NFA To Leave NAA?

[fenboy]

Medway Mullet Group? They're the Antichrist! I can't believe you even mention them when there's the option to join the Medway Mullet Society.

 

Membership to the latter is restricted to people living within a five-mile radius of my favourite swim. It seemed reasonable enough to me, but some upstart has just set up the Medway Mullet Study Group... which is open to anyone prepared to pay £400 a year to join.

 

Apparently, the latter are a bit unstable, though. They look likely to split up in the near future to form the Medway Mullet (Thick-Lipped) Study Group and the Medway Mulley (Thin-Lipped) Study Group.

 

Happily, the breakaway Medway Mullet Low Tide Only Society has foundered after half the membership (one angler) was found surrepticiously fishing at high water.

 

My own feeling is that the future of Medway mullet fishing lies in the formation of a new society. I would be grateful for your views on this, because I feel that we could both make a significant impact on mullet fishing in the tidal reaches of this river.

 

Don't you just DETEST Medway flounder and sea trout specialists, though?

[Leon Roskilly]

fenboy:

They look likely to split up in the near future to form the Medway Mullet (Thick-Lipped) Study Group and the Medway Mulley (Thin-Lipped) Study Group.

Oh! you've heard the rumours too Fenboy!

 

I had an idea that it would lead to this when Cranfield caught a thinlip from the Kentish Men's side of the river, whereas it's traditional for thick-lippers to lose their virginity on the Man of Kent side.

 

It's such a shame after all that work to avoid a split, convincing Poledark not to fish for them with a pole!

 

I suppose that the MMG Grayling trip in a couple of weeks time will only make matters worse, just when we were just getting over the problems caused by the Guiness versus lager debate (though I've noticed a growing tendency to go for diet Coke by some - you know who you are!)

 

 

Tight Lines - leon

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/medway

[Brian Crawford]

Lee, thanks for your considerable comments to my earlier post.

 

I will not reply in the depth that you have as most of your post was your personal opinion set against my personal opinion, and to continue would be pointless, except to thank you for being honest and frank.

 

Regretably, I was in France when the NASA and SACG negotiated their amalgamation, so missed any discussions that may have taken place.

 

However, the amalgamation has taken place. The Officers and membership has changed in several ways. We have to accept that problems will occur and there will be a period of re-establishment. This may take a few weeks, months or years, but I do not see the SAA folding as long is it has a few hard-core supporters. There is no minimum number required to ensure any organisation continues. The SAA is still the only specialist angling organisation that can positively represent specialist anglers and will continue to do so for as long as it wishes, in any way it can, with a large or small membership.

 

Anyone can join it and have a voice or they, like you can opt out. I get the idea Lee that you are not a fan of the SAA - I do not know why as I was not party to whatever caused you to form a negative opinion of it. (It is history anyway).

 

Regarding the CS, BCSG and the CAA (Carp Anglers Association), I am very sad they opt out of angling politics. Yes they have done a lot for the evolution of specialist carp angling, educating hundreds of young persons to catch carp, innovate lots of new carp tackle, bait and methods, but what have they done in the political specialist world outside carp angling, except the effort and finances put into SACG by the CS for a few years..

 

With their numbers, administration, finances, their regionalisation, publications - there is so very much they could have done in the political field.

 

The CS decided to leave the SAA. If I were a caring carp angler, I would be asking "Why?" This is not unity. The CS is going back 10 years or more. I am very disappointed in them.

 

I am not alienating the CS - they have done that themselves by opting out. If their Committee disagrees, they have my address, They can set my ignorence right by telling me where I am wrong in my opinion of the CS.

 

Remember, what I say on this Forum is my personal opinion, to which I believe I am entitled, even if I am proven wrong on some issues. I do not speak for the SAA. I do not attend their Committee meetings. I hold no Office within the SAA. However, I do believe in the SAA, just as I believed in the NASA and NASG before that. Nothing you or anyone else can persuade me otherwise. I believe it will continue for very many years to come, but only time will tell.

