Unity - At Last!

[Steve Coppolo]

see:

 

http://anglingunity.co.uk/

 

http://www.anglingtrust.net

 

(If anyone wants a membership application form, pm me with your email address and I'll send a pdf. Existing members of participating organisations will be sent an Angling Trust membership application automatically)

 

Seeing what a roaring success it was last time around, i.e, 8 years ago(!!!), I don't think they'll be rushing off to the printers for more forms any time soon!

[Leon Roskilly]

Seeing what a roaring success it was last time around, i.e, 8 years ago(!!!), I don't think they'll be rushing off to the printers for more forms any time soon!

 

 

The National Angling Alliance was an 'umbrella' organisation of different angling organisations working together and moving towards unification.

 

Individual anglers were unable to become members of the NAA directly, or have any individual say in the work and governance of the NAA.

 

The Angling Trust is something very different.

 

Rather than different organisations working together, they are combining into one organisation, with one membership and a single pool of resources. The delivery of the unification that was the primary purpose of the NAA.

 

Individual anglers will be able to join, and to participate.

 

Whether such unification delivered through the Angling Trust will be a 'roaring success' will largely depend upon the support and (perhaps more importantly), the involvement of people committed to the future of angling expressed in all of its disciplines. Something that all anglers should have a part in.

 

Hopefully, the combined membership, the single 'voice' and the more efficient use of funding will make for a far more effective representation of all anglers' aspirations.

 

Should it fail through lack of support, then there will be no NFA, no ACA, no SAA, no NAFAC, no NFSA to turn to.

 

Smaller organisations who have previously been represented through the larger bodies will have no one to turn to deal with the important issues which constantly arise, and which offer opportunities, challenges and dangers for the sport that is our passion.

 

That is not a prospect that should be relished by anyone with any degree of glee!

Edited December 19, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[Elton]

What if that "single voice" is saying something that I don't agree with? The Government might think they speak for all of us and do something I'm totally against. The first time the word 'livebaiting' raises its head, for instance, should be interesting.

 

And if they really have all entered this without any consideration for the smaller organisations should they fail, then their arrogance beggars belief.

[Steve Coppolo]

Whether such unification delivered through the Angling Trust will be a 'roaring success' will largely depend upon the support and (perhaps more importantly), the involvement of people committed to the future of angling expressed in all of its disciplines. Something that all anglers should have a part in.

 

Wow! That's a first.

 

Maybe some lessons really have been learnt?

[Leon Roskilly]

What if that "single voice" is saying something that I don't agree with?

 

 

I simply can't imagine that there will ever be any organisation where all of its members all agree all of the time on everything.

 

And the bigger and more varied the membership, the more likely that some decisions will be controversial.

 

Those elected by the membership to take action in the best interests of the membership, will need to face that membership periodically, and stand aside if the majority of the membership believe that they are failing to work for the best interest of the membership overall. To be replaced by others who are prepared to take on the challenge, and who the membership believe will do a better job.

 

Those members who feel aggrieved that their personal position is at odds with the organisation of which they are a member have a number of alternatives, ranging from spitting out their dummy, working to establish their own particular arguments, or simply accepting that they might not get everything their way all of the time.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[Leon Roskilly]

And if they really have all entered this without any consideration for the smaller organisations should they fail, then their arrogance beggars belief.

 

 

I know that there has been some debate over this aspect, and quite a few very hard choices have had to be made.

 

Let's hope that they have got it right.

 

(I'd be particularly upset if Fish Legal (ACA) was to founder).

 

But you can't make omelettes without cracking a few eggs, and all of life involves taking risks to get to a potentially better place.

[SPSwallow]

Sounds fishy

[Elton]

Those elected by the membership to take action in the best interests of the membership, will need to face that membership periodically, and stand aside if the majority of the membership believe that they are failing to work for the best interest of the membership overall. To be replaced by others who are prepared to take on the challenge, and who the membership believe will do a better job.

 

This is where I have issues with the whole thing, Leon. They will represent their membership, not angling. When their membership exceeds 50% of all anglers in the UK, maybe they can start to say that they represent angling, but I think they should perhaps stick to representing their membership first, which, by the figures I've seen thrown around, is a tiny percent of UK anglers. If their work is a success, I'll be one of the masses, I'm sure, who'll come rushing to join. However, as it stands, I get the impression that their membership is probably around the 1% of UK anglers mark, which means they don't represent the other 99% of people who go fishing in the UK. And the trouble is, most of those 99% probably don't know they're being represented and the ones that do know have chosen not to join.

[Leon Roskilly]

And yet issues need to be addressed, proposals supported or challenged, battles with those who would take away anglers' rights and freedoms fought.

 

And in listening to anglers' aspirations and concerns, seeking advice, assessing impacts, bodies both inside and outside of Government will want to consult with the most authoritive angling bodies (or body!).

 

The greater the support from the grass roots, the greater will be the political authority of the Angling Trust.

 

But even if it has but a small percentage of the potential numbers in membership, it will still be seen as the most authoritive body representing anglers, and so the body to be involved in such discussions.

 

That is a fact of the way that things work, whether talking about anglers, motorists, canoists or ramblers.

 

What does make a difference is the level of support given to the representative body.

 

Is it safe to trample over the rights and aspirations of the group being represented, because the majority obviously fail to support their representative body?

 

Or does one have to take great heed of what is being said, because that body has been given sufficient support to pay for the kind of organisational and lobbying power that a well-supported organisation is able to command?

 

If the 99% do not become involved, who then will take on those issues that need to be addressed, proposals supported or challenged, battles with those who would take away anglers' rights and freedoms fought?

Edited December 19, 2008 by Leon Roskilly

[poledark]

And if you do join, it will only cost you £20.00.........

 

Den