NFA To Leave NAA?

[kleinboet]

Lee, I agree, but look at your own words - if the NFA walk away, the sea angler boys and the others WILL BE BIT PLAYERS!! What we need is that this we/they attitude HAS to go. If the various organisations were really serious, then sending RESPONSIBLE members to a new UNBIASED angling forum that will make decisions for the good of ALL anglers. If this can be achieved, then we are on our way.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Klein,

 

The biggest downfall UK angling has politically are its many factions large and small. Simply put, they just can't get along for a multitude of reasons. As such, the present NAA situation is going to fail in my opinion. Unity, is simply anglings bridge too far. And always will be unless changes in direction are made.

 

I believe that the face of angling politics is about to change radically. This could be a good thing. I also believe that moves are already afoot in orchestration towards this end. Indeed, I would expect that if the NFA walks away from NAA (which would also constitute an end to JAGB?)they would NOT be walking towards isolation as some suggest but are walking towards another union elsewhere? If I am correct then I would expect others to follow their path also.

"SAA will immediately leave the NFA and continue to represent the interests of specialist anglers through whatever means are available to us."

 

I find the above an interesting if not thought provoking quote from Mike within his SAA statement.

 

Martin Salters request for "professionalism" in angling speaks volumes to me. I would have thought he already knew such a request was impossible for angling to adopt in its present state. So why suggest it?? Sounds like a stalking horse statement of attitudes to come maybe??

 

And the blatantly obvious lack of interest in this thread as opposed to similar threads on AN two years ago demonstrates that hardly anyone gives a fig anyway.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Brian Crawford]

trent.barbeler:

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

Lee, When I lived in Telford, Shropshire, 1984 - 1998, I spent 12 years on the Severn Consultative Association, which was affiliated to NAFAC. I also spent nearly the same 12 years as NASA Representative to the NFA, attending the West Midlands Region of NFA, meetings. I found that quite a few coarse angling clubs/associations, were members of both NAFAC (through the Consultative) and the NFA. There were also individual members of either or both NAFAC and NFA at both meetings.

 

NAFAC, through its member Consultatives and the NFA, through its Regions, had many things in common then, and probably still do today. The only main difference however, is that the NFA is perceived as serving mainly match angling and that NAFAC serves all areas of coarse and game anglers, including all specialist anglers, match anglers, pleasure anglers, private and commercial fisheries, coarse and game, and tackle shops.

 

I am not sure what individual membership of the NFA gives you or costs - you certainly cannot attend an AGM or vote.

 

Individual membership of NAFAC is £10 per year. Again I am not sure what that will give you either but again, I do not think you can attend an AGM or vote.

 

You can join your local Consultative for between £5 - £15 per year. Attend all meetings, raise any issue you wish, attend and vote at the Consultative AGM. Infulence policy in your area, influence any mandate the delegate to NAFAC meetings/AGM carries, or become that delegate yourself.

 

Individual membership of the SAA is £10. Any member can attend Committee meetings and AGMs and if they show sufficient interest - become an Officer of the SAA. I.M.'s could also become a Representative of the SAA onto outside bodies such as NFA, NAA, ACA, etc. If you wished to become a player in the major league Lee, the opportunity is there, but only through the SAA.

 

During my time as a senior officer of the NASA, I had many critics - most of these were invited to Committee meetings and many of these became very valuable Officers. The ones with nothing tangible to offer only came once and were not heard of much after.

 

It is too easy to criticise the efforts of others from the safety of a keyboard. Many such critics are significantly silent when face to face with reality. I certainly would not wish to silence honest criticism, particularly if it is positive, indeed, when I was in Office, I welcomed it.

 

I do not think the present national groups like SAA, NFA and NAFAC will fade away. They may change, evolve as different officers with different strengths and enthusiasms get involved.

 

However, as I have stated before, I would like to see one national body for anglers run by professional management qualified officers. All we need is an income of several million pounds per year!

 

Such a national body will not have direct access for individual anglers at meetings, except from membership of regional councils or committees. I do not feel any other system would work.

 

The National Anglers Council tried individual membership, who could attend AGMs, but the result was too many individuals giving their opinion on personal issues and thus wasting time for those representatives of larger organisations with far more important issues, who could probably have solved any issue of any individual membership if they so wish.

 

You pay your money - you have a choice - SAA, NFA, NAFAC, local consultative, local angling club affiliated to NFA, NAFAC or consultative.

 

If you do not wish to pay any money to join a politically active organisation - you will get the representation you deserve.

 

If you do not belong to any of these then I'm afraid hardly any of these will take any of your views/opinions seriously as you will not be putting financial backing into their administration. You always have the option of course of putting your views on forums such as this, in the hope that someone from one of these organisations will listen and possibly take action.

 

In the three years I've been a member of this forum, I have only really noticed one politically active organisation in particular who takes interest in the views expressed here, and who's members often post relevant advice or information for the benefit of everyone, member or not. It does not require an IQ of above 50 to work out which one.