 

On the one rod issue, I think you misunderstood my point. Of course I am aware that there are very many anglers out there who only use one rod, even carp anglers do when stalking. However, there are also very many anglers, including carp anglers who use more than one rod at a time.

 

I do not think it fair for you to knock the SAA website after all the effort Elton put in to get it established. I feel it is an excellent source of all sorts of relevent information. I only wish we could have had this facility 20 or 30 years ago.

 

The SAA does have several hundred individual members and quite a few affiliated groups. Of course I cannot give exact numbers - that is down to the Membership Secretary. As for my comment that the SAA has had groups affiliated for over 35 years, of course I meant the NASG/NASA/SAA progression.

 

The NAFAC actually has more members and wider representation than the NFA. It is also quite well funded via the EA and member subscription.

 

The NFA has always struggled to attract members and adequate finance. Many of its own senior members have said so over the years. Yes it has a long history, but a history dominated by match anglers and match angling.

 

Even if the NFA were to leave the NAA, and even as a result, the NAA were to fold - it is not the end of the world. We will be no better or worse off than we were a few years ago. Eventually some other national organisation will come along to fill the gap - or not.

 

At the end of the day Lee, you & I are petty men who peer about to find ourselves honourable swims. The faults lie not with ourselves, for we are underlings. NFA and NAA, what is in a name, weigh them, they are as heavy, conjour with them, The NFA will start a spirit as soon as lose it.

 

(apologies to Shakespeare & Julius Ceaser, Act I Scene II - on the way to the Forum!! )

 

Regards,

 

Brian

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Brian,All,

 

Before making this probably my last reply on this thread, may I firstly say;

 

I have strong angling opinions on certain things. Strong opinion's on the SAA and NAA number amongst those.

 

However, Brian Crawford has educated me to the absolute possibility, that two men can meet on opposing sides labouring under equally as strong opposing opinions, plead their cases but still retain the highest respect for each other and their views. You are better man than I Brian and I salute you for that.

 

So Brian,

 

I thank you also for your views.

 

Amalgamation of SACG and NASA did indeed have its problems. The downside of which SAA lost some really 1st class or prospective movers and shakers. But as you point out, that was then and SAA further up that road, is now. I also take on board your point about any "settling down" period when amalgamations take place. My opinion over that aspect is that SAA has been formed long enough now for that to have happened. Added to which, most opposing voices to SAA from the time when it was first formed are all but muted now. I appear to be a lone wolf.

 

I take your point about the SAA continuing in any size it could or can. The reality is that it will probably have to adopt this direction now anyway if like you suggest it continues to operate. My concern is that with the CS gone from SAA ranks, others might follow and certainly others outside SAA will not be encouraged to join because of this exodus.

 

Knowing the individuals who head up the SAA in its executive, I'm certain they will not roll over or jump the political ship. I am also certain that these individuals will fight tooth and nail to save NAA if its formation becomes threatened. These are men passionate about their politics.

 

You are correct in your observation that I am not a fan of "some" of the individuals in the SAA leadership. Contrary to what might be popular belief, my distain IS NOT with the SAA as an organisation or ideology. First and foremost in my angling life, I am a specialist angler who is passionate about specialist angling as an entity. I am equally passionate about angling itself as a bigger entity. Maybe even more so. It was that I simply just could not remain silent anymore when I saw things going wrong or things didn't sit well with me concerning aspects of SAA internally.

 

I always knew from the outset of my political criticisms Brian, both internally to begin with, and then publicly when no one listened, that I would be the ultimate victim of my actions. The price I knew I would pay was I had to fall upon my sword. Mine, were the only ongoing criticisms coming out of the SAA concerning the SAA so it was obvious I would pay a heavy price. But; my hope was that change would come about because of my actions. Or at least others within SAA might start to ask the same questions I was asking.

 

As you rightly say though Brian, water under the bridge but like water in times of plenty, so much seems a waste.

