Carp Society Reinstate Support For SAA

[malevans]

I don't think a generalisation that angling is a fieldsport holds up. Certainly a majority, or at least a significant minority, of game anglers would agree they practise a field sport, because they either are or would like to be seen as part of that community. But match anglers and carp anglers..........

 

I totally agree with Peter that the CA wants angling for its headline numbers, its as simple as that. Lets wind the clock back a decade or so...would the members of what is now the CA have considered the brummy factory workers practising COARSE fishing on canals members of their "club" or community.

 

Alignment with the CA is a big call for someone...

they may go down in history....I hope its for the reasons they anticipate, particularly as I cannot see what mandate they have to do this or who gave it to them. I note its Charles Jardine rather than say Kevin ******** or Bob Nudd who represents angling in the CA......did I miss the vote on that one ?(serious question.)

 

In terms of self funding etc etc. Can we have a clear statement on what we are fighting for (inc the small print) also a definition of how the funding will be utilised and how its effectiveness will be measured (lets have some milestones), and the sacking procedure for lack of said effectiveness. Otherwise I will hang onto my cash thanks and spend it on angling whilst I still can.

 

Cheers

[dogfish]

Malcolm

A lot depends on what you classify as a 'game' angler. I am a game angler in that I fish for game fish but I also coarse fish.Many trout anglers are also coarse anglers and many salmon anglers ditto. Most are pretty apathetic and are unaware that they are being 'represented'.

The organistions that are allied to the CA are not representative of Game anglers except through a limited number of organisations that they may not even be aware that they are part of.

Most simply pay their fees or join their clubs and do not get involved in the politics.If their club or organisarion pays a percentage of their fees to the CA most will not be aware.

The CA do not represent me and I am sure I am not alone.

 

DF

[Peter Waller]

Dog Fish, you say that the CA does not represent you. I also like to think that it does not represent me. I would also like to think that the general public, and various government departments will also realise that the CA does not represent me, nor you. I have no wish to be associated with, nor to be seen to be associated with the CA. I really think that the time is fast approaching for us run-of-the-mill anglers to stand and be counted.

 

Unfortunately the CS is a member of the CA, and threfore the CA is now well represented within the SAA. Just maybe not such a good day for angling .

 

[ 03. May 2004, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[malevans]

Dogfish, I do not think the whole gamefishing community is as apathetic as you suggest. I am a member of the S&TA, although this is under review due to the CA alignment. I believe that for the majority of regular/frequent salmon anglers, of which I am one, we know full well where we are. S&TA has a full page each month in Trout and Salmon, for non members who do not receive the bulletins. Where I agree in regard to game angling is the stillwater put and take anglers and also those who specialise in Rutland and similar venues. I saw a circular regarding the S&TA failing in extracting membership and support and cash from this sector and the fact they needed it and should get it. They are failing singularly in my view.....I guess a lack of value proposition could be key here. S&TA membership is problematic for me....they have done great stuff with junior training sessions and also the Patron list is so distinguished (inc MPs and Upper house members) that they have been able to argue and influence government around fish farming and land reform and netting, to the benefit of salmon and seatrout. However I feel that in terms of representation I am becoming disenfranchised from their agenda, hence the need for the review. Particularly as I salmon fish in Scotland.

 

The CA certainly does not represent me, by any stretch of the imagination, in regard to my regular pike and carp fishing or the odd time each year the float rod or whip comes out.

 

If any one doubts the power of association in terms of brand perception (and in this context angling is a brand and so is the CA) then ask how much a certain soft drinks company paid a certain pop star for adverts where he refused to be pictured with the product.

[malevans]

PS if angling makes the jump to being properly organised and self funded (with the provisions I offered up to some degree) then remember the key lesson the IT sector has learn't over the last 30 years. The best Techys are not normally the best managers, usually they are the worst !

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

What a lovely day yesterday. I spent the whole day in the garden and got loads done. Looks a treat now. Whats that got to do with this thread? Now't. Just thought I'd mention it.

 

Dear Steve,

 

Point taken after the event. I think. I'll wait to see if you can debate the issues next time instead of harrying me personally OK. Having said that, I quite enjoy the scrap as you well know so what the hell.

 

Dear Peter,

 

There is much in what you say. Like I said before, to a point. So shall we look at your view some more?

 

Anglers Conservation Network? Can't fault it, won't fault it. Prepared to talk about it. Seriously.

 

River Anglers Conservation Network? Lord knows having one won't go amiss that’s for sure! However I see draw backs from any possible conception. To begin with, it would experience the same problems we did with RSSG in the fact that their "ARE" many out there that actually "DONT" want such a thing because it treads on toes and what they see as their turf!!

