Countryside Alliance Angling Forum

[GORD]

the term "cubbing" is used to describe cub hunting. Its also used to describe been a cub scout

[poledark]

I am sorry to have to say this Peter, but YOU are the one who keeps bringing up the CA issue.

You start it off and then complain that some disagree with you, you then go on to see "hidden agendas"...... need I say more.

 

Den

[Peter Waller]

No Den, you, like me, needn't say more .

 

But I will!!

 

I'm not sure that I have complained when others have not agreed with me though. For sure I have defended my opinion, or answered comments from others.

 

You may, or may not agree, but I haven't adpted the extremes of either Malcom or Kanny. There are points from both Jampton and Kanny that I have found interesting and constructive and have agreed with. There are points from Malcom that I find extreme and hard to support, although we are in general agreement.

 

When I started the thread I did not expect it to develop as it has. Both sides appear to have become more entrenched.

 

As Cranfield has said, in so many words, only time will tell. It would be nice to be proven wrong!!

 

At the end of the day, we are on the same side, angling.

[KANNY]

thats a very fair post peter......well done!

 

im not saying you should all join the C.A But at least DO SOMTHING! ......... if its a numbers game then u will have to give the C.A serious consideration

 

y.i.s

 

kanny

 

me extreme??.......lol

 

[ 13. March 2003, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: KANNY ]

[phonebush]

I don't think it takes a fox for anglers in the UK to disagree with one another

Phone

[Peter Waller]

Tell me honestly Phone, do anglers in the US never disagree? I've read Field & Stream forums in the past and, apart from grammer and the odd spelling, it seems to me that many of the postings there could have been written by UK anglers!

 

I'm not a supporter of fox hunting with dogs, or with shot guns for that matter, but when I started this thread that was not the issue. My concern, all along,is whether the CA is good for angling or not.

 

Kanny, you make the point that we, as anglers must do something to protect ourselves. I'm not sure that we haven't. I make no pretence that I'm not disappointed with the National Anglers Alliance (NAA), but atleast its there. If you belong to something its is a fair bet that you probably come somewhere within the NAA pyramid.

 

You have spent a fair ammount of time surfing the 'anti' sites. There are some pretty good anti anti sites as well! Over in the US there is a pretty effective anti PETA site, hit http://www.petasucks.cc directly or on your internet explorer. Doing it on explorer will also bring up allied sites.

 

Allegedly a great deal of Chinese money goes into the CA from their tackle manufacturing industry, so no wonder the CA wants angling. But if that money were to go into the NAA then maybe things might be rather different.

 

Yes, there is an anti faction in the UK, but do we really have that much to defend? Okay, so we could clean up our image, but angling is a pretty innocuous past-time.

 

Most of the anti angling sites are either anti establishment or, like Pisces, started by women who don't like to see men out enjoying themselves! The chip on the shoulder brigade are a pain in the nether regions. If it weren't angling then it would be something else.

 

Jampton has made the very valid point that the horseborn fox hunters were wrong to try and defend their sport as vermin control. Like angling its defence is purely that it is a sport, a traditional pastime. It surves no other function than the enjoyment of humans. Its justification is pure and simple, some people enjoy doing it.

 

Looking at angling from a similar point of view, and millions of people are involved, I believe that it is hard to condemn angling. But nevertheless, killing warm blooded animals with dogs, thats a pretty big hurdle to overcome. But, as I have said, that was not the issue that prompted this thread.

 

[ 13. March 2003, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[H Jampton]

Peter Waller:

Like angling, its defence is purely that it is a sport, a traditional pastime. It serves no other function than the enjoyment of humans. Its justification is pure and simple, some people enjoy doing it.

Not so in my opinion, allthough people would not be doing it for nothing if they did not enjoy it.

 

I understand, from reading private messages from people that are fed up with these CA threads, that in North America, packs of coyotes control the numbers of foxes. These coyotes hunt in packs, so I am told.

 

We no longer have wolves(nearest thing in our history to a coyote that I can think of) that might have controlled fox numbers in the past. No bears or other large carnivores to dig them out from there final resting place. Not sure about all the ferral boar that are now about.

