Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Countryside Alliance and FACT in the dock.


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#21 Bill Dingley

Bill Dingley

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • Interests:Carp fishing and Carp fishing

Posted 21 March 2005 - 08:55 PM

I, and I suspect many other anglers, know very little about FACT. I would like to endorse the suggestion from j_s that Bruno enlightens us a little on what needs to be done.
Although I have found this thread to be of great interest, I do not like to see the animosity and pesonal attacks that make up a large part of it.
Come on chaps lets have the debate and arguments kept at a civil level. Arguments carry far more weight when the personal attacks are omitted.

Cheers all,

Bill

#22 Alan Stubbs

Alan Stubbs

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,343 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool and Gillingham (Kent)
  • Interests:Fishing with friends, by lake or river

Posted 21 March 2005 - 09:40 PM

The trouble is, there is a contributor to this thread who has had various 'fallings out' with some of the people and organisations trying to establish FACT and moving it forward, and are trying to murder the infant as a means of personal score settling.

The point is, had they been persuasive enough in their arguments at the time, no doubt these fallings out could have been avoided and the strength of their argument carried the day. They weren't, they didn't; and the individual seems to be score-settling rather than accepting that other people wanted to take different directions to them. Instead of accepting the majority will, they decided to plough their own furrow and I suspect offer support to the CA more out of spite than sheer conviction.

As such, their pro-CA stance seems to me to be more personal posturing than conviction and is thus little more than dummy-spitting.

I truly hope I am wrong - a couple of years ago, that person asked me to write a piece for a book they were writing. I have a lot of respect for them as an angler - less so for their politics.
This is a signature, there are many signatures like it but this one is mine

#23 northern mark

northern mark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Interests:errr fishing

Posted 22 March 2005 - 12:11 AM

I, as far as I know, am not a member of any of the groups being brought together to form FACT.

I would like to be included in thier membership as I hope would all anglers.

What about people who don't join clubs but would like to be part of FACT.

I would gladly pay £5 for a years membership as I'm sure many other would so what is the problem with getting this underway.

If I join the NFA I suppose I would be a member of FACT but how much of the membership fee would go to FACT and hopefully the future of angling.
Mark

#24 northern mark

northern mark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 554 posts
  • Interests:errr fishing

Posted 22 March 2005 - 12:18 AM

Perhaps memberships could be done by a bit of free advertising on websites such as this.

If the details were put in a thread and people wanting to sign up could.

Ok so Fact would probably need someone to make out the membership forms and get them sent out but surely the cost of membership would cover this as well as having a bit left over for the fighting fund :)
Mark

#25 trent.barbeler

trent.barbeler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • Interests:Angling then more angling

Posted 22 March 2005 - 04:02 AM

Dear Peter,

You said;

"Lee, your turn mate!"

Ah well it might have been Peter, but I'm a crafty old fox so waited beneath the barn floor for the big lads to go riding by. And you still haven't twigged it yet?

Den said;

"Lee IS right...FACT does need money, and paid members add up to money.


After all, 3-4 million anglers at £5 a head adds up to quite a large pot.....or alternatively start with a few hundred and use some of their money to contact some more.

But being realistic lets settle for a few hundred to start with and see how it goes.

It is all very well having a FEW dedicated part timers "running the ship"but they really do have to get down to building up membership big time.

By the way, don't ask me, I know I am not up to the job."

Well said Den. A glimmer of light in your words for others to light their torches on?

Have you twigged it yet Peter? I'm pretty sure Gerry has. Poor Uncle canít get out the suitcase quick enough to grasp whatís going off.

Alan, your theory would rival any Archer novel but like the mans books, tis all fiction I'm afraid. And character assassination is sooooooooo 1990ís.

Its taking a while I must say.

Right then, lets put aside the marvellous Countryside Alliance for a minute. Letís look at FACT shall we?

To my mind, there can be absolutely no doubting that FACT desperately needs sustainable funding. It can only ever receive sustainable funding by getting anglers themselves to back the FACT effort. Cut this funding cake any way you like but itís a simple FACT that if anglers truly want their own organisation looking after THEIR interests itís going to have to join hands and fund the damned thing themselves!!

Getting down to brass tacks.

Angling, thatís us by the way not the CA, is more than capable of creating its own professional UK umbrella organisation. Our sport has more participating numbers than any other UK sport. Think about that for a moment. Think about the sheer size of it all. Now start to think about the possibilities arising from harnessing those numbers behind a single voice working for the future of our sport? I have. So have others on this very thread. (smiley winking face)

Sadly, there ARE those within the FACT orgs that don't want to loose their places in what they misguidedly see as being the scheme of things. These people are dead wrong and if they continue to operate unchallenged as sure as eggs is omelettes they will steer the new FACT towards failure. Tis not I Alan or anyone else for the enemy dwells within.

EVERYONE in FACT must now embrace the need for change towards sustainable funding from the angling grass roots. Thatís blokes like us by the way Peter.

But back to the magnificent Countryside Alliance.

Did you know Peter that the CA was the most media publicised UK organisation in 2004? Crumbs. If you blinked you would have missed our mention. NAA I mean Peter not "us" personally although it should be said we do deserve a mention none the less.

Unity Unity Unity said Florence Bird. Time to join the Countryside Alliance? Said Dougal.

OR; one or two dinosaurs in the FACT orgs might like to join the rest of us in the 21st centaury.

