Unity - At Last!

[Elton]

Do you know what I think would work better? If organisations like the SACN could motivate their membership to express their own individual concerns each time an issue arises. I think specialist organisations are a lot more likely to appeal to the specific passions of their members than an umbrella organisation that claims to be all things to all men (and women).

 

As citizens of this country, we have rights and our MP's are duty-bound to listen to us and act in our best interests. MP's probably like the idea of a single body - it means they only have to string along that one body, and not thousands of UK taxpayers. Look what happened when a few people whined about a pair of DJ's making silly phone calls. And how fox hunting got banned because individuals were organised into harassing the government. 10 people complain about a TV programme and it gets mentioned in the House of Commons.

 

You say "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?" - I'm not sure what you mean by that, but no minority group should claim to represent the majority and, in doing so, trample over their rights. I'm beginning to feel that certain people are trying to take away my voice, not add to it. I'm not failing to support a representative body - I'm choosing not to. There is a very distinct difference.

[Elton]

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

 

Den

 

It could cost you a lot more than that if, as has already been suggested, the turkeys start voting for Christmas.

 

The "it only costs" argument holds no water. It would probably only cost me £20 to join the BNP, but I'm not going to.

[Leon Roskilly]

You say "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? - I'm not sure what you mean by that"

 

I mean that Government, as well as sometimes having it's own agenda, has to listen to competing arguments from different stakeholders with opposing views.

 

RSPB would like waters to be non-angling sanctuaries for feathered creatures.

 

Canoists would like the freedom to roam where they will, regardless of the problems that would cause anglers.

 

Horse-riders are campaigning vehemently for coastal access, if they succeed that is going to cause problems for beach anglers in some places (imagine a group of riders at full gallop chased by rods and reels bouncing along in the surf, and a distant party of anglers running along far behind!).

 

All of these have representative organisations pushing their agenda, and I doubt that they have majority participation from their particular constituencies.

 

However, when Government, or Natural England, or the Environment Agency, or some other body, consider the competing arguments put forward by the various bodies on behalf of their own members, if the Angling Trust has (say) just 5,000 members out of a possible 4,000,000, and is struggling for funding to enable it to deal with the many angling issues that need to be dealt with, and the RSPB (say) has 200,000* and is able to deploy financial resources and well-trained and expert lobbying expertise, then although the outcome isn't certain, it is obvious that the better supported organisation is ahead from the beginning.

 

Someone isn't going to get what they want, and find that their aspirations and rights are trampled because the opposing side is able to mount a stronger argument in the right places with the right people.

 

And its likely that the loser will lose because they are under-resourced, under-funded, and most importantly not strongly supported.

 

Yes individuals and smaller organisations can help to make a difference, and it's vital that they do so, but whether it's right or not, it's often more about knowing about the right meetings, at the right places with the right people, researching the right information, and knowing in detail the competing agendas, as well as having the resources to bring all of that together in a way that gives your interest agenda the best chance of succeeding.

 

To do that properly you need a well-funded organization able to deploy adequate resources, and to employ the best people, supported by a sufficiently large membership to deliver political clout.

 

If that cannot be achieved, then the future of angling won't be what we would all want it to be.

 

 

*

http://www.rspb.org/vacancies/details.asp?id=tcm:9-201137

Over 200,000 people enjoy our monthly e-mail newsletter.

[Elton]

See, this is just it. I already don't agree with half of what you've written above.

 

Canoeists have a right to access waters. I don't see that our right is any greater. In my opinion, we should work with them. It may surprise some people to know that there are a bunch of people who combine the two sports to great effect.

 

I'm not a fan of horses, but I see nothing wrong with horse-riders galloping along a beach. What a wonderful feeling that must be for them.

 

And of top of my own feelings on external influences on angling, we have internal issues. We've already nearly had unnecessary taxing of sea angling, going under the guise of 'licencing', and I'm now hearing that we may even have such things as compulsory log-books and quotas, issues that are being spoken about solely because of misguided, self-appointed representatives. It's dangerous, and we don't seem to hear about these things until the 11th hour.

 

Just because we have a (self-appointed) representative body, it doesn't mean it's good for angling. Some people seem to assume it is, but I don't think they've ever looked past the propaganda. I'm not saying this lot won't be any good, just that they should prove themselves worthy before claiming to represent me. As it stands, they don't represent me and I will be making that expressly clear to all the people who think they do, whether that's anglers I meet by the water, or DEFRA officials who want to interfere with my hobby.

 

And one last thing; all I seem to hear about lately is money this and funding that, a bit like trade unions, who seem to serve no purpose these days other than to make it easy for employers and the Government to control their membership, whilst their direct employees swan around in suits on nice pensioned salaries. Is it possible that some of the organisations getting involved in this see it as a way of staying alive? I've no idea what their membership trends and bank balances are like, so that is a genuine question.

 

That's all from me for now on here. The next time I decide to write about this, I'll address it to a wider audience than this one forum. In the meantime, I'm trying to arrange some fishing over Christmas, both sea and coarse. The VAT on the angling-related purchases I've made this week alone come to more than the £20 required to join any organisation, so I figure that gives me the right to make my own, personal views heard, whether certain people agree with my right to do that or not.

[Steve Coppolo]

As an all round angler, game, sea and coarse, I'm really struggling with the idea of one umbrella organisation - and nothing else.

