The Queen & the RSPCA & Angling.

[Peter Waller]

This weeks Anglers Mail, apart from publishng an excellent picure of the U.K. Ladies Barbel Record Holder, also published an article re the RSPCA. The wraps are now very clearly off. Both Mss. Ballard & an RSPCA spokesperson make it abundantly clear that the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is opposed to huntin', shootin' AND angling.

 

If you don't have the Anglers Mail then buy it, its an excellent read under its new editor and its excellent bit on the RSPCA is revealing.

 

The Queen is the Patron of the RSPCA, hence the 'Royal' as part of the society's title.

 

May I suggest that ALL anglers write to the Queen. Suggest to her that as various members of her family hunt, shoot and go angling that she review her support of the RSPCA. Mss Ballard is openly opposed to activities that the Royal Family support and take part in.

 

I would suggest that this suggestion is passed onto other web sites, not only angling ones but huntin' and shootin' ones. As much as I am opposed to the CA perhaps someone who is a CA supporter can pass this request onto them, please.

 

Deluge Her Majesty with letters. A simple request that she withdraw Her support for the RSPCA.

 

I for one will no longer support the RSPCA in any way or form. I have been a supporter all my life so that goes against the grain somewhat.

 

There are times in life when attack is the best form of defence. Let Angling be counted.

[Vagabond]

Peter Waller:

 

 

I would suggest that this suggestion is passed onto other web sites, not only angling ones but huntin' and shootin' ones. As much as I am opposed to the CA perhaps someone who is a CA supporter can pass this request onto them, please

 

Let Angling be counted.

That must be the U-turn of the year

 

Welcome aboard, Peter

[Peter Waller]

Vagabond:

 

Vagabond:

 

 

I would suggest that this suggestion is passed onto other web sites, not only angling ones but huntin' and shootin' ones. As much as I am opposed to the CA perhaps someone who is a CA supporter can pass this request onto them, please

 

Let Angling be counted.

That must be the U-turn of the year

 

Welcome aboard, Peter

Ha Ha

 

Vagabond, I have no gripe with the CA looking after their own interests. I just wish that they would do so without hijacking angling purely for their own ends. That is not to say that when we have a common interest, e.g. Mss Ballard, that we can't both fire off our own guns, independently .

 

If the CA wants to fight for anglers then that is, debatably, acceptable. But then my view is that the CA simply want to use us for their own selfish interests, and that is, patently, not acceptable. From that perspective, I'm sorry, no u-turn.

 

By the way Vagabond, what is your view on the RSPCA issue?

 

PS, trawl through the files of AN & you might just find me admitting that I MIGHT just join the CA, once fox hunting has bitten the dust.

 

[ 14. November 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Vagabond]

OK Peter, we all know your views. but I couldn't resist the comment

 

However, it seems inconsistent that you want the CA to help anglers, but object to the CA asking anglers for help. You want foxhunters banned, but still want them writing letters in support of fishing. (you specifically mention "hunters" in your post)

 

My view is that all country sportsmen should support each other - as they do, for example, in the States.

 

As regards the RSPCA, its original aims were worthy of support, but it has now been hi-jacked by those with an anti-fieldsports agenda. I no longer support it.

 

Just for the record, I support the following organisations.

 

as a sea angler:-

RNLI (as a Governor)

National Federation of Sea Anglers (Individual member)

International Game Fishing Association (Individual member) I support them for the international conservation work they do.

 

as a freshwater angler:-

Salmon & Trout Association (Family membership)

Wild Trout Society (Individual member)

Anglers' Conservation Association (Individual member)

Sussex Ouse Conservation Society (Individual member)

 

all four of those are concerned with improving the freshwater habitat - which is good for ALL fish, not just salmonids.

 

SAA (individual member)for its voice in the NAA

RSSG (individual member, but as a result of recent events am beginning to wonder if my money would be better spent as an additional donation to the ACA)

 

Am not a member of the NFA - as far as I am concerned it is for match fishermen, and I do not fish matches. (I'm not against matches - we learn a lot from anglers such as Bob Nudd - its just not my style)

 

Nor do I belong to any "species" groups - Again, I am not against species groups, its just that I fish in a broader parish.

