Countryside Alliance Angling Forum

[Elizabeth]

Graham X:

There’s still no answer from them concerning the points I raised earlier, about their main defence of the “sport” which is trotted out time and time again, namely:

 

1) Foxhunting is a viable form of pest control;

I quite agree. Snaring is much more efficient.

 

E

[corydoras]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elizabeth

 

Snaring is much more efficient

---

Exactly. Snaring is more efficient.

Shooting is more efficient.

Gassing is more efficient.

Road kill is more efficient for crying out loud. Don't get me wrong, I would not ban hunting with horses and hounds, but please don't give me this old earwash that it is an 'efficient pest control' method. It must be about the most expensive, inefficient method of fox control devised by man.

[KANNY]

graham seems as you have taken it on yourself to answer my question then i direct this post at you

 

quote graham x

Any ordinary angler must ask himself “Do I want people who have views like this to represent me and my sport? Do I want to ally myself and the sport I love with such people and their views?”

 

well graham im sure that most true anglers are glad that they have people defending countryside pursuits angling included rather than people who are just willing to sit on there arses and do nothing.once its gone its to late.

 

quote graham x

Coarse fishing does not involve the pursuit of a live animal, which is put under the most stressful condition there is: that of literally “running for its life

 

so you dont go in persuit of your fish graham? what do they do just jump in your net? and talking about keep nets wouldent you say that this pratice is most stressful to the fish? andthe running for its life comment so your saying that when a carp runs it is not running for its life? what it knows its just FUN?

 

quote graham x

At the end of this process, the animal is often ripped to pieces by the hounds before a huntsman can “humanely” kill it. And even if in every single case, the fox was killed quickly, the torture it must go through in the preceding hours of the actual hunt could only be imagined by someone who has been in the same situation: running for one’s life, knowing that if you get caught, you’re going to get ripped up and shot dead, purely to satisfy some people's "pleasure". Think about it. This is NOT a “humane” process.

 

graham you obviously have never been on a hunt 99% of the time the kill is instant fox hounds are real pro's and know there bizz and as for the hours of the hunt the fox is only under stress once the pack are on its arse at the end of the hunt abit like a hooked fish i would say!and ive stated b4 fox hunting is pest control the plesure eliment comes from keeping and training horses and dogs and not the deed of killing unlike coarse fishing that is purly a pleasure based activity

 

quote graham x

if fox is a pest, there are other ways of dealing with it,

 

i follow some foot fell packs and this is the only way of controling foxes on the fells

 

quote graham x

And to answer (again!) the "point" that we as anglers should be supporting the CA, because if we don't, we'll be next, well..IF this happens, and it's a big "IF", then I'll cross that bridge if and when it comes to it. It is NOT a valid reason for any moderate to support an extremist group and their viewpoint.

 

There is no IF about it graham the wheels are allready in motion go look at the anti sites.

 

and last but not least you didnt answer the most important question graham just how are you going to justify coarse fishing?

 

i know this may seem im coming across hard but this is nothing to what your gunna face once the unwashed turn there glare on fishing.

 

y.i.s

 

 

kanny

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

Watermans quote of;

 

"What will you do when "people's perception of "right" and "wrong" evolves with the times, and angling comes under pressure from the same people who now seek to ban hunting with dogs?"

 

Can I have a go at this one Mike? Ta very much. Might be a long un though.

 

Before I do, some points I definitely think are worth mentioning.

 

Now it is an absolute fact, that the CA "has" since its formation sought to court angling generally into its own ranks. Indeed, this fact is reflected in the fact that the CA "does" have its own angling section within the overal organisation. Personally, I dont happen to believe that the CA's angling side is up to much but "THAT" is merely my own opinion.

 

There "HAS", been some crafty moves played by those seemingly connected to the CA whose motives were by and large aimed at bringing angling into the foxhunting debate. These moves are various and are well documented. Personally, I found such tactics to be distasteful. Even so, what were the overidding realites or results actually achieved by these tactics?

 

Did anglers rush to join the CA? I dont think so. So here, rank and file anglers actually spoke for themselves in the fact that they did not join the CA. Frankly, if the CA intentions here "WAS" one of increasing its own angling membership, I strongly suggest it sacks its PR team because they obviously haven't got a clue about anglers.

 

And then there is the angling political front. You know, the guys within the various organisations that are recognised by government and their agencies as being representative of angling. Did our angling politico's rush to become closer to the CA so as to form perhaps a more powerful alliance? Absolutely not. The truth is here, angling recognised "ALL" the permutaions of such an alliance AND the tactics that some in CA were using so the MOU was born. This agreement basically confirmed that between the CA and the NAA, the NAA would be recognised as the body representative of angling, whilst the CA looked after its own sporting interests.

 

Yes, the CA does have an angling content. But our village shop sells ice cream and it ain't a patch on that sold in Cornwall if you get my drift?

 

Whilst some might keep banging on for ever more about keeping angling out of the foxhunting debate, they might actually be surprised to learn that angling NEVER HAS been in it in any realistic sense. OK, there will be individuals that HAVE joined the CA for whatever reason, anglers, anglers-shooters-hunters etc, but that is their CHOICE. To imply or suggest that angling generally has, or ever will be, part of the foxhunting debate is plain crazy. Admittedly there may be forces in CA that would dearly love to suck angling in. But the British angling mentality prevails above anything money or a slick PR campaign could hope to gain. The simple fact remains;

 

BRITISH ANGLERS DON'T JOIN OW'T!!

 

I can say fairly confidently, based on extensive personal experience, the angling community will only march on London when its OWN future is seriously threatened. Which comfortably brings around to Mikes post quoted again as;

 

"What will you do when "people's perception of "right" and "wrong" evolves with the times, and angling comes under pressure from the same people who now seek to ban hunting with dogs?"

