weasle 1,119 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 On a lighter note love the picture of the week."In the field" 2 fat borders in harnesses and extend able leads Quote Link to post Share on other sites
whippet 99 2,613 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 No way that page should have been printed,I haven't brought the cmw for a good while and brought it last week,I really had to look twice.. It wasn't news,It is proper gander,I don't like how some go about there hunting,But that page wasn't about the bad minority or majority?It was making out any one out was stealing etc."Don't try and approach anyone you see out hunting" How would any one go about getting permission if even the so called cmw is saying well actually there going to steal your diesel,quad,combine and sell smack to your kids. Very bad. you cant rely on the countryside alliance etc, there quick enough to take your money , but hide when these issues arise,.................................they should be sueing the paper for discrimination etc.....................i will never have insurance as from a working dog prospective ..................they will hide when it comes down to dogs in my opionion there must be legalities in the paper editing such accusations...?..........surely they wont keep getting away with it?............. shooters out poaching would be more of a concern than a fooking man and there dukel...........? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stewie 3,387 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 If I honestly thought that the CMW had it in for lurchers, I wouldn't even dream of writing for them. Believe it or not, I have some honour, and I make much more in a week cleaning peoples' houses than I do from writing so its definitely not the money. I do understand what you are saying though. If there hadn't been that photo of a dog coursing a hare in that article then lurcher men wouldn't have felt targeted, and none of this furore on this forum would have happened ... or would it? One of the Poacher Watches was set up to combat deer poachers: but they don't say what kind of poachers! Dog men or guns? Both are being used. Why don't you look into setting up a "lurchermans fortnightly" type mag and boycott the CMW?? You and darcy can write articles until your hearts content in there and you no anyone buying it will be doing so out of interest instead of reading them while on the way to the classifieds....... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graham4877 1,181 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 My problem with it, is the photo of a lurcher and hare , then the words "poacher watch", why not someone with a gun and an NV scope on, or someone with snares/ longnets???... then the words Poachers are dangerous and violent criminals.. where is it could of been said SOME poacher can be dangerous,, so what they are trying to do is get everyone to phone the police when they see anyone with a lurcher, permission or not, and in turn getting more dogs slotted and helping the lacs use them f*****g figures to say the hunting act is working! its no different to what the main stream media has been doing for years youve only got to think back to craven and his coursing bit on countryfile and how no presenter can mention the word badger without making some refference to baiting in the next sentence, all trying to give the public the idear that ALL hunting with dogs is illegal and as such must be linked to criminals and organised crime, so call the police on sight. A very clever way to enforce a total ban when in reality one doesnt exist. That begs the question why did they publish it Oh i remember watching that, mr f*****g craven with his balls of steel with the coppers standing round him when he was asking them why are they doing it, but thats the bbc, we expect it from them and fool file, I've picked up on the batting always used when ever they talk about badgers,do you think they even know what bager baiting is, i use to think no, but now its just crafted word play to f**k us, can you remember that hawker up on the golf course, saying now hunting with dogs is banned..lol who knows why they printed such shit,I/we except it from the likes of the bbc lacs or rspca!! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Simoman 110 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Every so often the same people come on here slagging the CMW off, but listen, how many other field sports publications would even dream of including lurcher and terrier work in their publications? In a publication that is not underground. Penny they don't print it for the community, its a business and lurcher/terrier lads are a huge proportion of that number. I hate the term underground magazine, Plummer used to use that one.......... Alright, magazines not available on shop shelves: better? Course its a business; but a business is only viable if it sells what its producing. The more controversial the stuff they print, the better it sells, like any newspaper or magazine: do you really think that the CMW staff are unaware of marketing tactics? A successful paper will contain a mixture of informative, entertaining and controversial articles. And like I already said, we lurcher and terrier people are the smallest faction within field sports and hunting, when compared to shooting or fishing. Much better Personally i prefered it many moons ago when it was shooting news, but then i'm nolgastic anyway I would take an educated guess that more lurcher and terrier lads buy the paper than anglers and shooters, surely they would prefer to buy angling times or shooting times. Nothing wrong with controverisal articles, but that advert for poacher watch wasn't controversial in a debateable way, just offensive and a blanket statement to get more pressure piled onto the sport. Personally in the current climate i wont step foot off permission. Penny you yourself have said on here in the past they water down your articles and wont publish anything deemed controversial or pre-ban. Im not having a dig at you personally, nto at all. As a business i think they would increase sales if they included, or allowed the contributors to include more grass roots articles, just my two cents worth, as moscow said, if you dont like it, dont buy it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
