A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.

[miasma]

Even with the benefit of sophisticated electronic

retreval I have found it impossible to track down

the actual contents of the memorandum...perhaps

someone could point me in the right direction..

Press release mentions CA/NAA "accord"..that

sounds like mutual agreement to me....

Be Lucky!....miasma..

[miasma]

Come on Leon and Phil....you both have the inside

track on the Memo's contents....and endorse each

others comments.I have read the Press Release but

what does the Memo say?

Be Lucky!...miasma..

[Peter Waller]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leon Roskilly:

 

But reporting 'sensible decision taken, not much impact, successful damage limitation exercise, congratulations to everyone involved' doesn't have the same impact as 'NAA and CA join forces!' Nor does it generate heat and debate for the letter pages; always useful for getting circulation figures up.

 

Tight Lines - leon[/QB]

---

I'm sorry to disagree with you Leon but I sincerely believe that, for once, you are wrong.

[Alan Pearce]

Those anglers who really care about their sport have contact with their relevant Angling Governing Body or other representitive body on the NAA. The others, I'm afraid to say, obviously don't care enough to get even a tiny bit involved. Prefering instead to bleat on and on and using mediums such as this forum.

 

This of course will have no effect on decisions being made about the sport of angling. However, if the same people took a more pro-active role via their NAA reps, then they could help shape the future of angling, rather than hindering the work of others who care unselfishly.

 

Alan.

[mpbdsnu]

Alan Pearce:

Those anglers who really care about their sport have contact with their relevant Angling Governing Body or other representitive body on the NAA. The others, I'm afraid to say, obviously don't care enough to get even a tiny bit involved. Prefering instead to bleat on and on and using mediums such as this forum.

 

This of course will have no effect on decisions being made about the sport of angling. However, if the same people took a more pro-active role via their NAA reps, then they could help shape the future of angling, rather than hindering the work of others who care unselfishly.

 

Alan.

Sorry Alan, but you are totally wrong! If it were'nt for this media I would know nothing of the NAA. Even now, I do NOT know who my NAA rep is? Perhaps you or someone else could enlighten me?

 

How can you imply that only those who care about angling have any contact with their representative body? What absolute nonsense!

 

Such talk will create divisions, not unite all branches of the sport as we desire.

[Leon Roskilly]

miasma:

Come on Leon and Phil....you both have the inside

track on the Memo's contents....and endorse each

others comments.I have read the Press Release but

what does the Memo say?

Be Lucky!...miasma..

Sorry Miasma, as I stated in my first post on this thread (see above):

 

'I must adnmit that I haven't had sight of the memorandum of understanding signed on behalf of all anglers by our governing body.

 

Anyone care to post it here for all to see?'

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Leon Roskilly]

Many anglers would like to have no truck with the CA at all.

 

But then many other anglers feel passionately that anglers should stand alongside their brethren who follow other country 'sports'.

 

The divide was there long before the memorandum was agreed, just look at the debates on this issue on any of the fishing forums. Sea and Game, as well as coarse.

 

The CA is determined to speak upon all countryside issues, and like it or not, it is supported by many anglers.

 

Angling is regarded by many as a country pursuit, and the CA felt it within their remit to talk about angling in the same breathe as it defends other pursuits. And remember we are talking game and sea, where the catches are killed and eaten, as well as coarse.

 

So, should the NAA have kept totally out of it, and allowed the CA to comment on angling matters how they think fit, and with a free rein, putting the spin on our sport which best suits their purpose?

 

Or should the NAA have stayed away from the CA, but took them on publicly whenever what they were saying seemed detrimental to our sport, and the way we choose to portray ourselves? What a battle that could be!! What passions would be stirred on either side of the angling divide!! How the Antis would have loved that!!

 

Or, by careful negotiation, have the CAA recognise that the governing bodies of our sport, through the NAA, is the correct voice which should speak on behalf of angling?

 

Pretty easy to knock what has been achieved.

