National Angling & Fisheries Organisations to Speak with One Voice

[Dunk Fairley]

Those who consider angling politics boring, please change chanel now!!

 

Now, Peter, it should blinking well work. Everything else has been tried!

 

Anyway, with you behind it, how can it fail?

 

Jim, I can see your point of view entirely. But if angling IS to speak with one voice, ALL the various groups MUST form around the same table, be it 1,2,3 or 300 groups.

 

As I'm sure you know, there are a lot of those within angling politics, who consider true angling unity a just and achievable aim. There are also those who consider it a pipe dream. there are of course a (very) few, who don't want unity at all (I'll politely call them "Mud Rakers") I personally fall very much in the first category.

 

I believe the vast majority of anglers WANT unity. If the doubters (and I don't mean you, you've more than done your bit in the past) could do their bit and not hinder the process for a change, perhaps, just perhaps, we'll have success.

 

As for the Mud Rakers....get stuffed!!

 

Good luck and well done to all those concerned.

[Newt]

Dunk Fairley:

there are of course a (very) few, who don't want unity at all (I'll politely call them "Mud Rakers")

Dunk - that is sort of an insult to the better sorts of mud. How about 'Muck Rakers' since muck is a particularly nasty bit of muddish, semi-liquid goo?

 

[ 24. January 2005, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[Dunk Fairley]

OK, I'll agree to that. But please don't tempt me into lowering the tone of this eloquent thread.

[Peter Waller]

Muck as in horses?

 

The only question I have is will individual membership be available?

[Paul Boote]

The following from someone who prides himself to be able to sleep anywhere almost at will, to be able to go face-down unconcho at a committee meeting in less than three minutes. What follows is a swift reworking of something I bashed out, and posted unedited on another forum the other day. It's still rough, but as it's for free...

 

Someone on the AnglingMagic Forum, in a thread “Angling 2015?”:

 

"At our meeting of 13 clubs representing 1600 anglers the other night I heard soemviews which startled me.

 

Two delegates whose views I respect, although often argue with, expressed that as far as they were concerned fishing on rivers would be finished by 2025.

 

They felt that this would be brought about by public pressure, perhaps the PC brigade or anti-anglers, who knows.

 

Whatever, they seemed to think that we are heading for a total closure on to fishing on rivers.

 

Still waters would be ok, they thought.

 

Do you agree?"

 

 

-- my reply:

 

Total carp (is that the name of a respected modern angling publication, as written by a dyslexic?).

 

Fishing (river, stillwater, coarse or game (a fair bit of the latter can probably be excepted, at least for a well-paying few; these folk always 'get by') WILL be finished (or certainly ailing) by said date if the owners, commercial operators, the mags and the Trade continue to rule the roost, artificially set trends, create 'hot' new species, make anglers buy all the kit that THEY need them to...

 

Poison the organic grassroots of Angling for profit, and just see the whole lot go belly-up. PDQ.

 

Fishing is (or was) something that niggles at the mind of the initially attracted, then, if conditions are right, can grow to become a passion / an addiction / a way of life / a means of expressing himself (in America and other more democratic, socially mobile nations, HERself), an escape from the still top-down constraints of work (do this because I said so...), a force for social good, and much much more.

 

Angling -- the REAL McCoy -- not the plastic, pale shade "Here buy this; we can supply" variety -- exists -- no, LIVES AND THRIVES -- in both the individual and collective head. It's not just another leisure or shopping opportunity (or shouldn't be -- should NEVER BE), something you pick up then drop like other one-minute wonders. If Angling's "leaders" (so often, regrettably, self-appointed, self-serving, (or merely there by virtue of their ability to sit on and survive so many committees), and highly likely to disappear from the scene (abroad, or anywhere but here, with those who probably put them where they are in the first place - aka you and me) once they have made the necessary amount of loot) can get this into their (let's be generous, now) moderately endowed minds, then Angling itself can expect more than just occasional spells of of moderately good short-term health ('health' here meaning rather more than just how many £££s or $$$s the angler-punter is currently being successfully encouraged to part with), but a real, long-term, healthy future.

