Countryside Alliance and FACT in the dock.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter,

 

"That makes two of us! Hey, what am I saying!!"

 

Twigged it yet Pete?

 

Two of us? Thats a start. Me? Three? Thats interesting. Now multiply that by a thousand. Then ten thousand more. Thirty thousand. Thats better and bigger than before. What about another thirty thousand? Sixty thousand with "SELF FUNDING FOR ANGLING" stickers in their cars, vans and lorries. People are starting to wonder, starting to listen. Ten thousand more. 70,000 and the angling press are covering the story constantly. Fishing's on the move and the campaign has doubled. 140,000 anglers. Its just the tip of the ice berg as a petition raises a quarter of a million more. No one beleives it as the grass roots army reaches three quarters of a million anglers all wanting to be part of a national organisation looking after their fishing futures.

 

Pipe dread? Nope. Impossible? Nope. Anything is possible.

 

FACT needs funding. FACT deserves to be funded. Thats the bottom line, the stopped buck.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Dave,

 

You appear defeated even before you consider begining.

 

Britains have a history for giving without thought for return. Her anglers are no different. Give them the chance and they might even impress the dull opinion you have of them Dave.

 

Trying triumphs. Doing nothing gets nothing.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[kleinboet]

If my memory serves me correctly, there was a survey not too long ago about would you pay extra on your license to fund

 

All the organisations that have 'voluntarily' come under the wing of fact, WHY don't THEY put money in the kitty.

 

And heres a long shot: Why doesn't FACT (or for that matter ANY organisation that wants to be effective) ask for nominations from the anglers themselves. Surely someone nominated by the "grass roots" angler has a better chance of getting the backing of the angling fraternity than someone who most anglers have never heard of!!

[Newt]

SteveH - not trying to pick on you. I liked your comments and decided to jump in at this point

 

SteveH:

... Having quietly witnessed this thread, I am now trying to decide my next step. One step may be to join the ACA. BUT, and this is a big but, I want to give FACT a chance, what I have read here gives me some hope that this fledgling organisation may, with the experienced people active within it, become what it has the potential to become. ...

SteveH - I may be mis-reading or mis-understanding but if you are looking at ACA & FACT memberships as being either/or, I don't think it has to be.

 

Granted, US & UK conditions are a bit different but I've opted to find organizations that have a mission I can support and that seem to work toward their stated objectives and I spend a little money supporting them by getting a membership. This seems to suit the very low level of personal participation I can realistically manage. If any of the groups goes off in directions I don't like and doesn't ask for input, I simply 'vote with my feet' and become a non-member.

 

Sierra Club for their general approach to perserving wilderness areas. And BTW - they have an excellent web site with some ideas that might suit FACT.

 

Ducks Unlimited for their work in wetlands preservation. Dad was a member from about 1943 until he died and I joined in the mid '60s. I don't shoot ducks any longer but since I'd like my grandchildren to have the option, I stay as an active member.

 

Trout Unlimited for much the same reason as Ducks Unlimited although I have only fished twice for trout.

 

NRA (National Rifle Association) even though I no longer shoot but I like what they do and think we are a better country because of their work.

 

Note that all the above organizations have active political agendas but it IS NOT the main focus of any of them.

 

Note also that each organization has been in existance for quite a few years and are thriving because they offer something positive for those of us who like the out-of-doors, shooting, fishing, and wildlife.

 

[ 22. March 2005, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[Dave Lumb]

trent.barbeler:

Dear Dave,

 

You appear defeated even before you consider begining.

 

Britains have a history for giving without thought for return. Her anglers are no different. Give them the chance and they might even impress the dull opinion you have of them Dave.

 

Trying triumphs. Doing nothing gets nothing.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

I am a self confessed cynic. But that doesn't make me a defeatist.

 

I prefer to DO what I little I can, inneffectual though it may be, rather than sitting on my arse telling the world what other people should be doing.

 

 

(Edit)

 

PS Apologies for the above. I'd had a bad day...

 

[ 23. March 2005, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Dave Lumb ]

[smudger]

would'nt the FACT be if all those silly sod's who

paid sub's to the C.A for "entirely for political reason's"were willing to give it to a organisation like FACT. angling might be in a better postion.FACT is. the C.A was/is set up as a one issue agenda.and is simply paying lip service to angling in general

[lyn]

I am keeping out of all this petty bickering but maybe someone could enlighten me as to what happened to the JAGB?

 

I thought they were going to be are 'Angling political voice' I see they do get mention on the SAA link that Dave kindly put on for us.

 

Why now do we have FACT? was it because the JAGB failed as 'our voice'

 

lyn :confused: :confused: :confused:

[SteveH]

No problem Newt,

 

I dont actually see it as either / or, but have to join another organisation for the time being as I cant join FACT as an individual.

 

Lee, thanks for the info, I aim to check out a number of organisations the SAA being one of them.

 

SteveH

 

[ 22. March 2005, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: SteveH ]

[Jim Roper]

From another thread that was opened and closed while I was on hospital duty, Graham x posted:

 

"..and anyway, most anglers have always been effectively cut off from national representation.."

 

That is what is behind the whole series of these threads.

 

[ 23. March 2005, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Jim Roper ]

[Jim Roper]

chesters1:

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

You are thinking of FAST, Federation Against Software Theft.