NFA To Leave NAA?

[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!

Actually, Peter, I'm very pleased to read Leon's post on Unity. At least we are all back at the starting blocks.

 

It is a paradox though, that the SAA is a member of the NFA but sits alongside it on the NAA! This is per se evidence of the influence of the SAA outside the NFA.

 

The fault, I guess is with the NFA not giving the SAA more say within the NFA, say two seats on the NFA Executive Committee.

 

However, that would mean two matchmen (ex-matchmen) giving up their well worn seats!

 

As for publicity, information concerning the SAA, NFA etc., it is difficult to do more with the limited funds available.

 

It is a catch 22 situation. All I can say is I've been a member of the NASG/NASA/SAA since 1968 and I hope I die a member. I do sincerely believe that the SAA is the very best organisation to represent all specialist anglers, no matter of what species. It has the long standing history, since its formation in 1965, of continuing involvement with fighting for the rights of specialist anglers. It has never been large in numbers compared to some national groups or had their finance available, but it has always been there, to fight the fight, to walk the walk, to talk the talk - against anyone who would threaten our sport.

 

I'm not saying it has always been successful but at least a compromise was in most cases achieved, and we have gained a reputation amongst those who have the power to affect our sport that it does not do to underestimate us.

 

I know what I'm talking about. I have been at the sharp end along with many others who would endevour to promote and defend our sport

 

I know that quite a few members of this forum are members of the SAA and are quite active on its behalf.

 

I feel sad that there are so many more out there who are not members, who are ignorent of what it does for anglers, or just do not care as long as they can just go off fishing and leave the politics to others to give up their fishing time on the behalf of the ungratful hoi palloi.

 

It only costs £10 per year for individuals and far less for affiliated clubs, per member.

 

Having experienced all I have in the world of specialist angling over the past 40+ years, I sincerely believe any specialist angler who really cares about their sport, should join the SAA either as an individual or push their club to affiliate. I have seen what could have happend to specialist angling if the NASG/NASA/SAA had not been there - ask yourself, if you have a serious problem on your water(s) who could you easily turn to for advice/assistance? This forum possibly, but if wanted real and positive action - it would have to be the SAA.

 

Get onto the SAA web page now via Anglers Net, and join now!

 

Give the SAA the cash to better represent you.

 

If you pay peanuts for your sport - don't be disappointed at what you get. It really, really is a funny old world out there Peter, you just don't know the half of it!

 

Regards,

 

Brian

[fenboy]

quote:

---

I do sincerely believe that the SAA is the very best organisation to represent all specialist anglers, no matter of what species. It has the long standing history, since its formation in 1965, of continuing involvement with fighting for the rights of specialist anglers.

---

Too true, Brian. The SAA (the Sturgeon Anglers' Association) was formed in 1965 as an alternative to SAG (the Sturgeon Angling Group) which itself was founded in 1901 because it objected to the consitution of the original SAS (Sturgeon Angling Society) rules on revealing venues to the Royal family, who continued to exercise their arcane rights to seize any sturgeon caught in British waters established at Magna Carta.

We (the SAA) believed the lure-only stance adopted by the SAG was elitist. (although we did with their catch-and-release policy).

We are now urging the NFA to adopt our close season policy (1965-2005). We are pleased to report that not a single sturgeon has been caught from UK waters on rod and line sinceour close season was implemented, but we expect some excellent returns in 2006.

Only teasing, Brian. I'm happy to state publicly on this forum that you are the most competent angling politician I have ever met. Period. Is it too late for you to return to the fold? Nobody could do a better job. AND I'M NOT JOKING NOW.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

An announcement.

 

Following my stay in Dark Towers hospital;

 

I have come to realise, via in-deapth counciling and intensive drug treatment, that previous persistent visions of an angling organisation exploding were after all, mere mental dillusions.

 

 

Can anyone else hear that "ticking" sound?

 

 

NURSE!!

 

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

Ahh, that explains where you have been. We thought it was something like that !

[Bruno Broughton]

trent.barbeler:

I have come to realise, via in-deapth counciling and intensive drug treatment...

 

Can anyone else hear that "ticking" sound?

 

NURSE!!

