The first NASA conference was held in the mid-sixties in Chelsea, West London. No, I didn’t attend, but lots of other people did.

My first tangle with NASA was at an NFA conference during the early eighties when your delegate, Steve Griffiths, tried to tell the other delegates how they could raise money and promote themselves and the sport. I remember him hanging a NASA sweatshirt over the podium by way of example. I will always think of that event as the sweatshirt conference. I certainly can’t remember anything else about it and it was 10 years before the NFA got its own tee shirts. Chatting to Steve in the bar later I found myself signed up to NASA and have been a member ever since.

When I was running the NFA I always viewed NASA as angling’s militant tendency but this view fell on deaf ears. NASA was, and still is, under- utilised. A few years ago NASA got political and the SACG was created.NASA has a speciality, and it is not only the speciality of the fishing, it is the quality of the people who do that fishing.

Over the past year since taking up the job with the Angling Trade Association I have got to know Tim Marks and Chris Burt very well. They are an important asset to you and our sport. They are a pleasure to work with and the seeds are sown, and growing, for a unified approach to all things fishing.

What I am saying is that NASA and SACG realised the importance of the political game. The normal audience for any angling talk that includes the word ‘politics’ in it’s title consists of the organiser, who stays behind out of courtesy, club officials with their hearing aids turned off, a small boy and his dog. Well at least we have the small boy.

On too many occasions I have heard that fishing and politics don’t mix. Or, that angling is not a political animal. Even, what have politics got to do with catching fish? Well, I’ve got bad news for all of you. Politics have everything to do with us and our sport. Directly or indirectly politics impinge on every aspect of our activities.

But what are politics? One of the definitions I will use today is:

Politics are: "the policies, goals, or affairs of a government or state or of the groups or parties within it."

Any action taken by or financed by government or it’s quangos that affects our sport directly or indirectly is political. The high price of petrol increases the cost of my fishing - so politics do matter! The government’s £1.5 million cut in Grant-in-Aid to the E.A directly affects angling.

We are also cursed with internal politics in angling. Another definition of politics for you.

Politics are:

"the scheming and manoeuvring for power and personal advantage that occurs within any given group."

I think that could have been written with us in mind - don’t you? For years we have played at politics and striven to unify our activities to protect and enhance all we hold dear. Apart from a few odd examples where have we got?

Some of us involved in the day to day administration of recreational fishing know it can be done and, dare I say it, quite easily. Look at the work of the Moran committee shadowing the Government’s review of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries legislation. Moran had angling groups coming together to work for the common good. Why can’t we take the extra mile and put this liaison on a more permanent and professional basis?

Talk of the review leads nicely back to political interference in fishing. The composition of the review committee was suspect. Approximately 50 per cent of the committee had interests in game fishing. Whereas statistics show that 50 per cent of anglers fish for coarse fish. Only about a quarter of anglers chase salmon and trout. Food for thought?

Why wasn’t there any content for sea anglers added onto the review to give the all round picture. Another chance of unity lost? Or does this unity thing frighten our politicians? Or, are sea fishing problems just too difficult?

Some of you may be thinking that this Government does care about us. They set up the review didn’t they? Think about it. We’ve yet to see if they take any actions on the review’s recommendations. Don’t hold your breath.

Am I being cynical or is this just politics? Challenging government is politics.

You only have to remember that prior to the last election that New Labour launched its much acclaimed ‘Charter for Angling’. Promises delivered 3 years later? None - zilch - sweet Fanny Adams - zero - a big fat nothing.

Was the Charter just a fictitious vote catcher? Did we fall for it? Did we help put Labour in power and are now reaping the whirlwind. I have no faith in the latest batch of politicians who want to run the country. The Charter for Angling was just politics.

We seem loath to challenge authority, be it local, regional, national or international and yet they continue to damage our sport and the environment. A sport that generates, in the UK, between 3 and 5 billion pounds total spend per annum. Yes billions. What with VAT, income tax and a myriad of taxation by stealth - a nice little earner for any Government.

Shouldn’t we have more say in what happens to our fisheries - be they inland or offshore? Well we don’t.

In 1972, the then Tory prime minister, Edward Heath, signed away control of our offshore fisheries to Europe. Since that time successive governments have failed to halt the continued destruction of our sea fish stocks. The quota system continues unchecked with it’s obscene discards and by-catch unabated. The result? Up to 50 per cent of fish caught, at sea, are thrown back dead and over 5000 dolphins are killed every year by pair trawlers. Remember that this quota system is the politician’s answer to sea fishery management. Up to one million tonnes of sand eels are ground up for fuel and animal feed each year in Denmark. More politics.

We all know the problems of discards caused by the quota system and yet government is going to spend £200,000 of tax payer’s money researching what we already know. While we wait for the result the destruction of fish stocks will continue and fisheries will suffer. Politics aren’t very nice are they?

