PETA - We told you so!

[Guest 'eelfisher']

I have just logged on after work...after yesterdays committee meeting of the NAC, which lasted 10 hours. There were 13 club members present who all gave up the chance to fish for the day, to attend club business and to help produce the final Draft of our new club constitution....obviously there was some AOB as well, considering that I was present.

I have just read through all the postings, of which there were some quite reasonable questions and replies.

I am a shade dissapointed that some potential contributors decided not to post. These being key people in and out of both camps. It is well known that there are some out there who think they hold some ability to sway the thoughts of those who are considering joining the small band of volunteers who have decided to fight for our sport. I believe that they should now come together and fight the same fight that everyone else thinks is nessesary.

Mike, Alan, Graham E and Bruno are right in what they say. (Bruno has done more for angling than any of the others who seem to want to just build walls in front of the decision to 'come together'.)

I would like to add just this one line....

'Brothers should stand together'

Steve.

PS..Leon, you beat me to the next posting mate but thanks for the info....maybe others will wake up after that.....I don't think!>

 

 

[This message has been edited by 'eelfisher' (edited 12 February 2001).]

[Guest waterman1013]

Paul

 

Yes brothers do bicker, but in a well mannered family they do it in private and present a united family front to the world.

 

The time for differences is past. Anyone who does not see that is doing angling a dis-service.

 

I don't mind who you join, obviously I would prefer it to be SACG/SAA, but the important thing is that you join one of the bodies which forms NAA. Not only join and support with funding, but also with help and effort by attending meetings and getting your views heard and having the chance to hear others views and to influence the future. With help in administration and campaigns, with letter writing, with e-mailing MPs and MEPs, with monitoring the local press for anti-angling letters and stories, help with recruiting other anglers to the cause.

 

Alan Rowe - I concur absolutely with your opinion on funding. Unfortunately the Review did not share our view and there are those in angling who are concerned that once funding comes from licence fees, which would have to include inshore fishing licences as well, the Government might be in a position to exert undue influence on angling and our organisations. Personally I think the enabling legislation could easily be worded to ring fence the income for NAA, but we still have to convince those in Government and the EA that this is a sensible option.

 

Write to your MP, Kate Hoey, Nick Brown at MAFF and the EA and suggest it again. If enough letters are received we might yet carry the day. What we need is for an angling MP to win the ballot for private members bills next year.

 

Mike

[Guest DCB]

Let's do it!

The NAA will formulate national policy and action plans and supply the necessary information to all organisations.

This package will appear on this website shortly.

To paraphrase President Johnson "Are you on the outside of the tent p****** in or on the inside of the tent p****** out.

Your move.

The NAA can act nationally but we need action regionally and locally.

We also will need good, solid feedback from the local scene to consolidate the information to feed into government.

This doesn't need maga bucks - just a bit of commitment for the future of our sport.

The NAA will be forwarding the necessary information shortly.

Are you ready?

[Guest dug6]

'Brothers should stand together'

 

Hear hear I say to the above quote

It doesn't matter a jot if you are for or against hunting we are all in the same category ie field sports. When [and if] hunting goes angling will be next in line [see my previous post].If angling is banned sometime in the future the reason would be because most anglers did nothing today. Even if angling wins the war of words and arguments in the press/media,if hunting is abolished the anti's,will make,for most anglers actually going out fishing totally unenjoyable thus more than halving the amount of anglers on the bank-say 3 million down to 1 million hardcore anglers.

Let me tell you how this will happen.

When hunting is banned [and personally I don't think it will be] do you think the likes of The league against cruel sports [LACS] and the hunt saboteurs association [HSA] are going to pat each other on the backs and ride off into the sunset saying "thats a good job,well done boys" of course not they will look for the next target,namely angling. They will be cock-a- hoop with their victory and recruiting many new members on the back of that victory,they will come at us with a vengeance.

I don't know if you know how the anti's work in hunting but it goes like this:

LACS usually send 2+ people to every hunt wearing their reflective waistcoats with "League against cruel sports" on the back, on the whole they are not violent but they carry video cameras doing what they call "Hunt monitoring" that is,capturing any and every "so called" wrong doing and misdemeanour they can,exaggerating and blowing it up out of all proportion and sending it to the press-this is their LIFE and they are very good at it. Put this in the context of angling and you will have the scenario of these people on the banks videoing our every move.For instance, playing that large carp for god knows how long on inadequate tackle-hooking that livebait[or even deadbait]on a snap tackle[you can imagine the effect seeing this on early evening news would have on Mr&Mrs Joe Public even if it was a dead sprat instead of a live roach,LACS would conveniently forget to mention this]-unhooking a fish with the blood, which you sometimes get-putting that large pike, that has been unavoidably deep hooked,back only to see it go belly up in mid river,this would be on video, you might have ran 100yds downstream, retrieved the fish and revived it, this wouldn't be mentioned.

