PETA - We told you so!

[Guest big al]

adrian your spot on people minds change with the amount of advertising they see,if it didn't work why spend millions doing it?.

perhaps now is the time to contact your mp and find out if they are for or against us.

elton there was some talk of a link to fax your mp.it does work i did get a responce even if it took a little time.now is just the time some of them will be very intrested if they are in a marginal seat.i million hits a month certainly gets their attention ,i have that on good authority .

cheers big al

[Guest Squimp]

Adrian,

 

You have hit the nail on the head. When (not if) PETA decide to have a go; angling is basically not in a position to defend itself.

 

The debate is about the control of public opinion.

 

So far angling has not been threatened because nobody has really had a go at us. When they do, public ambivalence to the sport may well change.

 

We should have unified the sport years ago and found a way of extracting funds from all anglers - not just those who bother to individually join representative bodies.

 

SACG, NFA and NFSA are all based on club or group affiliations. Which basically means they have no money.

 

Only the Salmon and Trout Association is based on individual memberships, which might explain why traditionally game anglers have had more influence than their coarser bretheren.

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by big al:

elton there was some talk of a link to fax your mp.it does work i did get a responce even if it took a little time.

 

You'll find links to sites which may allow you to email your MP, or to fax them, on the SACN pages.

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

Join the Sea Anglers' Conservation Network at http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/sacn/

[Guest dug6]

[Guest waterman1013]

mpbdsnu (malc)

 

Thanks for the response but my posting had nothing to do with SACG, really.

 

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I posted this morning before driving down to Portsmouth to talk to the National Mullet Club at their AGM and have only just got back, answered all the telephone messages, had my one meal of the day and am now sitting here responding to questions I thought we had answered, but obviously not well enough. But I understand and appreciate why you want to know.

 

SACG membership within the single species groups and individual members numbers about 10,000. The actual figure is totally dependent on the memberships of the individual single species groups. The figure claimed by single species groups represents the pretty pathetic support that anglers give these groups. We can only represent those in membership so those that choose not to join any angling body will remain unrepresented and their voice unheard, where it matters. Hence my posting.

 

At the last count something like 65% of all anglers remain unrepresented by not being part of any angling organisation. They are the anglers I was targeting with my post.

 

This fight is so important I don’t care whether you join NFA, NFSA, S&TA or SACG, as long as you not only join one of them but also get involved in making sure your voice is heard. The price of that is to give up fishing time and family time to defend the sport.

 

PETA are well financed, highly motivated and highly organised. Anglers are not.

 

When it comes to winning hearts and minds, the pound spent in attacking the sport needs to be matched by the pound spent in defending it. Anglers want it on the cheap. Until the sport wakes up to reality and gets itself organised with sensible levels of funding from the participants our future as anglers is at risk.

 

Three years ago the Daily Telegraph found that 28% of the adult population of Britain would ban angling tomorrow if given the chance. PETA does not need to persuade too many more before politicians sit up and take notice of the majority. And PETA knows it.

 

SACG are members of NAA as well as affiliated to NFA. NAA will become the one voice you and we all want. It will get its strength from more and more anglers joining the various groups which make up NAA and helping to finance it.

 

If you want to know how many individual members there are in SACG, I am not empowered to divulge that. The individual membership of SACG is a recent innovation. The organisation was set up to represent the single species groups and to build on their strengths. What I can tell you is that since the various discussions on this BB more individuals than ever before are applying for membership. Hopefully they will take some part in managing the affairs of SACG/SAA and reduce the workload on the few doing it all at the moment.

 

I can’t advise you as to which group to join. In part that will be determined by your style of fishing. Sea angler NFSA, match angler or club angler NFA, specimen or specialist angler SACG/SAA, game angler S&TA. What I do know is that it is easier to get your voice heard within SACG than within the other organisations, simply because SACG is non-hierarchical and if you come to the meetings you get a say. So anyone who claims to be unheard or unrepresented can do it for themselves, but weight is given to those who contribute skills as well as opinions. We do not intend to become a talking shop, angling has had too many of those in the past.

 

Within NFA I understand there is a strong committee structure. But I have had no part in the joining or representation aspects of SACG/NFA so cannot answer your question. I simply do not have the info.

 

Within SACG every group has the same voice and same voting rights. They are members as groups not delegated as in a federation system.

 

I understand your frustration at not seeing more of SACG or NFA before the internet came along. At angling shows at NEC and other locations you can always tell the SACG and NFA stands – there is a big space around them waiting to be filled with anglers. Perhaps that is our failure, but we are after all amatuers taking a days holiday from our work to try to improve what is happening in our sport.

 

We do not have enough money to defend our sport and if we spent that money on advertising for members there would be none left for the defence job. So we go where anglers go; to most of the single species conferences, to the Angling shows at NEC, the NASA conference etc. But even those anglers who are in membership of one organisation or another, or who are simply going to an angling exhibition do not yet realise how important defending the sport is.