I have a deep loathing for Edward Heath based on his monstrous give away of our important natural resource – the fisheries around our shores. The Common Fisheries Policy (policy - politics - geddit?) must be thrown out and control returned to the UK before the situation gets worse as undoubtedly it will. At the end of 2002 every trawler in Europe will expect to fish right up to our beaches and drape long lines from pier to pier.

It is interesting to note that each year, world wide, discards equate to 10lbs of fish for every man, women and child on the planet. Is this political enough yet?

Nearer home the cormorant issue rumbles on safely in the hands of MAFF - the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Hah!!!! After the much vaunted research programme where are we now? Nowhere!

Please remember that MAFF work for governments of whatever political persuasion. I would challenge that fisheries should not be included in their remit. Their fence sitting posture as cormorants continue to devastate our inland fisheries endorses their total lack of understanding of the problem. Or, could it be that they know the answer - a significant cormorant cull; but don’t want to take on the powerful bird lobby? More politics I’m afraid.

Surely we can’t object to the re-introduction of the beloved otter. Yes we can.

This programme was instigated without full discussion with fishery owners who might be affected or following the governments own guidelines on environmental impact assessments. Financed directly or indirectly by some government department this has already created problems for fisheries. When challenged by the SACG the response was that owners should erect otter proof fencing at their own cost. One well known fishery would have to fork out over £50,000 for the privilege.

Just a minute this sounds familiar. Fish losses from cormorant predation - no compensation. Erection of otter proof fencing - no compensation. Politics stinks a bit doesn’t it?

Another thought. Fox hunting has nothing to do with angling politics does it?

Sorry - think again. When hunting with hounds is banned will the hunt saboteurs and the like go home? I’m afraid not. These politically active extremist groups have already publicly stated they will redirect their illegal activities towards shooting and fishing. Think about this, hunting is a group activity and relatively easy to police and protect, if the police take action. Angling is, in essence an isolationist sport - who will protect us? Could government legislation actually expose 3 million anglers to uncontrolled violence? Not very nice these politics.

I wrote to the Prime Minister on this very subject, with a copy to Jack Straw at the Home Office, adding that the antis would perceive the ban on hunting as government condoning their terrorist activities. The first response I received from Blair’s Communication Unit at No 10 was they had passed my letter on to MAFF for consideration. Why? It was a law and order issue?

I subsequently challenged this action in writing and have now been advised that the Home Office will respond in due course. Another dose of bad politics I think. Watch this space. No response as yet.

The actions of Michael Foster in putting forward a private members bill to ban hunting with hounds clearly underlines the naivety of many of our politicians in parliament today. He proudly stated that he was an angler but obviously could not see that hunting, shooting and fishing have animal welfare connotations. He has quite cheerfully opened Pandora’s box and put recreational fishing in the firing line. Is the man stupid? No - he’s a politician. I can only hope they take his rod licence away and ban him from fishing ever again.

Internal politics in angling are adding to our problems, much to the delight of the anti-angling factions. Some of our organisations and so-called angling gurus, who should know better, are compounding divisions within by condemning some of our rights and practices in the vain hope it will buy off the antis and they will go away. Another dose of naivety and political malpractice!

Of course we can ban keepnets except for matchfishing. Think again stupid!

Why create an additional division in our ranks by pitting competition fishermen against the club or pleasure angler. Why ignore the research that gives keepnets a clean bill of health. Make no mistake, if keepnets go so will carp sacks and other fish retaining devices. The use of keepnets and the like should be a matter of freedom of choice. Isn’t that what our democratic sport is all about?

Of course we should ban livebaiting - its cruel isn’t it? Is it? Obviously those promoting this view have not kept abreast with the mountain of research that holds that fish do not feel pain. No pain - no cruelty. Livebaiting may not be nice cosmetically - so what? And yet, a spokesman for a well known alliance clearly stated during a radio interview that fish do feel pain. The antis must have loved that.

If you want to be a spokesman for angling check the facts, All this particular debate achieves is more division in the ranks. And more politics.

If we are not careful internal angling politics will achieve every anti-anglers wish - erosion of our legal rights and practices until its not worth going fishing anymore. Subjective, woolly minded angling politics we don’t need.

I would now like to widen the scene to cover a few areas on the international front. Angling has serious difficulties world-wide but right is on our side. We not only offer sustainable fishing effort but realistic economic input in every country where our sport takes place. In 1992, at the UN Conference on the Environment and Development (The Earth Summit) in Rio, over 150 nations including the UK endorsed a 500 page document, Agenda 21, which sets out how both developed and developing countries can work together towards sustainable development.

Part of Agenda 21 says that sustainable development requires humanity to:

1. Reduce over-use of energy, raw materials and production of pollution and wastesProtect fragile ecosystems

Our fish are raw materials and the aquatic environment is a fragile ecosystem. So, these proposals obviously include our fish and our fisheries.

Recreational fishing (angling) can answer some of these criteria. The sport provides a valuable platform for imaginative environmental action and sustainable economical regeneration throughout the world. These are my kind of politics.