Also, Leons SACN is less restrictive in how it works as opposed to how a RACN scenario might work. Leon can go as I said right to the heart of the matter very often via direct channels. Coarse or game angling is more complex in as much as there are many avenues one has to walk down. However, nothing is insurmountable and there are ways around this.

 

Sorry all, but to explain I have to go back to the RSSG days when I was its secretary. Please bear with me.

 

When the RSSG was born I made massive mistakes on its political front. Firstly, I should have formed a "four year plan" of action for the RSSG on its conservation aims and objectives. Secondly, any such "plan" should have involved working closely with NAFAC and "not" the SAA. No disrespect to the SAA here but I feel it’s fair to say that the NAFAC is a better vehicle to work within on river issues than the SAA. Also being fairer, Tim Marks DID mute the idea of NAFAC perhaps being a better option for RSSG than the SAA one. So RSSG joined both and the rest is dismal history. BUT!! Past mistakes "DO" serve to allow hindsight to light the way next time?

 

River issues are effectively addressed via local means via consultatives both local and regional. That’s where the tie up with NAFAC becomes all important and is a way forward that "COULD" work on the conservational front. Plus, river angling now has many allies in the conservation field to balster support.

 

But moving on slightly Peter lets look towards a bigger picture? Your idea for a Anglers Conservation Network. Although my fishing passions are river based, I feel that rivers alone remains too restrictive in the absolute fact that we should be walking towards a far bigger conservation picture here? Such a conservation minded vehicle should be for "ALL" anglers to join should they wish and not be restricted to rivers?

 

Such a vehicle would need to be internet based similar to Leons if it were to run like his idea being free to join. BUT!! It should be remembered that without funds, it could not join organisations like NAFAC or indeed the SAA so would be ineffective in the long term. Even so, I like the general idea and is one that I feel should be discussed thoroughly. Perhaps via you starting a new thread Peter? Heaven above knows there are enough politico's and interested parties to give the topic a good airing here??

 

Before moving on though Peter I would like to give my honest opinion on your idea. Sorry if this ruffles yet more political feathers!!

 

Conservation within the present political set up appears to me to be a lame donkey. By that I mean we don't see much of it going on in real positive or practical terms. Lots of talking yes. Good intentions yes. But end results? Battles won conclusively? Smaller pictures shine the brightest, but the big picture seems to have lost its lustre and it’s an undeniable fact that outgoing information and PR within the NAA has been dreadful. Not enough money? That’s one reason absolutely. Not enough troops on the ground? That as well. So it’s fair to say that perhaps it’s high time for coarse/game angling to have its own ACN? A creation perhaps designed to "work with" as opposed to "against" present political set ups? Notice I say "work with" and not "within"? And if there are those critical of the "work with" not "within" stance then look no further than Leon's success. He has managed very well working with and not within with the SACN.

 

What I can say Peter is that such an idea will receive my 100% support and that’s WITHOUT knowing who might "head it up" OK. So let’s talk?

 

Dear Malcolm,

 

I feel that angling might get labelled with the term "Field sport" when it suits alternative agenda's. Living where I do right in the middle of 10 major sporting estates and 3 world famous fox hunts, I have yet to hear friends and neighbours living around me look upon angling as a "Field sport". Infact they would laugh at the label as I'm sure most of these rural folk look upon us as,well, "idiots that will sit out in the rain watching a float". I suspect the Field sports label comes from those same PR people inside CA eager to align angling at least in named terms to themselves?

 

Regarding your opinion that game anglers might regard their activity as a field sport? There are a lot of game anglers in and around Grantham and I know a great many from within this fishing community personally. Are they CA members? I'd say 75% of the ones I know are members of CA. Proud of it to, but I've yet to hear any of them label themselves with "Field sporter" but all regard themselves as "anglers".

 

Can't say Malcolm if Charlie Jardine got "voted" into his CA position or not. But the same can be said for a vast array of officers right throughout all branches of angling that have never stood for election at all. Democracy is often the cart left behind with its wheels missing. Having been nicked for dictators chariots most of the time.

 

You said Malcolm;

 

“In terms of self funding etc etc. Can we have a clear statement on what we are fighting for (inc the small print) also a definition of how the funding will be utilised and how its effectiveness will be measured (lets have some milestones), and the sacking procedure for lack of said effectiveness. Otherwise I will hang onto my cash thanks and spend it on angling whilst I still can."

 

Good points. All of which can relate back directly to the NAA. At least with individual membership such matters you describe can be drawn up within a constitution. Then, all milestones and sacking procedures could be laid out clearly in black and white to read BEFORE prospective members/supporters parted with their cash. All this remains within the simple boundaries of democracy because it works extremely effectively when practised in full. In the meantime Malcolm, spend your cash on going fishing because you can't spend it on NAA membership anyway!! (smiley face)

 

Dear Dogfish,

 

You said;

 

"Many trout anglers are also coarse anglers and many salmon anglers ditto."

