Jump to content

- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
266 replies to this topic

#11 Guest_The Gimp_*

Guest_The Gimp_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 July 2000 - 01:49 PM

Er Mr Pope

seems a bit funny to be asking about umbrella organizations if you don't really want to be part of one. Seeing as some of us here don't get Barbel Fisher, perhaps you could explain briefly?!

#12 Guest_Graham E_*

Guest_Graham E_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 July 2000 - 02:01 PM

I thought the question was about Coarse fishing rather than Specimen fishing.
We sorely need a group that encompasses anglers in total.

#13 Guest_Pete_*

  • Guests

Posted 17 July 2000 - 03:08 PM

Surely we should be looking to the NFA, shouldn't we? I know it is largely dominated by match anglers, but without match anglers we'd all be a lot worse off, even thought they wind me up sometimes. Waters would be abandoned/ permits prices rise dramatically (the match fees on the River Soar raise five times more revenue for our club than permit sales!)and tackle shops would close down! Not to mention the price of tackle given that were practically the onlt country in the world that uses the traditional float/ ledger tactics!!!

Sorry got off the point a bit.

The NFA does claim to be political and is recognised as the largest body for angling by government. Rather than slagging them off we should all get our clubs, groups societies affiliated and therefore have block voting (like unions in the labour party) thus enabling spefcialist groups to have a voice amidst that matchemen/ women (ooH I'm PC!).

Plus they've already got established system for fdefending our rights as anglers and they even have the rioght name for the job

National Federation of Anglers (that title could include the sea andf game boys as well as we are ALL under the same threat)

That is my opinion.

Pete Spindoc (not even a member of the LAS or PAC!)

#14 Guest_RobStubbs_*

  • Guests

Posted 17 July 2000 - 03:39 PM

Angling unity is not only possible it is essential. I would also disagree and say that it is not only coarse angling that is to be encompassed but all forms of angling. I also doubt it will be much more complicated than just coarse angling as their is enough 'bitching' in coarse angling and between some coarse angling groups.

The SACG are not only a specimen group as I am sure many of you are aware. They are an umbrella organisation and most groups are happy with this - obviously the odd exception as Ray mentioned. However the SACG realise they don't have and are unlikely to get the money together to become a major part of any governing body as 'SACG'. It's possible that the coarse angling representation may be via the NFA but only if the NFA start representing more than a bit of the match fraternity.


#15 Guest_The Gimp_*

Guest_The Gimp_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 July 2000 - 07:20 PM

Well I think we're getting somewhere now. So what we need is an umbrella over other umbrellas, vis:
| |
Sea ------------ Coarse----------------Game
| | | | | |
body a b -------- c body d

is it not?

#16 Guest_Pete_*

  • Guests

Posted 17 July 2000 - 09:05 PM

That's what you get in other sports and that's how political lobbying works

Without wishing to sound pompous this is what I do for a living, although not in Angling unfortunately Posted Image

One solid recognised single point of contact for a sport is the only way of making sure its taken seriously and listened to. All the specialists are affiliated and do accordingly making their own rules/ missions statements/ etc


Pete Spindoc (yes, the spindoc isn't only applicable to lure fishing Posted Image )

#17 Guest_Steve Randles_*

Guest_Steve Randles_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 July 2000 - 10:17 PM

Put simlpy, we dont need a group that covers all groups , we need a group that covers every single angler...bar none!

Steve Randles

#18 Guest_Gaffer_*

  • Guests

Posted 18 July 2000 - 01:05 AM

Hi all, so far there have been some very valid points on this topic with which there appears to be no easy answer.
I think the biggest problem is how to get all anglers to want the same thing, let alone find an organisation to represent them.
So what comes first, all anglers agreeing or an organisation to represent them?
Sorry, more questions than answers.
All the best ,

#19 Guest_BUDGIE_*

  • Guests

Posted 18 July 2000 - 01:58 AM

Yes you are all perfectly correct all anglers coarse,sea and game need to be under one Representitive body.Note I said representitve and not controlling.The biggest hurdle though is us the anglers!Traditionaly we are all too laid back to do any thing.Yes I am sure most of us do have a strong opinion and concern over the future of angling,but do anything NO chance!If you think I am talking rubbish think back to a few of these recent events-
1. The banning of lead shot.This seemed to be pushed even more than the bird people by the manufacturers of the substitute shot.We voluntarily stopped using it YET still get the blame for swan deaths!What does angling say in its defence?NOTHING!

2. It seemed to me that the driving force behind the lifting of the close season was the angling press(after all how many people stopped buying the weeklies during the close season?) and the tackle dealers who thought they were going to make more money(glad to say this blew up in their faces)as well as the commercial fishery managers.What did the majority of anglers who it appears wanted to keep the close season do?NOTHING!

Don't get me wrong I am just as bad.After all these years I some what defeatedly accept that this will allways be the case."So what if they ban live baiting" People often ask me.I dont care if they do as I will still do it! They cant even be bothered to check my licence(which I buy two of each year incidently) yet alone walk the 4 miles along the drain,dyke,river etc to check my bait.And the same will be if they ban angling.Sorry to be so negative but I am a realist.Bugger me we have such a split sport now unity is a pipe dream.A quick example.Last year I went down to a syndicate water I used to run as a friend told me that he had seen someone Fyke netting on them and taking pike.I went down and confirmed that he was right.I rung to speak to the fellow that had taken over from me."Yes thats right"he told me"but he is only interested in the eels" I asked him about the pike "Oh, that will be allright its only pike"The poor deluded carp angler I suppose he thought the netsman would have put any carp back then? just like a coal miner wouldnt be interested in any diamonds!

#20 Guest_Steve Randles_*

Guest_Steve Randles_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 July 2000 - 02:40 AM

Budgie,it is this reason that compulsory membership is going to have to be the way.We as anglers have become lethargic and are quite happy to let someone else deal with it, or not as the case often is.Three million anglers all paying a pound or two extra on his/her rod licence fee could fund a very strong organisation that could "umbrella" all organisation,societies and clubs as well as individual anglers.

Steve Randles