Jump to content

Who should represent sea anglers?


Recommended Posts

Not wishing to highjack another thread, I've decided to post a new one on the subject.

 

Leon posted the following on another thread,

 

What I find is amazing is that DEFRA say that they are bringing in legislation to introduce bag limits, and suddenly everyone seems to think that they know exactly what that is going to mean.

 

Consider this.

 

Bag limits only for certain species.

 

Bag limits only for certain areas.

 

Some species it might be 2 fish, some it might be 20 fish.

 

It might be 2 fish of a certain kind for a beach angler per day, but more for a charter boat angler (to protect the charter boat business)

 

It might be 7.5kg + one large fish of any weight.

 

None of this is cut and dried, but needs negotiation by a limited number of people who have a good grasp of all of the issues and strong negotiating skills.

 

As the commercials will tell you, headlines 'Totally Unacceptable!' will be almost meaningless, as will be complaining by individual anglers or local groups.

 

It needs people who know the right people to talk to, what to say, and how to say it.

 

People who know who the decision makers are, and who are the influencers, who has lines of communication to the real movers.

 

Effective negotiation is much more than simply saying 'No' to whatever you don't like.

 

It means having the demonstrable strength to be able to say 'NO!' (like being able to march 10,000 anglers into parliament square), and knowing when to use that strength, and when to show it.

 

It means instead of saying 'No' yourself, knowing how to get the fellow across the table to come to that conclusion seemingly on their own.

 

It means knowing what you have to negotiate with and when to show or hide your hand.

 

You can bet your life that all of the senior and middle level civil servants who angling representatives meet have been trained in negotiating skills, and are used to dealing with people similarly trained in negotiation and lobbying.

 

To get the best deal possible, angling needs to be able to field high calibre people similarly trained and with the right experience, otherwise, as often happens, they come out of meetings knowing that they have been walked over.

 

But angling organisations can only deliver what anglers need, if they have a level of support, both financially and by involvement, much greater than exists now, from anglers, clubs, the tackle trade and the angling press.

 

The raw material is there to make the angling lobby one of the most powerful in the UK, able to dictate the terms that will be acceptable.

 

Right now, without the support behind them, they and us as anglers will be dictated to, however much insignificant noise we can muster right now.

 

This post has been edited by Leon Roskilly: Today, 04:05 PM

 

 

--------------------

 

SACN News - http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/sacn/latest

 

So who do we need, or want, to represent us? The NFSA? BASS? SACN?

 

Or none of the above?

 

It's all well and good saying to anglers that they should be getting behind their representative bodies, but what if the anglers don't think that these bodies have done a particularly good job so far? The NFSA, in my opinion, have been around for long enough to have done something to improve the sea anglers lot by now. Have they done it though? I don't think so. The recent formation of the NFSA conservation group has been a breath of fresh air, but has it happened too late? There has also been some sterling work done by a few good men independant of the NFSA for many years now, but where has it got us exactly? Well it's got us recognised. O.K, we are now recognised, but what have we actually gained in real terms? Nothing, that's what, unless you count broken promises and proposals that is.

 

So we've got some serious thinking to do about what is the best course of action for us to take from here on in. As I see it we have a few options. We can either carry on as we are, treading carefully and "negotiating" (ie, being fobbed off), and keep being treated like some minor irritation by those with the powers to change things, or we can start kicking up a storm by exposing the pure incompetence of those who are charged with looking after our sea fisheries.

 

I'm willing to wait and see what the result of the bass MLS consultation is before I make my mind up. To me, that will tell us exactly where we are and where we should go from here.

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Not wishing to highjack another thread, I've decided to post a new one on the subject.

 

............ big snip

 

So who do we need, or want, to represent us? The NFSA? BASS? SACN?

 

Or none of the above?

 

It's all well and good saying to anglers that they should be getting behind their representative bodies, but what if the anglers don't think that these bodies have done a particularly good job so far? The NFSA, in my opinion, have been around for long enough to have done something to improve the sea anglers lot by now. Have they done it though? I don't think so. The recent formation of the NFSA conservation group has been a breath of fresh air, but has it happened too late? There has also been some sterling work done by a few good men independant of the NFSA for many years now, but where has it got us exactly? Well it's got us recognised. O.K, we are now recognised, but what have we actually gained in real terms? Nothing, that's what, unless you count broken promises and proposals that is.

