Antis new tactic

I know the League Against Cruel Sports claim not to be after anglers, but did anybody spot this and think ?What if this tactic were applied to fishing waters?'

Sunday Telegraph 29.5.05

We'll buy land to stop shooting, say anti-hunt groups.

By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor (Filed: 29/05/2005)

Anti-hunt campaigners are secretly planning to buy up thousands of acres of land where game shooting takes place in order to block the pastime, as they widen their attack on country sports.
A leaked internal report from the League Against Cruel Sports reveals that, with the 20-year battle won to secure a ban on foxhunting, the organisation is turning its attention to shooting.
It is preparing plans to buy large areas of moors, foreshore and wetlands in order to prevent other landlords from acquiring the shooting rights. The league plans to sell on the land, using the proceeds to buy up more areas. But it will retain the sporting rights for itself - thereby denying others the right to shoot over growing parts of the country.
The organisation plans to sell off nature sanctuaries, which it previously claimed were vital for the protection of wild animals, in order to fund the move. Such sanctuaries are described as "surplus to future requirements" in league reports to its annual meeting in July which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph.
Lawrie Payne, the honorary secretary, writes: "The league needs to refocus its resources? On the sanctuaries side, the league may need to acquire new areas of land such as moorland, foreshore and wetland for the anti-shooting campaign and ? may need to dispose of properties that were purchased to further the anti-hunting campaign, but are no longer needed for that purpose.
"The SSSIs [sites of special scientific interest] have wildlife value, but no commercial value? The committee of the league therefore recommends that the land and property holdings portfolio be reviewed."
Up to 30 plots, totalling more than 2,000 acres, in south-west England are now under review. One site almost certain to be sold is St Nicholas Priory in Baronsdown near Exmoor, a 250-acre estate where deer roam free.
The agenda for the annual meeting shows that a members' proposal to retain the sanctuaries - which provided a "positive contribution to conservation and the environment" - was rejected by the ruling committee.
The league's annual report showed that despite mounting an expensive campaign against hunting, it made a profit of ?131,681 last year after tax, with 63 per cent of its income coming from legacies. It also has millions of pounds worth of assets.
Jim Barrington, a former director of the league who is now a spokesman for the Middle Way group which proposes licensed hunting, said the plan was part of a "drip drip" tactic designed to destroy country sports.
"It is very strange that a body that claimed shooting was a better form of pest control while it was campaigning against hunting, now says shooting is cruel and should be banned," he said.
"It is really hypocritical. The league is blinkered and political. The substantial number of them don't care about animal welfare."
The strategy was revealed as Nigel Yeo, the assistant chief constable of Sussex Police, said the ban on hunting with hounds could cost forces the equivalent of five constables each. He said police could be forced to impound packs of hounds in order to uphold the ban when the hunting season starts in October.
Mr Yeo told the Association of Police Officers annual conference that forces could then have to meet average kennelling costs of ?15 per animal per day, amounting to ?125,000 a year - the equivalent of paying five experienced officers. "Does the public really want its money spent like that?" he said.

The part that should really scare anglers is:
"The league's annual report showed that despite mounting an expensive campaign against hunting, it made a profit of ?131,681 last year after tax, with 63 per cent of its income coming from legacies. It also has millions of pounds worth of assets."

Now, lets compare those figures with what we (the united angling bodies) have at our disposal.

Yeah right, anyone getting slightly bothered yet?

As an aside, did anyone read the article today about the PETA "Mole" who worked for 2 years in animal laboritories and wore a hidden camera? She has finished her 'undercover' work now and says that there are several PETA sympathisers doing the same work.

These sort of stories make me wonder about the person who has opened a lake in the UK with security cameras around the place, but then I am often told that I am a cynical so-and-so.

I don't think you are cynical at all Peter.
The best, easiest, and fastest way to destroy something is from the inside.

Sounds logical Peter.

Cant see how their going to buy up shooting ground to stop shooting sports though. There must be millions and millions of acres of land out there to be shot and im sure they aint got that much cash to spend.

And just who are they going to buy all this land from. If there was so much of it out there then surely the property spculaters would have snapped it up by now as investment.
There is still some wildfowling allowed on the Wash and other such areas but as far I know these are either conservation or public areas and as such would not be for sale.

Frank,
Most property speculators are only interested in land that can be built on and not open land (green belt) where building is prohibited.

Typically when you purchase agricultural land, open land, forest or copse the shooting, and fishing, rights will come with the land. The LACS have this novel idea of buying the land, maintaining the shooting and fishing rights and then selling-on that parcel to maintain their coffers.

As to how successful it will be remains to be seen (although the story does make good copy in the silly season for newspapers) and I would be surprised if much in the way of 'rights' are transfered at all. Most of the shooting land where I live is owned by active members of the shooting community and I can imagine the sort of response that the LACS would get from them if they were to be approached.

as i`ve said before,the lacs is run as a business and they are not going to close it down every time they manage to get something banned. when they get shooting banned,they will start on angling.you only have to watch programmes such as pet rescue,wildlife sos etc to see the antis at work,ie,if a swan gets tangled in line(often they swim or land where people are fishing,and get accidentally caught),they always say"it`s anglers leaving discarded line that causes this",and they do their best to discredit angling.i know that discarded tackle is a problem,but these people never take the time to explain that the majority of anglers are responsible people who care about wildlife,they just tar us all with the same brush.
the trouble is these days,is that people `humanise`wild animals,birds and fish and they don`t realise how cruel nature is.
and i bet that a lot of joe public,who disagrees with country pursuits,are quite happy to go into supermarkets and buy "budget" meat ,which is reared under intensive cruel conditions in europe,and cheap battery farmed eggs,which are reared over here.
i used to follow a fox hunt occasionally,i used to shoot(but can no longer due to arthritic shoulders)and i still go fishing,but i`d never buy intensively reared animal products.but then again,i live in the real world!

people will also believe the propaganda that will appear,just like they did with hunting.it`s already happening,PETA have pictures of "livebaits "stuck on huge barbed trebles,in reality they are using a sprat on some old antique hook.in my opinion,every angler who spoke out against hunting,has endangered our own beloved pastime

Near to where I live is a RSPB site, which charges an admission fee of ?2 to see wild water birds in a man made complex of small shallow lakes. This reserve has been extended from an original site they bought from a local farmer maybe 25 years ago. Prior to them buying the original land, it and a natural spring fed lake in the centre was shot by a syndicate who sub-let 20 fishing permits each year to subsidide their costs.
Obviously since then no fishing or shooting has taken place, but more worrying is the fact that their boundaries still seem to grow. Their land is boundaried on one side by the River Dearne, which is an improving river with good stocks of trout, chub, roach, perch, pike and barble, again no fishing from their bank.
There is generally a decline in farming with some of the fields laid fallow each year on the 'fishing' bank, also some fields have become flood plains which become operational by steel guillotine doored barriers across the river operated by the EA.
I can see that its only a matter of time before the RSPB or someone similar gets control of this land and stops the fishing I and others now enjoy.
If I remember correctley does the land between the river and the top outer edge of the flood bank belong to the EA, for them to maintain the system. If this is so are the RSPB and similar organisations being correct in denying access to the public for walking, fishing or any other 'legal' reason?

The water belongs to the state (EA) the land under the the water to halfway belongs to the owners either side.