New Parliamentary Angling Group Formed

[Ian Burrett]

No problem Leon. It’s just that in the article it mentions 3.5 million anglers. I just wondered how many of those anglers actually wanted any kind of representation. That’s all. Its seams strange to me how so few think they can discuss what they think are the best interests of so many when they have not been asked to do so by the majority.

 

Perhaps we ought to put requests on the forums. Wanted anglers who don't want to catch bigger fish and more species in a better environment. I think it would be a short list.

 

What's up Binotone? Looking for someone else to wind up?

 

Just out of interest you claim you have no relationship with John Brennan yet you both started posting on WSF at the same time. I find that a strange coincidence. Perhaps Glen was right after all.

 

This is great news because the new cross party group and the recent millions put into social inclusion ties politicians to angling and will make it much harder for Margaret Beckett and her cronies to try and ban angling on blood sport grounds

Edited May 19, 2006 by Ian Burrett

[maidstonemike]

QUOTE:This is great news because the new cross party group and the recent millions put into social inclusion ties politicians to angling and will make it much harder for Margaret Beckett and her cronies to try and ban angling on blood sport grounds

 

That's a very good point Ian, as there must be many MP's who are anglers.

I see they have grouped us all together, coarse, game and sea anglers. The first two groups are regulated and licenced, the third , an unknown quantity. The first two groups don't have trawlers plundering their stocks. They are more easily controlled. Sea anglers are chancers, trying to catch something, not sure what, or where. Coarse anglers have a different choice. Select a well stocked controlled policed lake etc, where they are confident that fish are there. You wouldn't mind paying a bit for that security.

Coarse and Game anglers can be counted quite accurately, how can you count sea anglers?

The figure of three and a half million is pure guesswork, it might be two and a half or even five million. Nobody knows the true figure.

How will these people 'represent' angling interests? Surely you must have the views of the majority of anglers, for them to be able to represent those views?

I suppose thinking about it,we have a system in place for that, our MP's. I might try writing to mine, to test the water, see what comes back.

[Guest binatone]

Ian burrett.

If you where to look closely you will fine that there where several people who started posting at the same time as me. Does that mean we where all related? And what would glenk be correct about then?

You could advertise for participants on this forum who have a different outlook to angling to yours, you could therefore have a conversation that might end with someone learning something, rather than this continual backslapping well done you represent millions, when in fact the majority of anglers want no interference from governments, and I would imagine they certainly don’t want to be represented because if they did then why would they not be more joining associations and asking to be counted.

The biggest problem that the likes of Leon has (and I admire him for his hard work and beliefs) is to persuade sea anglers that they need to stand together to be heard.

As I believe that the great majority of sea anglers just like to go down to the sea and fish, without any interference from anybody.

[seaside]

big snip ..... when in fact the majority of anglers want no interference from governments, and I would imagine they certainly don’t want to be represented because if they did then why would they not be more joining associations and asking to be counted. The biggest problem that the likes of Leon has (and I admire him for his hard work and beliefs) is to persuade sea anglers that they need to stand together to be heard.

 

As I believe that the great majority of sea anglers just like to go down to the sea and fish, without any interference from anybody.

 

I'm sure if you ask the question " Do you want interference " most would reply NO, but if you ask " Do you want more support " the the answer would be more likely to be YES, if the question were to become " Do you want an increase in the number of fish you could catch " then you'd get a resounding YES.

 

I'd say these responses would be equally true of both RSA and commercial fishermen.

 

Ask a question like "Do you believe the commercial fishing industry should be the only body to act in the interest of recreational sea anglers"

 

Either which way, I don't think it would make a gnats difference to the membership of RSA associations, as unlike the freshwater guys, they have a limited, and sometimes no, say in the management and husbandry of the basic 'common' resource - fish.

 

It's not just the question - it's how you ask it (as Sir Humphrey explained to Bernard ).

[glennk]

I wasnt going to post onto this for the obvious reasons but I feel there is one point being missed here. Those people who do not want representing are not being represented. People like seaside, Leon, Stevie copps etc represent me and people like me who want representing.

 

Surely you are not saying that if you dont represent every last one of the x million then you can represent noone. Just think of all the groups in life. Do the BNP represent everyone, thank god no they dont, but they represent the few who choose to back them. What about Greenpeace do they represent everyone in their actions ? no I could go on forever with examples but you dont have to represent everyone that is nonsense. Keep up the good work boys.

 

Ian