An Angling Society (what do you want)

[Scott]

What if someone like Richard Branson decided to get into fishing and bought several 100 fisheries, Virgin Fishing.

 

You would pay the same price, follow the same rules and recieve more or less the same quality of fishing where ever you were.

Rule breakers would be banned from all of then in one go.

He would have Carp waters, Pike waters, match waters, small easy ponds for kids and newcommers.

To fish one of the waters you would need a membership, anglers would flock to the waters and he would make even more money to spend on stupid stunts, and more fisherys.

Very soon he would virtually control the fishing in the UK, he would be free to make whatever changes he wanted, he would have the cash to re-stock, to get expert advice, to rescue fish in distress etc.

 

Anglers all over the UK would have to join Virgin Fishing or make do with 2nd rate waters full of litter, morons and few fish.

 

What if it wasnt Branson that did this but one of the many fishing clubs/societys etc.

And the money was raised by normal anglers, the type that post here.

 

Would that be better?

 

A million anglers paying £10 a year for membership and £1 for a day ticket to fish the waters.

 

There are many possible solutions to angling unity, but finding one that most people will agree with is hard, but getting those people that agree, to actually do something is virtualy impossible, and that is what the problem is.

 

The money to start something is there, it just needs collecting.

If Anglers had any real power we could demand that an extra £1 was put on a EA license and that went to an angling body. There is the 1st million, it gets easier after that.

There isnt 1 angler in the UK that cant afford that extra £1 every year, there is no excuse.

 

£1 million buys an office (headquarters)and several profesional staff, and thats more than we have now.

 

Scott.

[greg long]

But what happens when you disagree with the view of the majority? Form a new group? reality check! If you had one body the amount of in-fighting would stop any work being done. What you need is liason and co-operation between the exhisting groups not one body

[greg long]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott:

 

The money to start something is there, it just needs collecting.

If Anglers had any real power we could demand that an extra £1 was put on a EA license and that went to an angling body. There is the 1st million, it gets easier after that.

There isnt 1 angler in the UK that cant afford that extra £1 every year, there is no excuse.

 

£1 million buys an office (headquarters)and several profesional staff, and thats more than we have now.

 

Scott.[/QB]

---

But would you agree with the bodies policies? If the payment is compulsery how can you decide from which side of the fence to fight issues between the different cultures amongst anglers? Also if the anglers cant stop attacking others with opposing views how will you get anything done.

Sadly Scott you are quick to brand others who dont agree with your views, why should they be any different? or are you ALWAYS right? What you need is co-operation and compromise not dictation.

[JamesBond]

Scott:

What if someone like Richard Branson decided to get into fishing and bought several 100 fisheries, Virgin Fishing.

 

You would pay the same price, follow the same rules and recieve more or less the same quality of fishing where ever you were.

Rule breakers would be banned from all of then in one go.

He would have Carp waters, Pike waters, match waters, small easy ponds for kids and newcommers.

There you go Scott, you have already missed one important group - trout anglers, and maybe they could build some piers for sea angling. Also you are seeing things in a divided way - carp waters, pike waters etc. What is wrong with good quality natural mixed fisheries?

quote:

---

If Anglers had any real power we could demand that an extra £1 was put on a EA license and that went to an angling body. There is the 1st million, it gets easier after that.

There isnt 1 angler in the UK that cant afford that extra £1 every year, there is no excuse.

 

£1 million buys an office (headquarters)and several profesional staff, and thats more than we have now.

 

Scott.

Have you seen the complaints on these forums about the existing licence fee? Don't think an additional £1 would be very popular.

 

It needs a real commitment to unity before any progress might be made.

 

ALL ANGLERS need to realise that the first priority of anglers should be conservation of the freshwater and marine environment; and the forthcoming battle to ensure our continued right to fish.

 

Once those battles are won then let us have a polite internal debate about our own prferences.

 

Unfortunately there are too many people fishing who are ignorant of the wider world, and believe that as long as they can pursue their own methods then nothing else matters. Hence the anti-livebait stance of some, the abuse of "the bivvy brigade" by others, complaints about match anglers elsewhere.

 

Angling in the UK has no real future unless we do get our act together and work in harmony to achieve what we all want. Healthy fisheries and a continued right to fish.

 

Shaking and stirring.

 

007

[Steve Burke]

I'd simply like to see the newly formed NAA supported by everyone. I believe it will turn out to be the very body that we're looking for.

 

We certainly don't want any more organisations! This will only lead to the all too familiar divide and conquer set up that has already cost angling dear.

 

The Government wanted to deal with just one umbrella organisation that represents angling, and for better or worse the NAA is that officially recognised body.

 

Granted the NAA's efforts have, so far, failed on the issue of live and deadbaiting in the Lake District. As Bruno said, it may have been better if the NAA themselves and not the SAA (which are affiliated to the NAA) had led the fight here. It must have given the impression that anglers are divided on the issue and therefore in a weak position.