 

I take your points about angling political involvement within the carp fraternity. For their size, it is reasonable for some to have expected more from such a specialist giant. In fairness, Tim Paisley via his publishing business did all he could to not only promote the SACG/SAA ideology, but to also take it within the realms of the CS. Tim himself is also someone who holds strong angling political views himself. The BCSG have always maintained a none political stance. In comparison, so have the BCC which became apparent in my time as their political rep at SACG/SAA. Sections of the BCC wanted no truck with angling politics whilst others realised its importance in a wider scheme of things. As such I had to walk a political tightrope in BCC and was eventually castigated because of it. So I know the political realities in some specialist groups.

 

Then again, if as you say carp anglers or the CS has opted out of angling politics, why on earth has it joined the CA? Surely the CA is about as political an organisation one could get!!?

 

The knife cut through the CS financial cord in SAA will eventually have very damaging results. I am in no doubt over that.

 

I agree absolutely about the massive PR and media machine the carp fraternity control in relation to what it "could" have achieved for angling politics. Will this machine roar forth from inside the CA now??

 

Buts lets not forget the media machine that dwarfs even the carp angling one. A media machine which is after all a commercial one, far bigger and wealthier than anything carp angling can come up with. What have they done for angling politics? I don’t believe its quite fair to single out the carp administration, publications etc. Political PR and the presentation of it to the angling majority should have always been a joint affair involving all angling.

 

The CS decided to leave SAA. My question to this is firstly "Why have they left"? Surely they have a good reason? What is that reason?

 

I won’t go into the rod issue Brian. It’s a contentious issue that nothing I say will appease all I'm sure. Personally, I couldn't give a fig either way.

 

I disagree about my criticism of the SAA website. Yes good on him, Elton did them proud in setting it up. But Elton was not responsible for either its content, upkeep or how the SAA used this extremely important tool for its own PR. I repeat. The SAA were, and they failed.

 

Going back a while, I flagged up the great importance of the SAA website in SAA meetings. I also flagged it up further via internal SAA communications. It was my opinion back then, (still now) that this media be used for a massive drive aimed at gaining SAA members. This arena was and is the cheapest way SAA could reach a massive audience out in angling internet land. I held/hold the opinion its website should have had its own team tasked solely for the PR purposes of the SAA. Any group can concentrate its efforts on its magazine, but only its members read it and they are already converted souls already!!

 

And that’s another thing.

 

At the inaugural SAA meeting, Alan Acarsa (spelling?) asked what angling content the new SAA magazine would carry? Answer? None!!! I, Steve Richardson, (from memory) and many more were flabbergasted. I campaigned after that for the SAA to contain lots of pure angling instead of pure politics. Fortunately the SAA saw the light in this regard but were not impressed at the beginning.

 

Slight correction in your quote copied below Brian;

 

"As for my comment that the SAA has had groups affiliated for over 35 years, of course I meant the NASG/NASA/SAA progression."

 

You forgot to mention/list the SACG.

 

Your other quote Brian;

 

"The NAFAC actually has more members and wider representation than the NFA. It is also quite well funded via the EA and member subscription."

 

Surely the above is Cherry Pie Brian? Depends on where you bite if you get a Cherry or not?

 

Individual members make up fishing clubs. Fishing clubs make up the NFA. Consequently when the NFA stands up on the podium and claims to represent a given number of anglers, those represented anglers DWARF anything NAFAC can offer. NAFAC members have wider representation where Brian? Consultative and Regional?

 

How many NFA officials are in NAFAC? How many more NFA officials sit on consultatives?

 

Then there's the question of these regional and local consultatives being top heavy with NONE angling interests. Just how representatively effective is angling presences on these consultatives?

 

As for funding? NFA funds dwarf NAFAC's. Last NAFAC AGM report I received stated it was setting up a membership drive as funding was a major problem.

 

If the NFA has always struggled to get adequate finance Brian, how did it pay for its new headquarters to be built? How many million was it? I seem to recall its building nearly sent the NFA bust and they only rent a part of it now?

