IFCAs are a'coming

[barry luxton]

Well for what its worth I think anglers will have to be involved in the new structures because if they don't we'll be stuffed

 

Everyone will have to contribute in some way big or small even if its just a case of writing a letter or dropping an e mail to the committee asking for the views of anglers to be considered or for angling to be included as a matter of course, when policy or planning for the future by-laws that they will invarably be wanting to introduce

 

If anglers don't get involved at the very outset there is a real possibility that anglers views will be marginalised or even ignorned

 

I had been thinking of getting involved in the new set up but have been reminded of a promise I made some years back not to other outside interests before the family and earning a wage otherwise I think my name would have been in the hat for the North eastern region

 

My only concern is that should someone put forward their name that they might not realise just how much of a committment they would be letting themselves in for and how the day time meeting slots can seriously play havock with your wages when they have to give up a days pay for free

 

 

Thats very commendable Brian, however, have a look at the recruitment page and as i have stated, anglers are very much last on the list. It's worrying how all and sundry are going to be top of the pecking order, and they are the ones who spend the very least amount of time afloat or even looking at the sea.

[Brian Carragher]

I have read the criteria for selection process Barry and thats why I said if things had been different I would have been interested in throwing my hat in the ring as I believe I meet the criteria on a number of counts

 

As to where on the list anglers appear on the criteria list, that does not worry me in the slightest whether they are first in the list or last matters not a jot, the fact that applications from anglers are to welcomed is all that counts

 

To try and justify non participation just because anglers are mentioned at the bottom of a pretty comprehensive list seems pretty petty to me and thats not a personal dig, its just that I consider it so small a reason not to be involved that it carries no merit in its argument at all

 

We should as a group be involved and my wish would be that organised groups are discouraged from joining and that individual anglers with a wide breadth of experience would be better to represent anglers as a whole rather that a larger organised group who that individual would have to be held responsible to first, rather than representing ordinary anglers first and foremost

 

This is the start of something new and if anglers don't get involved then angling as a whole will be stuffed right from the outset

[excel]

I have read the criteria for selection process Barry and thats why I said if things had been different I would have been interested in throwing my hat in the ring as I believe I meet the criteria on a number of counts

 

As to where on the list anglers appear on the criteria list, that does not worry me in the slightest whether they are first in the list or last matters not a jot, the fact that applications from anglers are to welcomed is all that counts

 

To try and justify non participation just because anglers are mentioned at the bottom of a pretty comprehensive list seems pretty petty to me and thats not a personal dig, its just that I consider it so small a reason not to be involved that it carries no merit in its argument at all

 

We should as a group be involved and my wish would be that organised groups are discouraged from joining and that individual anglers with a wide breadth of experience would be better to represent anglers as a whole rather that a larger organised group who that individual would have to be held responsible to first, rather than representing ordinary anglers first and foremost

 

This is the start of something new and if anglers don't get involved then angling as a whole will be stuffed right from the outset

 

 

An alternative view might be that it`s all futile anyway as the same old people that have done angling such a dis-service in the past are already queueing up for the jobs . . .

[glennk]

It always concerns me when you get anglers on these panels. I think Brian would be good as he understands fishing and he understands the area local to me, I would have slight concerns over his commercial fishing background though and would wonder if he could be true to sea anglers 100%. But it couldnt be worse than the current situation where on of our area angling reps is a commercial potter and netsman.

 

The type of people that end up on these panels as angling reps also concerns me. Its usually the case that those who should be on there (The ones with the actual personal knowledge, local contacts, and experience of fishing in the area) are less than interested in giving up their time, Whilst the people who really should not be on there representing anglers (the ones with little knowledge, no contacts or experience of fishing in the area), are usually very keen to get themselves in there. Just look at the current situation and you fast realise that noone knows who any of these people are and they dont ever seem to go fishing.

[barry luxton]

Point i'm trying to press home is that the rsa are at the lower end of what is important to the government etc. Why are they changing the sfc, don't they work, no the reason is they want to be more 'stakeholders' involved and it definatly won't be to the benifit of the rsa that's for sure, ask the question again, why do they need to change in any event. When they put together the committees, at least five of them will be local government, no sea legs,, then there will be the greeny stakeholders, same again, more the merrier as far as i can see. Then there will be the trawling, netting,potting, longlining guys. How many rsa will be taken on? Therefore, how will this be to the betterment of the rsa.

