA goes from strength to strength as none CA members that shoot rush in to join the CA because they to feel that their sport will be the next to come under the cosh. This is a fair enough assumption dont you think?

 

What then, would be the stance towards the CA from those who are very much anti-CA at the moment? Would you then stay entrenched as anti CA supporters and refuse to support shooting in the same vein as say foxhunting?

 

Indeed, that question could be broadened.

 

What about Falconry? Or Ferreting or Long Netting for Rabbits? I suppose including killing rabbits isn't a fair one seeing as landowners ARE obliged by law to keep the numbers of rabbits on their land down to a minimum. But then again, the CA does have fighting for Rabbiters rights on their list which does puzzle me slightly.

 

Hunting with dogs. Thats what foxhunting is all about. As quoted often as trains not turning up on time, "A Toffs sport".

 

But if foxhunting gets banned, then ALL hunting with dogs goes to. Fair enough if one is against the "Toffs". But what about the ordinary working man, who's certainly no "Toff", that runs a Lurcher for rabbits? Even gun dogs will be on sticky ground once the anti's get mobilised with their vidio recorders turning up at pheasant shoots. "Yes ma'Lord. I filmed the springer spaniel accused now sitting in the dock of hunting a rabbit through the brush and killing it with its bare jaws".

 

Even old dears better watch it if their poodles stray onto a rabbits scent whilst out for a country walk. "Yes ma'Lord, It was I that filmed the accused 82 year old "slip" her red ribboned blood thirsty beast onto the poor frightened rabbit. And I know she enjoyed it because she waved her arms around shouting"

 

Ridiculous scenario's?

 

Perhaps. But who would have thought a few years ago that policemen, lawers, barristers, Lords, Dukes, Earls, magistrates and all manner of totally law abiding, highly respected pillars of their communities would be banned from owning a handgun for the purposes of shooting at paper targets?

 

At the time, that ban was intended to wipe the streets clean of illegal handguns used in criminal activities. The government of the day. This government. Said so. But whilst they plied this "spin" in order to get handguns banned, they knew full well that banning legally held handguns would not stop the escalation in the use of handguns. Indeed, we now have more hanguns in the hands of the criminal eliment than ever before on our streets. Even teenagers get hold of them with ease.

 

So why did they seek to penalise all those law abiding citizens in the first place?

 

So foxhunting goes. I repeat the question. What next?

 

Now for those who dont know who Pete Sharpe is, let me tell you something.

 

Pete is a specialist angler of many, many long years standing. Pete is a member of the highly respected Peterborough Specimen Group (PSG) In his time as a specialist angler, Pete has fished for just about everything. Successfully I might add.

 

It comes as no surprise to me that Pete holds certain strong views. All of which he is entitled to hold.

 

But NEVER, in my wildest dreams did I imagine an angler of Petes pedigree would now be saying that those who are pro-retaining livebaiting are infact "Tories" looking to score cheap points! And furthermore, Pete as a livebaiter himself now considers the campaign to retain livebaiting would be counter productive! To whom? Angling I suppose.

 

Is this a perfect example of just how far people can have their minds changed and how far they can be pushed towards the abyss of the ban this, ban that culture.

 

Crikey! Thank God I'm in the SAA. Yes, we do have our disagreements at the moment but they, every single man jack of them, NEVER, EVER, budge one single inch towards giving away anglers rights and angling practices.

 

Nor it seems, do the CA.

 

And when standing up for angling rights and angling practices, I stand with brave men I can count on. SAA guys and RSSG ones.

 

Oh, before I go, something you SHOULD know Pete (Sharpe) seeing as you appear to know so much about foxhunting.

 

The reason why foxhunters call their red coats "Pinks", has nothing whatsoever to do with you assuming they are colour blind, or indeed, has nothing to do with colour at all.

 

They call their coats "Pinks" because a chap named Thomas Pink was the originator of their tayloring.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

 

Talliho!! I'm off to talk to the SAA now. On a matter of vital importance for river angling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dear Guys,

 

I feel that no matter what is said about the CA, some peoples minds are so set on being anti-CA that no matter what anyone says, anti CA opinions will remain staunchly the same.

 

Thats fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

I tend to be slightly different on this particular subject because I like to keep an open mind. Of course, I am perhaps more fortunate than most because I get told the CA story by such a diverse amount of CA supporters. For them, or at least the overwhelming majority that I know personally, foxhunting is NOT their reason for joining the CA. Yes, admittedly, these people will march and support foxhunting because for them, hunting is part of their surroundings. Part of the fabric that surrounds their way of life. Just the same as driven pheasant shooting is. And just about everything one can think of that country folk enjoy.

