NFA To Leave NAA?

['eelfisher']

Dear Rob

 

I didn't find Brian's reply to you dissapointing....it's a shame that you did.

 

I wasn't asking the CS question in the hope that you were a CS committee man......I was asking from your point of view as an SAA committee man and a carp angler.

 

Quote....."How about we stick to the topic in hand rather than sniping at fellow anglers ?"

 

The above statement is rather strange as the 'fellow anglers' do not appear to be wanting unity with their fellow specialists. I remember not too long ago when the only 'political talk' coming out of the CS was that the group to back and support was the SAA.

 

Anyhow......try to re-read some of Brian's words again in both posts and see if you can see the positives in both that you must have missed on your first read.

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Brian,

 

I agree with Ma learned associate, Mr Steve Richardson, your post was indeed quite something. I have therefore copied it and used it to reply.

 

 

"Lee, you are such a pessimist."

 

I won't argue on that one concerning angling politics. Not much to be optimistic about.

 

"How can any angling political body get itself together with unbelievers such as you around?"

 

Quite a few actually Brian. The SACG managed it although many in NASA were not fully behind its formation. Later on, the amalgamation of NASA and SACG to form SAA was founded literally upon a battlefield at times. Then, there were many unbelievers around. At that time, I stood in the clearing "for" SAA. But never the less, I take your point Brian.

 

"You gotta have faith, you gotta have faith."

 

I had faith Brian. Still have it. But for something else. Something new and effective. Lasting not loosing. Admittedly, I have NO faith in the present set up. Either the SAA or NAA one. That said, I have faith in individuality such as the sea anglers and NAFAC.

 

"Think positive, think nice thoughts and nice things will happen."

 

Nice thoughts do not make nice things happen Brian. In Peter Pan maybe.

 

"The NFA, SAA(NASA/NASG) have all been around too long to just give up and fade away."

 

In comparison to NFA, the NASG/NASA are new comers. The SAA is a blip in time compared to the time NFA have been around. In my opinion, the NFA will surge ahead and be around for as long as they can see reality. NASG and NASA are dead and very buried more is the pity. Time, not either you or I will tell how long the SAA will survive. I think it will fold within two more years. Could even be sooner than that.

 

"So what if the Carp Society left the SAA. They were never very political anyway - all they ever had to offer was negative criticism and cash. I remember telling them that a few years ago when I was invited to open one of their conferences. They never invited me back because they cannot handle reality. Can you think of one positive thing that the CS has done for specialist angling apart from breed thousands of cloned carp anglers, mostly still in their teens, all who just take, take, take from the efforts of those who attend meetings on their behalf, and enable a select few to get quite rich off carp tackle, carp publications and carp baits."

 

In reality, the most damaging thing that the SAA committee/group could get inflicted upon it would be to have the biggest specialist angling group leave its fold. Why? Financially disastrous obviously. Politically, even more disastrous as their exodus from SAA has undoubtedly become a blow the SAA cannot recover from. We now see the largest and possibly 4th largest specialist group in the BS "NOT" in SAA membership.

Can I think of one positive thing the CS has done for specialist angling? No. I can think of many actually Brian.

 

The CS is responsible for some quite remarkable and tremendous advances in fish welfare. The group’s reputation in the field of species conservation and protection is second to none.

 

The CS's reputation in bringing angling to youngsters is also second to none. Their tackle which you speak of, not to mention their tactics, bait types and rigs, is used, copied and utilised right throughout branches of specialist angling not only in the UK, but throughout the world!!

 

What I would NEVER do, under any circumstances, is purposely alienate the CS or any other specialist group like you do in the paragraph above. Such a thing is dysfunctional to unity and serves absolutely no purpose in trying to win the CS back into the SAA fold. Commercialism in angling is not restricted to carp fishing products. In actual fact Brian, none carp fishing merchandise revenue actually dwarfs what carp fishing products make. The plain fact is, more none carp fishing related communities do far less than the CS does. Far less right down to nothing at all.

 

"When the NASG was up and running in the 60's, we had problems with carp anglers then too, only it was the British Carp Study Group in those days - another politically dead body that has done nothing for specialist anglers in general".

 

The BCSG has always maintained its none political stance. So have others. You don’t see reps from the Red Spinners at SAA meetings.

 

"In my opinion, carp anglers are best left out of real angling politics, they have not got a clue about any real issues that may affect their angling. As I have said before, it is not numbers that count - it is the voice."