 

This will mean doing a lot more than merely protecting and conserving our fish and fisheries and expressing a certain type's views and needs to the current powers that be, I believe. It will necessitate far more INCLUSION of 'mere mortals' than there is at present -- far greater say in how everything -- the sport, our waters -- is run, with Ordinary Joe Anglers increasingly getting to run this everything; greater access for anglers of ALL backgrounds to British waters of all kinds, too - VITAL, this, in fact, for Angling above all is about the end-user, not about the crew that is flogging us our 'fix'.

 

What's the answer then?

 

Just go fishing. Respect and value other anglers (you might hate them when they outfish you, but without them there'd be nobody to lie to or impress; how many women want to hear about your 6-pound chub...?). Be prepared to fight for the fish and the waters that you love. We need leaders, of course. Just make sure that they are GOOD leaders -- leading for the right reasons, doing it for ALL of us and not merely for themselves and for their moneyed or propertied friends.

 

Simple really!

 

[ 24. January 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Paul Boote ]

[Peter Waller]

I very much doubt that river fishing will be banned.

 

However, I do have my concerns for some sythetic fisheries.

 

Artificially high fish populations do not help in a pro fishing debate. There will, must be changes, if we are to continue.

 

This is not an issue that I am prepared to expand on via a public forum.

[Alan Stubbs]

Peter Waller:

I very much doubt that river fishing will be banned.

 

However, I do have my concerns for some sythetic fisheries.

 

Artificially high fish populations do not help in a pro fishing debate. There will, must be changes, if we are to continue.

 

This is not an issue that I am prepared to expand on via a public forum.

Peter, you are normally a person who justifies his robust, if not trenchant, viewpoint. It's a pity you choose not to do so here. I understand your point, however!

[Paul Boote]

Alan Stubbs:

Alan Stubbs:

I very much doubt that river fishing will be banned.

 

However, I do have my concerns for some sythetic fisheries.

 

Artificially high fish populations do not help in a pro fishing debate. There will, must be changes, if we are to continue.

 

This is not an issue that I am prepared to expand on via a public forum.

Peter, you are normally a person who justifies his robust, if not trenchant, viewpoint. It's a pity you choose not to do so here. I understand your point, however!

No critcism from me now of either of you, but surely if things aren't made public - the need for change, new and better ways of running the whole shop etc - then the same old 'usual suspects' will chew it over in committee, decide (as they nearly always do that the best form of 'change' is 'no change'), then generously present it as fait accomplii 'policy' to poor old Joe Public.

 

NEVER underestimate just how much change (even vitally necessary change) scares the pants off a certain type (and these people, interestingly, are usually the very folk you forever hear saying that things ain't what they used to be, that it's all gone to the dogs, now ... I wonder why...?).

 

[ 25. January 2005, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Paul Boote ]

[Jim Gibbinson]

Of course we should all give the new unified body our support, and maybe, just maybe FACT will prove itself more effective than other governing-cum-advisory bodies. But let's look at their track record: NFA, NFSA and the late "lamented" NAC (National Anglers' Council). Inspirational? Confidence boosting? Your call...

 

I foresee internal squabbles and self-serving introspection. I hope I'm wrong, and I'll happily eat humble-pie and publicly apologise if such proves to be the case.

 

God knows, we need an influential body capable of cogent thought and public lucidity, so my good wishes are heartfelt and genuine - but so are my doubts.

[Alan Stubbs]

I sincerely wish it well.

 

As long as one or twenty egos can be subsumed and lessons in team ethics learned and put into practice, there should be no earthly reason for it not to do so.

 

I live in hope - forlorn it may be, but I hope I'm proved wrong.

 

In the near 5 years I've been posting on here (formerly under the nic 'Fatboy') there have been many threads about angling unity - and all seem to inspire serious bouts of name calling and dummy out of pram throwing. That's why I understand the reservations of Peter and Jim.