Jump to content

The six page limit, baaaaaa, the CA continued!

Peter Waller

Recommended Posts

'But Colin is right, the common aims of duck watchers and duck shooters did unite both sides of the arguement.'


That's because both parties, the RSPB and the Wildfowlers, have a GENUINE concern for their respective interests Peter. Whereas the anti-angling lobby are merely looking for a 'cause' that they can wear like a piece of Bling jewellry. To these people activism is a fashion accessory.

Slodger (Chris Hammond.)


'We should be fishin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Leon Roskilly:

As I understand it, once a thread gets too big, it starts seriously slowing down the server when people access it, so that all the forums start to run slow.


That was discovered when everything slowed down when the word game thread, out to set a record for the number of postings to a single thread, went to multiple pages.


So, now there's a page limit on each thread.


A popular thread can be re-opened anew.


Tight Lines - leon

Thanks Leon! So why didn't someone say so then? Would have saved a tad of ill feeling!
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Peter, you say "thousands of anglers objecting to the CA".....  not in my book matey!


And have any of you noticed that NO ONE from the CA has come on to AN and critisized FACT or any other of our "Governing" bodies?



First point Den, surveys show that whilst thousands of anglers do support the CA, there are thousands more who don't! Read it in the press, not just my AN poll.


As for your second point, I am not so sure that you are entirely right on that one Den! Trent Barbeller for one and one or two CA supporters whose identities are less than clear but their propaganda style is clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter Waller:

Thanks Leon! So why didn't someone say so then? Would have saved a tad of ill feeling!
Ah! The answer to that lies at the root of most of our problems:




"What is critical is that each participant in the negotiation and implementation phases of management planning is embedded in a sociocultural matrix from which the primary cognitive mode - a way of perceiving and thinking about the world - is derived. Membership in and an effective affiliation with the group is maintained by articulating its axioms or certain basic, usually unquestioned truths.


These are the basic formulas that, if challenged, bring frowns or pitying smirks and charges that the speaker must be "dumb," "asleep at the wheel," or "just plain nuts."


Axioms are taken for granted as "right," "rational," and, "it goes without saying." Those who assume that others who, like themselves, possess an expertise in fisheries also assume that these others hold a set of assumptions in common. These are taken as "understood" by all who are "truly knowledgeable', "possessed of common sense."


The mods have now closed so many threads that have reached their six page limit, that they have started to assume that everyone is aware of the situation.


Those that aren't then search their own minds for a reason, and come to their own conclusions which, unless quickly corrected, are spread from one to another as fact, and every one ends up arguing about something they know too little about!


It does make for interesting forum discussions though! :)


Tight Lines - leon

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just opinion from Mr Waller again, 'opinion' rather than 'fact' being the blight of the CA debate. I haven't seen any evidence of 'thousands' of anglers who categorically don't support the CA way of doing things, so perhaps you'd point me in the direction of the evidence in the papers... I'll be willing to look at hard evidence without any bias and if we got around to dealing with one point at a time, accepting or discarding, according to the evidence ie 'the facts' rather than 'opinion', then maybe we might progress. I've seen plenty of evidence of at least twenty five thousand that do support the CA and I've sadly seen plenty of evidence of hundreds of thousands who couldnt give a toss one way or another. Other than hunt sabs, a PM, a minister and an MP, I've seen very little opposition to the CA. Apathy 'yes' opposition 'no' They are two different things. I do recall Mr W however, that your attempts to rally the anti CA brigade on the Pike and Predators forum just resulted in a number of people pointing out Martin Salter's abysmal track record in dealing with individual angling issues and calling for his head on the General Election plate. Fact ... its there for all to see.


Referring to those that respond to your opinion as 'CA supporters' is a little unfair unless a number of contributors to the thread are telling porkies. One of them aint me and whilst Lee can speak for himself, I suspect it ain't him either. If and when I decide to join the CA you'll all be the second bunch to know. What I do see on here are an increasing number who are interested in preserving the future of angling and are not so concerned about whether the CA are painted with 'this and that' hunting or shooting brush, but are more concerned about being represented in a fashion that has results. If they share my concerns, then its about the lack of progress in putting together a suitable organisation from the bones of what once was the NAA and a whole host of orgs fighting for individual recognition in the race to be the future face of fishing. Please dont ask yet again about the CA's track record so far. Others on here have pointed to their previous initiatives with the old NAA, their current initiatives with kids in both England and Scotland, their stance with the Beeb's apparent disdain for angling (good old Beeb...evenhanded as usual) More than anything else the way they are able to get people out on the streets of Westminster and take the government bull by the horns. If the livebait debate was anything to go by, then right now via the usual channels, you'd be lucky to fill a charabanc to London with supporters and they'd only go if they were allowed to wear footie shirts and the whole thing was finished before last orders.


Did The CA lose the fight? temporarily maybe. But the important thing is they got stuck in and nobody could ever accuse them of not trying every trick on the book. Is that not the way we all want to be represented? If not why not? I should also point out that fox hunting is still going on and in the second week of the new Act, 157 fox hunts were up and running. Not drag hunts or diluted versions. Fox hunts with real foxes. Doesnt sound much like failure to me. Technical knockout maybe, but the stiff apparently got up and started fighting again,


I dont believe the answer lies anywhere near FACT, its a rehash of what went before and what went before didn't work, so please for the sake of the sanity of myself and I suspect others, dont trot out the line about 'give 'em time' Anyone on here with any business acumen will tell you that restructuring large organisations rarely works unless its a different bunch doing different things and right now within the current array of organisations, the only bunch I have absolute faith in are the ACA, purely on their past history of results and their determination to challenge authority to achieve goals. But the CA are different people doing different things, so whats so very wrong with giving them support AND TIME ?

