Unity - At Last!

[Elton]

My cheque will be in the post after Christmas.

 

I'll probably join you, Peter, but just not straight away. I just want to make sure that I'm supporting something I, well, actually support. I want to see what the sales pitch on their temporary site actually manifests itself as and that this new lot has total transparency.

 

There are quite a few things on their homepage that I don't really support, but it's a bit like buying a magazine - the contents will never 100% satisfy any reader, let alone 100% of them.

[Alan Roe]

I'm with Peter on this one...Now there's a first for angling unity!!

As a long standing member of the ACA I will admit that I have my fears and concerns about the potential loss of that organisation however sometimes we just have to take a longer view and go with it.

I still believe that the new organisation should be funded by an increase in the rod license which would be extended to cover all branches of the sport bringing with it automatic membership and voting entitlement.

A similar system works in Canada and polluters go in fear of the angling conservation lobby there and angling's voice really carries weight

[gozzer]

As usual I can see both sides of this, but in the position I am in there is only one part that I feel is relevant to me, and like Alan said, it's the ACA, and I will continue to support that regardless. (I think the old 'Pure River Society' was a better name, but that's in the past).

I don't sea fish, I don't match fish, I'm not a 'specimen' hunter, I'm not a game angler, I'm not a member of any club or association, I just go coarse fishing!

I'm just one out of a large 'chunk' of UK anglers. To get a viable membership, it's the 'ordinary' bloke you have to convince.

 

As many will know I'm disillusioned with angling today. I feel that too many commercial interests have a big say in how angling is run. I can't see any organised group changing this. I can see some kind of sponsorship being offered to help run the 'new' organisation, and this helping to 'steer' it's thinking/actions in in a direction, that I feel will not be of benefit to the future of angling or fisheries.

 

Maybe I'm too cynical and suspicious, but past experiences has made me this way.

 

I sincerly hope that I am wrong, and it really is the start of something good, but I have my doubts.

 

John.

[Vagabond]

I can see some kind of sponsorship being offered to help run the 'new' organisation, and this helping to 'steer' it's thinking/actions in in a direction, that I feel will not be of benefit to the future of angling or fisheries.

 

Maybe I'm too cynical and suspicious, but past experiences has made me this way.

 

I sincerly hope that I am wrong, and it really is the start of something good, but I have my doubts.

 

 

I would agree with that, but this is the third (?) attempt at "unity" (I attended the first - at Fishmonger's Hall in the 1960s and the second (?) attempt was in 2000)

At least this time the attempt has the merit of the participants having at last burned their boats in committing themselves to joining the Angling Trust.

 

That means, that if the Angling Trust fails, angling politicians will have nowhere to go, which should concentrate their minds wonderfully on making it work.

 

As soon as I am convinced it is working, my cheque will be in the post.

 

But I will take some considerable convincing, particularly re ACA/Fish Legal.

 

TWICE in my lifetime the ACA has almost foundered due to questionable use of the funds I helped to provide.

 

The first time was in the 60s (Chevin and Poldark may be amongst the few who remember that) when what seemed suspiciously like embezzlement was swept under the carpet.

 

The second time was the James debacle which more of you will remember.

 

"Once bitten, twice shy"

 

What about "Twice bitten"?

 

The ACA has bitten me twice, so despite its new title of "Fish Legal", I want to see MUCH more accountabilty, and MUCH, MUCH more transparency before I trust them with my money again.

 

I agree that we desperately need such a body to represent anglers' interests against polluters, but only if our contributions are used honestly and wisely.

Edited December 21, 2008 by Vagabond

[Leon Roskilly]

see:

 

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/sport/Tr...il/article.html

[Dunk Fairley]

Gozzer and Vagabond, like you I've had concerns about the ACA from time to time. I've also had doubts about ALL of the others from time to time as well. Fortunately, those doubts have not often come to total fruition. But I do know one thing for sure. You can only influence the actions of organisations, or try to, by being part of them.

 

If any of the membership of the new body see things going awry, then I hope they put their voices to the fore and actively take part in changing things. I know I blinking well will!!

[Peter Waller]

The ACA has had its problems, but re the James debacle I do sincerely believe it came out of that a stronger body. The NFA has also had its share of scandal, from which I don't think it ever completely recovered. Yes, there are skeletons in the various cupboards. But the Angling Trust is reality, its all that we have now. I shall support it, if it goes the way I would like, that will be great. If it doesn't then, as a member, I shall have my say. For one thing, with the ACA on board, I hope it won't be continuing those blessed pike championships. I shall be having my say on that issue!

[Elton]

Leon,

 

That news release has been on here for a while:

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/News/angling-trust-051208.html

 

I even gave it a plug in a couple of mailouts last night.

[Elton]

But I do know one thing for sure. You can only influence the actions of organisations, or try to, by being part of them.

 

Dunk,

 

I can see where most of your points of view have merit, but that one is totally wrong. There are a number of ways of influencing organisations. You don't have to join them. External forces are often more powerful than internal ones.

 

I've seen a number of people say the same thing as you, so I'm not trying to single you out, just trying to point out that the "the only way you can influence the Angling Trust is to join it" argument is totally flawed. PETA will try to influence the actions of the Angling Trust for example, I'm sure, but I doubt very much that they'll be encouraging their members to send them £20

[Steve Coppolo]

The idea that you can change an organisation by joining is a misconception. In theory it could work. However, in reality the vast majority of the membership don't see a problem with the organisation that they paid to join, (why would they have joined?), and are more than happy to follow those who are leading them, with barely a question asked. Most members of said organisations don't have a detailed enough understanding of what goes on behind the scenes. Why should they? All they want to do is go fishing and support those who are seen to be doing something, anything, on their behalf. Then someone, who has valid concerns, comes along and proposes a few changes. Chairman, committee and membership faithful close ranks to protect each other and fend off what they see as a negative influence. So, everything carries on as before and the said organisation are given carte blanche to carry on as they always have. Nice and cosy.

 

There is no chance that one or two members, with a good understanding of "issues" and valid concerns, can change an organisation. Sorry, but it just doesn't happen.

 

The situation will be compounded with angling unity because the chances of anglers from different disciplines having a good understanding of issues affecting other disciplines, is even more remote. Does some who fishes exclusively on carp lakes have a good understanding of marine fisheries management, for example?

 

I tend to agree with Elton, sometimes, the best way to challenge an orgainsation is from the outside.