 

At the end of the day, people WILL fight to protect or preserve their particular sport. Their particular way of life. Much the same as SOME anglers do when they attend fishing meetings and so forth in efforts to protect and preserve THEIR sport. It has to be said though, the numbers of active anglers fighting to help preserve our sport pales poorly in comparison to the numbers who actively go out of their way to help organise events, fund raising etc, in the CA.

 

CA PR? It seemed to have started strongly. But now has appeared to dropped off. As a seeker for the truth, my question is why? Could it be that like some suggest, particularly the two Peters, the CA "IS" indeed foxhunting based. So could it be that they see the foxhunting issue being lost to them so are starting to wind down the CA PR machine? If this "IS" the case, then there are a great many country folk that I know personally who will feel dreadfully let down.

 

I suppose the real truth will only out with the passage of time.

 

But what if foxhunting "DOES" go. What then?

 

For a moment, lets assume it does get banned, and the CA goes from strength to strength as none CA members that shoot rush in to join the CA because they to feel that their sport will be the next to come under the cosh. This is a fair enough assumption dont you think?

 

What then, would be the stance towards the CA from those who are very much anti-CA at the moment? Would you then stay entrenched as anti CA supporters and refuse to support shooting in the same vein as say foxhunting?

 

Indeed, that question could be broadened.

 

What about Falconry? Or Ferreting or Long Netting for Rabbits? I suppose including killing rabbits isn't a fair one seeing as landowners ARE obliged by law to keep the numbers of rabbits on their land down to a minimum. But then again, the CA does have fighting for Rabbiters rights on their list which does puzzle me slightly.

 

Hunting with dogs. Thats what foxhunting is all about. As quoted often as trains not turning up on time, "A Toffs sport".

 

But if foxhunting gets banned, then ALL hunting with dogs goes to. Fair enough if one is against the "Toffs". But what about the ordinary working man, who's certainly no "Toff", that runs a Lurcher for rabbits? Even gun dogs will be on sticky ground once the anti's get mobilised with their vidio recorders turning up at pheasant shoots. "Yes ma'Lord. I filmed the springer spaniel accused now sitting in the dock of hunting a rabbit through the brush and killing it with its bare jaws".

 

Even old dears better watch it if their poodles stray onto a rabbits scent whilst out for a country walk. "Yes ma'Lord, It was I that filmed the accused 82 year old "slip" her red ribboned blood thirsty beast onto the poor frightened rabbit. And I know she enjoyed it because she waved her arms around shouting"

 

Ridiculous scenario's?

 

Perhaps. But who would have thought a few years ago that policemen, lawers, barristers, Lords, Dukes, Earls, magistrates and all manner of totally law abiding, highly respected pillars of their communities would be banned from owning a handgun for the purposes of shooting at paper targets?

 

At the time, that ban was intended to wipe the streets clean of illegal handguns used in criminal activities. The government of the day. This government. Said so. But whilst they plied this "spin" in order to get handguns banned, they knew full well that banning legally held handguns would not stop the escalation in the use of handguns. Indeed, we now have more hanguns in the hands of the criminal eliment than ever before on our streets. Even teenagers get hold of them with ease.

 

So why did they seek to penalise all those law abiding citizens in the first place?

 

So foxhunting goes. I repeat the question. What next?

 

Now for those who dont know who Pete Sharpe is, let me tell you something.

 

Pete is a specialist angler of many, many long years standing. Pete is a member of the highly respected Peterborough Specimen Group (PSG) In his time as a specialist angler, Pete has fished for just about everything. Successfully I might add.

 

It comes as no surprise to me that Pete holds certain strong views. All of which he is entitled to hold.

 

But NEVER, in my wildest dreams did I imagine an angler of Petes pedigree would now be saying that those who are pro-retaining livebaiting are infact "Tories" looking to score cheap points! And furthermore, Pete as a livebaiter himself now considers the campaign to retain livebaiting would be counter productive! To whom? Angling I suppose.

 

Is this a perfect example of just how far people can have their minds changed and how far they can be pushed towards the abyss of the ban this, ban that culture.

 

Crikey! Thank God I'm in the SAA. Yes, we do have our disagreements at the moment but they, every single man jack of them, NEVER, EVER, budge one single inch towards giving away anglers rights and angling practices.

 

Nor it seems, do the CA.

 

And when standing up for angling rights and angling practices, I stand with brave men I can count on. SAA guys and RSSG ones.