Going down the FACT road is not just a question of organisation or reorganisation, its also about mobilising members who believe their responsibility to angling's future stops at the purchase of an annual subscription and that a faceless committee somewhere will handle all of the tricky stuff. Its not. The Lakes livebait and coarse deadbait ban is a case in point. Those that formally protested in writing or by email numbered hundreds, PAC membership numbers in the thousands. Sorry the numbers are not precise, I'm sure Dave can give more accurate figures. Remember also that not all of those that made their voices heard were PAC members.

A sad state of affairs when the vast majority of those directly involved cant be bothered to get up off their butts and say 'no'. Some of them are pretty quick to chastise those of us that lure fish for pike in the summer or those that flyfish for pike. Infighting is far more of a popular sport than resisting this government and its agencies as they chip away at whatever the extreme side of the Labour Group feel is a soft target. Its the infighting amongst the various factions and the sheer inability to galvanise and mobilise members into taking action that will strangle FACT in its cot.


So what happens when the next crisis comes along. Lets say the Broads Authority think the same as the EA in the Lakes and decide to impose a similar ban on the Broads. What do you think will carry more weight? PAC and six hundred individual pikers complaining via a meeting and a tea party or two, or an organisation like the CA reacting the way they did over the fox hunting ban. Nothing to do with general countryside pursuits you say? Well when you impose a ban on any part of fishing you impact on everything around. Hotels, B&Bs, petrol stations, tackle shops, bait suppliers restaurants, boat hirers, those that produce, sell, wholesale, even the chinese restaurant in Brundall that I stop off at on my way home. That's how wide the brush is. So stick your head in the sand at your peril.


I have no reason to believe that the CA would not be prepared to be that active again for an angling cause and if I heard on the news that the CA had taken up the cudgel about yet another piece of fishing liberty being removed by this or any other government, then they'd get my vote and if required my feet on the street. What will you be doing Peter? Sitting on your hands muttering to yourself about 'foxhunters'?


Please dont tell me that its not that simple. When push eventually comes to shove, it will be exactly that. Simple.



Heres an interesting letter from the Telegraph from a non fishing bystander


Daily Telegraph:

WF Deedes: How will Blair wriggle out of a ban on angling?

Monday, 21 February 2005


I have never held a fishing rod in my life, which is not a claim to virtue, but an admission of weakness. Chronic impatience would make it irksome for me to sit for any length of time awaiting a bite. Watching anglers in chilly weather sitting on the banks of the Hythe canal below our home, I also doubt whether my circulation would be equal to it.


Up to now, however, it has seemed to me a relatively innocent pursuit and I would be sorry to see it lined up for the chop. Yet, logically, this must come, for those who felt that hunting foxes with hounds was cruel must, in good conscience, admit that a fish hauled slowly towards land by a hook in its mouth feels distress, to put it mildly.


There is no need for me to go into the gory details. Soon the League against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA will tell us why angling is cruel. What might then be instructive would be a sight, under the new Freedom of Information Act, of the minutes crossing ministers' desks.


For they will encounter a social problem. One of the arguments levelled against foxhunting was drawn from Oscar Wilde's "the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable". Foxes, which are handsome thieves and killers, were allegedly chased by nobs for sport, not food.


When we come to fishing, that argument is stood on its head. For it is the so-called nobs, fishing for innocent salmon and trout, who produce what many of us enjoy eating.


Coarse fishing, in which the majority of anglers indulge, does produce edible fish, but also a lot that is not, and these are often thrown back into the water by good sports to resume life with a sore throat.


So when animal defenders now seek a ban on fishing, as their conscience must dictate, I do not see New Labour bringing the law against four million or so anglers as cheerfully as they did against foxhunters.


Is there a way out for them? Let me momentarily don the mantle of a Blair crony: "Tony, you should make a speech, claiming that recent research - no call to name the source - suggests that fish lead such dull lives they are psychologically cheered and stimulated by the anglers' attentions."


[ 27. March 2005, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

'I've got a mind like a steel wassitsname'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought

All of the anti groups make much of the fact that it is now "scientifically proven" that fish feel pain.

I assume that the only way to "scientifically prove" this would involve scientists experimenting on live fish.

Does this mean that these so-called fish saviours approve of and condone live animal experimentation?

I think we should be told!

Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be.



Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter, When I started fishing less than 6 years ago. fish welfare was a lesson drummed into me above all else - the aim being to ensure fish for the future. That's not dissimilar to wildfowling it seems, although I know nothing about that sport.


I believe angling's case is best sold by anglers -enlisting the assistance of an outside body sends entirely the wrong message.

This is a signature, there are many signatures like it but this one is mine

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I am very glad to hear it Mr Lumb!


Dave Olley

Can I come and try to catch 'your' thirty pounder now? :D


Slodger - Mr Olley and I have argued about treble hooks in the past, but I think we are mature enough to realise that is a minor difference compared to the really important issues.


Gerry is right, PAC has a membership that fluctuates between 1500 and 2500 - a pathetic percentage of the total number of pikers out there.


From PAC Website:

"The Environment Agency have also added that of the responses received, 482 were the standard PAC letter opposing the byelaw, there were 44 other individual letters also objecting to the proposed changes, and 6 letters of support."


Makes you wonder how many (few?) letters would have been sent had the PAC not made it easy for people....


I retract my 'mindless' jibe having seen the evidence in favour of the six page limit. :)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...