NEED I SAY MORE !!!

The HSA are a different kettle of fish[scuse the pun] they are the ones in the balaclavas with the big sticks,they are cowardly and violent they would think nothing of throwing your tackle and you in the river, they would not do this when you and your mates are all together around a carp lake.They would do it when they outnumber you 10-1 and before you say "they wouldn't do that" they WOULD because they [misguidedly] believe they are RIGHT.

As I said before these tactics over a few seasons would see anglers numbers nosedive, it just wouldn't be enjoyable anymore.

Then we are a REAL minority.

The hunting fraternity on the whole are very resillient.

The angling fraternity,are,I'm afraid not[most just want a peaceful life]

Please think long and hard,it is much much easier to do something positive now than waiting until we are on the back foot.

Support the countryside alliance.

Support the countryside march.

If not at least do SOMETHING !!!

 

Thats what I think will happen,no thats what will happen if we let it.

Response please.

[Guest Paul Williams]

Mike, When i said brothers bicker the point that i was making is the fact that they are brothers and they should stick together when the chips are down.

But i fail to see any way forward if we keep silent amongst ourselves, and if a fishing forum isn't the place where is?

I am sick of some saying we are providing ammunition to the anti's by debating, sure some get carried away and destroy a decent debate, but how can the rest of us know who or what we are pledging our allegiece to if we don't ask questions?

In the past some of us who have asked questions have had very aggressive replies,that just won't do and will only provoke bad debate.

Paul.

[Guest waterman1013]

Paul

 

I agree with you and the right of all of us to discuss these matters here. However some posters seem to make a habit of using extremely emotional language, which in time will be quoted. I have already seen PETA using quotes I have previously read on the internet from anglers who did not think before they posted.

 

If an issue is sensitive perhaps we should make more use of e-mails and structure a list of interested parties, a bit like SACN who are campaigning to protect our seas. I don't want to see the BB become bland but as this fight, to protect angling, develops we will need to keep our powder dry and a link by e-mail to those who want to defend the sport may be the only "safe" answer.

 

I hope you haven't found my postings to be agressive. If you have I apologise. I normally try to prepare my responses off line, but sometimes, when short of time, respond on the hoof.

 

Mike

[Guest Paul Williams]

Mike, i think the anti's will always be able to draw on anglers writings to fuel their purpose, (i personally believe that John Baileys latest piece of rubbish gives them plenty of bullets!)

I am a member of an angling related private group and it is working well for us at the moment but i can't make up my mind if it would be a way forward in as much as we would reach even fewer anglers and it may also be viewed as elitist or secretive,niether of which would help.

My own opinion is that we are better off in the open with healthy debate, we will get idiots but we can ignore them, or better still convince them of a mutual path.

Mike, i haven't found your reply's aggressive, in fact you go out of the way to be constructive usually.

[Guest Nobrott]

Hi Folks

 

 

After years of apathy, it's truly great to see so much energy and passion at last being generated by the issue of the anti-angling brigade.

 

There is, however, a danger that we may panic and become TOO defensive.

 

I'm confident that - when practised with restraint and consideration - angling offers demonstrable net benefits to fish stocks and the general environment.

 

And that's all we have to get across to the public - that all we are trying to do is enjoy ourselves in the great outdoors in exactly the same way as walkers, cyclists, canoeists and yachties are doing.

 

The danger which has always concerned me was that by allying ourselves with hunting interests, we would be binding our hands when it came to fighting future battles revolving around the cruelty debate.

 

The facts are:

 

Hunting is a minority pastime enjoyed by only a few thousand enthusiasts.

Angling is a mass pursuit actively engaged in or occasionally enjoyed by millions.

 

Hunting is a peculiarly British institution with few participants on a global scale.

Angling is a global institution which is supported, if not positively encouraged by many states worldwide. Only in Britain does it have a slightly tarnished public image.

 

I can think only of one serious attempt to ban fishing in the Western world - in Germany - which despite this - has a bigger angling fraternity than Britain.

 

Considering the above - we should be less defensive about our pursuit and concentrate instead on re-inventing the image of our sport along more positive lines and selling that message to the public - as opposed to being forced into making weary rebuttals of nonsensical allegations from obsessive nutters.

 

Don't worry - be happy!

 

Mark

[Guest Rob Ward]

Would it not be a good idea for the many specialist angling organisations such as the Carp Society, Barbel Society and PAC to include in their subscription fees membership to the SACG so that we can present a united front?

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Hi Rob, nearly everyone of the single species groups already subscribe to the SACG and through there subs help finance us. Shortly the SACG will be merging with NASA to form the SAA, hopefully then the Barbel Society will be joining and play an active part. Are you a member, if not wouldyou like to be?

 

Alan.