 

Oh, before I go, something you SHOULD know Pete (Sharpe) seeing as you appear to know so much about foxhunting.

 

The reason why foxhunters call their red coats "Pinks", has nothing whatsoever to do with you assuming they are colour blind, or indeed, has nothing to do with colour at all.

 

They call their coats "Pinks" because a chap named Thomas Pink was the originator of their tayloring.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

 

Talliho!! I'm off to talk to the SAA now. On a matter of vital importance for river angling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Guys,

 

I feel that no matter what is said about the CA, some peoples minds are so set on being anti-CA that no matter what anyone says, anti CA opinions will remain staunchly the same.

 

Thats fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

I tend to be slightly different on this particular subject because I like to keep an open mind. Of course, I am perhaps more fortunate than most because I get told the CA story by such a diverse amount of CA supporters. For them, or at least the overwhelming majority that I know personally, foxhunting is NOT their reason for joining the CA. Yes, admittedly, these people will march and support foxhunting because for them, hunting is part of their surroundings. Part of the fabric that surrounds their way of life. Just the same as driven pheasant shooting is. And just about everything one can think of that country folk enjoy.

 

At the end of the day, people WILL fight to protect or preserve their particular sport. Their particular way of life. Much the same as SOME anglers do when they attend fishing meetings and so forth in efforts to protect and preserve THEIR sport. It has to be said though, the numbers of active anglers fighting to help preserve our sport pales poorly in comparison to the numbers who actively go out of their way to help organise events, fund raising etc, in the CA.

 

CA PR? It seemed to have started strongly. But now has appeared to dropped off. As a seeker for the truth, my question is why? Could it be that like some suggest, particularly the two Peters, the CA "IS" indeed foxhunting based. So could it be that they see the foxhunting issue being lost to them so are starting to wind down the CA PR machine? If this "IS" the case, then there are a great many country folk that I know personally who will feel dreadfully let down.

 

I suppose the real truth will only out with the passage of time.

 

But what if foxhunting "DOES" go. What then?

 

For a moment, lets assume it does get banned, and the CA goes from strength to strength as none CA members that shoot rush in to join the CA because they to feel that their sport will be the next to come under the cosh. This is a fair enough assumption dont you think?

 

What then, would be the stance towards the CA from those who are very much anti-CA at the moment? Would you then stay entrenched as anti CA supporters and refuse to support shooting in the same vein as say foxhunting?

 

Indeed, that question could be broadened.

 

What about Falconry? Or Ferreting or Long Netting for Rabbits? I suppose including killing rabbits isn't a fair one seeing as landowners ARE obliged by law to keep the numbers of rabbits on their land down to a minimum. But then again, the CA does have fighting for Rabbiters rights on their list which does puzzle me slightly.

 

Hunting with dogs. Thats what foxhunting is all about. As quoted often as trains not turning up on time, "A Toffs sport".

 

But if foxhunting gets banned, then ALL hunting with dogs goes to. Fair enough if one is against the "Toffs". But what about the ordinary working man, who's certainly no "Toff", that runs a Lurcher for rabbits? Even gun dogs will be on sticky ground once the anti's get mobilised with their vidio recorders turning up at pheasant shoots. "Yes ma'Lord. I filmed the springer spaniel accused now sitting in the dock of hunting a rabbit through the brush and killing it with its bare jaws".

 

Even old dears better watch it if their poodles stray onto a rabbits scent whilst out for a country walk. "Yes ma'Lord, It was I that filmed the accused 82 year old "slip" her red ribboned blood thirsty beast onto the poor frightened rabbit. And I know she enjoyed it because she waved her arms around shouting"

 

Ridiculous scenario's?

 

Perhaps. But who would have thought a few years ago that policemen, lawers, barristers, Lords, Dukes, Earls, magistrates and all manner of totally law abiding, highly respected pillars of their communities would be banned from owning a handgun for the purposes of shooting at paper targets?

 

At the time, that ban was intended to wipe the streets clean of illegal handguns used in criminal activities. The government of the day. This government. Said so. But whilst they plied this "spin" in order to get handguns banned, they knew full well that banning legally held handguns would not stop the escalation in the use of handguns. Indeed, we now have more hanguns in the hands of the criminal eliment than ever before on our streets. Even teenagers get hold of them with ease.

 

So why did they seek to penalise all those law abiding citizens in the first place?

 

So foxhunting goes. I repeat the question. What next?

 

Now for those who dont know who Pete Sharpe is, let me tell you something.

