Dear Debaters,

It’s already established that one can join the Countryside Alliance as an individual member.

But a percentage of anglers don't want to do that for various reasons. Fair enough. A popular reoccurring reason for NOT joining the CA appears to be centred around the "fox hunting" or "blood sports" dilemma. Again, fair enough. Some are unwilling to lend the CA their financial support because they feel the CA are trying to kidnap, hijack, the angling majority so as to lend support for the CA pro "fox hunting" stance. Fair enough again mesays.

Now let’s slip the boot on the other foot.

If you were given the opportunity to become an individual member of angling's very own FACT organisation would you join? And if so, why?

Inside the other boot, if you didn't want to join our national FACT organisation as an individual in support of angling, perhaps you might like to tell us why not?

There’s been so much weighing of opinions concerning the Countryside Alliance lately, I thought it would balance the scales to read views held about angling’s own FACT as well.

Regards,

Lee.

I think , at least for the time being, Individual membership might complicate matters for the new organisation and we should let them concentrate on getting the thing off the ground.
We can all support angling individually through the existing organisations that make up FACT.
That said If FACT did open itself up to individuals I think that I would want to support it as it will need funds and more than it seems to be starting off with. A single voice for angling I believe will become essential in the not to distant future as attacks from Antis will grow.

I agree with Worm.

That said, FACT is big, it can surely call on the 'trade' for membership services as that can be financed via advertising.

All I would ask, as a member, is that they get on with the job in hand. I certainly wouldn't want a membership that creates problems and demands on a fledgling, albeit experienced body.

Yes, I would happily be a 'supporter', or a non voting shareholder or whatever.

You little tinker trent.barbeller, throwing a curved ball like that and knowing that FACT have in 'fact' taken over the role of the NAA who it seems now exist in name only. The very same NAA that 'concerned with both promotion and defending anglers’ rights and, to this end, has recently signed an accord with the Countryside Alliance to operate together in areas of common interest, especially in youth, disabled and disadvantaged education and in defence of angling against the anti lobby threat'

Perhaps we need double-sided membership cards. FACT on one side and CA on the other

In answer to your question though, I'll have a tenner on the winner on the nose as I suspect the vast majority of rank and file anglers don't care if its FACT, the CA or the CIA, just so long as its an organisation that seems to have sufficient balls to forcefully represent us. Under those circumstances I'd join FACT. That's a fact.

[ 24. February 2005, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

Yes, I'd join but only if I can bring my cohorts with me, although according to Argyll they are already there!
More seriously I agree with Argyll, I would join any organisation that represents my interests
Regards
dave

if i knew what fact was maybe ,but i bet fact only believes they represent anglers and in reality only a few ,just another clique to pull apart itself with infighting

With Lord Moran at the top, and Jim Glasspool (Secretary of the redoubtable Test & Itchen Association, comprising heavily of owners and lessees, as profiled in 'Fly Fishing & Fly Tying' Magazine's October 2004 edition with the question "Is this the most powerful man in Angling?") as his Number 2, and their similarly minded friends in the Salmon & Trout Association (finally managing, after something like a century of struggle, to come to terms with the concept of coarse fish as something more than just mere removable vermin)...?

Be assured, the above-mentioned certainly will NOT be falling out. Others, though? At the risk of being socially and piscatorially poo-ed upon from a huge English height...?

Doubtful.

[ 24. February 2005, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Paul Boote ]

Good post PB. A new club for the forelock-tuggers?

Falling out?????? more of a coming together I would have thought, having read the press release.


Yes to Lee's question, but with reservations on how much it might cost,

Den

Dear Gerry,

From a personal viewpoint, I see the new FACT as something worth supporting. No curved ball throwing from my over although my pitch might hit cross winds heading towards the wicket no doubt! These threads do have a habit of going wonky.

Unfortunately for some I'm sure, the CA is here to stay for the time being at least so there’s little point in FACT (or NAA) trying to imagine they don't exist. It’s also a fact (no pun intended) that both organisations fight the same battles regarding anti-angling forces. Personally, I think the Bruno camp does a better job in this regard but understand the need for co-operation on all angling fronts so efforts aren't duplicated but moreover reinforced by joint efforts made against threats to angling.

“Perhaps we need double-sided membership cards. FACT on one side and CA on the other".

That made me smile Gerry. If only it were that simple.

What we have is the present climate to work within, present arenas that many have to walk through and talk within. The FACT board have a great deal of work before them all designed for the benefit of angling. Working with, as opposed to working against, makes perfect sense in cases of working towards the same ends?

Worm on the end said;

"I think, at least for the time being, Individual membership might complicate matters for the new organisation and we should let them concentrate on getting the thing off the ground."

Agreed. But it’s not exactly the case of a new organisation getting off the ground. Nearly all of the people sitting around the FACT board have a history of working together and know which ropes to pull on in order to make the bells ring.

Never the less, individual membership in FACT remains a bridge too far and even "supporter" status would involve a great deal of organisation and planning. My role in putting the case forward on the internet was to merely get the idea to those around the board table so the concept gets a fair hearing at least. When I say "fair hearing" I refer to "everyone" around the table seriously debating the long term pro's and con's for such an idea. Everyone is in total agreement that FACT requires sustainable funding. Indeed it’s the one issue where FACT if not all angling is totally united? It makes sense then surely to at least look more closely at the idea? Given time, I'm confident the FACT people will get there in the end.

Peter said;

“That said, FACT is big, it can surely call on the 'trade' for membership services as that can be financed via advertising."

I'm not sure what you mean here Pete?

Peter also said;

"All I would ask, as a member, is that they get on with the job in hand. I certainly wouldn't want a membership that creates problems and demands on a fledgling, albeit experienced body."

Spot on Peter. This is perhaps why the new FACT should be looking hard at a "supporter" role for sustainable funding? Individual membership? Supporter role? Both concepts rely totally on "effective" PR in order to make the idea attractive to prospective supporters yes? First and foremost we need the green light from the FACT board itself and if that comes, angling itself via its massive media could sell the idea to rank and file anglers surely? Is that what you meant Peter?

I have absolutely no doubt that angling could pull this off. We just have to walk that last mile. Together.

Having worked with some of those heading up FACT I know for sure they have the necessary balls required to represent our interests. These guys are like bulldogs when it comes to defending angling. No worries on that score. But FACT must do more on its information front in order to get the message out to angling as to what it’s actually doing. If angling knew what FACT does, it can then start to appreciate and support its work? Therefore I would like to see FACT becoming pro-active on its information front. Not exactly as easy at it sounds though, you need people power for information to travel where it needs to go and angling politics does have a shortfall of willing hands like any other ordinary fishing club. No easy answer then but the information front does need looking at none the less if rank and file anglers are to become FACT aware.

Regards,

Lee.