 

Malc and Paul – if in the past anglers had been better organised and represented we would not have all these initials. Hopefully in the future we will have only one – NAA – but don’t hold your breath. IMO there are still too many people involved in angling administration who have their own agenda and ego to massage. Angling does not need them. We need people who can see the big picture, and it goes beyond simply British or European shores, and can lead from the front. It will come but we cannot wait forever. Angling needs to be fighting back now, before public opinion is swayed by a vegan agenda.

 

Malc, I came back to coarse fishing after a fourteen year gap. Yes it was strange. I joined all sorts of organisations to get up to speed and stayed with those I thought mattered most. I am no expert, ask Graham e or bigal, I just enjoy my fishing and think I can do something to help with the future. I am sure you can as well.

 

Squimp, sums it up in one.

 

Mike

[Guest Bruno Broughton]

Sorry to diabuse you of a good thread, but I believe that angling IS extremely well placed to defend itself, although the word 'defend' is anathema to many of us. Just because it ain't in yer face, don't think that some of us haven't been working at this for 15 years... to good effect so far.

 

I don't intend to publicise details here for obvious reasons. But, applying their own tactics, some of you may care to ponder: from whom does PETA derive its funds? Should we target these people, just as they have been doing in reverse? PETA is not a mass movement reliant on a large membership. No, a few rock stars and film star prima donnas give the large sums of money to fund the activities of this bunch of odd idealists.

 

You might just care to boycott the output from the aforementioned. Starting with the late Linda and her cardboard burgers.

 

------------------

Bruno

 

[This message has been edited by Bruno Broughton (edited 12 February 2001).]

[Guest dug6]

Hello all

Did you know that peta/Ifaw financed Labour's election campaign to the tune of £1.1 million.I think the conversation went something like this:

Peta/Ifaw "Do you think Mr Blair if we give your party £1.1 million you could abolish hunting"

Mr Blair "Consider it done"

In four or five years time delete "hunting" from the above and add "angling"

Most people think shooting will be next in line when hunting goes.

I think not.

Shooting,for obvious reasons is carried out far from public places on completely private land making it hard for anti's to disrupt.

Fishing on the other hand is very public,venues/matches are well publicised.

Anti's/saboteours are not going to be arrested for "accidentally" treading on the end of your pole or "nudging" your tackle into the river.

In my view angling is at the moment completely unable to fight the likes of Peta as they are so disorganised.Angling as a whole should make use of the countryside alliance it is professionally run and is second to none in organising demonstrations and lobbying parliament it aso holds a lot of clout.From a purely selfish point of view forget whether you agree or disagree with hunting, while the sabs and the likes of Peta etc are busy with hunting they are leaving fishing alone.[with regards to Peta's

autumn campaign they probably think they have got hunting beat].

 

Mr Blair "Consider it done"

[Guest Graham E]

Mike mentioned my name so I will post an opinion, although it is not a well supported one.

1/ I do not think angling is threatened, simply because trying to ban angling is a vote loser.

2/ We do need an Organisation to represent angling. Not just because of the perceived threat from people with different views.( I hate them being labelled as Veggies etc. as this is inaccurate, and will not endear us to a large number of the population, including anglers..no I am not)

It needs to strong and commercially minded, with a fully paid executive, rather than the half hearted, well intentioned piecemeal efforts of a few good men..and women.

3/ It needs to be made up of Anglers / conservationists and commercial angling enterprise.

4/ It needs not to respond with a " attack " mentality to concerns, but with a well thought out strategic plan that seeks to convince and advise Mr joe public that we do contribute far more to the environment than we take out. ie. support of swan lifeline/ ACA work etc.

5/The "Group" needs an effective publicist that does not respond to issues but forsees them and deflates them.

6/ IMO the first task is to identify the people required to represent us, who inspire the general angler to put a pound in

(£2-3million!!) to achieve an effective fighting fund.

7/ Trying to link up all the disjointed current "bodies" will end up with a group of bodies. It needs a New Group, empowered by the general angler with a clear message and determined mandate.

 

SO...

Bruno / Chris Tarrant / Bob Nudd / Carp Star / ETC. Total 10 max inclu 2 commercial reps

Plus one of the most sensible people I have met, to co ordinate. Mike Heylin

[Guest dug6]

The likes of Peta/Ifaw etc are not charities as many people think, they are ltd co's in other words many directors and employees make a very good living out of them. You've probably heard of Ifaw through the leaflets and begging letters they send out periodically you know the ones I mean? the ones with the cuddly baby seals etc etc on the front asking you for money.I do hope that anglers don't cotribute to them and unwittingly finance our enemys.

[Guest waterman1013]

Graham

 

Thanks for the plaudit, but I wasn't looking for one.

 

I was careful to use the word "vegan" not vegetarian. The vegan agenda and that of PETA is "no interaction between man and animals". Vegetarians choose not to eat meat and some animal products but those that I know do not have a problem with keeping pets and other livestock in decent conditions. The vegan agenda is more proscriptive and will surely limit our life choices if we allow them to dominate.

 

Bruno is right, the funding comes mostly from wealthy individuals, rather than a mass movement. Cardboard burger anyone?

 

Mike