They're feeding you bad acid, Lee

[kleinboet]

As I see it, NFA were at one time the sole angling body acting as spokesperson for ALL anglers. Gradually, over time, Sea Anglers, Specimen anglers, Carp Anglers etc. have broken away as they have felt not enough time was being spent on 'their' speciality. It would appear that if someone were to start a G.S.S. (Gudgeon Specialist Society) and there were enough people interested, they would break away to form their own group. What is needed is an organisation, with 2 elected officials from each of the very varied organisations, to act for them all as the official spokesperson (spokesorganisation?) of ALL groups on the future of angling, Government Grants, Disabled access etc. In other words the things that involve ALL of us. Sure, have your individual associations to solve your unique problems but have a NATIONAL FORUM for things that involve us all. If the U.N. and the E.U. could do it so scould we, and wouldn't that be a powerful voice in the corridors of power!!!

[waterman1013]

Hi Klienboet

 

"What is needed is an organisation, with 2 elected officials from each of the very varied organisations, to act for them all as the official spokesperson (spokesorganisation?) of ALL groups on the future of angling, Government Grants, Disabled access etc. In other words the things that involve ALL of us."

 

Sounds just like NAA.

 

Mike

[kleinboet]

Hi Waterman, The problem is that each organisation wants whats best for its own members, not for the whole angling fraternity. What we need is for these representatives to put aside bias to their sport and think of what's best for angling as a whole. I think the most important aspect would be that the organisations which form the alliance MUST stand by the ruling body.

[Peter Waller]

Much wisdom in those last two posts! It all just needs a bit of fine tuning, we're nearly there!

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Klein,

 

Your quote of;

 

"If the U.N. and the E.U. could do it so could we, and wouldn't that be a powerful voice in the corridors of power!!!"

 

The above would not be my perfect comparison choice to that of what might be needed for the NAA or similar. The UN is anything but united and the E.U. is a massively over officious, obesely over funded organisation that does very little for the "majority" of European citizens which it is supposed to represent.

 

Mikes words of;

 

"What is needed is an organisation, with 2 elected officials from each of the very varied organisations, to act for them all as the official spokesperson (spokesorganisation?) of ALL groups on the future of angling, Government Grants, Disabled access etc. In other words the things that involve ALL of us."

 

Sounds just like NAA.

 

Good sounds Mike?? Klein is about right with his comment of;

 

"The problem is that each organisation wants whats best for its own members, not for the whole angling fraternity. What we need is for these representatives to put aside bias to their sport and think of what's best for angling as a whole."

 

To true. But this is the age old problem with angling at its political level. And why are we still afflicted with this problem? Fractious factions with a proven track record for friability. It comes as absolutely no surprise to many that the NAA is wobbling on the edge of a familiar abyss. I am quite surprised it has actually lasted thus far.

 

Why dont we have something different? An organisation self funded by its members with a professional team looking after its interests. No organisations or their reps running the show or falling out time and again.

 

In reality the NFA was always the great bear of the organisation with its membership size. If it walks away from the NAA arena as it seems very likely it will, then the NAA is dead plain and simple.

 

The rest aside from the Sea anglers and game boys in S&T will then become political bit players at best.

 

In my opinion, the SAA and NAFAC dont have a cat in hells chance of dipping their toes in any NFA prospective membership pool. If the NFA breaks away from NAA, then I would expect NFA to follow this exodus up with a massive individual membership drive. Indeed, I would expect Mike to become very surprised if all of a sudden the NFA's human resourse well was tapped into. The NFA aside from any criticism's being lobbied in its direction remain none the less a very capable organisation with PR skills that others in NAA appear to lack?

 

Personally, I think political angling is about to enter its "Ice Age" again and only the big organisations will survive. The smaller ones such as SAA and NAFAC will fold in my opinion.

 

I hold the opinion that any national angling organisation should be open to all. Trying to build anything else will always fail.

 

Won't it? Hasn't it?

 

Dr Broughton, Dr Broughton!!! I need my injection! I'm seeing things again!!!!!

 

But can I please have it in my arm this time? It hurts in the forehead.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

 

PS. Makes one wonder what the government thinks of this fiasco. No wonder they dont take us seriously behind closed doors.