Good to see Bruno and Mike posting. If they are posting, "the others" are watching. And itís the others that need convincing.

But whilst we wait for our ray of hope Peter, might I interest you in this once in a lifetime offer for a yearís subscription in the celestial Countryside Alliance at half price? Also on offer with your subscription is a large range of very smart red coats sporting gold buttons of your choice. I hear these coats will be all the rage in 2006.

Countryside Alliance or FACT?

Regards,

Lee.

#26 Dave Lumb

Dave Lumb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 22 March 2005 - 04:57 AM

There is one flaw in the argument that says if individual anglers could join FACT it would grow and grow strong.

That flaw?

Individual anglers wouldn't join FACT even if they could.

The sad truth is that the majority of 'anglers' don't read anything about angling, let alone about angling politics. So they will never hear about FACT. The rest are too tight or short sighted to cough up even a pitance to join an organisation that gives them nothing tangible in return.

Please, someone, tell me I'm wrong.
Dave

#27 chesters1

chesters1

    AN Resident Contrarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:farnham surrey
  • Interests:fishing,fossils,researching intrepid reels and general being naughty

Posted 22 March 2005 - 05:04 AM

i thought F.A.C.T. was Federation against Copyright Theft :confused:

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness  it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Whitby scallops caught by scottish boats best that money can buy,the nearer the shore they're dredged the better they taste


#28 Paul Boote

Paul Boote

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts

Posted 22 March 2005 - 05:10 AM

Dave Lumb:
There is one flaw in the argument that says if individual anglers could join FACT it would grow and grow strong.

That flaw?

Individual anglers wouldn't join FACT even if they could.

The sad truth is that the majority of 'anglers' don't read anything about angling, let alone about angling politics. So they will never hear about FACT. The rest are too tight or short sighted to cough up even a pitance to join an organisation that gives them nothing tangible in return.

Please, someone, tell me I'm wrong.

WRONG, there, Davy Boy.

In the States, where many hundreds of thousands of fishers KNOW that they can fly / get into a car / walk, even / and have a GO at some GREAT waters, at very modest cost, ten of thousands happily pay their Subs to 'Trout Unlimited' - an outfit that modestly inpires, modestly promises, yet delivers MUCH...

Modern British cynicism? Merely a product of a certain grouping's cynical take on how things 'should' be (with ever an eye on 'their' 'glorious' past). Might be different here, with a will...

[ 21. March 2005, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Paul Boote ]
"What did you expect to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically...?"

Basil Fawlty to the old bat, guest from hell, Mrs Richards.

#29 Peter Waller

Peter Waller

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,286 posts
  • Location:East Anglia/Norfolk Broads
  • Interests:Angling/Photography/sailing/broadland/remembering letchery.

Posted 22 March 2005 - 05:22 AM

I would like to think that you are wrong Dave!! I mean that I would add to my already impressive total of clubs. That three of 'em cost me nothing is besides the point!

But SAA is a tenner a year, a mere pittance.
ACA, £17.00 or something like that.
PAC £????, not alot but forgotten and worth it just for a quality read with the likes of Dave Horton contributing.

So yes, some of us, if not enough, do dip our hands into our pockets. Some far more deeply than me but there we are, I'm a tight old git, but I would support FACT

Lee, Alan has a point you know !

[ 21. March 2005, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

#30 slodger

slodger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 675 posts
  • Interests:angling

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:31 PM

'Sorry, that is what I thought I was attempting to do for SAA members in the piece quoted by slodger from New Specialist Angler.'

I take your point Mike. My apologies if my posting seemed like criticism, it wasn't meant that way.

It was merely an admissal of my confusion regarding the FACT organisation and it's current status. I've looked around the net a bit and I've struggled to find any real information on FACT. There doesn't appear to be anything on the SAA site either, though it does say the site is currently under construction. I know it's probably my own fault that the relevant news items have passed me by, but all I can say in my defence is that I love fishing, not politics, the chances are I am going to miss much of the angling politique. I'm sure I can't be the only one?

As far as offering you any input? well I might if I knew what was needed. I honestly don't, so in my ignorance I fire off various subscriptions to what seem the sensible angling groups in the forlorn hope that someone else will take care of things for me. Not a great admission to make, I realise, but I'm endeavouring to be honest.

I thought (Apologies again if I've got this around my neck.) that the issue of an umbrella group was decided last year? Didn't I read endless debate on the various forums about the SAA and several other angling organisations being taken under the wing of the NFA?

I still struggle to see why we don't just focus on increasing the appeal, and thereby the subsequent 'clout' of the SAA. We often talk about the numbers of anglers there are in the UK, and the proportion of the electorate that we represent. Isn't that completely misleading though? I mean how any of that total number are your, 'A few hours on the local pond', or a 'day on the holiday camp lake' type anglers? They're never going to get the message are they? I think it's easy for us to forget that we net users and mag readers are almost a set of anglers apart, and a minority at that!

We frequently quote the analogy that 'there are more people fishing on a saturday than there are attending all the football matches in the uk'. It somewhat brings it into perspective then, to think that those that are likely to take the trouble to pay voluntary funds into angling action groups could probably be housed in the Accrington Stanley home stand!

That said, the one snippet from the NSA mag that really struck home with me, was the suggestion that some form of funding be attached to the rod licence itself. I think that's the only way in which we'll get a true representation from the 'masses'.
Slodger (Chris Hammond.)

'We should be fishin'