An Angling Society (what do you want)

['eelfisher']

Dear All

 

Just thought this should come back to the top just in case those who operate in the NAA forget to come along and answer the stated questions.

 

I should imagine That when the 'mists clear' our own reliable Bruno will come in and post the said answers for all those out there who are wanting to know what the NAA is all about and who each of the six are and what their remit is....and then tell us who the NAA spokesperson on all of our (anglers) behalves is....please.

 

Yours With Respect..........

Steve.

[Peter Waller]

I stand with Steve on this one in wishing to support the NAA. There was much celebration when it was formed. However, the NAA MUST show that it is able to support anglers. So far, that has not happened. Meanwhile our enemies are at work.

['eelfisher']

Dear Peter.....and everyone else

 

This NAA lot are not awe inspiring are they as our governing body....they cannot even answer a few questions......

 

Back to the top for another try.

 

Yours With Respect....

Steve.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

It is well known within angling politics that certain angling politicko's hold little regard for internet fishing sites. That is, until it suits them to use the internet medium for their own propaganda purposes.

 

I suppose in this case, namely one of simply wanting to know exactly how the NAA is structured, (apart from the six groups that form it) who speaks for it, and who are its officers, it appears that no NAA internet statement is going to be made in this regard. Or is it?

 

NAA PR? What PR. Does it exist. Individual memberships within the NAA dont. Why not?

 

One could reasonably assume that the governing body, the NAA, that seemingly represents anglers would welcome individual memberships. Would not the extra funds raised by individual NAA membership be welcomed in the NAA coffers? More importantly, what could the NAA actually do that they are unable to do now with such extra funding.

 

And on the other hand, seeing as the NAA HAS managed to elevate itself into a position of being regarded by this government as the voice for angling, accepted generally in the angling press AND by the CA, (MOU) is it unreasonable for the majority of anglers to at least expect to be offered membership within their governing body? If not. Why not?

 

And moving on somewhat; If ordinary anglers actually KNEW exactly who did what in the NAA, who holds office in what capacity for example, at least ordinary anglers would then know who is doing what and for whom. Namely themselves.

 

After watching the NAA perform for the last year or so myself, I am left not knowing a thing about them and indeed I am unable to say who is doing what within it. Well thats not strictly true if I forget the efforts that Bruno Broughton and Terry Mansbridge are putting in regarding the Cormorant issue in talks with the RSPB. Not that I actually know how these talks are going because the truth is, I dont get told an aweful lot. Come to think of it, I dont get told anything.

 

Therefore, I conclude it is reasonable for the NAA to answer certain questions posed by anglers on this site. It is also reasonable for anglers to expect the chance to become individual members within the governing body that is recognised as representing them.

 

So come on NAA, who ever you are, answer some genuine questions posed by genuine anglers. Because if ordinary anglers cant ask on here, where can they ask?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Bruno Broughton]

Sorry I haven't replied to the NAA questions - I am cramming my work at present, in readiness for a talk I have to give at a Norwegian conference in a couple of days. (Paid by the Norwegians, in case you wondered). Believe it or not, monitoring websites for references to the NAA has not been a priority of late... that's life.

 

I have little time, so I will try to be brief & accurate.

 

The NAA comprises six national angling (NOT 'anglers') organisations, namely:-

 

National Federation of Anglers (NFA)

National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)

Salmon & Trout Association (S&TA)

Angling Trades Association (ATA, which I represent)

Specialist Anglers' Alliance (SAA)

National Association of Fisheries and Angling Consultaties (NAFAC)

 

ANYONE can join the groups that make up the NAA by joining one of these - all have open membership, albeit that ATA membership is restricted to people who trade in tackle and associated services.

 

The NAA is best described as an umbrella group. It has NO separate constitution, NO separate organisation as such, NO specific spokespeople, NO membership fees and NO employees. It is what it says... an alliance of six major national angling groups. It acts through its members, albeit that S&TA provides the unpaid secretariat & hosts the (roughly 6-weekly) meetings in London.

 

All members have EQUAL status, there are no voting rules, and decisions are reached by consensus.

 

Expenses for reps. to attend meetings are paid by the representative organisations. Actions are carried out by the organisations, either individually or (usually) in concert.

 

At worst, the NAA is a national forum, sounding board, talk-shop... call it what you will. Jaw-jaw, not war-war. However, Government DEMANDED that it talk to a single organisation that represented angling, hence the NAA's birth 18 months ago.