 

My choice of what organisations to support is governed by what in my view , are the two main priorities.

1/ Protect the countryside in general, and waters (including of course the seas) in particular.

2/ Protect country sportsmen from those who would destroy us.

 

[ 14. November 2002, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]

[Paul_D]

As an aside, does anybody know what the RSPB stance is on fishing? As a family member we sometimes go to some of the preserves but I've often wondered (but never looked into) what the societies stance is regarding fishing what with the Swan and Cormorant issues etc.

[Vagabond]

In a word Tinca - variable.

 

For example at Radipole Lake RSPB reserve, part of the lake is set aside for fishing (or it was the last time we went)

 

OTOH My wife gave a large donation to help the RSPB buy land in the flow country (Sutherland) to save it being planted with conifers and destroying a breeding habitat for waders.

 

We visited the reserve to see how her investment was paying off.

 

In the waiting room of the lonely wayside station of Forsinard there was an RSPB display of photographs, and a message beside it which said in effect :-

 

"Here are some pictures of rare birds which our wardens have taken, but the rest of you peasants can jolly well stay on the road, from which you may get a distant view of a bird if you are very lucky. Keep off the reserve."

 

Not those exact words, but that was the general tone.

 

Now fortunately we are trout anglers as well as RSPB members. So we booked in at the Forsinard Hotel, and had two or three days excellent trout fishing on Lochs Caol and Slettill, both of which are in the middle of the reserve!

 

We saw plenty of wading birds on the shores and a family of rare Black-throated Divers on the lochs.

All the birds seemed oblivious of a couple of trout anglers in a boat. So Norma was able to view the results of her donation after all.

 

Interesting too, that an RSPB gravel pit's management was boasting about the number of breeding cormorants at the same time as it was bemoaning the scarcity of Little Terns.

 

Little Terns nest on the gravel next to the pits, and feed their nestlings on silver fish fry caught a few yards away.

Nobody has made the connection that if the hundreds of cormorants clobber the breeding stocks of silver fish then subsequently there will be fewer fry.

 

The surviving Little Terns were last seen desperately fishing for shrimps on the sea shore a couple of miles away....

 

Would like to hear the official view though.

 

[ 14. November 2002, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]

[Paul_D]

Vagabond, that's pretty much how I see the RSPB as well. I think we'll continue membership for now. As you say they have some first class walking territory up in Scotland which are enjoyable to visit not only for the Birds.

[Cranfield]

Peter, for weeks you criticised the CA for the reason, "the CA want to use anglers to further their own selfish interests".

 

You are now suggesting, that anglers use the CA to further THEIR own selfish interests.

 

Strange set of principles you are suggesting we operate by. :confused:

[Peter Waller]

Cranfield and Vagabond. I am not suggesting that the CA support angling on this issue. I'm suggesting that they act independently and act for themselves on this matter.

 

The RSPCA would appear to be now against angling, hence my suggestion that anglers react, independently.

 

The RSPCA also now appears to be anti hunting & shooting, hence my suggestion that shooters and hunters react, independently.

 

The Queen's family both fish and shoot, hence my suggestion that both interests stand up for themselves, independently.

 

Rather than discussing and raking over old embers, and having a spot of point scoring to boot, perhaps it might be more helpful if we all reacted to the RSPCA's declarations of war.

 

Why they should have the priveledge of Royal patronage when their new Director has fired off this attack is beyond me. It is sheer hypocrisy.

[Cranfield]

My comment was not in the nature of "point scoring", but a wish to highlight the inconsistancies there appeared to be, in your statements.

 

The RSPCA have always been against hunting and shooting, they even had a large advertising balloon on the route of the Countryside March.

This alone has probably lost them a large amount of traditional supporters.

 

On one thing we do agree, in the matter of fraternal support against a common threat, there does seem to be a lot of hypocrisy on the part of some of the participants.

 

[ 14. November 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Cranfield ]