 

Without hunting, there would be a lot more suffering and lingering deaths within the fox population.

 

Our foxes would not die in an RSPCA rest home. They would succumb to gangrene after being hit by a road vehicle, lead poisoning after being hit by gunshot, hypothermia after losing all their fur to mange or eaten alive by bacteria and parasites. If fleas can kill a cow or a horse, they can certainly kill a fox when it gets old and feeble.

 

Most foxes that are killed by man will be snared. Some will be gassed, whether it is legal or not, and a few will be poisoned (often in towns) by all sorts of stuff from cyanide to various undiluted pesticides and insecticides (all illegally used and indescriminate). I would guess that about 25% might be shot cleanly with a rifle. Very few will be caught in a live catch trap and dispatched therein, because the scent of their blood will mean the cage will not catch. More likely, they will be shot with a shotgun as they are released. If you are not careful, snaring will also account for as many badgers as it will foxes and a few cats.

 

Legislation leads to situations that people think can be addressed by even more legislation. All good news for the lawyers!

 

If you are prepared to say:"I would like to think that I can justify, in principle, both hunting and fishing." what is your problem?

 

I have never sat on a horse in my life, by the way.

 

[ 13. March 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: H Jampton ]

[corydoras]

Corydoras:

Exactly. Snaring is more efficient.

Shooting is more efficient.

---

Corydoras:

 

As someone who has shot a fox, and at close range, I can tell you that shooting foxes is not effective nor is it efficient. The fox I shot was not killed instantly, far from it, but instead it got up and ran through the beaters, making a second shot impossible. It therefore went on to die of either it's immediate wounds or lead poisoning, who knows. For the record I'm not proud of what happened.

 

The quickest form of death, once caught, is with dogs. I would also add that if we weren't on this earth a pack of dogs would hunt a fox naturally by themselves.

 

Just thought I'd add my 2p's worth.

Gaffer

 

When I said shooting, I meant lamping at night with a spotlight and a .22 or even a .303. Once the fox is dazzled by the spotlight beam you get 10-20 seconds to make a clean shot right between the glowing eyes. Not many get up and run from that.

 

Also when I said 'efficient' I was talking in terms of 'man hours per dead fox', and not necessarily about a clean kill. Where I was brought up foxes were vermin, just like rats, rabbits and cockroaches. Scottish hill farmers just want foxes dead, especially at this time of year and are not that fussed about how the fox ends up dead. Distasteful to some perhaps, but that is how it is.

 

Out of interest what did you shoot your fox with?

 

Corydoras

[phonebush]

Peter,

My attempt at lighthearted brevity on no doubt a serious subject for you lads. In the US where two or more shall meet there will be disagreement.

But, let an outsider make a comment like me in this case, then it's "Katy bar the door", the real fight is on.

Phone

[KANNY]

i think alot anglers see the C.A and they automaticly think fox hunting but the C.A and others arnt just about fox hunting ...yes its there main agenda at the moment but what they promote is life style and are fighting to ensure that we all have a choice of life style this includes the right to hunt.......Angling in its own nature is hunting like it or not! i think allthough you might not agree with some forms of hunting it is only right you respect the veiws of your fellow hunter and try not to undermine his sport with anti properganda(why use a gun on sombody that you know one day is going to be turned on you?) if you have a fact based opinion then by all means put it foward but the minute you start using terms like baiting and torture then you are out of line this is anti termonolgy!.peter yes in my search for the anti sites i allso found a fair few pro angling sites this is what was ment by DO SOMTHING! i was very releved to see this.now these small groups are great at local level but are not enough to show force by numbers on there own as you say you have the NAA who seem to be talking with the C.A this is the right thing to do IMO.i get the impression from sum of you that when the fight does come you think its going to be a fair one and your sport will defend its self well this would be fatal to angling never underestimate just how low your opponents will go!

 

 

y.i.s

 

 

kanny

 

[ 13. March 2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: KANNY ]