 

Not bad for an organisation with no money.

 

As for NFA struggling for members? Not surprised. Its club membership system is too expensive and needs over hauling badly to bring it into this century. Its individual membership section needs a kick up the backside and be given an effective PR team behind it. Open the windows and doors; let some light in so new modern thinking can begin to flourish.

 

But hey Brian, that’s what my overall criticism is about the lot of them, too many living in the past sitting in grey meetings that bore meat flies to sleep.

 

Your other quote Brian;

 

"Even if the NFA were to leave the NAA, and even as a result, the NAA were to fold - it is not the end of the world. We will be no better or worse off than we were a few years ago. Eventually some other national organisation will come along to fill the gap - or not."

 

What the above will mean Brian for a lot of good men, is that their efforts have been a waste of time. And that makes me weep.

 

"At the end of the day Lee, you & I are petty men who peer about to find ourselves honourable swims. The faults lie not with ourselves, for we are underlings. NFA and NAA, what is in a name, weigh them, they are as heavy, conjure with them, The NFA will start a spirit as soon as lose it."

 

Apt. I could have stayed however and thumped the table. Kept Dr Geology awake and Birdy quiet. Shown an Irishman the downfalls of none democracies and the pleasures of drink. Convinced Lord Gainsborough we needed a rivers group.

 

I could have even worn similar trousers to an angler that fished for eels and we could have cart wheeled into the meeting room together. Because we two certainly have become a circus act now.

 

And in a time, at the depths of my despair, a very famous angler put an arm around my shoulder and said; "Fletch, don’t feel so down. We have all gone through this. It’s a symptom of caring. You are doing just fine".

 

That well known and much loved angler was absolutely and unreservedly, "WRONG"

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

['eelfisher']

Dear trentbarbeler / ALL

 

Quote....."Apt. I could have stayed however and thumped the table. Kept Dr Geology awake and Birdy quiet. Shown an Irishman the downfalls of none democracies and the pleasures of drink. Convinced Lord Gainsborough we needed a rivers group."

 

 

"I could have even worn similar trousers to an angler that fished for eels and we could have cart wheeled into the meeting room together. Because we two certainly have become a circus act now."

 

We did cartwheel into those meetings.....and spoke as honest men.....unfortunately, too many old stick in the mud fuddies to listen to the 10% we probably had right...or was it the 90% that we uttered that masked the 10% of good forward thinking we had to offer. (We should have used a trowel instead of a jack hammer though)

 

The trousers would probably be best left on my shy person......the only way I knew to get noticed.

 

Circus act.....us.....now.....don't think so.

 

Two years ago.....yes.

 

We initally went to those SACG/SAA meetings as seperate flying trapeze artists.

 

We joined together and tried to be jugglers.

 

We left as clowns......both in their eyes and to each other. (They say that clowns have the saddest stories.)

 

In hindsight.....one of us....me....should have become the lion tamer.

 

Anyway.....you keep singing...some of your songs have good lyrics to them.....try a different melody though.....and the man to get you there is Brian.

 

Me...I go fishing now. (Brian groomed me but sadly I didn't fulfil the potential he saw in me)

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

[fenboy]

Angling politics...

 

In the days when I was so obsessed by fishing that I put it before everything else in life, including family and career, I just happened to be a bit of a angry, aggressive young man. A bad combination, especially when you're also impatient and arrogant enough to think you are smart enough to change things pretty rapidly.

 

It didn't happen, of course. And I'm rather glad it didn't, because 20-odd years later I can honestly say that today my views have mellowed.

 

It's frustrating, nobody knows that better than me, but I can assure you from personal experience that you need a steady, transactional temperament in order to succeed in angling politics. It's a very long,hard battle to change anything within organisations and committees from within.

 

You need long-stay guys like Brian Crawford. Guys like Brian will eventually wear down the old tw@ts. Steady, intelligent, observant. The ultimate committee warrior.