skycat 6,173 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Every so often the same people come on here slagging the CMW off, but listen, how many other field sports publications would even dream of including lurcher and terrier work in their publications? In a publication that is not underground. Penny they don't print it for the community, its a business and lurcher/terrier lads are a huge proportion of that number. I hate the term underground magazine, Plummer used to use that one.......... Alright, magazines not available on shop shelves: better? Course its a business; but a business is only viable if it sells what its producing. The more controversial the stuff they print, the better it sells, like any newspaper or magazine: do you really think that the CMW staff are unaware of marketing tactics? A successful paper will contain a mixture of informative, entertaining and controversial articles. And like I already said, we lurcher and terrier people are the smallest faction within field sports and hunting, when compared to shooting or fishing. Much better Personally i prefered it many moons ago when it was shooting news, but then i'm nolgastic anyway I would take an educated guess that more lurcher and terrier lads buy the paper than anglers and shooters, surely they would prefer to buy angling times or shooting times. Nothing wrong with controverisal articles, but that advert for poacher watch wasn't controversial in a debateable way, just offensive and a blanket statement to get more pressure piled onto the sport. Personally in the current climate i wont step foot off permission. Penny you yourself have said on here in the past they water down your articles and wont publish anything deemed controversial or pre-ban. Im not having a dig at you personally, nto at all. As a business i think they would increase sales if they included, or allowed the contributors to include more grass roots articles, just my two cents worth, as moscow said, if you dont like it, dont buy it. Did I say that? No, they don't water down my articles, but I know what can be included in the wording and subject matter, so I write accordingly. It would be pointless to describe in detail a bloody battle between a terrier and a fox: describing which bits got ripped off which animal; you must know the sort of thing I'm on about: besides which, I wouldn't even write like that in a book: it is only more fuel for the antis. If the reader has more than two brain cells they can understand what is meant reading between the lines. Pre-ban, as I already said, is acceptable under the heading: Down Memory Lane. I've done many articles like that: foxing and coursing articles. On another note: what do you mean exactly by 'grass roots' articles? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Simoman 110 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Every so often the same people come on here slagging the CMW off, but listen, how many other field sports publications would even dream of including lurcher and terrier work in their publications? In a publication that is not underground. Penny they don't print it for the community, its a business and lurcher/terrier lads are a huge proportion of that number. I hate the term underground magazine, Plummer used to use that one.......... Alright, magazines not available on shop shelves: better? Course its a business; but a business is only viable if it sells what its producing. The more controversial the stuff they print, the better it sells, like any newspaper or magazine: do you really think that the CMW staff are unaware of marketing tactics? A successful paper will contain a mixture of informative, entertaining and controversial articles. And like I already said, we lurcher and terrier people are the smallest faction within field sports and hunting, when compared to shooting or fishing. Much better Personally i prefered it many moons ago when it was shooting news, but then i'm nolgastic anyway I would take an educated guess that more lurcher and terrier lads buy the paper than anglers and shooters, surely they would prefer to buy angling times or shooting times. Nothing wrong with controverisal articles, but that advert for poacher watch wasn't controversial in a debateable way, just offensive and a blanket statement to get more pressure piled onto the sport. Personally in the current climate i wont step foot off permission. Penny you yourself have said on here in the past they water down your articles and wont publish anything deemed controversial or pre-ban. Im not having a dig at you personally, nto at all. As a business i think they would increase sales if they included, or allowed the contributors to include more grass roots articles, just my two cents worth, as moscow said, if you dont like it, dont buy it. Did I say that? No, they don't water down my articles, but I know what can be included in the wording and subject matter, so I write accordingly. It would be pointless to describe in detail a bloody battle between a terrier and a fox: describing which bits got ripped off which animal; you must know the sort of thing I'm on about: besides which, I wouldn't even write like that in a book: it is only more fuel for the antis. If the reader has more than two brain cells they can understand what is meant reading between the lines. Pre-ban, as I already said, is acceptable under the heading: Down Memory Lane. I've done many articles like that: foxing and coursing articles. On another note: what do you mean exactly by 'grass roots' articles? Penny only an idiot would write stupid blood and gore type rubbish, only an idiot would write it and only an idiot would enjoy reading it. I have never read anything like that in any publication, whether its underground, overground or wombling free. I believe there are a fair few ferreting/ratting articles, but they do seem to shy away from REGULARLY publishing digging, pre ban deer, hare coursing etc......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
