NFA To Leave NAA?

[Elton]

SAA Press Release added here:

 

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/news/articles/293.html

[Peter Waller]

This is sheer stupidity, it really is. I'll grant the NFA that the NAA has not lived up to expectations but surely the NFA can work from within to correct this?

 

At one time the NFA failed to live up to expectations, thus the SACG came about. A shame that the 'specialist' anglers didn't work from within to improve the NFA back then. But now, so to speak, the boot is now on the other foot. Surely the lesson is clear for all to see? Stay together fellas, for anglings sakes, work from within.

[Alan Pearce]

For the NFA to leave the NAA would be stupidity of the highest order. All pulling together gives angling strength, divided who knows! The NFA only represents a small faction of the sport, one that has proved to get smaller year on year. As an organisation they dont appear to be able to support themselves let alone coarse fishing as a whole. Stupidity and selfish is my opinion, and destructive in the grand scheme of things.

 

Alan.

[Nugg]

I'm not so sure, after all it has been said many many times in the past, has it not, Peter, that the NFA could be the way forward. One body to represent angling, the in-fighting appears to go on, unity between all anglers is what's called for not necessarily unity between fragmented groups.

I wander what the statements about short term gains is all about, and "the joint Angling Governing Bodies alone is not enough" what can one read into that.

I can't wait to see what the NFA has to say.

[Peter Waller]

Nugg, I've long held the view that the NFA should be the one representaive body. But for that to happen it means the other bodies pulling in behind it, and I can't see that happening.

 

For so long the NFA was just that, the National Federation of Anglers. But, regretfully, other freshwater bodies felt a need to go it alone rather than work from within. I have long felt that the formation of NASA, and eventually SACG, outside of the NFA has done no favours for angling in the widest sense.

 

For the NFA to pull out of the NAA is a brave step, but a foolhardy one. I say that because I don't think that the NFA is organised and strong enough to assume sole control of angling.

 

In an ideal world the established splinter groups would knock on the door of the Federation, thus returning to one national body. The idea of the joint angling governing bodies then makes sense. But this isn't going to happen.

 

Sadly I can't see, for example, the SAA giving up its assumed crown and becoming a part of the Federation, with a seat on the NFA executive.

 

I would have thought unity under the NFA banner would be perfectly possible, if there was a will.

 

[ 17. January 2004, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Alan Pearce]

Pete, the SACG now the SAA has had a position within the NFA for some years now.

[Peter Waller]

Alan Pearce:

Pete, the SACG now the SAA has had a position within the NFA for some years now.

I realise that Alan, but that being the case why run it as a separate entity. I get feedback from the NFA from a friend within the NFA, I never hear any mention of SAA members at regional meeting etc.

[Brian Crawford]

Peter Waller:

Nugg, I've long held the view that the NFA should be the one representaive body. But for that to happen it means the other bodies pulling in behind it, and I can't see that happening.

 

For so long the NFA was just that, the National Federation of Anglers. But, regretfully, other freshwater bodies felt a need to go it alone rather than work from within. I have long felt that the formation of NASA, and eventually SACG, outside of the NFA has done no favours for angling in the widest sense.

 

For the NFA to pull out of the NAA is a brave step, but a foolhardy one. I say that because I don't think that the NFA is organised and strong enough to assume sole control of angling.

 

In an ideal world the established splinter groups would knock on the door of the Federation, thus returning to one national body. The idea of the joint angling governing bodies then makes sense. But this isn't going to happen.

 

Sadly I can't see, for example, the SAA giving up its assumed crown and becoming a part of the Federation, with a seat on the NFA executive.

 

I would have thought unity under the NFA banner would be perfectly possible, if there was a will.

Peter, just for historical accuracy:

 

The National Association Of Specimen Groups (NASG) became the National Association of Specialist Anglers (NASA) in 1982.

 

It affiliated to the NFA in 1984 with Steve Tytherley as the NFA Representative, to the East Midlands Region. I was Chairman of NASA at that time. He and I attended NFA Conferences.

 

From 1986 to 1994, I became the NASA NFA Representative and as I then lived in Telford, Shropshire, attended the West Midland Region of the NFA. I continued to attend NFA Conferences until 1994. When I stood down as the NFA Rep in 1994, this role was taken over by Tim Marks and Chris Burt, who had also taken over the running of the SACG from my founding role of Secretary, along with Nev Fickling as founding Treasurer.

 

While a member of the West Mids Region, I became jointly responsible for Junior Angling Education. I also attended Education Committee meetings at NFA HQ. I got to know many key players in the NFA at senior level including four Presidents and most Vice-Presidents. I also spent many hours with several Presidents on one-to-one discussions, as Dave Bird will confirm.

 

I also realised that due to the structure of the NFA and election process for National Executive Committee membership, that the only people possible to obtain a position on the NFA NEC were match anglers. (ex-match anglers)

 

The NASA and SAA has given the NFA full and total support to the NFA since 1982. Far, far more than many other of its member groups.

 

If the present Committee of the SAA feel justified to threaten to leave the current NFA then I would fully support that decision. We owe the NFA nothing. They owe specialit anglers a great deal more than they were ever prepared to give.

 

They should be more honest and change their name to the National Federation of Match Anglers

(NFMA)

 

Brian Crawford

[Peter Waller]

Thanks for putting me in the picture Brian. The more I read and hear about the state of UK angling politics the more disheartened I become.

 

I can only base my observations on either what I'm told, what I read or what I can deduce from what I see going on around me.

 

You make it clear that, in various guises, NASA through to SAA, that specialist anglers have been involved with the NFA for a long time now. Without knowing the facts it would be hard to guess that that was the case. I don't know where the fault lies, if there is a fault, but I am amazed that that is the case. I don't mean any offence to anyone but the impact is not apparent to atleast one outsider, me! As you so rightly say, the NFA is a match angler's organisation, even after almost 22 years of having specialist anglers roaming their corridors. It really is a funny old world out there!

 

[ 20. January 2004, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[fenboy]

Here I go, in with both feet again...

 

The NFA does a good job of running matches. The Nationals are pretty well organised and, although there are glitches, they turn out koay in the end. ANd organising such events on such a grand scale is extremely time-consuming. As the NFA has always been dominated by match-orientated clubs, it's hardly surprising that match fishing dominates its business.

 

There are also things like conferences to organise, in which delegates will argue for hours over the tiniest details of Rule 20( sub-section (iv)...just like we pike anglers will argue for hours over what seem like very small issues on this very forum.

 

David Bird, as president, tried to change things. But he didn't stand a chance, because he was a southerner and couldn't pronounce casters properly, like. Seriously, the old match boys distrusted him - particularly the ones from the big northern associations.

 

It's a lovely thought that the National Federation of ANglers could be just that. But, as Brian has so honestly recounted, it can't be something it isn't.

 

My own belief is that angling remains too individual for a national body to embrace all the disciplines. Sure, there are all-round anglers, but they are few and far between. Most are extremely specialised, to the extent that there are thousands of anglers who fish only for carp, etc.

 

Also, I would guess that most anglers avoid politics, because they go fishing to escape such stuff.

 

Mind you, I'd love to be proved wrong. I suppose that's the one great thing about angling - at least we are pretty optimistic!