And yet what has happened since Rio? 1.5 million sharks continue to be finned every year to fulfil the demand for a luxury food - shark fin soup.

Finning, by the way is where the shark is caught, it’s fins cut off - often while still alive - and the carcass thrown back in to the sea - wasted. People are starving and yet …… The continued decline of adult sturgeon in the Caspian Sea due to poaching - 60% in twenty years. Once again for a luxury food - caviar. It has been calculated that this population of sturgeon may become extinct within the next 10 years.

Someone one buys the poachers illegal product - that’s politics.

Japanese long liners hook and kill 44,000 albatrosses a year in their pursuit of tuna for the sushi and sashimi markets - again luxury foods. Have you noticed the fashionable new sushi bars springing up in the UK? It’s a hell of a price to pay for a luxury.

The list is endless. However, all is not lost. Recreational fishing can come to the rescue. We are the viable alternative to this obscene waste of one of our most valuable natural resources on one proviso.

We must get political - with a big ‘P’

We have considerable political clout if only we would use it. As I said earlier - in the UK anglers total spend is between 3 and 5 billion per annum. In the USA over 55 million anglers spend around $108 billion. In the EU there are over 22 million anglers who each year spend £500 million on fishing tackle alone - at wholesale prices. Total spend could be £20 billion. In non-EU Europe it is estimated that 5% of the population fish. In Australia one third of it’s people fish for recreation. In China 90 million Chinese fish, spending over $100 million on fishing tackle alone.

World wide recreational fisherfolk joined together are the equivalent to the population of a large country with the financial clout to match. All we need is the political will.

A dream you may be thinking - its too big - its too awesome - its too frightening. It can’t be done. We can’t change the world. Yes we can.

We can make our own contribution here in the UK. We can start the ball rolling. The first small step is to get united and seriously political. The real message is - we have no choice. The gentle, tolerant fishing world I knew when I was a kid is long gone. Animal rights and animal welfare are high on the political agenda. But those promoting these issues are by accident or by design viewing the natural world through the eyes of Walt Disney and his little chums - Bambi and Thumper. That is not reality and must be challenged. Those who should know better are being taken in by this emotional garbage. The public and, yes the politicians of all parties, are being bamboozled, blackmailed and downright misled by single issue, animal rights organisations. Extremist groups are guilty of the sentimentalisation of wildlife in the pursuit of their political objective - world vegetarianism. All this hassle for love of a carrot. Their actions make their members feel good, while at the same time losing sight of the natural world; Our natural world.

The anti-angling crusades lack both reason and common sense. Through distorted imagery and clever packaging they recruit not on dispassionate analysis, but on emotional and supposed moral appeal. The outcome of their actions, regardless of how irrational, ineffective, or downright stupid, are supported, defended and expanded by those who, with a little thought should know better. And that includes politicians. The antis play the political game every day. The propaganda on their websites is impressive. The public, particularly the young are taken in by it - if its on the screen it must be true. I would suggest that many of our young, woolly minded, idealistic politicians are also suckered by it. It doesn’t take much for some naïve politician to try make a name for herself or himself by trying to introduce a private members Bill to ban our sport.

Make no mistake - it doesn’t need to get raised in Parliament - it simply needs to be suggested to set the hare running.

I get the impression that some of our angling leaders think we should ignore the antis and they will go away. A few years ago this might have been true - in the early 90’s the CAA membership had risen to the dizzy heights of over 200 and could be regarded as too small to worry about. This no longer applies. The CAA are now supported by PETA who have a budget of $40 million a year. That buys a lot of serious politics or might I suggest could buy some serious politicians?

But our Prime Minister has publicly stated that shooting and fishing is safe while he is in power. So we have an assured future. Don’t we? Nope!

Blair could get run over tomorrow or be replaced by another before the next election. For the past 20 years our politicians have failed abysmally to halt the flow of rubbish legislation that continues to flow out of Europe. Could the Prime Minister stop some new daffy law from Brussels that bans our sport or seriously affects some of our rights and practices. Can he really control his young naïve politicians. Somehow I just don’t think so.

Recent parliaments have introduced legislation based on emotional appeal.

Based not on common sense for the good of the people but on campaigning by single issue groups supported by politicians out to make a name for themselves - tapping into uncontrolled public emotion fired up by the mass media.

The Dangerous Dogs Act, handgun legislation; what have they achieved?

Other than during world wars more people are being shot in the UK today than in previous times. Good laws they are not. But that’s politics.

Another single issue group, The Ramblers Association, are campaigning for more access to the countryside aided and abetted by politicians envious of landowners. They want the right to roam where they choose - without payment I might add. What value your fishery now with hundreds of happy hikers tramping up and down the banks, what security for your fish and your car parks with the freedom of access at night? How will your bailiffs control that situation? We must stop being reasonable. We must stop being the nice guys. We have a duty to protect our sport for generations to come. By protecting our sport we protect the aquatic environment. We must take a political stance.

Don’t say we can’t afford it. How can we afford not to? As Bob Dylan sang - The times they are a changing."