 

But what course of action would you have followed, and if different to that pursued by the NAA, how would that have been better?

 

Come, let's have your constructive ideas as to how the situation could have been handled differently, and the great dangers better avoided?

 

No one I've talked to likes having to react to a situation that is not of angling's making, in what seems to be the best way possible, but angling's politicians have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would have liked it to be.

 

IMO opinion, weighing up all the factors, they have done a good job, or at least made the best of what could have been a very bad job indeed.

 

For that they should be congratulated.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Peter Waller]

Alan Pearce:

Those anglers who really care about their sport have contact with their relevant Angling Governing Body or other representitive body on the NAA. The others, I'm afraid to say, obviously don't care enough to get even a tiny bit involved. Prefering instead to bleat on and on and using mediums such as this forum.

 

This of course will have no effect on decisions being made about the sport of angling. However, if the same people took a more pro-active role via their NAA reps, then they could help shape the future of angling, rather than hindering the work of others who care unselfishly.

 

Alan.

Alan, I care passionately for my sport, thats why I am bleating. As things are going I can only see the sport becoming more, rather than less united as both sides become more entrenched. I'm not prepared stand by & see angling dragged down by the fox hunting protection lobby. I don't personally see my comments as hindering the work of others, more an effort to steer them away from what I see, as do others, as a damaging mistake in the CA involvement.

 

I started this particular thread and it is abundantly clear that my fears are widely held. Forums such as these are valuable barometers of public opinion. Our Political friends ammongst the readership, rather than accuse us of pointless bleating, would do well to listen to the sizable portion, probably a clear majority, that do NOT support the CA's interference in our sport.

 

mpbdsnu has expressed my opinion exactly. Having read his opinion, and that of others, I shall be raising this matter, with some urgency, at the forthcoming ACANS committee meeting, which is my route, via the SAA, to the NAA. So yes, this forum can have an effect on the future of angling. Had my voice been one in a wilderness then I would have let the matter drop. But clearly I am not alone in my condemnation of the NAA / CA 'agreement.

 

Having read Leons recent & very creditable reply I will add a tad to the above. In my view Angling is big enough to be able to inform the public of our independance, of our case, and that if the CA talks about coarse fishing, that it has no mandate whatsoever to talk on our behalf. I would argue, with some conviction, that the CA has no intention, whatsoever, of talking on behalf of anglers, it just wants our numbers to add weight to their very fragile case re the fox hunting issue. We are being used, we are being linked to an issue that is clearly of no concern to angling. We should stand up and say so. That the NAA has added, without asking, my number to a body that supports something that I find repugnant, e.g. fox hunting, is totally indefensible. At best the NAA should have remained completely neutral, told the CA so, and told the CA that it, the CA, has no mandate whatsoever to talk on our behalf. We are big enough to fight our own battles without being drawn in to one that most of us have no wish to be involved with. If the NAA can not maintain its neutrality over an issue that so clearly devides angling, then perhaps we should be looking for a body to represent us that can.

 

[ 01 April 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[miasma]

Sorry Leon...Old age blindness I guess!...however

if it was signed on my behalf it would at least

be nice to read what it said.....

I note that Charles Jardine is acting as CA's

Director of Angling,so who exactly is he

speaking for?

Be Lucky!...miasma..

[Peter Waller]

miasma:

Sorry Leon...Old age blindness I guess!...however

if it was signed on my behalf it would at least

be nice to read what it said.....

I note that Charles Jardine is acting as CA's

Director of Angling,so who exactly is he

speaking for?

Be Lucky!...miasma..

Charles is primarily a game fisheman, and an artist, of quite some repute & ability. I consider Charles to be a very able raconteur, a man who appears to consider himself as a rather colourful charecter. But what mandate, from us coarse fishemen, does he actually have? Charles is a very able, a very polished and persuasive speaker. But, as miasma very reasonably asks, just who is he actually speaking on behalf of?