The SACG, to their credit, have been hugely involved in angling unity for several years now. They were pushing for it well before the current governing bodies were catapulted into taking it seriously by the Sports Council (see below). And due to their pressing on this and other issues, the SACG have helped get the other bodies to start to get a way mapped out on how it could be achieved. Once the ball was rolling however and the other groups (NFA, S&TA, ACA, NFSA) came in, seeds of doubt started to creep into my mind whether we were going to head towards something very dangerous to angling just to accommodate already vested interests. It became a process of jockeying for position rather than a discussion on a constructive way ahead. I was worried about the eventual structure and what we would lose on the way. So, with that intro, onto the main bit.....

The unity bit is all about attitudes - each separate group or body has deeply entrenched biases and will shift to a certain point and then … no more. Before we can even begin to sort out unity, we must have understanding, not trenches being dug. This has always been divisive. And what's it all about - perceived power - someone getting their own way without any regard to others who think differently. Unity will not be achieved until people listen, take on board others' needs and compromise. We can achieve a change in attitudes if each branch of angling will take on board the requirements of all of the others and ACCEPT them. I don't say agree - acceptance is a basis for harmony. I know that there are arguments within the specimen lobby, between people and groups that need sorting before we even get to sorting things out with the match lads and lassies, then with the sea and game anglers. What chance unity then when we speci hunters can't stop arguing amongst ourselves. Surely, unity means coming to terms with the fact that others have a point of view, even if you don't agree with them and that BOTH sides must accept this.

Right, we have unity of attitude and off we go towards the goal of unity of angling or some sort of supreme angling council. Well, we go but by which route do we go by? There are currently many groups and governing bodies and they must all come together, somehow, on an intended newly formed supreme council to achieve this unity. I handed over my job on the SACG to Mike in February just gone. I am (and was) 100% in favour of angling unity - but as I said several times back then, it needs a whole lot of thinking about. It seemed to me that some thought should go into the way the process was to unfold and I had some doubts about what was happening.

Within the NFA there are clubs, and each of the clubs has individual members. Within the NFSA - the same. Within the SACG there is the collective of specimen groups and each of these has individual members. Within the S&TA - individual members. etc. etc.

What am I getting at? What and who is unity going to be created for? OK, it's being done to preserve angling in the future - but for whom? Is it being done for club and group committees or for each and every angler? Unity is the greatest goal to be achieved in angling but it could be dangerous to go for broke without too much thought as to who it's being done for. There is a danger that, with the best will in the world, it will be done for the cause of angling but not in the name of the individual angler. I have often heard it said that if it were left to rank and file anglers, nothing would get done. It might be true but if it weren't for all those 'apathetic' anglers, fishing wouldn’t exist to unite. Unity should not be aimed for just to please the few so that another empire can be built - it has got to be done for all - even if 99.9% are apathetic. I mention 'empires' because no one has to go too far in angling to see those that run some aspects of fishing are totally out of touch with who they are running it for.

Also more food for thought, anglers who do join species groups etc do so to enjoy their fishing more and to do their bit in supporting that species. At the moment, the present mish-mash does, to an extent, enable species and match groups to have their voices heard and at least feel that they have some small influence on events. Umbrellas like the SACG etc can still listen and act if the clubs need them to. There are still ears in authority too who will listen to the grass roots. But how remote will the grass roots feel from the supreme council? Get the council in place, set up on the wrong premise and the grass roots will really be in the wilderness, with nobody listening.

In that case, what would be likely to happen is a new wave of grass root fragmentation. The match anglers would set up a pressure group, so would the speci fishers and the sea and game people would not be far behind - so a false unity at the top and nothing changed below. It's no use saying that the NFA or SACG would still be there, as the name of the game, before the final unity, is the amalgamation of all the groups to achieve it. This yanks any feeling of 'control' straight out of the hands of the grass roots. It would be the roots - nothing in between - then a monolithic supreme governing body, making the rules.

Although the SACG were battering away for unity beforehand, it's worth remembering that the blue touch paper for this attempt at unity was the Sports Council (as it was then). A government backed body, which said that it could only really deal with angling if angling were represented by a single governing council. The current governing bodies (NFA, NFSA & S&TA) only jumped aboard the unity bandwagon when they saw their funds were likely to dry up if they did not comply. The reasoning is that money will flow into angling if the supreme angling council is set up as is now envisaged - great but at what eventual cost to grass roots angling? I think that it's an unnerving prospect that we will have the government being handed angling on a plate.

The current governing bodies are like dinosaurs trying to be cheetahs. And it's these bodies who will go forward to make up the current concept of the council. It won't have the likes of the quick on their feet ideas groups like the SACG. They have already been told that they will not be privy to the big table, even though they ran with the unity ball faster and further than most and dragging the dinosaurs a little way towards the real world. That's what worries me most - a supreme vested interest for the vested interests that do nothing for angling except serve their own views and countenance nobody else's - and in the governments pocket!

I will say again, I am totally convinced that unity is crucial to the future of angling. After a great deal of thought, I'm not sure that we're going in the right direction. If we get over the first hurdle of mutual understanding, what then?

I think that a supreme council committee should be set up, but independently of government, so that it can negotiate, not be dictated to. But then we don't get the money would be the cry. I bet we would, perhaps not all but what we did get would be on our terms. Anglers, if they want a future for angling, could pay a surcharge on the licence or through club fees to make up for any monies lost. The SACG, NFA, NAFAC, NFSA, S&TA et al should not amalgamate but should nominate someone to sit on their behalf on the governing council. They should still be there as independent groups and bodies as, whether it likes it or not, grass roots angling needs them and will need them even more as supportive intermediaries when a council is set up. If they go who have we got? Even though we might achieve unity, angling is a broad church and various branches will still need to be heard.

Not amalgamating will also stop all of this jockeying for position power game that IS currently going on between some groups. It's sad really that this idea of unity creates such discord between people who want to be top dog. Don't tell me they're doing it for the benefit of angling. In any walk of life you get the Great I Ams who don't give a toss about why they're there but just what it'll do for their own prestige. Unity should come from the level playing field of group representation - not be controlled by the best back-stabbing in-fighters.

Unity must come. Without it the problems that are damaging and even killing our sport will never be addressed. At the moment we only tinker with some bits while core problems need a serious look at. We won't need the antis to kill fishing because the next generation of anglers isn't coming in. Angling will die from within, not without. Clubs are pale shadows of what they were with memberships dwindling. It all needs addressing, but it won't be addressed until there's someone there who can really do something.