Should we join forces with the Countryside Alliance?

[Peter Waller]

I have to disagree Lee. Whilst angling is not, was not united, Charlie has effectively driven a bloody great wedge between friends and fellow anglers. And why? To protect fox hunting! No way Hosay!

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter,

 

Nonsense. The CA or Charlie Jardine has not done anything of the sort!! Where is all this so called division between anglers? The great wedge between "friends and fellow anglers"?? All caused by the CA!!??

 

The plain fact is Peter; the overall majority of anglers out there in fishing land couldn't give a hoot about the CA or your mob either. People just want to go fishing and they've long since lost any confidence in any political body that is supposed to be there representing their interests. Why should they care after all the disappointments, all the in-fighting and falling out? Not to mention being constantly refused individual membership within re-hashed organisations claiming to be representing them? If the leaders of these quangos can't get on, what message does that send out to the majority? Remember Peter, its NOT angling that can't get on, just a tiny minority of so called angling leaders. Ordinary anglers have nothing to do with it at all!

 

At least the CA galls and guys stand together, stick together when it comes to fighting each others battles.

 

What kind of national organisation set up "supposedly" representing "all" UK anglers deny those they are supposed to be representing individual membership? Deny the majority any say in how their angling affairs are run? Yes I know, same story, its not set up that way. Set up by whom? If you want to talk about driving wedges Peter there's two biguns to be going on with. Thousands of other wedges enough to bring down a castle if you look at our own angling history!!

 

The CA actually has EVERY right to represent its own members. And that DOES include representing its own angling membership. The other side of the MOU fence have proven they are not united so why then should the CA stay quiet on angling matters when they themselves have stayed staunchly united?

 

Are you really expecting the CA to keep out of angling affairs when we have such a reliable history for dis-unity and falling out? Come on Peter get real. The fact is the CA is a lot stronger than us when it comes to fighting their member’s corners. They haven't lurched from one creation to another when times got tough or fallen out in-house. To date Peter, they've stayed the course - STAUNCHLY.

 

Several years ago in SAA meetings I remember the chest beatings from a few stating that when fox hunting goes the CA would crumble. Well if that is the case with the hunting ban now being so close, why are the CA still perceived as being such a threat to "angling unity"? From my observations the CA will become even stronger if hunting gets banned which in turn will see the CA angling membership swell beyond expectations. And if the new FACT fails Peter, the CA will rule the angling political roost as no government will ever take the ashes of FACT seriously ever again. No matter what they transform themselves into.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

Represent its members, yes, its members.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter,

 

One liners do your argumentative prowess no justice what so ever. Alan Pearce will get the job in the sandwich boards unless you shape up.

 

Alan Pearce. Now theres a blast from the past. Used to ride shotgun for Birdy tha knows. When Alan was thingmy in SACG he spoke so quietly everyone should have been issued with brass hearing horns so we could hear what he was saying. Proper meetings back then with real anglers around the table. Guys like Nev Fickling for example.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

The poll seems to have ground to a halt with over 50 anglers saying 'yes' or 'no'.

 

It never dropped beneath 70% of you saying 'no' to the suggestion that anglers should work with the CA.

 

Interesting, thanks for voting. I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

 

[ 15. February 2005, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Guest sslatter]

A radical suggestion: if Anglers Net teamed up with the CA, the acronym would be ANCA, which has a nice fishy connection.

 

Now.. if this organisation were to be made international, with Charles Jardine at the helm, it could be called World Anglers Net Countryside Alliance, whose acronym would be..oh..

 

Oh well.. back to the drawing board.

 

[ 16. February 2005, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Graham X ]

[argyll]

Post deleted. far too late for me to be making any kind of sense.

 

[ 16. February 2005, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Jim Roper]

Peter Waller:

The poll seems to have ground to a halt with over 50 anglers saying 'yes' or 'no'.

So the other 6200 AN members don't give toss!

Rather supports Lee's point, doesn't it?

 

[ 16. February 2005, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Jim Roper ]

[Guest sslatter]

argyll:

the acronym would be ANCA

It might also be misconstrued as rhyming slang for one or two of the characters involved.

I think you misread my post argyll. I think I covered that last point of yours.

 

All the best.

[Peter Waller]

Jim Roper:

 

Jim Roper:

The poll seems to have ground to a halt with over 50 anglers saying 'yes' or 'no'.

So the other 6200 AN members don't give toss!

Rather supports Lee's point, doesn't it?

Jim, how many of the 6200 actually visited, or posted, during that short period?

 

Yes, I agree, in principle, most anglers don't give a tuppenny toss about angling politics. But then that is a problem in itself, and one that is not helping angling's cause one iota.

 

And don't forget, Lee, bless him, and most of us genuinly love him for it, does like playing devils advocate!

 

[ 16. February 2005, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]