 

I disagree Brian. If others heading up NAA truly believe that government don’t either listen or take notice of "numbers" and it is only a "voice" that counts, then we are in real trouble. Anyone can shout. But if no one stands behind the shouting then it merely remains a noise. Not a message conveyed from millions as it should be. Your opinion that carp anglers should remain out of angling politics is a dire one to hold. One I hope that the SAA don't adopt.

 

"I do not think that a single carp angler understands that without the efforts made by the NASA, SACG and SAA, they would only be allowed to fish with one rod. Few anglers do."

 

The fact is Brian, a great section of specialist angling actually "DO" advocate the use of one rod only!! Another fact also, is that there are far more "none" carp anglers in UK angling that use multiple rod set ups than carp anglers do. And the greater majority of those, NEVER contributed towards anything or any efforts at all. To single out carp anglers in this regard is incorrect Brian.

 

"However that is another issue. If you or anyone wishes to see what the SAA/SACG/NASA/NASG has achieved or any information concerning the SAA then all you have to do is log onto its website

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/saa/"

 

The SAA website is quite poor Brian akin to what it should be. I fully appreciate some political efforts as made by politicos from the specialist angling world and have gone on public record many times in praising these efforts. Never the less, its website "should" have been used effectively for PR and recruitment purposes from its launch. It didn't for a whole range of excuses but the end result remains the same. Failure.

 

"The question you should be asking Lee, is not what the SAA can do for you but just where would specialist anglers be without the SAA?"

 

Two points here Brian. Specialist angling purely has gone from strength to strength. There are now more specialist anglers in the UK than ever before, spending more money on specialist angling tackle,bait,etc than ever before. It has out performed other branches of angling in popularity now for many years and is still very much a growth industry.

List for me Brian if you will please, everything the SAA has done specifically for specialist angling since it was formed. I will in return acknowledge every correct listing and guarantee, even before you make your list which of course I cannot know, I can list two failures for every success you list. But from the top of my head some SAA failures to date.

 

Totally inadequate PR.

Failure to embark on effective individual membership drive.

Failure in gaining large member groups still outside SAA.

 

"Can specialist anglers afford to lose the SAA?"

 

It is not in reality a question of can specialist anglers afford to loose SAA Brian, but moreover the question can SAA afford to loose specialist angling surely? SAA committee has made many mistakes. A lot of which were flagged up at the formation meeting and at meetings or in private emails within committee also. But still they failed to respond to constructive criticism. The SAA appear to be very important to you Brian. Truly, in the overal scheme of things, with claiming to represent 10,000 members which of course is a false number now, they are small beer anyway.

 

"Even if all specialist anglers do is send in their £10 per year to enable it to function better, that should be the very least if they value the future of their sport."

 

£10 per year?? What happened to the £20 per year then Brian? Half the subs!!?? My word that paints a revealing picture if correct!!

 

"You sound as though you value specialist angling, but do so outside of any organisation. If you have £10 you can spare, I know where you can send it."

 

Yes I do value specialist angling. As an entity made up of anglers and individuals. I will have no truck with an organisation that’s membership or committee slag off a section of specialist angling because it or they, leave or disagree with items of its committee policy. As such, I will "never" join SAA in its present form. Also, I believe the SAA mission has failed, will fail further. So why support something I don’t either agree with or think will continue as a political voice for specialist angling?

 

"The SAA does have hundreds of individual members, anyone of whom can attend meetings or become officers. The SAA is not elitist - you do not have had to catch 30 pike over 30lb to get on the Committee, but you will get the chance to sit on a democratic committee alongside a few well known and long established big names in angling, if that is your desire, with of course, just ordinary anglers and discuss issues as equals. The SAA also has a number of specialist angling groups affiliated. Some having been affiliated for over 35 years."

 

How many individual members does the SAA have Brian? An accurate figure please to prove your point if you will. The SAA has not been formed for anywhere near 35 years, more like several, so how can specialist angling groups have been affiliated to it for so long?

I can quote many examples when SAA operated un-democratically Brian. As for sitting alongside well established and well know anglers in SAA committee Brian? Wasn't that impressed with the tiny selection that bothered to turn up when I sat on the SACG/SAA committee myself.

 

 

"As far as the NFA is concerned, I am not too interested in its future. If the East Midlands Region is successful in getting it to leave the NAA then NAFAC, which is far more representative, will take its place at the power centre. Indeed, there may be a push for the NAFAC to replace the NFA as THE governing body of coarse angling as it is so more representative of our interests than the NFA ever was and is more broadly based."

