Countryside Alliance Angling Forum

[phonebush]

Trent B.,

Point of order in a thread I have no business posting to.

IMO

Ethics are the foundation of society the world around. A system for establishing morals based on our species determinaton of right and wrong.

Morals are operative words and deeds and can change with public sentimemt and opinion.

On and on

Phone

[Peter Waller]

Graham X:

Would you be able to read it?

Tut tut Graham! You are hardly strengthening your previously well put and valid case mate .

 

That aside I think, infact I am convinced that we have been infiltrated by Pro CA activists! But then, I suppose, the CA angling forum got infiltrated by Anti CA realists (surprise, surprise!). Bit of tit for tats so lets call a truce fellas.

 

There is none so blind as those who won't see!

 

Graham makes very clear his distast of those who seek to involve angling in their arguement. His is an opinion that I share in this matter. As he says, fox hunting should make its own case, if it can.

 

Phone, as a member of the AN forum you have every right to comment. What happens in the US filters through to the UK eventually, and sometimes vice versa. In this case the CA owes its creation , in part, to a US influence. It is also, in part, a response to PETA, also from the US. So yes my friend, you have a right, and you are very welcome. Especially as you speak with much wisdom!

 

[ 09. March 2003, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Cranfield]

Nicking my quotes now, Peter ?

 

I don,t think we have been infiltrated by CA activists.

I do think that a lot of anglers realise that its as difficult to defend what we do for enjoyment, as it is to defend what hunters do for enjoyment.

I don,t think the animal rights activists appreciate the subtle differences.

 

Before anyone spits all over their keyboard replying to me, please read my earlier post.

I can,t defend hunting and I can,t defend fishing for fun.

[Peter Waller]

Just borrowing your quote Cranfield, hope you don't mind. But where did you get it from ? I'm sure that you will agree that it applies equelly to the extremes on both sides.

 

In my own mind I feel comfortable with angling. I would like to think that I can justify, in principle, both hunting and fishing. However I do not feel able to justify SOME of the practices involved.

[poledark]

At the end of the day, what we as anglers think will not count for a pinch of salt if the public turn on us. There are just as many anti angling people out there as there are anti fox hunting, actually most of them are the same people.

 

At the moment they give vent to the horrors of the fox kill, just wait till they have won the fox argument and then it will be focussed on us catching and returning fish, PURELY FOR OUR OWN PLEASURE.

 

They will not be swayed by the economic arguments either, it will be a matter of principle to them.

 

Whether anglers support the CA or not is also totally irrellevant, the fight to keep hunting with dogs has been lost, and even with a few thousand extra members it would have made no difference. I know there are supposed to be 3 million of us but not more than 10% would actually bother to join anything, least of all the CA.

 

As a supporter of the right to hunt with dogs ,I wish I could say thankyou to all you anglers for your support.

 

Den

[Peter Waller]

poledark:

 

 

As a supporter of the right to hunt with dogs ,I wish I could say thankyou to all you anglers for your support.

 

Den

Den, had the CA not tried to drag us into actively supporting them, then very few of us would have taken sides. Atleast we would then not be opposing, even if we are not actually supporting the CA. I rather wish I could say thankyou to the CA for leaving angling out of their arguements.

 

Charles Jardine was, I believe, the driving force behind the CA's involvement in trying to recruit anglers' support. Mr Jardine was, I'm sure, well intended. However I don't think this involvement has done anything advantageous to either angling or the CA. Infact I would suggest it as being naive and certainly devisive, especially amongst anglers.

[H Jampton]

Graham X:

Yeah right. So you can go one night and dig 'em out with your lamp and dogs?

 

But you want a map reference, so I'll give you a map reference: 33 00 N, 44 00 E

 

Enjoy your trip.

You don't even know what a map reference is ,do you?

 

If, as you say, foxes are being bred and released, then they must be in captivity somewhere, so tell us where.

 

[ 10. March 2003, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: H Jampton ]

[Guest sslatter]

You SEE? I KNEW you wouldn't be able to read it! And I made it simple for you as well! Here's a more specific one, to where I suggest you travel, but you'll obviously have to get someone to explain to you how cartographic coordinates work:

 

33°21'N, 44°25'E

 

Have a nice time.

 

"If, as you say, foxes are being bred and released, then they must be in captivity somewhere, so tell us where."

 

No, the three lots I know of are not in captivity. They live in purpose-built earths, are fed every few days, and when one or two are needed for a hunt, the keeper traps them, sticks them in a sack, and releases one a couple of hours before the hunt. This is an age-old practice that is well-known, and has been mentioned by others before in this thread. I suggest you go back and read it. Oh! I forgot! Get someone to read it for you.

 

[ 10. March 2003, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: Graham X ]

[H Jampton]

Graham X:

You SEE? I KNEW you wouldn't be able to read it! And I made it simple for you as well! Here's a more specific one, to where I suggest you travel, but you'll obviously have to get someone to explain to you how cartographic coordinates work:

 

33°21'N, 44°25'E

That is not a map reference and is nowhere in this country anyway, let alone the New Forest.

That place is going to be bombed very soon anyway.

Greenwich is zero longitude remember.

Now come on. Give us a map reference so that your LACS friends can sab it.

Does "O.S grid reference" jog your memory?

 

I'm surprised you could only be accurate to 1 M.O.A.

Of course we can start talking about Northings and Southings if you like.

[Newt]

Graham X - You gave lat/long data but those are not the same as I've ever seen used as "map coordinates". Those are usually some sort of Cartesian coordinates

 

For instance - from Here dealing with locating places on an Ordnance Survey Map (which is certainly UK enough).

quote:

---

How to locate an English or Scottish site

 

First get the appropriate 1:50.000 Ordnance Survey map

Then look at the grid reference for the site, which consists of two letters and six figures (e.g. SO 210783). The letters can usually be ignored as long as the correct map is being used, as they are large-scale refernce for the appropriate 100 ** square.

Then take the first three numbers, which refer to the numbers on the top or bottom of the map; the first two of these will indicate the western line of the 1 ** square in which the site lies. The third will measure in tenths how far eastward within that square the site lies.

Repeat the procedure with the second group of three numbers, which refer to the numbers on the right or left side of the map and increase in value northwards.

---

And if you'd like a somewhat longer List of places that may soon cease to be, take a look. Lots of lat/long stuff in there.

 

[ 10. March 2003, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: Newt ]