NFA

[Peter Waller]

quote:

---

Originally posted by phil hackett

 

Strange one this for a pike angler. Was it not reported in recent times that one of the top officials had said that livebaiting would have to be sacrificed to placate the animal welfare groups.

 

Or perhaps you really have become a convert on the road to unity!

 

Nice one Den.[/QB]

---

[/QB]

 

Perhaps Phil, since you have chosen to raise the issue, and personally not wishing to open up the great livebait debate once again, I have to accept that said top official is, perhaps, being realistic, regretfully. That does not mean to say that I support his view.

 

As for being a convert to unity, I'm not sure that I have ever been otherwise. Perhaps this is why I have, on AN, not been a great supporter of SACG, SAA or the CA. Obviously you think that I am wrong in my stance, but there was once a time when we had a national federation of anglers that was just that, with no outsider groups vying for power.

[poledark]

Peter, You may not be aware that I was, and still am, very supportive of the RSSG, I was in fact one of the first to sign up and helped pursuade Lee and the others not to give up due to poor response. I have also sent a small amount to help with funding.

I have been around a bit and was an original member of Kent Specimen Group and the UKSF.

 

UKSF still exists and as far as I am aware sticks to what it knows/ does best, I do not know what happened to the KSG, or even if it still exists.

I have joined, and left/moved on from various clubs but have never got involved in the running of any. Typical run of the mill angler you might say.

I wrote the odd bit for AT back in the 60's and for Angling for many years, and was also involved in what could have been the best Angling Programe to be made/shown on the BBC.

Alas the producer saw us as a target to be made fools of, and almost succeded.

 

As a result of that fiasco I dropped out of the scene, and until I joined this forum I have never written another word.

This does not mean that I have not kept my eye on the goings on and fighting for power that has occured with frightening regularity. To be honest I did not think that it mattered much, "let them get on with it" I decided.

 

But the situation is VERY different now, we are under attack and we do need to unite and we do, thankfully, have the NFA, and I am delighted that the response so far has been so positive.

 

There is, or should be, a place for the RSSG within the NFA. they (the RSSG) have a proper setup, dedicated officers, alas not enough members(yet?) Their Secretary has vision and drive, has realised the value of open discussion on the internet and the uses to which it can be put, and I would have thought that he would be an asset to any organisation.

 

Could we just not seek to open old wounds and look FORWARD to a unified Angling.

 

Den

[mpbdsnu]

Anyone know where I can see a list of the aims and objectives of the RSSG?

 

Thanks.

[Peter Waller]

Hi Den,

 

How could anyone have any arguement with your last posting, re the NFA & the RSSG, spot on.

 

Re old wounds. I suppose I can be accused of doing just that. I am not a keeper of records or copies of correspondence. However, I do have a memory! Things have been said recently that I know are wrong. At various times new groups have wooed anglers and I have applied for details. Some of these details differ markedly from what we are being told now. Actually I reckon I keep remarkably restrained !

 

My club angling started off in the Midlands, Lincoln to be exact. Real match club it was then. But like you, but for different reasons, I went to ground for many years. Quite happy to let others get on with it. Sometimes regret that in some respects. The Perchfishers book has a list of many of the Oulton Broad big perch of the 1960's. 'Cause my brother & I kept quite about our catches, and didn't belong to the local club, our 4 pounders are not included! Only got ourselves to blame! Then, ofcourse, I'm not to happy with the way that the sport has fragmented. Wish now that I had worked for the future within the NFA. The structure is, and was always there. It just needed people within to work at the non match side of it. Hindsight is a marvellous thing.

 

Back to the RSSG, I have great confidence in it. I wish it well.

[Leon Roskilly]

poledark:

Why did not the alliance that calls itself the NAA not join the NFA, they do have offices and staff and a national presence, almost all anglers have heard of them and fish to their rules.

Sport England (Formerly the Sports Council)is the body that gives recognition to Sports Governing Bodies.

 

They chose to recognise the sport of angling as being comprised of three seperate disciplines.

 

Game, sea and coarse.

 

The National Federation of Sea Anglers ( http://www.nfsa.org.uk )was/is the body recognised by Sport England as representing the sport of sea anglers.

 

The Salmon & Trout Association is the GB of game anglers.

 

And the NFA, coarse anglers (I'd imagine that the S&TA might object to them claiming to be the governing body of all 'freshwater anglers'!)

 

As far as the administration of sporting bodies is concerned, that's fine.

 

However, that leaves in the cold all anglers who are not match oriented.

 

When government representatives want to talk to 'angling', they want to discuss a much larger agenda than sporting practices.

 

Turning to the three recognised (sport)'governing bodies', they are confronted by a divergence of views, and an ignorance of one party about the needs and practices of another, let alone the interests of those outside of the sport GBs!