 

I can see that there are issues with coarse angling that need addressing and, although I've never felt the need to join any representative bodies, I feel that my licence fee goes at least some way towards addressing some of those issues. Perhaps the new angling unity will go the rest of the way? £20 isn't a lot to pay in order to find out and if nothing changes, things will stay as they are.

 

My game fishing nowdays is restricted to trout resevoirs, so there are no issues that directly affect my own fishing. That said, I know there are problems, (one of the latest being proposals to re-introduce Beavers to Scotland after a 400 year absence!), that need addressing. Perhaps the new angling unity can do some good here? Again, it's worth £20 to find out.

 

The problem we have is sea angling. Sea anglers compete with the commercial fishing industry for the fish they catch. The fishery is managed by Defra. Defra are told what they can and can't do by Brussels. In terms of stakeholders rights, sea anglers come near the bottom of the list, despite the illusion created by existing representative bodies that suggests we are near the top. No amount of lobbying to date has resulted in any benefits to sea anglers, whatsoever - and that is unlikely to change. Instead we have seen existing representative bodies, realising that real benefits are impossible to achieve, aiming for what they consider achieveable targets. These targets, when you take away the thrills and bells, have been nothing more than proposed restrictions on anglers for nothing in return and have been unpopular with the anglers they are aimed at. Hence the lack of support, (and membership figures show there is a definate lack of support), shown by sea anglers to their existing representative bodies.

 

I don't believe that angling, even with 100% membership numbers, is capable of generating the amount of money required to change the situation with regard to marine fisheries management. To believe otherwise is, quite frankly, dellusional. We are hobbyists and the players already involved are far bigger than we will ever be and the people we rely on to deliver real benefits have theit hands tied by Europe. The best sea anglers have to look forward to is more proposals for more restrictions and nothing in return. So, why should sea anglers expected to support a new representative body that can't deliver any benefits? I can't think of a reason. Some may say that sea anglers, more than anyone else, need representation to fend off these restrictions. That may be true, but when some of the proposals are coming from sea angling representative bodies themselves, you can see why the idea of giving the same people even more power by joining the new angling unity doesn't appeal to sea anglers.

 

I find myself in a situation where by supporting the new unified angling representative body will be to give existing sea angling representatives carte blanche to carry on as before- and I can't bring myself to do it. The irony is that, by supporting the new unified group, coarse and game anglers will, in my opinion, be helping to drive the coffin nails into the sport of their sea angling bretheren.

[poledark]

Elton, while I have a great deal of sympathy (and respect) for your arguments, especially the financial one, the fact is that angling does come under pressure from all sorts of "other groups".

 

I also have a great deal of sympathy and respect for those who try to stand up for anglers, whether as small "specialist" type groups, or even the bigger associations. At long last they seem to have got their acts together, and are offering you, and anyone else, the chance to become an individual member. I assume that will give you voting rights on key issues?

 

Oddly enough, I have come around to thinking that licenses should be for all rod and line fishing, I know the arguments re holiday makers etc, but the same could apply to sea angling as freshwater i.e. get a weekly license.

 

Now before you "blow your tops" I would add that a significant portion of that license fee should be used to fund your membership of your (our) new governing body.

 

Freshwater anglers have accepted licenses for decades now, why not just make a license "coverall" and be done with, and that way EVERYONE who fishes with rod and line will have a say...............and even if only £1 of that fee was used to give you membership, then this (using the much vaunted 5million figure) would give "our representatives" a huge sum of money to fight our corner.

 

If I could see that being a major part of the future policy of the Angling Trust, and happening in the very near future, then I would join.

 

Steve, I wrote this while you were posting, but regarding funding, £5,000,000 would make for a pretty powerful body wouldn't it?

 

Den

Edited December 20, 2008 by poledark

[poledark]

Been giving this some more thought, and as usual it revolves around money. £20 is a sizeable chunk when added to all the other demands on income (assuming you have one now), so I fear it will be almost a nonstarter......................

 

Den

[Leon Roskilly]

I'm now hearing that we may even have such things as compulsory log-books and quotas, issues that are being spoken about solely because of misguided, self-appointed representatives.

 

Wha!!!!

 

That's complete b......... Elton

[Elton]

Wha!!!!

 

That's complete b......... Elton

 

Why? Did someone else help them?

 

And even if it was wrong, can you blame me? People have been asking what's going on behind closed doors for long enough, but the silence is deafening.

[Leon Roskilly]

I'm not saying this lot won't be any good, just that they should prove themselves worthy before claiming to represent me.

 

And therein sits the seed of why angling will be trodden down.

 

It's a chicken and egg situation.

 

Without the membership and funding the AT will not be able to deliver.

 

If anglers refuse to join until they see some delivery the AT will never attain the membership and funding levels needed for that delivery.

 

And not just funding, involvement.

 

When there is a pool of knowledge, experience and expertise available, it's possible to send the right person along to the right discussions with the right arguments.

 

When there are just a few people available to work at the coalface, working in their own time, mostly paying their own expenses, it's often a case of managing with what is available, rather than what is best needed.

 

And just a small group of people making decisions.

 

But let's just leave them to it, and see whether they are worth supporting, happily suffering the consequences of their best 'misguided' efforts, because we can always moan about them later if they aren't dancing to the tune we would like.

 

Personally I will engage whenever and however I can in support of all aspects of the sport/pastime that has been my life-long passion, both through personal representation, and through our representative bodies.