 

However, the result may well have been the same as it seems to me that the issue had probably already been decided by the EA beforehand. In other words I doubt that anglers could have won this battle, at least without a compromise.

 

Nonetheless I'd like to see the fight continued to get the by-law to apply only on waters that contain vendace. There's simply no valid scientific reason whatsoever to ban live and deadbaits on other Lake District waters - unless of course there's a hidden agenda and the plan is to apply the restrictions elsewhere as well?

 

Let's therefore give the NAA a chance to get their act together. If you don't believe they're doing a good job then yes, critise them, as long as it's constructive. Better still, if you think you can do a better job, run for office yourself.

 

But whatever you do lend the NAA your support.

['eelfisher']

Dear Steve

 

Not posting to make waves but....Bruno said that the NAA was 'made up' of six bodies.....and so the SAA are not affilates to the NAA they are one sixth part of it.

 

Obviously, SAA were given the remit of dealing with the N/W EA problems because it was to do with specialist anglers.....however, as Bruno says, it would have probably been better for someone to have seen the bigger picture and the NAA had taken ultimate control of it.

 

However, that gives us a problem, because the obvious line of thought from the above is "If the NAA is made up from six different organisations.....then in essence, the NAA is not a WHO but a WHAT." (So who is the leader/spokesperson for the NAA?)

 

Would someone who is involved in the NAA please name the six organisations and explain their positions within the framework of the NAA.....just for the folks on here to get in their heads and especially as they represent 'US' to goverment....('Us' being anglers.)

 

Yours With Respect....

Steve.

[Twigster]

Just in case anyone from the NAA ever reads this forum, one question. How would anyone go about becoming a member of the organisation? Do you have to be experienced in the running of fisheries, or just an angler with an interest? After the debates I have witnessed on this forum since I joined, I have become very interested in the work of groups which represent angling and would like to know if i could help.

 

Anyway, on with the forum, I agree that the more recognised anglers such as John Wilson, Matt Hayes etc are in a better position than the rest of us to launch a pro-angling campaign. One thing I would like to add though is this, surely with big name backing the angling companies would be more willing to provide backing? :confused: :confused:

[Scott]

Greg when have I branded others that dissagree with me, ok I called you a Trout angler but that was based only on what I knew about you at the time.

 

Would I agree with the bodys practise? Probably not all the time.

But you will never get everyone to agree on anything, ever.

 

JamesBond I was giving examples of Branson buying coarse fisheries, i wasnt including Sea or Trout angler in the argument. Neither side of them seem to have the problems we coarse anglers have.

As for the additional £1 the moaning would stop (or slow down) if people could actually see where this money was going and how it was spend.

 

One final thing, lets see if everyone agrees on this.

 

If there was one person out there that you feel could put over any argument for your type of fishing, a person that is very familular with virtually every method and way of fishing, sea, coarse or game and understands the needs of each angler that fishes, and would be the ideal person to be the figurehead of a main body.

Wouldnt that person be John Wilson?

 

Now he might not have the time or even want any extra work but he is the angler most people can relate to.

 

Scott.

[greg long]

Scott:

Greg when have I branded others that dissagree with me, ok I called you a Trout angler but that was based only on what I knew about you at the time.

 

But therein lies my point, because I was pointing out merits in the ban I was immediately labelled a non pike angler without knowing the facts. What I personally would feel about the ban is based on how little effect it has on the number of Pike being caught in Ireland where a ban is in force, compared to the control of disease and spread of new species where they are detrimental to existing species. As for the banning of coarse dead-baits it would be hard to ensure the fish being used did not carry parisites or infectious disease. Remember the decimation of Perch stocks throughout Britain and Ireland in the 60's.Do you wish to see the same with other species? who knows it could be the Pike next time!

 

One final thing, lets see if everyone agrees on this.

 

If there was one person out there that you feel could put over any argument for your type of fishing, a person that is very familular with virtually every method and way of fishing, sea, coarse or game and understands the needs of each angler that fishes, and would be the ideal person to be the figurehead of a main body.

Wouldnt that person be John Wilson?

 

Now he might not have the time or even want any extra work but he is the angler most people can relate to.

 

Scott.

He is also concerned about conservation, Have you asked how he feels about the ban?

[poledark]

Steve, that's what I would like to know as well. Who is/are NAA? Have they got Headed notepaper for example?

Could they actually send a letter with an Identifiable heading on it?

 

Could they at least have the decency to reply to the several requests made on these forums to make themselves known?

 

It would seem to me that the only real reason that the SAA was "elected" to fight the livebait ban was because the NAA is merely a name, not an actual body at all.

 

C'mon NAA, prove me wrong (please)

 

Den