 

Personally speaking, almost all of the serious trout and salmon anglers I know fish for game species only. Can't imagine Julian Hubbord sat fishing for bream.

 

Then you said;

 

"The organisations that are allied to the CA are not representative of Game anglers except through a limited number of organisations that they may not even be aware that they are part of."

 

??? Organisations that are allied to CA are exactly that. Allied to the CA. These actually "DO" include game anglers both within their organisations and as individual members. How many individual game angling members does the CA have Dogfish? How many does the NAA have?

 

I know literally hundreds of game anglers and a fair few individuals that head up game angling groups,clubs,associations etc. Those groups to my knowledge that ARE in CA, have memberships that are completely informed as to who their club is aligned to. Indeed, its a bone of contention for some members at their AGM's banging on about subs going up to cover CA affiliation!!

 

The CA does not represent me?? Me neither.

 

When I was RSSG secretary I wrote to the CA asking for more details on membership etc for the group. Not to really join you understand, but to find out how they operated and how responsive they were towards coarse angling.

 

They did not even have the manners to reply. So I complained to some local movers and shakers within the CA that I know personally. They "said", they couldn't believe how I'd been shoddily treated. (Three of the people I spoke to were titled gentry) All said that they would complain and to my absolute knowledge all did.

 

I still received no reply.

 

Was that the MOU working? Hardly.

 

In conclusion my opinion based upon personal experience is that CA don't/didn’t appear to be interested in coarse angling unless it’s within an agenda that I'm not aware of.

 

UK angling is more than big enough to look after itself and doesn't need the CA or anyone else nicking the wheels off its cart. But it’s high time that we moved towards self funding via open to all membership.

 

We're out the trees. We're coming

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

If I were an ardant fluff chucker, and as much as I applaud the S&TA and the work that it does, I would not wish to join whilst it is allied to the CA.

 

The same would be the case with the CS, in the unlikely event that I was a dedicated carp angler!

 

The point that I am trying to make is that I doubt whether an angler would join an association just because it is a CA member. But I am quite certain that more than a few anglers would resist membership of CA affiliated clubs.

 

That some clubs and associations are linked to the CA is devisive within angling, potentially more so than any other issue.

 

Take for example the Pike Anglers Club. A pretty good club, a strong and effective club with a pretty good membership. But should the PAC join the CA, what then? I have no doubt that the PAC would loose members. And what if those lost members were to form another pike club?

 

The CA, a very divisive issue.

[trent.barbeler]

PS. Malcolm said;

 

"PS if angling makes the jump to being properly organised and self funded (with the provisions I offered up to some degree) then remember the key lesson the IT sector has learn't over the last 30 years. The best Techys are not normally the best managers, usually they are the worst !"

 

Well hurrah for that!! Cos I'm the worlds worst IT Techy there is so bagsy thats my excuse??

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

Anglers Conservation Network.

Lee, with regard to the failure of the RSSG I personally learnt a great deal about the unwelcome 'underground movement' within angling politics. My biggest mistake was that I didn't stand up to the 'underground' factor, I assumed that their 'advice' was intended to be constructive and helpful, it wasn't. For that failing I apologise to other one-time RSSG members.

 

I don't for one minute think that I am the only one who is now a great deal wiser following the demise of the RSSG. The point being that should such as the ACN actually take off then it will have a head start over the RSSG, the RSSG was trustingly naive. Basically it would be a body that would be starting from scratch, a body that would be independant of the dogma and the political control of angling's present political police.

 

Perhaps initial committee membership would be by invitation, totally undemocratic! In other words choose the people for the job in hand, and avoid those whose input would be less than helpful. Membership must be open to all, although devisive infiltration, as happened with the RSSG, would have to be discouraged. The ONLY agenda would be 'angling'.

 

[ 03. May 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter,

 

I take on board your words but like I suggested, why not start up a new thread where such a scenario could be talked about? In the least such a topic would act as a temperature gauge?

 

If its internet based along similar lines to Leons SACN then there is no subs, no need for a constitution, no need for a committee. Like Leons idea, perhaps an executive committee and a drafted list of aims and objectives dealing with achievable conservation issues? Like I suggested, a four year plan? Perhaps provision to react quickly to conservation issues as and when they arise also? Perhaps a "reactionary committee also?"

 

But if ACN starts life as a "organisation" with paid up members then you have little choice in setting up a committee system, constitution with listed aims and objectives.

 

Then again, thats the point of me suggesting a new thread on the subject so many opinions and suggestions can come forth first. Like BT used to say; "Its good to talk".

 

Regarding RSSG, thats gone down river and is out at sea now. But as the sun sets and the RSSG bottle with is message inside travels to lord knows where, lets use its experience as a yardstick to cut new cloth. Not for a shroud, but a suit of fine cloths for all to wear.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.