National Angling & Fisheries Organisations to Speak with One Voice

[Alan Stubbs]

Peter Waller:

Peter Waller:

Are all the people who post on here (with a full personal identity name) the people they say they are?

Its not an honest world out there Steve. Was a time when one angler could trust another.

 

It the case of political ramblings I suggest that those who pose under a misleading, assumed, name, are being particularly dishonest. I would question their agenda, and their morals.

I quite agree

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Chaps,

 

Crikey. Strong opinions already from Mud Rakers-Mook Rakers, Moon Walkers and angling politicos.

 

Can a Sludge Bumper say owt?

 

DCB? He's David (no pay-no say) Bird. That is, to those that know him. Those that don't know him couldn't give a fig who he is anyway!! I call him Birdy cos he chirps loudly at meetings. Similar to Leon, I hardly EVER agreed with Birdy but who gives a fig about that either!! Nice to see you still have the sixguns David but amazed you still can't hit the side of a PR barn door with em!

 

Paul Boote should know Birdy gives as good as he gets and under no circumstances should Paul run off just because the old bird tweets.

 

On a personal note, I wish the new "CALM" oops sorry, "FACT" all the best. Also on a personal if not a tad familiar note, I would have hoped the new group might have considered individual membership as well for fund raising purposes within FACT. Without dosh, and lots of it, this shiny new train ain't going nowhere apart from perhaps the odd trip around the station.

 

All aboard?

 

Jim's reservations are based of course on historical FACT. FACT being that everything else has failed on the unity front. FACT that angling politics remains drastically underfunded. Fact that UK angling has no unified body that all anglers can support and join on a individual basis. Can't see why Jim should be so down-beat about it all really.

 

Pete Waller says we will simply have to wait and see. The broad church angling has in reality no choice but to do exactly that. Wait...and see.

 

Yes, I wish this latest FACT finding mission every success. Even though I think it will fail without individual membership and the sustainable funding they would bring.

 

Hey, I said that about the NAA damned crackpot that I am.

 

Phil,

 

I post as Trent Barbeler. Burbeler to most angling politicos. My real name is Lee Fletcher. Ah Ha! But I'm really Steve Pope and fooled you all at those meetings!!!

 

High Ho Silver HAwaaaaaaaaaaay!!!

 

Regards,

 

Tonto.

[phil hackett]

Always thought there was something dodgy about you Mr Fletcher when you were evasive and vague about connections to the BS.

BTW are you still doing work for 5 then? Or have you moved on to 6?

[Dick Dastardly]

Ah well Ive kept out of this one for some time now but here we go!

 

This thread is like every other one I have read on any forum on the subject of whats best described as "Angling Unity" yes unity for without this no body "claiming" to represent all of angling will sucseed.

 

The only way for an organisation to be sucsessfull is indeed if all interested parties get round a table and create this all encompassing body.To do this "All" must decide on the real issues that affect "all" anglers.Any others must initialy be put aside.Surely no matter what our preffered areas of angling or personel politics are we can find some things in common?

 

A proffesional (by this I mean a paid) group should be proposed and elected to run this body,any person involved in the initial setting up would not automaticly be part of this unless proposed and elected.

 

Persons nominated should obviousley have a sound fishing back ground but more importantly a sound proffesional back ground in the chosen feild they have been nominated for.Im sure there must be plenty of acountants,PR men,fisheries biologists etc who go fishing.If they are allready well known to the angling masses that would help!

 

The body would have to be well funded.No good relying on handouts and raffles! Where would the money come from? Maybe the tackle trade(the survival and growth of angling might possibley be in their interest!)but I suppose more realisticly from us the angler.Quite how it would be got in I dont know.Maybe as part of the rod licence? if there was just ONE governing body then this might not be as impossible as it first sounds.

 

Above all it must be answerable to us the angler and keep us informed about what is going on.This I believe to be the most common failling in these "representitive" organisations.

