Butt out CA!

[Tog]

Furry mammal V Slimy fish V feather'd friend, I don't see much difference!

 

Come on Peter - Where is your Pro angling / Anti hunting pressure group!

 

& If the CA wish to defend the sea anglers rights under 'Magna carta' who are we to criticise.

[Peter Waller]

Where is the mandate for the CA to represent angling then Toggle?

[Tog]

Peter, you know I don't have a problem with the CA representing angling.

I do have a problem with anglers supporting 'anti' groups.

I think in times of 'war' you may need to make 'strange bedfellows' and the CA might be our 'Russia' V the 'Anti's

If there is another well funded pressure group who will represent angling against the ‘anti’s and is 'up to the challenge' then I would support it.

I'm not even 'pro' hunting! But I can see that the well funded 'anti' lobby and pressure groups will be straight onto angling (not that most aren’t already) if they succeed in banning 'hunting with dogs'.

Does anyone know of a ‘Pro-angling’ ‘Anti-hunting’ ‘animal rights’ pressure group?

[snotty]

The CA do good work throughout our little island and yet they no more speak for the 'common angler' than do just about any of the other marginalised, seperatist organisations that purport to do just that.

 

I know Peter aligns himself with certain of the specialist angling org's and is against any form of unity with the CA but if it wasn't for the contentious foxhunting issue I think a lot of rational people would see the CA in a different light, and more support may result.

 

As Toggle put it... Furry mammal V Slimy fish V feather'd friend, I don't see much difference!

 

Personally, I don't agree with what I perceive as the cruelty of hunting with dogs, but this does not blind me to the CA's work and support of the countryside and our way of life.

 

There is a phrase which sums it up....

All p*****g in the same pot.

[Peter Waller]

But we are not all p******g in the same pot! And yes, I agree, if it were not for the fox hunting issue many people would see the CA in a different light. If that were the case even I might be tempted to join!! But unfortunately the fox hunting with dogs issue does exist, and that is why angling isn't, nor do I wish to be seen, p*****g in the same pot!

 

There are those who feel strongly, myself included, that if it were not for the fox hunting issue then the CA would not exist.

 

[ 14. August 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[barblesss]

Great post fenboy.

[mark barrett]

a question for you peter, you are quite obviously against the CA campaigning on angling issues or using angling in its campaigns, because you are not happy for them to use you as one of their number. but what about those anglers that do? do the CA stop because some dont?

 

whilst there is a significant number of anglers that align with the CA then they do have a right to campaign on angling affairs, like it or not.

[Peter Waller]

I think Mark, that they have a right to campaign on behalf of their members, but not on behalf of those who are opposed to them.

 

That they have thrust themselves forward, uninvited, as the spokespeople for anglers is objectionable to those of us who do not support fox killing with dogs.

 

Charles Jardine has his own agenda. My own feeling being that he thrust himself onto the CA. As I see it, the CA then turned that around and elected itself as our spokesperson, seeing angling as a way of hiding their real agenda, that of protecting fox and stag killing with dogs. More than anything I object to angling being used, uninvited, as a disposable, political pawn in this way. I am only sorry that you don't see through the CA's agenda Mark.

[northern mark]

OK then, what's the alternative to the CA. Anglers cannot agree with each other most of the time so to get a body within angling to stand for angling isn't very likely.

 

A group to represent it's own branch of the sport may happen but it wouldn't represent angling as a whole, just a part of it.

 

I don't really want the CA standing up for angling but until we get our act together and do something about it instead of just moaning anyone that feels like it could use us for their own agenda.

 

Mark

[Ian FG]

northern mark, I understand your argument but the fact that anglers cannot represent themselves with one voice is a separate issue and it does not entitle the CA to volunteer themselves as our spokesman. I am with fenboy and Peter Waller.