KK

You need to get along to the gallery at http://www.birdforum.net. The clarity and quality of many of those images is utterly astounding, a great many have been taken with 4mp Nikon Coolpix 4500 cameras (digiscoping camera of choice), and - having seen some of these very pictures on magazine covers - I can say without hesitation that they want for nothing, quality-wise. IMHO...

Well if the images are only for internet/email use, there is no advantage whatsoever in film over digital, quality wise. Computer monitors (CRT anyway) can only use a max of 72dpi resolution, and you'd be hard pushed to find a camera these days that won't do that with room to spare. [ 28. August 2004, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: KK ]

Broadly speaking I can't remember things being any different when Thatch and her successors were in charge, and as a civil servant of 26 years standing, I'm more sensitised to the whims of politicians than most (mainly because of the "rightist" idea that sacking civil servants to pay for tax cuts to get the buggers elected is good politics). And it's the Tories that are pushing this issue this time.

Ah well, fair enough. As I suggest elsewhere, being worthy of discussion doesn't make something "news": people still argue about whether Geoff Hurst's shot really crossed the line in 1966!

This thread is raising very important issues, but isn't it preaching to the converted, so to speak? I've always worried that because it's so easy to get into the sport, there is no incentive, much less compulsion, for people to look past their own noses as far as the politics is concerned. In other words, while there may well be 5 million anglers, most really couldn't care less about the big issues and - if angling ceased to exist tomorrow - would turn to golf or whatever without so much as missing a beat. Leon makes the compelling point above that the info is out there - but that the vast majority just aren't interested. While this is the case, it hardly matters who the biggest (loudest) representative group is, because it is still only representing those that want to be represented - and the greatest proportion of anglers by far clearly couldn't care less about that. We should arguably be putting much more effort into figuring out how to engage the millions of potential voices out there that currently don't appear to give a toss as long as they can wet a line occasionally. But how? I'm sure it is doable, but not without a huge shift in the fundementals of how angling "works"... [ 28. August 2004, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: KK ]

Hi ratchet, re: the TAA (and I think this is a point fundemental to Peter's question). Having had a long term personal experience of the TAA and one of its key supporting clubs, I can assure you that neither the TAA nor any local club represents me or my interests in any way shape or form. I am not alone in this view. Locally organised groups like this (and don't get me wrong, on balance I'd rather have the TAA around than not) only represent their own interests and - if you're lucky - the interests of member clubs, and - if you're really lucky - your interests too: but very often those interests fly in the face of what's mandated by the rank and file anglers within these "catchments". PM me if you want some of the gory proof of this... So, some (or more) of us become alienated by the non-representative agendas some clubs and lobby groups like the TAA espouse, and reject these organisations. As a result, (and this is a demonstrable fact up here), there is a significant body of anglers for whom these local bodies clearly aren't a voice. And besides (the thinking goes): why do I have to be part of a club/local lobby group and accept their agendas as my own, before I can feel I am being represented? This is the whole reason I set up a "non aligned" angling website: I know there are a lot of lads and lasses up here that are utterly disillusioned with their "representatives", and have withdrawn their support for them. On the site I refer to, anyone can contribute freely and honestly (and politely!), discuss matters that concern them and - if they want - use it to get issues addressed formally by asking me to raise them at the twice-yearly North East Fisheries Forum hosted by the EA, which I'm attending as an "independent". Representation and the right to a voice shouldn't be conditional on accepting that the voice doesn't actually say what you want it to. [ 28. August 2004, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: KK ]

Aye, the administrative overhead of checking/issuing (or not) a licence based on rod purchase would be unacceptable. I agree though, that (economic arguments notwithstanding) it would be great to find a way to dissuade the "cowboys" from becoming involved in angling. But we all know that it ain't just new/casual anglers that are the source of litter, unacceptable behaviour and rule breaking. We should have to earn our rod licence, in my opinion. But then again - there are for more "anglers" than there are licenced anglers... Don't see why sea anglers are exempt from the licence obligation either, and a lot of the sea anglers I know would happily buy if there was a demonstrable benefit in paying up. [ 28. August 2004, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: KK ]

quote: Originally posted by jeepster: news is my business, so excuse me for thinking i may know a little about principles of it. In the interests of accurate reportage, I never actually suggested otherwise. Anyway, this is just semantics. As a long time (and, I'd like to believe, fairly discerning) consumer of the "product" however, I think I have a reasonable perspective on what constitutes news myself. And in my own view (which is as valid as any), it was as much "news" as the Silly Season pap the tabloids inflict on us or the banal, inane gossip that fills the likes of OK or Hello magazines. I suppose everything is of interest to somebody - it doesn't make it intrinsically newsworthy. [ 28. August 2004, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: KK ]

Fenboy, you've hit the nail on the head when you mention his lack of contrition. When all of this first broke, he was full of noises to the effect that he accepted he'd gone too far, that he wouldn't be continuing with the practice, and that - in short - he'd learned his lesson. Seems now that they were merely arguments of convenience to deflect some of the flack. I love the idea of endorsable fishing licences - if only.

I'm jealous...

Was news, Jeepster - the "new" in "news" means just that. What we have here is the recycling of (to use an oxymoron old news) - history if you like - for the sake of sales (IMHO). Now I'm not saying that things discussed once aren't worth discussing twice, but I resent the fact that he's been given a soapbox from which to justify his actions when it is clear to most people that what he did is utterly unjustifiable.

Lor' - I would love to take you up on that, Chris! Now, if you could arrange to get the R Test moved 400 miles North... Any of the IAC mob going along?

fenboy, I am not criticising "the press", although equally I don't think for a second that it couldn't be better at what it does. I would say though, that there's a world of difference between the provision of "what most people want to read" and news. They just ain't the same in my book - else there would either be no market for the heavyweight broadsheets, or no market for tat like "Hello" and the tabloids... The PC issue isn't being discussed here because it's news, but because it isn't, and should not have been dealt with as such by AM. [ 27. August 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: KK ]

Dunno about it being an "unneccessary" swipe Fenboy, you yourself agree that quote: You're right that publishing is about money. At least in part. It has to be, because if publications didn't make money they wouldn't be around. I think that's pretty typical of all businesses. I think that Northern Mark is simply implying that the main driver for AM publishing the letter isn't an interest in freedom of speech, democracy, or the legitimate right of reply. I think many of us feel that to be the case... [ 27. August 2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: KK ]

Believe Solar does such a zimmer frame John - but being made of solid stainless steel, it ain't half heavy!