 

NAFAC taking NFA's place as the power house in NAA Brian? That’s the wildest opinion I have heard yet. That simply won't be happening. Indeed, the NAFAC's own constitution restricts such a wild move. In any case, the NAFAC is a fisheries based consultative whose arena outside of NAA is regionally based. The NAFAC is also like SAA struggling to recruit members. Both organisations need more funding urgently from my information. Nothing like the mighty NFA. Staring down a wishing well is one thing, reality is quite different.

 

"I've seen many angling organisations come and go. Many evolve or become extinct like the National Anglers Council. However, overall, we go round in time circles with new organisations evolving to replace the extinct.2"

 

In politics, angling or otherwise, it is a dangerous thing basing political forecasting on political history. Anglers are now sick to their back teeth with angling politics. Times have changed and I fear no return now from this political abyss.

 

"I have also seen many angling political activists come and go, with very few staying around for more than a year or two. Eventually most run out of anything positive to contribute to the progression of our sport, and run out of an audience with the patience to listen."

 

Quite so Brian.

 

"I am not too bothered about there being a shortage of young political warriors. Let them enjoy their fishing for a few years until they are faced with problems of the future. Those that are really concerned for their sport will get involved, particularly if there are organisations like the SAA still here. God help them otherwise."

 

I disagree. We need that young blood now. Because modern man/woman won’t fight battles later on when they are probably not that bothered about going fishing anymore anyway.

 

"There again - as they say - God only helps them who help themselves."

 

"Back to the SAA and representation onto other national bodies. I am sure you would agree that normally this would be given to senior committee members with a set representative agenda rather than a loose canon with their own agenda. With representation comes responsibility."

 

I have no problem with senior executive type members representing SAA at its national levels. However Brian, there remains more loose cannons in this SAA area than you might perhaps realise. I can quote many instances where loose cannoned behaviour got the SACG/SAA into all sorts of trouble. Antics of some I might add that continue to burden the SAA to this day.

 

"Regarding my ideal national organisation - I live in a fantasy world of my own imagination on this idea. It is just a dream I have for the future of angling, which has about as much chance of happening as me catching a 70lb U.K. carp - uggg what a prospect - I'd rather catch a pig."

 

Firstly Brian, there is a VERY REAL chance of catching a 70lb UK carp now days. We disagree over your dream. In fact dreams in principle.

Men dreamt of flying. So men flew.

Men dreamt of going to the moon. So men went.

Man, has dreamt much and turned dreams into reality time and again. Our dream in comparison, is but a small dream. And unless moves are made towards turning a dream into reality, a dream it will remain. Men make dreams happen. One thing is certain however, angling politics in the UK is crumbling. This is reality that we have no control over for all our "opinions". I'm interested to read what is going to be done about it. Not sit on a shaky train whilst the wheels fall off. Why won’t anyone up there admit its failing?

 

"Lee, I am sorry we two particularly appear at opposite ends of a specialist angling political spectrum. I am sure our objectives are similar but we must agree to disagree on how we get there."

 

Regards,

 

Brian

 

Absolutely no problem Brian. You retain my utmost respect although we don’t agree on this particular angling issue. Yes I genuinely care. But my ideology in this field is radical as opposed to traditional ways of doing things politically within angling. I am a modernist screaming in the traditional valley that angling undoubtedly is. My shouts are for effective change. Changes that everyone, not the mere few in angling can embrace. Our great difference of opinion is that I believe truly that angler’s hearts and minds can be touched whilst you and yours do not.

 

Terminal stalemate. But whilst no moves are made across the chequered board, it is angling itself that truly suffers. Not mere individuals with opinions.

 

And that is the ultimate legacy we leave to those who come after we are gone. Ineptitude and unwillingness to make things better.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Beebs]

To be honest, the only way I can see for angling to be represented effectively is by representation by each discipline to report to an official angling spokesgroup. There's no point trying to get coarse anglers, pleasure anglers, game anglers etc to agree to anything collectively because they won't. Each sees their own discipline as the superior so why not each have their own representative to an overall, impartial angling body who would be the official voice for us all? Each style of fishing could elect its own representative who would report to an official appointed spokesperson. Hard work I know, as each would want their own chosen sport favoured, but surely in these well informed, media driven times, we can get a few impartial representatives who can see the bigger picture beyond their preferred style?

 

There seem to be a few 'self appointed' spokesmen for angling, but I didn't vote for them, did you?

 

[ 28. January 2004, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: Beebs ]

[RobStubbs]

Steve,

Your response is equally unhelpful. Maybe I'm too naive I see all anglers as kind of one big family, but reading some of the other responses here I'm almost alone. Until people can accept everyone else and their chosen style of fishing then unity will just be a pipe dream.