 

If you have a gripe with the NAA, it can really only be resolved if you talk to the part of it to which you are a member (are you?). Other that me - late at night and usually ratty - or Tim Marks/Chris Burt/Mike Heylin/David Bird (all SAA), I doubt that any of the other reps. scan Anglers' Net. BTW, they are:-

 

Chairman (drawn from S&TA): Tony Bird

Secretary ( " " " ): Paul Knight

 

Other attendees:

 

NFSA: David Rowe (occasionally, Mike North)

ATA: myself (formerly, with David Bird)

NAFAC: Terry Mansbridge (formerly Mark Hatcher)

NFA: Ian Epps (occasionally Ken Ball)

SAA: Mike Heylin or Tim Marks

 

No-one holds any office or title, other than Chairman & Secretary. Oh, and before anyone jumps to conclusions... S&TA has as much say, or influence, as any of the other NAA members.

 

I have said it before - and I will keep repeating to all the knockers out there: if you feel that there is an issue of national importance which you cannot honestly raise in any other way, I will gladly raise it at NAA meetings.

 

Why only 6? Well, other bodies were invited to join, notably the ACA. At the birth of the NAA the ACA decided - freely - that because its own remit was restricted to water quality and associated issues, it would be inappropriate to join. If there are other national (not single-issue) organisations who feel that they ought to be in membership, make yourselves known if you feel you have something to GIVE, 'cos that is what the game is. If nothing else - contact me.

 

The NAA is NOT a closed shop. On the other hand, getting anywhere further than deciding the filling in the lunch-time sandwiches would be impossible if it was 40 or 50 strong (and we wouldn't have a free meeting room for that many people).

 

Notwithstanding the apparent envy of some posters, membership is not an honour; it is a financial burden, and everyone gets jobs heaped upon them. I really do get the bleedin' 'ump when people slag off the NAA for lack of action, bearing in mind that I gave up last summer (in the NAA's name) - and almost ALL angling last year - to devote my time to countering PETA. Others have done the same over less public matters - the finances of the EA, interceptory netting of salmon, a national coarse anglers' code of conduct,... to name just three.

 

The work is soooo very glamorous - agri-environment schemes, the water framework directive (which IS important), the CROW bill, canoeing, fish-eating birds, F&M D, pan-european co-operation, etc. Mostly 'plod, plod', not 'flash', bang'.

 

On livebaiting, it was agreed by the NAA - at SAA's reqquest - that the SAA would take the lead, as I have posted before. Hindsight always endows one with 50:50 vision, but I doubt that it would have made a difference if the NAA had weighed in. The warning shots had been fired and-irrespectiove of the science (with which I disagree), the issue was lost when that'angler' was caught red-handed with bucketful of illegal livebait. to those who need justification, here it was... in spades.

 

However, why would anyone assume that no behind the scenes work is ongoing regarding this issue Politics is not always conducted in public.

 

That's it. By all means ask any questions you like, but just bear in mind that it will be next Monday before I have a chance to get back on here. BTW, if any burglars have seen the chance here to pay Bruno's gaff a visit in his absence -come on, make Doddie's day The dog-sitters will be keeping him meat-free!

 

I thank you.

 

[ 13. August 2002, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Bruno Broughton ]

[poledark]

Thank you for replying to us Bruno, no one doubts your commitment, but I would raise two points here 1/ how would anyone from government contact the NAA?

2/ to say that the issue was lost due to the stupidity of one person is tantamount to getting motoring banned because of one reckless driver.

 

My complaint is that even though we were asked to write in to the EA (I did not) it was totally innefective. What MAY have worked is a petition with 500,000 signatures on it, and I am sure that if We anglers had been asked to help collect them, many of us would have done so.

The angling papers could have printed forms, many of us on the net (all sites) could have printed out copies and taken them to our local tackle shops, in short We could have helped had we been asked.

 

Maybe we are being naive and don't understand how the system works (or fails) but I am sorry to have to say this But I think you and all the other members of NAA are the ones who are being naive, the setup of NAA makes quick positive action almost impossible, and that suited the EA very nicely thankyou.

 

I say again, use the internet, it is the fastest and, given the chance, the most effective way of communication with the masses.

 

Den

 

[ 13. August 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: poledark ]

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Bruno,

 

Thanks ever sooooo much for replying to all on here concerning all things NAA. I note that in the majority of the times you post on AN, its quite late in the evening. This surely confirms that you are indeed one busy guy. Thanks for that.