 

So we've got some serious thinking to do about what is the best course of action for us to take from here on in. As I see it we have a few options. We can either carry on as we are, treading carefully and "negotiating" (ie, being fobbed off), and keep being treated like some minor irritation by those with the powers to change things, or we can start kicking up a storm by exposing the pure incompetence of those who are charged with looking after our sea fisheries.

 

I'm willing to wait and see what the result of the bass MLS consultation is before I make my mind up. To me, that will tell us exactly where we are and where we should go from here.

 

I'm not too sure exactly what it is you wish to achieve

 

If it's " exposing the pure incompetence of those who are charged with looking after our sea fisheries" then I'd say you were on to a loser from the beginning, too subjective and not enough interest from the general population or the Governments opposition.

 

If it's the creation of an additional body to lobby on behalf of RSA, then it too will face the same apathy and lack of support from the angling related industries and individual anglers, unless a sensible set of issues to be addressed, goals and direction are agreed; even then it will take some serious effort to overcome RSAs natural inertia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiya,

 

For it to work you need to have a group or individuals that have no preference or are seen to have a preference to what fish they target.

 

So by default it would have to be NFSA or you will end up with the "that Leon one is only interested in Mullet or that Steve is only interested in Bass I aint giving them my support" scenarios.

Davy

 

"Skate Anglers Have Bigger Tackle"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiya,

 

For it to work you need to have a group or individuals that have no preference or are seen to have a preference to what fish they target.

 

So by default it would have to be NFSA or you will end up with the "that Leon one is only interested in Mullet or that Steve is only interested in Bass I aint giving them my support" scenarios.

:clap2:

 

:clap2:

My vote goes to Malcolm Gilbert. :clap2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we need representation for sea angling as a sport. That means every sea angler supporting any measure that benefits our sport in any way. It is obvious that there will always be a first step and whether the first step is something that protects flounders or conger eels, (or whatever other species), we should all get behind it. We are our own worst enemies sometimes. I think that if we are to achieve anything worthwhile we will all have to look a bit further than our own back yards.

 

There are representative bodies doing their best. Whether we think their best is good enough or not, are we hindering them by forming splinter groups and arguing among ourselves? I see the first and most important step as us becoming a cohesive force. There are enough of us, so why haven't we made the impact that we are capable of? Why has it been left up to the same few people to "negotiate" on our behalf?

 

Take the NFSA. They are widely regarded as our main representative body. Yet most anglers view the NFSA as a waste of space. That is simply not fair on those that make up the newly formed conservation group. But it's the NFSA tag that creates so much negativity because for years the NFSA did very little and achieved nothing.

 

BASS have done some fantastic work and achieved a lot in terms of gaining recognition. Whether that work will pay off in terms of real benefits we will find out very soon. But because it's BASS, a lot of people who don't fish for bass are negative towards them and won't back them up. This makes their work more difficult than it would be if every anglers got behind them.

 

SACN is, in my opinion, a good all round representative body. It campaigns for all anglers in all areas and addressess every issue that affects our sport. The trouble is, it's not being run like the NFSA or BASS in terms of membership and finance. I'd like to see Leon take the SACN a step further and make it a paid membership so that there is money in the pot that gets spent on conservation alone.

 

As a matter of interest, it's the same few people who play a part in conservation in all three of the mentioned bodies. You'll find people on the NFSA conservation group are also on the BASS bass restoration team and helping out with the SACN. If we could take these individuals and put them in one representative body that is only concerned with getting the best deal possible for sea anglers, and give them the backing that they deserve, we might actually achieve something more than broken promises and proposals.

Edited by Steve Coppolo

DRUNK DRIVERS WRECK LIVES.

 

Don't drink and drive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we need representation for sea angling as a sport. That means every sea angler supporting any measure that benefits our sport in any way. It is obvious that there will always be a first step and whether the first step is something that protects flounders or conger eels, (or whatever other species), we should all get behind it. We are our own worst enemies sometimes. I think that if we are to achieve anything worthwhile we will all have to look a bit further than our own back yards.

 

You hit the nail on the head steve and when these organisations realise that the back yard extends as far north as the tip of Scotland then we may be getting somewhere.

 

Bass Bass Bass thats all we here from these organisations. I supported the bass thing I am now beginning to regret that. What ive read on here today from the likes of JRT confirms that a lot of people do only care about their backyard. Im alright Jack appears to be the philosophy. He had need start spouting if the bass mls falls flat on its face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who should represent sea anglers?, Definately political and a bit controversial.

 

err someone from iceland

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

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

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

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.