 

Any new body will have a job convincing the angler that they are indeed the one and worth supporting due to most of us having seen and heard it so many times before!The strangest thing is that many one species or regional angling organisations seem to be more organised and better ran than these national "one body" groups!

 

I agree that there are a lot of people out there who are involved in angling politics purely for their own furtherment but I have met plenty who are genuine.Sadly most groups have a mixture of these people and the latter get held back by the former.

 

The various types of person has been covered ie "those who do and those who just talk about it".Sadly angling has to many "those who did but have now just given up"!

 

I realy want to suport a united body and see it do well.I doubt like many thousands of others I would ever do anything more constructive than pay my annual dues but none the less I would like to see it.I dont think I will though.....

 

On the subject of people not posting under their own name (err my given name obviousley aint BUDGIE but all who know me call me this and my surname is given in my profile)I think if you expect your veiws to be considered seriously you should have the conviction to give your name.I would also like to see it compulsory to have this and some form of contact at least in your profile before you can post.

[Peter Waller]

My one reservation is that, here again, we have another group that has elected itself to speak on my / our behalf. I happen to rather admire DCB and some of his croonies, but it wouldn't matter if I didn't. I have no say in who represents me, nor in what policies that are persued in my name.

 

If, heaven forbid, FACT was to align itself with the Countryside Alliance, arghhhhhhh, then I would have to accept it. I couldn't resign in protest, I would have no say in the matter. It would be a 'fact'!

 

It is, I think, important that FACT becomes open to individual support, both for finance and for credibility.

 

I agree that a committee of one is the ideal, but clearly lessons have not been learnt from the past. If FACT becomes draconian and another group disagrees with their representation, and is powerless to do anything about it, then another representative group just pops its head above the reed-bed, just as NASA did with NFA, and the whole thing starts off again.

 

FACT needs to be accessible. Its no good saying that such as myself, a member of SAS, has a route to the top, it just doesn't work that way, unfortunately thats the very nature of things. Individual membership has to be the way forward.

 

When every angler in the land, including Scotland , has the ability to join FACT then it will have very real credibility.

 

[ 02. February 2005, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[guernseybass]

Peter Waller:

 

 

When every angler in the land, including Scotland

 

whats needed is an Angling Association representing all anglers who can locally elect a committee and send a representative to sit on a regional committee then same again to the national committee.

 

And here's a new one - how about members being able to vote for decisions and make policy rather than a few self selected individuals deciding policy then inviting anglers to join/support.

 

These associations should start with one single aim - to get national recognition for the views of local anglers.

 

I think i might be wrong but isn't this how the commercial Fishermans Associations work. seems to work for them .

 

GB

[Dick Dastardly]

Thats an interesting point GB,Newt how is it done in the States? In fact any of our foreign posters how is angling ran on a national level in your countries?

[Paul Boote]

Peter Waller:

My one reservation is that, here again, we have another group that has elected itself to speak on my / our behalf. I happen to rather admire DCB and some of his croonies, but it wouldn't matter if I didn't. I have no say in who represents me, nor in what policies that are persued in my name.

 

If, heaven forbid, FACT was to align itself with the Countryside Alliance, arghhhhhhh, then I would have to accept it. I couldn't resign in protest, I would have no say in the matter. It would be a 'fact'!

Have to accept it, Peter?

 

I do hope not.

 

For my part, in such an event, I would consign ALL of my many valuable Angling books plus a major stockpile of both ancient and modern fishing-tackle to the depths of certain, unspecified Thames weirpools, to certain Wessex, Welsh and far-flung, never publicly divulged, foreign rivers, then give up fishing for good (after high forties of years of doing the thang full-on), and devote the rest of my life to fornication or to tiddlywinks (whichever will be the easier, then, without a need for artificial stimulants).

 

[ 03. February 2005, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Paul Boote ]

[Paul Boote]

Oh, I omitted to mention the shredder and the scrapyard crusher...

[Peter Waller]

I take it, 'Paul', that you aren't in favour of the CA dabling, uninvited, in angling matters either?