 

As usual Bruno, I have more questions.

 

Seeing as you state that the NAA has NO official spokespeople, how can any one person, or multiples of people answer questions posed concerning the NAA? I find the fact that the NAA has no official spokespersons to be very strange. As Dennis asks, if any government agency requires contact with the NAA, who do they contact? The S&TA office staff?

 

I have to say, that given the importance for angling to have as you say "an umbrella" group representing angling, the NAA structure, if thats what one could call it, seems at best a hotch potch affair.

 

Why isn't the NAA far better organised and structured?

 

You say that others were invited to join the NAA at the time of its "conception". You mentioned the ACA who declined. Who exactly, were the others?

 

I am a SAA member and one of its officers. That apparently, should avail me some information as to what is going off inside the NAA. Does it? Nope. I get told nothing and recieve nothing. Hell, SAA members dont even get minutes of the previous SAA meeting until the last moment or enclosed within the agenda for the next meeting. Exactly how, does recieving the minutes of a previous meeting so late provide members of an organisation within the NAA any information as to what is going off? Yes I know, this is not strictly a NAA problem, but it does highlight the problems that ordinary members within the SAA and consiquently within the NAA for instance, are experiencing.

 

You speak of "giving" Bruno. The RSSG was formed to do just that. We joined the SAA and NAFAC to help out and "give". How are we supposed to give when we dont ever get asked to help out? We dont get told anything. So whats the point of being in membership within TWO of the six that form the NAA if the chance to help out or gain information is not forthcoming?

 

On the other hand, Jan Cappel sends me endless amounts of bang up to date information of what is going on in the wide world of universal angling. Of course, the European Anglers Alliance has a very large paying membership that avails them the opportunity of being very professional. So why dont the NAA offer individual membership to anglers. I already know they dont. What I wanted to know was why they dont?

 

At this juncture, I must repeat that I honestly believe that angling in this country should be represented by the ONE body that represents ALL. But you Bruno and others within NAA and its six constituent bodies should understand that a lot are NOT happy about the present situation regarding the lack of information coming out concerning NAA activities. An awful lot of those not happy are active within angling politics and ARE members within those that make up the body of NAA. Further to that, disturbingly, a lot who were previously active within the old NASA who went onto become SACG/SAA members are now leaving angling politics or are within the numbers of those who have already left for good.

 

Myself personally, and indeed the RSSG environmental/conservation committee that deals with its political aspirations feel strongly that the time has come for change.

 

The RSSG joined two of the NAA's constituent bodies in order to represent our memberships concerns at the highest level possible. We joined not to "take", but to give. We joined to help out and indeed be a part within the SAA involved fully in its decision making proccess.

 

As far as we are concerned, this is not happening as we continue to get told nothing or receive nothing. And seeing as the NAA holds six weekly meetings in the S&TA offices as you say, we are most surprised that we, the RSSG, or myself, as the SAA Rivers Coordinator, have not learned one jot of the topics or outcomes of any of these meetings.

 

And whilst this situation continues, we the RSSG, the paying members of two of the six constituent bodies that form the NAA will continue to ask to know more of whats going off and continue to ask to be involved in whats going off.

 

We take the view that this does not make us "knockers" or "gripers". But merely paying members wanting to obtain the information and representation for those RSSG members which we represent.

 

Not too much to ask seeing as we have paid our money and are willing to help out. Is it?

 

Regards,

 

Lee Fletcher General Secretary RSSG.

[Peter Waller]

Thank you Bruno, a good response. I'm sorry it took so much asking and knocking before we got an in-depth response.

 

Den & Lee, you have both made valid points and asked valid questions. I hope both Bruno & the NAA will take your points onboard.

 

In all, a better than expected response from all parties concerned, thank you.

[Cranfield]

Well, thats a relief, nothing to worry about then.

 

The future of Angling is safe in the hands of an "umbrella" organisation, which is described as a "forum", "sounding board", "talk shop" or "Jaw Jaw,not War War".

 

No Spokesperson, no contact point, no Press and Public Relations.

Who do the Press contact if they want an opinion,comment or quote ?

 

An Action Committee might be useful.

Some Communications system is imperative.

 

If the NAA, as described is going to be the saviour of Angling, I,m off to join the CA,at least they have a properly structured organisation which, like it or not, gets listened to.