 

Ministers simply don't have the time to sit down and talk to three bodies or more, all talking a different language, sometimes with contradictory needs and demands, so the gauntlet was thrown down.

 

If 'angling' wants to talk to us, then you need to get your act together and come speaking with a single political voice for allangling - sea, coarse, game, matchmen, pleasure anglers, specialists, pike anglers, mullet fishermen, water owners etc etc.

 

So, the three angling governing bodies, sat down with other angling bodies, representing different sub branches of both the sport and the pastime and business of angling and came up with the National Angling Alliance, where each of the bodies (sporting or otherwise) concerned can come to a consensus, and to talk to government and deal with angling issues as a combined and unified voice.

 

So, the NFSA and S&TA had no inclination to join the NFA (or vice versa!). (sea anglers fish to very different rules to coarse anglers!)

 

Specialist Anglers have no inclination to join the sporting body of the NFA.

 

Why would the tackle trade become a member of any of them?

 

But all sit down and talk together as the NAA, and take their agreed consensus position(s) to government with as single voice - the 'voice of angling'

 

But if only life were that simple!!

 

Tight Lines - leon (MMG & AAAA - Den's a member too!)

 

ps The NAA is not a 'governing body', nor are the SAA, ATA or NAFAC. That description is reserved for organisations recognised by Sport England as administering each individual sport or recognised division of a sport.

 

[ 12. September 2002, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[Leon Roskilly]

Bruno Broughton:

Glad to see you're a staunch supporter of your 'governing body' and, thus, the NAA.

I'm a Personal Member (as opposed to Individual member!) of the NFSA!

 

Ooops! Am I in the wrong place?

 

Tight Lines - leon

(But I am a member of the ACA , so you will let me stay, please!)

[Steve Burke]

Peter Waller:

Hi Den,

 

The Perchfishers book has a list of many of the Oulton Broad big perch of the 1960's. 'Cause my brother & I kept quite about our catches, and didn't belong to the local club, our 4 pounders are not included! Only got ourselves to blame!

The Book of the Perch recorded all 3lb+ perch reported to the press from 1900-1988 giving weight, captor, bait and venue. This mammoth task was undertaken by my co-editor, Peter Rogers, who literally spent day after day at the British Newspaper library.

 

We knew about lots of other 3lb and even a few 4lb+ perch that were genuine captures. However, we decided to limit the list to those reported in the press. This gave consistency, and also meant that the captors were happy with publicity.

[DCB]

Leon - surely the following should apply:

ATA are the governing/recognised body for the trade

NAFAC are the governing/recognised body for fisheries and consultatives

SAA are the governing/recognised body for specialist anglers

If the above take on the responsibility to promote, protect and represent these sections of the sport aren't they accordingly governing bodies?

Just a thought.

DCB

[poledark]

Naive Question (another one Leon )

 

Why can't all the Specialist groups/bodies work within the NFA. We are all anglers, I have no problem with match anglers, they do not interefere with me, except when a stretch of water is closed for a match, Usually advance notice is given so I go elseware for the day.

 

Pike anglers do not stop me fishing in the way I want to, carp anglers can cause problems with swim hogging ( a local issue) and up to the club to deal with.

 

Pole anglers are all smashing blokes ( )

I really cant think of a single instance in over 50 years of angling where another angler pursuing a different branch of my sport, has caused me serious grief.

 

Some, like the stupid rule of one club I have left re 10lb line when I want to pole fish for Roach, has annoyed me, but it is not a national issue.

 

I ask again, could not all these Groups join the NFA and offer their expertise to be used within the NFA framework?, after all not everyone in the RSPB is an expert on every type of bird/duck/goose/hawk/crow ect, but they do all come together under one roof, with a full time staff, and call on the experts as and when they need them. And a damn strong roof it is too,

 

Positive thinking is needed here, forget looking back, let us go forward, probably into the NFA

 

Den

[Leon Roskilly]

DCB:

Leon - surely the following should apply:

ATA are the governing/recognised body for the trade

NAFAC are the governing/recognised body for fisheries and consultatives

SAA are the governing/recognised body for specialist anglers

If the above take on the responsibility to promote, protect and represent these sections of the sport aren't they accordingly governing bodies?

Just a thought.

DCB

To become a governing body, an organisation needs to apply and be recognised as such by Sport England.

 

Existing Governing Bodies are listed at:

 

http://www.sportengland.org/gateway/gblinks.htm

 

(angling tops the list!)

 

The 'rules' governing appointment of new governing bodies are to be found at:

 

http://www.sportengland.org/about/Policy_b...ov_bodies_3.htm

 

Have a look.

 

The answer should be readily apparent!

 

This might interest some too!

 

http://www.sportengland.org/about/Policy_b...al_sports_3.htm

 

Tight Lines - leon