skycat 6,173 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 It's not that they shy away from digging articles: there just aren't any coming in! I've been asked many times to submit digging articles, but as I don't really dig any more I would have to stick to 'memory lane' articles. I really should do more terrier articles anyway, but the real pro digging men seem to stay away from writing: can you blame them? That's what I meant about the silent majority of people who seriously work lurchers and terriers: most wouldn't dream of writing about their doings, preferring to keep their heads down and stay discreet, leaving it to us lesser folk to exploit our interests in hunting using the written word I have some good friends who work their dogs far harder than I do nowadays, but they keep themselves to themselves, and long may it continue. Pre-ban deer has always been very controversial, and I don't know if I'm right in saying this, but the combination of the Bambi factor, and the attitude of deer stalkers in general, means that any writing of taking deer with dogs would be a very contentious issue indeed. Most of the people who write lurcher articles would appear to be purely rabbiting men anyway, though Alan Tyer has done the odd one on coursing, as has JD, and myself. Thanks for the heads up anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 My problem with it, is the photo of a lurcher and hare , then the words "poacher watch", why not someone with a gun and an NV scope on, or someone with snares/ longnets???... then the words Poachers are dangerous and violent criminals.. where is it could of been said SOME poacher can be dangerous,, so what they are trying to do is get everyone to phone the police when they see anyone with a lurcher, permission or not, and in turn getting more dogs slotted and helping the lacs use them f*****g figures to say the hunting act is working! its no different to what the main stream media has been doing for years youve only got to think back to craven and his coursing bit on countryfile and how no presenter can mention the word badger without making some refference to baiting in the next sentence, all trying to give the public the idear that ALL hunting with dogs is illegal and as such must be linked to criminals and organised crime, so call the police on sight. A very clever way to enforce a total ban when in reality one doesnt exist. That begs the question why did they publish it Oh i remember watching that, mr f*****g craven with his balls of steel with the coppers standing round him when he was asking them why are they doing it, but thats the bbc, we expect it from them and fool file, I've picked up on the batting always used when ever they talk about badgers,do you think they even know what bager baiting is, i use to think no, but now its just crafted word play to f**k us, can you remember that hawker up on the golf course, saying now hunting with dogs is banned..lol who knows why they printed such shit,I/we except it from the likes of the bbc lacs or rspca!! yes i also remember the reply to my complaint, the man actually said he couldnt run dogs on there as it was a mix of hares and rabbits but it was edited to just say rabbits. on the same bit he also said rabbits dig the grass up to eat the roots this was also edited as he said badgers dig the greens up when after worms. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stabba 10,745 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 So in a nutshell...You'll still take their 50 notes regardless. Sugarcoat it all you want ....that paper/rag is an insult to everyone who owns or has ever owned a running dog. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 26,112 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Is that what you get for an article in the cmw,,, 50 notes,,,,,??? feck righting dales posts on here then 100 rabbits bla bla bla.......... I'm sending them in.......lol 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
weasle 1,119 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Ive seen it written before on threads like this one,that they diluted what you wrote even preban. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stabba 10,745 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Is that what you get for an article in the cmw,,, 50 notes,,,,,??? feck righting dales posts on here then 100 rabbits bla bla bla.......... I'm sending them in.......lol It may even be slightly more mate Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Simoman 110 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Pre-ban deer has always been very controversial, and I don't know if I'm right in saying this, but the combination of the Bambi factor, and the attitude of deer stalkers in general, means that any writing of taking deer with dogs would be a very contentious issue indeed. I'm sure i read somewhere in an earlier post they liked controversial articles................... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Pre-ban deer has always been very controversial, and I don't know if I'm right in saying this, but the combination of the Bambi factor, and the attitude of deer stalkers in general, means that any writing of taking deer with dogs would be a very contentious issue indeed. I'm sure i read somewhere in an earlier post they liked controversial articles................... only if there not controversial Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.