 

Fenboy - "My Arse"

 

Regards,

 

Brian

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Brian,

 

Good post from you as usual. As usual, some points from me.

 

I totally acknowledge your political qualifications Brian. I also stress that few, can rival your experience in this department. I am also aware of your critics Brian. Both from your time in NASA and some from more recent times. I too now share the same or similar critics myself but that’s life in angling politics. (Or any political arena I should think) Once you stick your head above the parapet wall to either question or criticise how things are done, you instantly become a branded trouble maker. I made the cardinal sin of being a critic from the INSIDE not the outside like most!! You will know yourself Brian from your own experiences that such criticism can carry a heavy price. But hey!! Sticks and stones.

 

From memory when I attended SACG/SAA meetings, Tim Marks was delegated to represent SAA at NFA meetings. Again from memory, Tim expressed the point on more than one occasion that anyone from SAA was more than welcome to attend these meetings along side him but I recall SAA representation at NFA meetings was restricted to two individuals. I can't recall who attended ACA meetings on behalf of SAA. Did they actually attend any? As for NAA meetings, I never got invited to attend and I think it was common policy for executive officers to attend these. Also, NAFAC has gone on record to say that these NAA meetings are poorly attended anyway.

 

On the issue of a professionally run national body you state;

 

"However, as I have stated before, I would like to see one national body for anglers run by professional management qualified officers. All we need is an income of several million pounds per year!"

 

I think we need to start talking about the idea first Brian. I have yet to read in minutes from any NAA meeting, SAA meeting, NAFAC meeting, S&T meeting, or Sea Anglers meeting, where this issue has even been discussed seriously. Yet alone read any detailed blueprint for such an idea. The plain truth is that everyone concerned in angling politics isn't interested enough to make waves internally. Most prefer to carry on with present structures. My obvious question to that is; be this system working? Are we not becoming more fragmented than ever before?

 

The Carp boys have left SAA. Why exactly did this situation arise? No one seems to want to talk about this extremely important exodus.

 

Why, if SAA are such a good organisation for specialist angling, have not all specialist groups joined? I wonder if most actually know how many groups remain outside SAA?

 

Given the large amount of specialist anglers there are out there in fishing land, how many individual angling memberships do the SAA boast?

 

Why exactly does the Midlands region of NFA want to leave NAA? To my mind, if the Midlands boys in NFA cast doubts as to NFA participation in NAA then they are as good as out surely?

 

Of course Brian I could go on and on. To my mind too many don’t question or look for a better way. Most are content to carry on regardless. Frankly Brian, I've read all the propaganda before. "You can only change things from the inside" is a good un. So what exactly "HAS" changed since I first started to criticise SAA or NAA? From where I stand things "have" changed. They have infact got a whole lot worse!! The biggest participant group in SAA have left and the largest organisation in NAA is talking about jumping ship. These and many more instances I could reveal make for a gloomy outlook. But there's worse. Much worse.

 

You have attended many angling meetings Brian yes? So have I. I appreciate that whilst living in France yourself, you were unable to attend many UK meetings due to obvious geography logistics. Even so, you will be extremely aware that there are very few below 30 years of age that attend these types of meetings. We are on the brink of loosing the new blood in these political areas. It’s also a sad fact that many youngsters are being put off from entering these arenas for obvious reasons.

 

So then Brian, more questions.

 

With angling politics beginning to crumble in places upon high, where will all the enthusiastic young bloods come from to take over when the last of the angling MP's fall to sleep on the back benches?

 

Aside from the problems angling politics is clearly in, are we to expect that angling political life will become extinct anyway due to gross lack of interest??

 

Lack of effective PR, as I highlighted to a totally deaf audience a couple of years ago, has dire consequences further up the line. The volunteer line simply disappears without it!! Another good reason to adopt the idea for self funding or to start seriously talking about the idea at least yes?.

 

And unbelievably, whilst bombs fall and buildings crumble, I read familiar calls like; "Join the SAA and save angling” Sorry Brian. It’s NOT going to happen. Neither individuals nor specialist groups will rush in to join SAA. That particular PR campaign should have been embarked upon several years ago. Far too late now methinks. In any case, specialist angling is not the be all and end all. I'm far more interested in angling as one entity not its factions.

 

So whilst we retain the present system of large tribes, small tribes in angling instead of big angling only, every single attempt towards unity in angling politics will fail. It’s totally failed to date has it not?

 

I rest my case.

 

For now.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Brian Crawford]

Lee, you are such a pessimist.

 

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

 

You gotta have faith, you gotta have faith.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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 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?

 

Can specialist anglers afford to lose the SAA?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I am not too bothered about there being a shortage of young political worriors. 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.

 

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.

 

Regarding my ideal national organisation - I live in a fantisy 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.

 

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

 

Regards,

 

Brian

[kleinboet]

Let me see if I can put a different slant on the problem. The EA is there to 'protect' the environment, and whatever is said against it, the decisions it makes are usually to the benefit of the EA. Every so often it makes a decision which so outrages a large number of people, it will RECONSIDER (not just reverse the decision).