 

Pete is a specialist angler of many, many long years standing. Pete is a member of the highly respected Peterborough Specimen Group (PSG) In his time as a specialist angler, Pete has fished for just about everything. Successfully I might add.

 

It comes as no surprise to me that Pete holds certain strong views. All of which he is entitled to hold.

 

But NEVER, in my wildest dreams did I imagine an angler of Petes pedigree would now be saying that those who are pro-retaining livebaiting are infact "Tories" looking to score cheap points! And furthermore, Pete as a livebaiter himself now considers the campaign to retain livebaiting would be counter productive! To whom? Angling I suppose.

 

Is this a perfect example of just how far people can have their minds changed and how far they can be pushed towards the abyss of the ban this, ban that culture.

 

Crikey! Thank God I'm in the SAA. Yes, we do have our disagreements at the moment but they, every single man jack of them, NEVER, EVER, budge one single inch towards giving away anglers rights and angling practices.

 

Nor it seems, do the CA.

 

And when standing up for angling rights and angling practices, I stand with brave men I can count on. SAA guys and RSSG ones.

 

Oh, before I go, something you SHOULD know Pete (Sharpe) seeing as you appear to know so much about foxhunting.

 

The reason why foxhunters call their red coats "Pinks", has nothing whatsoever to do with you assuming they are colour blind, or indeed, has nothing to do with colour at all.

 

They call their coats "Pinks" because a chap named Thomas Pink was the originator of their tayloring.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

 

Talliho!! I'm off to talk to the SAA now. On a matter of vital importance for river angling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Chris,

 

Bloody computers!!!

 

I'm having some problems. I write the damned posts. Click add reply, then some bloke pops up and tells me to try again in 30 seconds time. So I did. Three times. Sorry. But did I get the message across?

 

Dear David,

 

So you are having a meeting with MP Salter after your hols are you? Well done.

 

Tell me, because I am interested to know. So are the 12 predator anglers that have phoned me tonight;

 

Why didn't you tell anyone about this forthcoming meeting? I am an officer of the SAA and represent the RSSG at SAA meetings. Why didn't you inform me?

 

Another own goal for SAA PR. Well done David.

 

One would have thought that the chairman of the SAA would want to tell someone, anyone, possibly the predator angling world perhaps, that the SAA "head honcho" was holding such an important meeting.

 

And theres Fred Guttfield. Holds a meeting with said MP. Does a bit of fishing in the bargain, writes a good report, and manages to get colour photographs of the event!!

 

Then guess what? Posts it all slap bang on Anglers Net for everyone to read and see.

 

Now THATS PR David.

 

But; I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself David. Whats on the agenda for this meeting?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote Lee:

quote:

Now for those who dont know who Pete Sharpe is, let me tell you something.

 

Pete is a specialist angler of many, many long years standing. Pete is a member of the highly respected Peterborough Specimen Group (PSG) In his time as a specialist angler, Pete has fished for just about everything. Successfully I might add.

 

It comes as no surprise to me that Pete holds certain strong views. All of which he is entitled to hold.

 

But NEVER, in my wildest dreams did I imagine an angler of Petes pedigree would now be saying that those who are pro-retaining livebaiting are infact "Tories" looking to score cheap points! And furthermore, Pete as a livebaiter himself now considers the campaign to retain livebaiting would be counter productive! To whom? Angling I suppose.


I'm afraid that not only has Lee been misinformed, he hasn't taken the trouble to read what I actually wrote.

 

First of all, I am not, and never have been, a member of the Peterborough Specimen Group, although the relevance of that escapes me for the moment.

 

Secondly, I did not even imply that livebaiters are all Tories, which bizarre notion, if true, would certainly give the sociologists a field day.

Read again, and you will see that I was referring to the posts attacking Martin Salter for being photographed holding a fish suspended from a hook. The tone of the attacks, being rather personal in nature, suggested an agenda somewhat removed from the mere concern for the welfare of the fish. I was merely pointing out the danger of creating outrage over something which could have wider implications.

 

I agree that this is diversifying slightly from the original point, but in my experience locally, it is not the conservation or governmental organisations that are threatening the continuance of livebaiting; that job has already been achieved by the match angling dominated clubs, who have already banned not only livebaiting in all their waters, but also prohibit the use of freshwater deadbaits. This includes those of the blast-frozen, per-packed variety, even including eels in some cases.

