600 or 10,000 which is it ?

[Steve Coppolo]

Were it not for SACN, NFSA, ATA and other bodies, sea anglers would not have a voice at all.

 

 

No representation is better than bad representation.

[H.A.]

No representation is better than bad representation.

 

That's what I can't fathom from yours and Glenn's arguments.

What is this bad representation?

 

What issues would you campaign for?

 

What policies regarding conservation and promotion of sea angling etc do you oppose??

 

Maybe if you and we all made it clear, the negotiating bodies would take the issues which seem to cause discontent 'on board'?

 

C'mon let's have it, please ....

 

[barry luxton]

Us commercials and anglers are only hear to help draw up the very legistration that will undermine our future sport and livihoods its like knocking in the last nails into your own coffin LOL LOL

 

steve

 

 

I'm inclined to agree with that. I only want to go fishing but the government won't let me.

 

According to their track record, they certainly ain't there for more and bigger fish, thats for sure.

Edited July 18, 2008 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

That's what I can't fathom from yours and Glenn's arguments.

What is this bad representation?

 

What issues would you campaign for?

 

What policies regarding conservation and promotion of sea angling etc do you oppose??

 

Maybe if you and we all made it clear, the negotiating bodies would take the issues which seem to cause discontent 'on board'?

 

C'mon let's have it, please ....

 

 

The RSA "campaign" has gone as far as was possible. Defra/government have shown all our representative bodies that they aren't capable of, or prepared to do, what's necessary to provide a first class fishery. What they are capable of and are prepared to do is make RSA the new gravy train by managing it to death, (and it will be to death), to prop up a minister, several departments within Defra and a team of scientists. This will result in RSA being restricted and managed for management's sake. It'll be the end of sea angling as we have known it, for nothing good in return.

 

Our representative bodies should have realised by now exactly what the future holds and should not be sitting down with these people negotiating away mine and your rights. By now, they should have walked away from the table and started to oppose everything that these people suggest for us. Instead, ever eager to please the politicians and civil servants they worship, they have dug an even deeper hole for all of us and are still digging. Given the very small minority of anglers they actually represent, they don't, in my opinion, have the right to do so. Trying to influence them by voicing your opinion doesn't work, I've found through bitter experience, so the only thing to do if you are dissatisfied with their performance is to vent your displeasure at every given opportunity, including internet forums.

 

As far as I'm concerned all our representative bodies are as incompetent, short sighted and arrogant as the people they are negotiating with. Hardly surprising when you consider it's all run by the same few people, (at least one of which likes politics more than an fishing), who don't have much of a clue. The games up. I'd rather thay recognised their shortcomings and either started defending RSA, (instead of killing it), or jacked it in altogether, for all our sakes.

 

I hope that's answers your question Ada.

[thedogs]

SACN are good at cut and pasting!

[glennk]

That's what I can't fathom from yours and Glenn's arguments.

What is this bad representation?

 

What issues would you campaign for?

 

What policies regarding conservation and promotion of sea angling etc do you oppose??

 

Maybe if you and we all made it clear, the negotiating bodies would take the issues which seem to cause discontent 'on board'?

 

C'mon let's have it, please ....

 

 

 

HA you seem to continually tie yourself in knots. Is it not very clear from our objections what bad representation is. The bass press release, the response to the marine bill, this is all bad representation. If Leon is going to claim to represent 10,000 anglers then lets see who they are.

 

Our offer is open, come to our fishing club AGM and ask for their backing, dont just assume you have it because one of their members joined SACN, the reason for joining coincidentally was the same reason I joined the NFSA - to see what the devious buggers are up to in the name of the angling public.

[Leon Roskilly]

dont just assume you have it because one of their members joined SACN

 

Glenn,

 

Just to reassure you that membership by an individual doesn't automatically apply to any organisation to which that member belongs (that would be ridiculous!).

 

Individuals can join SACN, and so can organisations.

 

Application for membership of SACN by an organisation is usually requested by an official of that organisation with the authority to sign up that organisation, often following or ratified by a committee meeting of the organisation.

 

Individual clubs, and federations have been accepted as members of SACN, and numbers of members of the applying organisation stated at the time of application for membership.

 

I hope that this clears up the confusion.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[Steve Coppolo]

Just out of curiousity Leon, I wonder how many members SACN would have if it were not a free lifetimes membership that you offer? It's not as if your membership have to renew every year, or get to vote at an AGM, so how do you know how satisfied your members really are? If anyone wants to leave SACN they have to send you an email requesting it, as I and and at least one other I know has done, but even then, as we don't have yearly membership cards, etc, we don't know whether we've been dropped from the membership list or not.

 

Whilst on the subject of memberships, as a member of the NFSA's conservation group, can you tell me how many NFSA members renewed this year and paid the £26 membership fee? It seems to have gone a bit quiet regarding the future of the NFSA but I suspect that most members don't feel that membership is worth £26 and didn't bother to rejoin. If I'm right, that tells us everything we need to know about the level, (and quality), of representation available to sea anglers in this country.

 

As with all the other questions I've asked of the most prominent RSA "campaigner" in the land, (NFSA conservation group, SACN executive, BASS restoration team, BASS press and PR officer, K&E SFC appointee, Defra scientific advisory group), I suppose these ones will go unanswered too. I'll still keep asking the questions, though, because the lack of response says more about our represntative bodies than any answer possibly could.

Edited July 19, 2008 by Steve Coppolo

[H.A.]

HA you seem to continually tie yourself in knots

 

Hey! All I asked for was clarification of why you and SteveC were whingeing (and that's what it is) all the time about SACN, NFSA, SFCs (RSA reps).

 

Now you have attempted to give me the clarification I asked for, I am beginning to understand your points of view.

 

I'm (personally) much more concerned as to what Jon Shaw/Defra/Environment(gov) would impose on us 'willy nilly' if they didn't have some constituted body (bodies) to consult with first.

 

If you are not in it, you can't win it!

 

Realistically, of course, anglers aren't going to win very much at all because we are not seen as 'producers' worth investing in. All the same, the small notice that Defra has taken of us (BMP, SFC representation, tope consultation etc; not to mention the dozens of small contributions made in debate by people like me and you, Steve), would not have been established were it not for some discourse between sea anglers and government.

 

[thedogs]

QUOTE: H.A. Realistically, of course, anglers aren't going to win very much at all because we are not seen as 'producers' worth investing in. All the same, the small notice that Defra has taken of us (BMP, SFC representation, tope consultation etc; not to mention the dozens of small contributions made in debate by people like me and you, Steve), would not have been established were it not for some discourse between sea anglers and government.

 

 

But the achievements amount to bugger all Adrian, the tope consultation and the new laws do little to protect tope as they are allowed to catch them as a buy catch, which is how most were caught already.

 

As Steve C said no representation is better than bad representation. But Im not out for a vast discussion with you as I have tried this many times even using personal messenger. All you have ever done is be very rude to me, even taking the Mickey out of my dyslexia. I understand that you once stood on a SFC, well now you do not it must be better for sea anglers.

 

I just want it all to stop, every body to pull out and just leave things as they are, damage limitation if you like. My fishing is good in some cases better than ever and yes I am ruddy old enough to remember good fishing.