[Guest challenge]

Point i'm trying to press home is that the rsa are at the lower end of what is important to the government etc. Why are they changing the sfc, don't they work, no the reason is they want to be more 'stakeholders' involved and it definatly won't be to the benifit of the rsa that's for sure, ask the question again, why do they need to change in any event. When they put together the committees, at least five of them will be local government, no sea legs,, then there will be the greeny stakeholders, same again, more the merrier as far as i can see. Then there will be the trawling, netting,potting, longlining guys. How many rsa will be taken on? Therefore, how will this be to the betterment of the rsa.

Understand what your saying Barry. But if RSA, s where better organised and be able to prove that they should have more of a say, then I am sure that they could justify much more representation on the new committees. At the moment angling wise you have the AT who at least can say that they have 14000 paid up members. I Know what you all think of the AT Barry but they are the ones who will be listened too.

If you want (or don’t want come to that) things to change then you have got to out your rods down for a minute or two and go and get your points across. Forums are all well and good, but the powers that be are going to listen to people who can prove they are representing people rather than people who say they represent people.

Regards.

[barry luxton]

Hiyer Challenge, how the devil are you.

 

This is what i keep asking, do they need to be better organised, do they need repping, do they need controlling, do they need a governing body. You never know one day, there may well be a decent org called the real sea anglers org, with a pair of busters to tell them, thanks but no thanks. Don't you think that the amount of dosh the rsa turn over anually, do they need the errrrrrr so called help of a trust who the rsa appear to have little trust of. Waste of time and 20 quid.

 

A non political, promotes it's members as sustainable, eco friendly, fish friendly, worm digging sustainable, without the need for restriction, or over the shoulder management, devious back door political wheeler dealings. Or any need to be represented to the quangos who require the rsa to be policed just for the sake of it. I would be more than pleased if that was promoted

[Guest challenge]

Hiyer Challenge, how the devil are you.

 

This is what i keep asking, do they need to be better organised, do they need repping, do they need controlling, do they need a governing body. You never know one day, there may well be a decent org called the real sea anglers org, with a pair of busters to tell them, thanks but no thanks. Don't you think that the amount of dosh the rsa turn over anually, do they need the errrrrrr so called help of a trust who the rsa appear to have little trust of. Waste of time and 20 quid.

 

A non political, promotes it's members as sustainable, eco friendly, fish friendly, worm digging sustainable, without the need for restriction, or over the shoulder management, devious back door political wheeler dealings. Or any need to be represented to the quangos who require the rsa to be policed just for the sake of it. I would be more than pleased if that was promoted

Hi Barry, I am fine thanks.

Maybe I should of added at the end of my thread “anglers who don’t want representing” the powers that be aren’t going to listen to them, how can they? At the end of the day Barry regardless as to weather you think there should be change or not, it’s here. The government could say it’s here with the nations blessing because it has been a part of there manifesto for the last two parliaments and the government have been voted in democratically on the strength of there manifesto at the ballot box.

If you don’t like what the AT are doing then anglers like yourself can only ether join the AT and try and make changes from within, or form your own organisations and try and get recognised. It could be to late already? Opportunity’s are there on IFCA, s if you believe that the AT is as wrong as you say it is then I know of 14000 members who are prepared to pay money to be represented. Better to die on your feet Barry than live on your knees.

Regards.

[barry luxton]

The government could say it’s here with the nations blessing because it has been a part of there manifesto for the last two parliaments and the government have been voted in democratically on the strength of there manifesto at the ballot box.

 

 

Noooooooooooo not more politics. O k then

 

Part of this governments manifesto was the referendum on europe, welshed on that one quick enough, worse they even gave the eu back, 7 bill of our rebate money anually. On top of what the uk already pay them. Whats all that about,

 

 

BTW, Tell me what the A T can do for me while i'm 30 mile off, on me feet

Edited February 26, 2010 by barry luxton

[Guest challenge]

Noooooooooooo not more politics. O k then

 

Part of this governments manifesto was the referendum on europe, welshed on that one quick enough, worse they even gave the eu back, 7 bill of our rebate money anually. On top of what the uk already pay them. Whats all that about,

 

 

BTW, Tell me what the A T can do for me while i'm 30 mile off, on me feet

So I am taken it from that answer that you have already given up? The marine and coastal access bill has had cross party support more or less from the start. I Know that there were quite a few amendments in the latter stages but that is only to be expected with such a large piece of new legislation.

So you can take the politics out of the conversation comrade as I didn’t mean to introduce it in the first place.

Hope you keep living for a lot of years yet, 30 miles off on your feet Barry or anywhere else come to that.

Regards.