 

If big fishing angling - today you call it specialist angling for some reason - is to gain the clout it deserves, vote Brian Crawford president of everything you can think of. I know he looks like a cross betgween Jim Royle and Rasputin, but that makes him all the more charismatic. He's the lad.

['eelfisher']

Dear Fenboy

 

I agree with you 100%.

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

[mark barrett]

i have been reading this thread with great interest as unbelieveably i am around 30 years old and interested in angling politics! i just find it a shame that there have been so few contributors to this topic, which is obviously the problem as a whole.

 

i must admit that my first thought on hearing that the NFA were leaving the NAA was so what? my way of thining was that the NFA were an irrelevance anyway, i have to say that from Lee's posts my view has slightly altered in that for the sake of unity it will be a problem that they leave. however Lee i think that you vastly overstate their role within angling. yes the NA have a large membership, mainly through angling clubs and associatins, but then these HAVE to be members of the NFA to fish in the national structure. my question to you would be Lee is how many of these clubs would still be members if it was not a prerequisite to fishing in the nationals? surely the poor individual membership backs this up? the NFA is seen by most as a match orientated organisation this is fact, it has always been as such in my eyes and it is not a organisation that i would consider joining. the NFA are going alluyt for a membership drive, well alas for them their pool of potential members is dwindling. match angling has dropped dramatically in numbes over the last twenty years. i speak from an area where we used to have the Great Ouse championship where hundreds of anglers used to fish. nowadays the local opens dont get 40 anglers, but do a trip along the Ous on a weekend in the winter and you will see at leat that amount Pike or Zander fishing.

 

the SAA is in my opinion a very worthwhile organisation. there have been things done in angling by them ,in whatever guise that have effected me so from a purely selfish point of view they get my vote and have got my money. however i was not aware that the CS had left the fold. does anyone know the reason why? as a formerly keen carp angler (untill i saw the light!) and an ex CS member i am appaled by this. the CS has benefited fromwork done by the SAA as much as other branches and yet now they have te multi rod rules they pull out. i know in the past that Tim Paisley when he was on the commitee was a big advocate of the SAA and used to pushthe organisation through Carpworld et al. what has changed? Just maybe i could offer this a a possibility. maybe the emergence of ECHO (English Carp heritage organisation) has taken the political funding money from the SAA and redirected it towards what they consider as more fitting to their branch of the sport? if so i think that this pretty much sums up Carp angling and the way that it has gone these days. it has become a very selfish branch of the sport. when you have one of the commitee members of the CS publicly stating that the CS should support a livebait ban, a very dangerous road to tread, then you have to worry aout them as a society. in carp angles opinions the biggest threat to their sport is the illegal stocking of foreign carp, not anti angling bodies or government restrictions. that is how insular they have become and livebaiting in the CS eyes is just another extension of such.

 

as far as membership of SAA etc goes then i do think that there is a problem that needs addressing. in the SAA case then £10 a year is a small price to pay,, but not enough is done to promote this fact, in fact i have yet to see an advert in the press stating the fact, in fact t SAA website still quotes the joining fee as £20! inmy opinion the SAA should be promoting membership through the other societies, such as the PAC, ZAC, tenchfishers etc i know that the PAC hold a lot of regional meetings every month, because i attend and speak at many of them. there is a huge potential extra members there. i held a ZAC meeting last week where there were 40 anglers present. if i had the means to sign members up on the night then i would have pushed the group because i do believe in their aims.

maybe a fullage ads in all the leading spezi/ carp/ pike mags would be the way forward stating what the SAA is al about and pushing how cheap the SAA is as an organisation?

 

as for the unity. i do not think that it is beyond reach, but then i am probably now, what fenboy was a few years back the angry young man! surely all that we need is a body that represents all anglers by giving them an equal voice on the commitee, with possibly a paid, independant chairman, maybe even a non angler. thereby any issue that ame up could be voted for at commitee level,with the majority carrying the day, or am i being too simplistic?