 

Quote "The above statement is rather strange as the 'fellow anglers' do not appear to be wanting unity with their fellow specialists. I remember not too long ago when the only 'political talk' coming out of the CS was that the group to back and support was the SAA."

 

Who doesn't want unity ?? with comments such as these would you be surprised if they weren't mildly upset ?? Quote "Can you think of one positive thing that the CS has done for specialist angling apart from breed thousands of cloned carp anglers, mostly still in their teens, all who just take, take, take from the efforts of those who attend meetings on their behalf, and enable a select few to get quite rich off carp tackle, carp publications and carp baits."

 

I have better things to do I'm afraid than bicker over semantics and how big a burden the CS and carp anglers are on society. When people can stick to the case at hand then maybe I'll join in again.

 

Rob.

[kleinboet]

Here we are, looking at a way to sort out angling and we are bickering amongst ourselves!

Lets put our energy into the problem at hand.

If we could have an organisation from ALL anglings various aspects and give this organisation TEETH. No matter what the decision made it will more than likely not suit some groups and it is up to THEIR rep. to explain that, although it is contentious for that group, the decision was made FOR ANGLING AS A WHOLE!!

Can you see the advantages - there is money available from EA, Rivers Authorities and the Government, and it will be a lot easier to award to one organisation without upsetting another.

Each of our various diciplines appoint UNBIASED representatives to this mega-body and then MUST abide by the bodies decisions. I think that if we got that right, we could look foward to a rosy future for angling.

A concession can be made BY THAT ORGANISATION that it could be sub-divided by sea and fresh-water angling.

['eelfisher']

Dear Rob

 

In the interests of positive progression and unity, I shall withdraw from the fray......and back your stance on unity, OK.

 

I'm biting my tongue and prepared to drop my questions to you.

 

Sorry if they offended.....that was not my intention.

 

Perhaps I should come to a meeting and discuss it there with you and others for the greater good of achieving some form of unity.

 

Can I just state that the second quote you copied was not mine.....just in case I get labelled with that as well.

 

Yours With Respect.....(and that's meant, Rob)

Steve.

 

[ 28. January 2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: 'eelfisher' ]

[fenboy]

I used to be an angry young man who thought he could help change the angling world (of politics). But I had a short attention span, even shorter temper, and baled out before I got into trouble.

There were people of more suitable temperament than me. I paid my subs and let them got on with it. Maybe one day it would all turn out nice.

It didn't, of course. The final straw for me was when the SACG was formed. Because it thought it could do better than the NASA. Now we've got the SAA. What next?

Much earlier in this thread, somebody joked about a Gudgeon Society. Well, if someone set it up today, somebody else would set up the BGSD (British Gudgeon Study Group) tomorrow... and the RGE (Real Gudgeon Enthusiasts) tomorrow.

Angling, by its nature, is too individualistic for a national, all-embracing body ever to succeed, in my opinion. But I'd love to be proved wrong.

In the Monty Python movie Life of Brian there was a great scene where radicals from (I think) the People's Front of Judea admitted they hated the Judea People's Front more than they hated the Romans. Didn't half remind me of angling politics.

There are probably more national barbel clubs than there are big barbel in a certain stretch of the Great Ouse above Bedford. Tomorrow I will form the Nene Barbel Angler's Appreciation Society. The apostrophe is in the right place, because I'll be the only member. At least there won't be any arguments... unless I develop a split personality. Then I'll form the Nene Barbel Anglers' Alliance.

Pass me a beer...

[Newt]

Tomorrow I will form the Nene Barbel Angler's Appreciation Society. The apostrophe is in the right place, because I'll be the only member.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

fenboy - I DEMAND to be allowed to join. Otherwise, I'll sue.

 

Errr - what is a Barbel? Some sort of fish maybe?

 

 

**************************************

note: somewhat tongue in cheek and probably offensive to many of the more serious posters on here but I'm an irreverent sort and just couldn't resist

 

[ 28. January 2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[fenboy]

Okay, Newt, I like your postings, and as you're the right sort of angler you can join - and I'll even move the apostrophe. We are now the Nene Barbel Anglers'Alliance.

I'm the boss, though. Chairman, I reckon. You can be membership secretary.

And if you disagree, I will throw my dummy out of the pram and set up the Nene Barbel Bashers. So there.

[Leon Roskilly]

I think that you'd all be amazed at what goes on at Medway Mullet Group meetings

 

Tight Lines - leon