 

Good question Mike. But I can broaden your aptly put question by looking at the undoubted realities lying behind the "Ban Culture".

 

"IF" hunting with dogs gets outlawed, where does this AN angling community think that the ban culture will march next. Angling? Its not you know. For now, angling is simply a "bridge too far" for them to engage. This is due in part to the sterling work that the NAA have undertook to keep up the image of angling within the minds of those within the powers that be. And to some extent, within the minds of the general none angling public. For now, the ban culture merely engages angling in short hit and run missions.

 

So who "IS" going to be the next target for the ban culture? Driven pheasant shooting.

 

Graham X has made a great play about the "Earth Bred Foxes" or foxes that are encouraged to breed within "favourable areas" within the hunting fraternities range. Those that say that such practices DONT occur are dead wrong. Indeed, the ban culture organising the ban on hunting with dogs actually make a great deal about this aspect within some, I say SOME, hunts. Those that remember a certain Royal being present at one of my local hunts when "bagging" was actually filmed taking place can confirm this practise occures. And what a meal the ban culture made of that event.

 

OK. Some will say that such a practise is grossly immoral. The ban culture especially.

 

This same ban culture that made so much out of bagging foxes, also think that is is extremely immoral breeding birds solely to be placed over rows of guns to be shot in the name of "sport". Taking all the permutations revolved around driven pheasant shooting, its not hard for the intellegent to imagine all the arguments that the ban culture will employ in condemning this activity in a very similar vein to their foxhunting one. And so, the ban cultures wheel turns relentlessly on. I wonder, how many within todays anti-foxhunting community had anti-foxhunting views and opinions say ten-twenty years ago? I wonder, how many within these numbers will be influenced in years to come by the ban cultures opinion on driven pheasant shooting.

 

Will for example, Peter and Graham X and kindred spirits like them openly opposed to foxhunting, then start to decry this sport whilst also calling for angling to keep out of the shooting arguement? Only they know the answer to this question.

 

But in such an event, what about angling as a whole entity? Will we then reafirm our foxhunting stance by telling the shooting community that they in turn must stand alone? Because their sport is immoral?

 

The ban culture wheel turns. Who else will be crushed beneath it whilst angling comfortably bathes in the warm waters of public opinion? Warm waters eventually grow cold. And so does the general public opinions when convinced or swayed by effective PR or campaign machinery.

 

For me, foxhunting is NOT the issue angling faces. Foxhunting is the tree that grew the wood to make the wheel. And this wheel is gaining momentum as others bring their shoulders to bear against it. Make absolutely no mistake, that whilst we might feel safe for now, the ban cultures wheel is heading for us.

 

I didn't march in London. It was my personal protest against how eliments within an organisation tried to decry the sport I trully love for its own ends. It had nothing to do with foxhunting as I have no opinion either way. But I am concerned about how long angling will remain alone whilst others get swept aside.

 

For me, its not just a question of standing up for angling only when angling has to fight for itself , its a question of being prepared to come to the side of others when their sports and passtimes are being threatened also.

 

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

Kanny, you answered my last posting clearly without reading it! You devalue your opinions by your ill considered response. I'd suggest that you re-read atleast the second sentence.

 

As for me coming up with a clever answer, oh dear. I'll give you a clue Kanny. Den, Cranfield and Vagabond are three AN regulars that think, as far as the CA is concerned, that I speak out from where the sun don't shine. We discuss, argue and totally disagree, but we remain able to talk to each other in a civil manner, such is the spirit of AN.

 

[ 10. March 2003, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Peter Waller]

H Jampton:

H Jampton:

What point is it exactly that you are struggling to make?

Bag foxes have been used by keepers so that they are not accused of wiping out all the foxes on their patch.

No, I'm not trying to be clever so please regard this as a reasonable question. You make the point that keepers don't wish to be accused of wiping out all the foxes on their patch. Well, why not? If the justification for hunting the fox is that it is a pest then why not wipe them out? The coypu was regarded as a pest, so it was hunted to extinction in the Eastern Counties. At 10/- per head it was good pocket money, it was good money in those days! So why not wipe out the fox, if we are able, if it is such a pest?

[KANNY]

thats it lee u got it...........alltough its clear there are difrences between hunter and angler we have one thing in common we both have the same enemy.

 

y.i.s

 

 

kanny

[KANNY]

these are the kind of people you are dealing with!

 

http://www.masskilling.com/exhibit.html

 

 

y.i.s

 

 

kanny

[Peter Waller]

We may now have many of the same enemies, but I doubt that we had nearly so many prior to the CA's unwelcome involvement in angling.

 

Kanny, whether our enemies are the same or not is not altogether the issue. Its a good point that you make though.

 

Many of us object to being tarred with the same brush as some of those who hunt in a manner that we find distasteful.

 

Many of us object to being drawn into the CA's web without being asked.

 

Many of us distrust the true motives of the CA, rightly or wrongly suspecting a hidden agenda.

 

Irrespective of all other issues many of us have no wish to be associated with the CA. No ammount of vindictive slanging will alter that fact.

 

Kanny, I'm sorry that you find alternative opinion to yours as so distasteful.

[Peter Waller]

KANNY:

these are the kind of people you are dealing with!

 

http://www.masskilling.com/exhibit.html

 

 

y.i.s

 

 

kanny

Interestingly you have to look carefully in the top right corner before you see a distorted 'PETA' logo. Says it all really!

 

Kanny, the US doesn't seem particuarly bothered by PETA, so why are you?

 

As the saying goes: People Eat Tasty Animals .

 

Seems to me that both PETA & the CA resort to similar levels of misinformation in their attempts to win over converts.