Should we join forces with the Countryside Alliance?

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

Jim said;

 

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

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

 

Certainly does Jim, in more ways than one.

 

It would be understandable to assume that AN rank and file members just aren’t that interested in angling politics? Well, if the political type of threads on AN displayed the views they were receiving (didn't they used to?) it might surprise some as to just how many were looking in? If only for their entertainment value?

 

Then again, any lack lustre concerning angling politics might also be down to angling politico’s lack of effective PR? Like does the rank and file really know what’s going off on the political scene behind closed doors? OK, so a few on AN clearly do know what’s going off either because they are actively involved or are actively informed. But as for the rest?

 

I have always preached about the lack of effective PR in angling politics and as far as I can see, it’s still ineffective.

 

In stark contrast the CA rank and file really "DO" know what’s going off because their organisation keeps them fully informed either centrally or by its national chain of command. Love em or hate em, the CA really "DO" leave us standing on either the "unity" front or the organisational front. The plain fact (no pun intended) is, we could learn a great deal from the lads and lasses in the Countryside Alliance.

 

Take the string of legal moves the CA is undertaking at the moment trying to keep hunting with dogs afloat? This is a yardstick if ever there was one. Can anyone seriously imagine our politicos organising this type of campaign or indeed having the money to undertake it?? You see, on a national scale imagine walking along any city high street asking sections of the public who the Countryside Alliance is. I'd bet a gold clock that 75% of those asked would know. Then undertake the same type of poll asking members of the public who the NAA were, or the new FACT is, and I'd bet the sideboard that the gold clock stands upon all you'd get would be frowning blank expressions. Whoooooo?

 

That’s the difference you see. Effective PR backed up with total unity and plenty of cash to get the job done makes the difference. That’s why the Countryside Alliance is leaving our efforts standing. In comparison, we ain't even in the same league as the CA.

 

Tim said earlier;

 

"Hmm, if you think FACT will last much more than a year, in the words of Hugh Falkus "My cock's a lobster!"

 

Sadly, Tim might well be right. Even sadder than that, if FACT fails it won't be for the want of trying in some political circles.

 

Contrary to perhaps politically held belief, I'm pretty desperate for FACT to work because this really "IS" going to be our last chance. If FACT fails we are politically finished. At least in my life time because efforts at uniting all UK angling will probably take decades if FACT crumbles.

 

Those sitting around the FACT table know what’s needed. But everything hinges on some being prepared to look further than they ever dared in the past. There “IS” a way; it just takes a few brave steps. But from those first courageous steps, UK angling can surge away knowing that finally, it has its own future firmly in its grasp.

 

Pete said;

 

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

 

This might surprise you Peter. You are wrong in this instance.

 

As one “outside” national political levels now, I am perhaps the one most passionate about FACT succeeding. Even though I remain in awe of what the Countryside Alliance has managed to achieve for its own members against clear political personal agendas, I still steadfastly believe that we-angling-can run our own affairs. Indeed, our own sheer numbers demonstrate clearly its laughable to think anyone else could hope to represent us in any manner near to what we could ourselves. We are simply big enough to fund our own efforts far and above that which the CA does for itself.

 

Peter, I’ve banged on this door till my fists bled. Then kicked it until my boots fell apart and my feet bled as well. But no one behind this door is listening.

 

It’s high time that rank and file anglers started to tell these politicos what it is that “WE” wanted for our sport. I’m sick and tired of these people that head up organisations agreeing to get around the unity table to then only start disagreeing a few short months thereafter! Don’t they know they are NOT serving our best interests with the unending bickering and endless turf preservation? They constantly claim they are representing “US”, well if they truly are, take “US” with you!

 

I want these people to stop posturing and start delivering. We deserve our own national organisation. An organisation we can “ALL” belong to. FACT individual membership for all. FACT individual membership for angling.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Tim Kelly]

Apart from being slightly worried that I may in actually have a lobster living in my trousers I'm in complete agreement with Lee. I only learnt of FACT's existance from this thread, which possibly says a lot in itself....

 

[ 16. February 2005, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Tim Kelly ]

[Peter Waller]

The pictures on the News tonight showing a fox being killed is not, I don't think, something we need to be linked to, do you?

[Elton]

Did a fox die tonight? I ate shepherds pie - did any cows die this week?

[Peter Waller]

But did anyone eat a fox? Waste of a life, maybe!

[Elton]

Maybe not, but I ate chicken....

[Tim Kelly]

There you go again Peter. Your issue with the CA is based on your difficulties with fox hunting. Not how they handle themselves in the political arena.

[Peter Waller]

No Tim, not correct on either count. My issue is whether it is in our best interests to be associated with those who kill with dogs, whether it is politically advantageous for angling. I believe, with a passion, that it is not.

[Newt]

Peter Waller:

those who kill with dogs

Sorry Peter. People kill with guns, with bows, with knives, with traps, with rocks; in short, with tools. Dogs are pretty much DIY when it comes to the killing. They are built for it and many were bred for it.

 

I have gathered that the political & social climate in the UK is a bit different than where I live so I would be out of place to say that I think that on this particular issue you are dead, flat, completely wrong about where the best interests of UK angling lie and since I hate to be out of place, I won't say that.

 

Please permit me to think it though even if I never mention it.

[Peter Waller]

Very subtle Newt, but I respect you for it!

 

I don't object to the killing of fox, please understand that. I do object to the ethos behind the 'hunt', rather akin to a 'lynch mob', and even those have been outlawed!

 

If the object of, or the excuse for the 'hunt' is basically pest control, why then are fox bred for the hunt?

 

[ 17. February 2005, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]