That's the kind of organisation anglers need and I am afraid that it MUST make decisions for the WHOLE of anglers, not just Coarse anglers, Carpers, sea anglers etc.

AT a risk of being contraversial, I for one would not be averse to legislation being approved to make membership of such an organisation compulsory. (no membership - no fishing).

[RobStubbs]

Brian,

Why do so many people feel the need to slag off other groups of anglers when talking about angling unity ???

 

You may have guessed I'm primarily a carp angler but I'm not unique in that respect amongst the SAA comittee. And what, in a constructive manner, does the alienation of carp anglers do to further the cause of angling unity ?

 

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

 

Regards,

 

Rob.

 

Brian Crawford:

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 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.

['eelfisher']

 

Dear Rob

 

I thought Brian's post was awesome.....and quite the best I have seen on this topic thread so far......

 

Tell you what I think.....you and the other SAA committee men should be chomping at the bit for Brian to come back on board and re-join the committee...he is one person who could do more for your/our cause than most anyone else.

 

Brian is back from 'frog land' and talking like the Brian of old.....I for one welcome his 'sight' of the problem we face and he has almost gotten me to part with my £10.00 in the light of his words....now if he got back involved....my £10.00 would be winging it's way to your membership secretary.

 

£10.00....that's interesting.....I remember sitting at an SAA meeting which was focused on increasing membership and suggested that the subs needed to be halved (£10.00) for SAA to have a fighting chance of getting more members.....it was also one of many suggestions put forward by a few in attendance to see some increase in the volume of membership at that time......others in the room decided that this cut price fee was not the way forward.....glad to see that the issue has now been considered a viable route to track.

 

Question......has it managed to stop the exodus and start the rivival?....I hope so. (but it might have been just a tad too late in reality.)

 

Re: The Carp Society leaving SAA......as a carp angler Rob, what do you think to them (the CS) leaving the SAA.....good, bad or not significant?

 

Yours With Respect......

Steve.

[Brian Crawford]

RobStubbs:

Brian,

    Why do so many people feel the need to slag off other groups of anglers when talking about angling unity ???

 

You may have guessed I'm primarily a carp angler but I'm not unique in that respect amongst the SAA comittee.  And what, in a constructive manner, does the alienation of carp anglers do to further the cause of angling unity ?

 

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

 

Regards,

 

Rob.

 

 

RobStubbs:

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 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.

Rob, thank you for your comments. I was not actually aware of carp anglers on the SAA Committee. You must forgive my ignorence - too much French beer and sun. In my 25 years on the SACG/NASA Committee, we were never that lucky. Well done mate. You are unique. I'll buy you a pint or whatever if we ever meet.

 

My comments were not intended to "slag" off carp anglers, but to give my honest personal opinion based on over 30 years at the sharp end of angling politics. I was trying to answer particular issues raised by Lee. It is not me who has caused dis-unity, but the carp groups themselves. All I've commented on is that from their past track records, It has not surprised me.

 

Can you tell me what good it does for the Carp Society or British Carp Study Group to "opt" out of angling politics - or do they have their own, as yet unknown agenda? Can they honestly feel proud to leave all the hard work, effort, input, financing, etc., to all the other specialist species groups and several hundred caring individuals via their membership of the SAA, which you will well know, is the only active political specialist organisation?

 

Can you as a carp angler feel proud that your parent species groups are not interested in the future, politically, of your sport?

 

I have had many of the "top" names in carping as friends over the years, anglers who have impressive lists of big carp, but they would be among the first to agree with my opinion.

 

As an example, it was the efforts of senior members of the CS and others that caused the split in specialist angling, whereby the SACG was formed as a new political body, taking that responsibility away from NASA. The CS even provided the finances to set up the SACG but would not provide any bodies to carry out the administration. Hence I became Secretary of both NASA and the SACG(with Nev. Fickling as Treasurer) - a situation we were not pleased with. Now the NASA and SACG have amalgamated to form the SAA, we have gone full circle - and the CS has left the political scene again. What message is that giving out?

 

If you or anyone can produce hard evidence to prove my criticism unfounded Rob, I would be very willing to apologise - but do not hold your breath.

 

Steve, thanks for your comments. They are appreciated. Good question to end with.

 

Do not get your £10 ready just yet. You might like to see me back active on the SAA Committee, but I'm not sure about one or two others.

 

However, now I'm back in the UK, I have been very, very busy and my keyboard has been smoking!

 

Just for the record, I've joined the Furness and South Cumbria Fisheries Consultative Committee as Secretary of the European Eel Anglers Association.

 

Regards to you both,

 

Brian

[RobStubbs]

Brian,

A dissapointing response from you. There are good and bad eggs in all forms of angling but what good does it do to criticise them in the spirit of attempting to unite angling ?

 

Thats a very simple question deserving of a simple answer.

 

I'm trying to be constructive, it would be refreshing if more people felt that way.

 

As for the carp society - I'm not on their comittee so I won't comment. Lets just say that they have their AGM on 28th March and I think it will be fairly well attended.

 

Rob.