 

I have the greatest respect for Bruno Broughton and I admire the fact that he has responded to this topic.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Brian,

 

Obviously, given my previous post on this thread, I agree with you 100%.

 

When Bruno posted and gave us all an honest synopsis of what the NAA are all about, and how they are structured? I was flabergasted. Frankly, for all their "good works", I expected the NAA to have some kind of structure with spokespeople appointed at the very least. Bruno's reality concerning the NAA was nothing like what I had been led to believe about the NAA.

 

Even more surprising, was that after Bruno posted, very few have come in to give their opinions on how the NAA go about things.

 

Is everyone happy with the situation? I suppose so.

 

Therefore, can someone tell me where I can obtain information on what exactly the NAA is doing on our behalf? Can anyone tell me how those who represent the RSSG can become involved in decisions being made by the NAA? I represent the membership of the RSSG who are fully paid up members of TWO of the constituent bodies within the NAA, and I cant find out anything. What chance do ordinary anglers have?

 

One may easily be forgiven for asking why doesn't the RSSG get this information or involvement from the SAA? Already gone there. A LOT!

 

Its amazing that in our fast developing electronic age, the NAA dont have a website that is regularly churning out information concerning the good works they are doing for angling. Is this not a missed opportunity? Bruno himself told us what he has been involved in lately. Did you know about any of this before Bruno informed us? I didn't. So why didn't I? Why didn't you?

 

Why wont anyone tell us why the NAA dont have individual members or are planing to do so in the future? Surely if the NAA "IS" the regognised body representing anglers, those anglers have a "right" to become a member of something that proclaims to be anglings governing body. ITS governing body.

 

Why dont the NAA embrace the prospect of obtaining valuable funding via a individual membership base. Why is no one answering this question?

 

Bruno states that the NAA is "NOT" one body. Merely an umbrella group containing six bodies that act through its members. I fully accept what Bruno says. But that is definitely a different organisation other than the one we were led to believe is was previously by others.

 

Admittedly, the RSSG are very small beer amongst the beer barrels of NAA. But we joined the SAA and NAFAC in order to represent the interests of our RSSG members. Not after the event by hearing of things already done in meetings months after the event, but in the "doing" process as and when things important to our members are actually going off. How else can we be expected to represent the interests of our own membership? How else can other smaller organisation such as the RSSG represent theirs? In reality with the present situation, we cant. Because mostly, we only get told of things after the event. Remember the MOU? Hands up all those representing angling organisations outside of the representatives acting on behalf of the six making up the NAA in NAA meetings, who were involved in the drafting of the MOU document.

 

Do you get my drift?

 

So, for all concerned or interested, here is what the RSSG would like to see happening within the NAA.

 

That the NAA be made up of a working committee that truly represents ALL angling. That this committee be made up of representatives from angling organisations willing to "do their bit" for their memberships and for angling as a whole entity. And that these prospective members of any NAA working committee DO NOT have to qualify by already being in membership within the six constituent bodies. If we are going to have a angling working committee it should be open to ALL angling organisations.

 

That the NAA obtain some real and substantial funding via offering individual membership to all. Otherwise, how else can the NAA proclaim to represent angling to government OR, obtain the funding needed to protect angling effectively and professionally? Of course, throwing out individual membership to the NAA would involve some effective and up to date PR. But none of this is impossible if handled in the right way. It is our opinion that the organisation representing angling MUST have full time staff working 9-5 if it is to step into the 21 century.

 

Bruno states that the NAA is not a closed shop. That's a good thing. But if the NAA refuse to move on from being just six constituent bodies, how can they claim to be representing angling?

 

If the NAA is to truly be representative of angling in this country, it should in our opinion be broader based than it is at present. It should be something that all angling organisations and individuals have the chance to belong to. Angling in our country belongs to those who partake in the sport. So why not open up the organisation that represents angling by allowing anglers to belong to it?

 

The idea and conception of the NAA was a good idea for angling. An idea infact that became crucial for angling to have a voice in the political tunnel. But that was then. We must move foreward into the present by making the NAA better. Bigger. And wealthy. So it becomes the ultimate fighting force that protects anglers rights and fishing practices.

 

Or we can accept that the sandwich filling proves to difficult or the free meeting room becomes more important than anglings future.

 

Its time to get some real power behind our own sport and the organisation that represents us.

 

So, what exactly do we have to loose by trying at least?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.