 

p.s. I take great offence at the suggestion that I am greatly respected by anybody. :D

 

[ 20. August 2002, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Peter Sharpe ]

English as tuppence, changing yet changeless as canal water, nestling in green nowhere, armoured and effete, bold flag-bearer, lotus-fed Miss Havishambling, opsimath and eremite, feudal, still reactionary, Rawlinson End.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Sharpe

 

I ignored your earlier posting accusing all those who complained about about Martin Salters fish handling of being quote "Tories looking to score cheap points against a Labour politician" as a rather silly conclusion by somebody who probably doesn't understand the differing attitudes towards fish care that exist within our sport and decided not to respond.(Just as prior to my posting I didn't realise other anglers on here wouldn't have automatically used a net for fish of that size, but you live and learn)

 

But having just read your later Post

 

Originally Posted by Peter Sharpe

 

quote:

The tone of the attacks, being rather personal in nature, suggested an agenda somewhat removed from the mere concern for the welfare of the fish.


has left me really puzzled. I have just re-read the thread concerned and can find nothing to suggest this and would love to know how you can justify this conclusion. Obviously as Mr Salter was the one handling the fish in the picture it would have to be a comment on him personaly but beyond that I find it hard to see any true personal attacks aimed at Mr Salter which in any way suggest those responding were politically motivated which is what you are saying I believe.

 

I personally always use a landing net for fish bigger than about 1oz but that is what I was taught to do, others put antiseptic etc on the hole made by the hook, fair enough they treat their fish better than I do and if I learn that this makes a difference to the fish, I would start doing that as well.

 

I am taking somebody who has never been fishing tomorrow and I shall teach him to use a landing net and not to swing larger fish in by hand, for one thing he won't drop them on the floor if they are in net and hopefully when he sees similar pictures in the future he will also regard it as poor fish handling but I doubt it will make him vote Tory.

 

[ 21. August 2002, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Paul_H ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan

no disrespect to you mate, but going back a few years,, before you had your new found education on angling matters, you just went fishing with dian and the kids, wasnt it better then? bolloctics just gets in the way of that, dont forget that, from what i can see the live bait ban is a short term fad, in two years tell me im wrong.

Smelly nets.

Canon S3 IS

Samsung S500

 

 

HOBGOBLIN

mailto:[email protected]

您在来信中写道

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how many Labour politicians have acquired a 'little estate in the country' by the time their tenure in Westminster is over.

I'm just re-joining the Country Landowners Association, but I bet my few acres without a house on it is worth less than the houses of the people who post on this thread.

 

Jim Roper

 

http://www.march-info.org

http://www.weymouth.gov.uk/harbourcam.htm

http://www.weymouth.gov.uk/beachcam.htm

http://www.searchlineuk.com/FishList.htm

http://www.thisisdorset.net

http://www.d-das.com/

Lower South Buckland Farm Campsite DT3 4BQ
http://www.campingandcaravanningclub.co.uk/campsites/uk/dorset/weymouth/southbucklandfarm
Pisces mortui solum cum flumine natant

You get more bites on Anglers Net

 

http://www.fishingtails.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Lee says, if fox hunting is banned, the CA might be free to concentrate on the issues that are really affecting countryside dwellers, rather than concentrating on preserving the gruesome rituals of the landed gentry.[/QB]

 

Just catching up on this subject and I have to say you seem to have it all wrapped up in the one sentence Peter!! (rather a long one !!) but the last couple of words say It all!! That is the crux of the matter, it's all about class!!!!! How bloody wrong can you be????? This is the same old diatribe trotted out by anyone who has a gripe about hunting with hounds!! IT IS NOT NOW AND NEVER HAS BEEN THE SOLE DOMAIN OF THE "LANDED GENTRY" TO HUNT ANIMALS WITH HOUNDS!! That is a fact Peter. But you and people like you will keep on banging on about and spouting such rubbish. I am most assuredly NOT "Landed Gentry" and yet I like to hunt with "Hounds" AKA as dogs!! Lurchers, terriers, whippets!! no sorry Peter but you are being dragged into something which has really got no place or reason in this argument!! And that is not just an opinion it is hard fact!

I await your reply, My address is there, please feel free to use It.

 

Chris

Chris Goddard


It is to be observed that 'angling' is the name given to fishing by people who can't fish.

If GOD had NOT meant us to go fishing, WHY did he give us arms then??


(If you can't help out someone in need then don't bother my old Dad always said! My grandma put it a LITTLE more, well different! It's like peeing yourself in a black pair of pants she said! It gives you a LOVELY warm feeling but no-one really notices!))

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

×
×
  • Create New...