Should we join forces with the Countryside Alliance?

[argyll]

If you think you can drag me down to your level, you've got the wrong X.

 

I firmly maintain it's people like you and trentbarbeler who tarnish angling by their association, comments, and crass bigotry. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself..

 

Be careful Graham, your arrogance is not just showing, its screaming at everyone. What's your problem? Dont like being interrupted? Bet you just hate hearing contrary opinions? Suspect it gets right up your backside.(well if there was room to accommodate it alongside your head)

Case closed, you're no fun Graham trotting out the usual rhetoric...and you a publisher too. Thought you might have had something fresh to say.

[*Ant*]

This just goes to show how the CA can divide the anglers amongst us.

 

I'd buy you both a pint....if you got the first rounds in that is.

[argyll]

The CA isn't causing a division Ant. All the while this little argument rages, nobody is taking this government to task over Iraq, the Health Service, immigration and all of the other issues that matter a damn sight more than a few dead foxes. Yep I know tis already been said, but its worth saying again.

[Newt]

Gentlemen - while this is an important topic, if there is any more of the personal attacking, it will quickly become a closed topic.

[Guest sslatter]

That's right Ant, it's not the CA per se, it's their supporters who deliberately go out to cause trouble, with puerile contentless bigotry and insult.

 

argyll: content removed

 

edit note: this thread has gotten enough invective and the like that even when something is phrased in a very high tone, I'd appreciate no comments toward another poster that could in any way be read as a personal insult. Newt

 

[ 18. February 2005, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[argyll]

Dont worry Newt, I've finished.

 

[ 18. February 2005, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Peter Waller]

Shame, I was just beginning to enjoy it!

 

But it does support the contention that the CA does cause division rather than unity.

 

Have to say that I didn't expect this thread to go the way that it has though.

 

As things are I did't expect anyone to come up with anything fresh simply because nothing has changed.

 

For me, anyway, the CA, with its history and fox hunting agenda, is not a good partner for angling. I am glad to see that I am not alone in that opinion.

 

It's all been said ad tedium. The result of a poll shows that around 30% of you support the idea of angling and the CA working together. That is hardly a mandate for the CA, albeit a sizable minority.

 

I can't see that changing, but I can see a need for angling and shooting to work together. A Country Sports Association perhaps, but it will need to distance itself from the fox hunting fraternity and agenda.

[j_s]

From watching Question Time last night a few things got me a little surprised concerning fox hunting and perhaps stag hunting, well any of the hunts that use dogs. Is it true that a lot of the hounds used are KILLED every year and also a lot of the pups who aren't up to the job? This sickens me more than the idea of the fox or stag dieing, yes it really does!

I have 2 dogs myself and if the above is quite true I find this disgusting and will be the primary reason I completely want to keep angling away from the CA.

Oh and I wish those that do support the hunts stop using carp excuses of why it should be kept, the only reason is that they enjoy it.

 

[ 18. February 2005, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: j_s ]

[Peter Waller]

James, the dogs are only tools, no sentimentality whatsoever. The moment a dog is not uo to scratch it is shot. Older dogs are shot at the end of the season to make way for new dogs coming in for the next. Surplus pups are killed. All this bleating that dogs will have to be shot because of the ban is absolute hogwash, they are shot anyway. All it means, in real terms, is that new dogs won't be bred. All part of the sickening hypocrisy that is rife in this blessed issue. You don't meet many retired foxhounds going walkies, urghh.

[Guest sslatter]

Newt- I note that you deleted argyll's quote that I copied and pasted, but you did not delete his original. Not for the first time have you done such a thing. What you deleted was not me personally attacking argyll, but his personal attack on me, which I was quoting.

 

If you wish to practice arbitrary censorship and "moderate", you should do so on a level playing field IMO, otherwise people may think you're biased, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that.

 

[ 18. February 2005, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: X ]