Who represents us? A serious question!

[Leon Roskilly]

The money (for sports development) is given by Sport England seperately to each of the recognised sports governing bodies. For angling these are the NFA, NFSA, and S&TA (and it's not much, barely covers the demands of Sports England for developing Child Protection, Equal Access policies etc).

 

Sports England does not have a free hand on deciding what public monies can be spent upon, they operate within strict government guidlines, so if (say) NFA decided to spend money to lobby politicians for legislation to restrict canoe access to popular angling waters, Sports England could have nothing to do with that, it has to come out of anglers' own pockets.

 

Though these three governing bodies meet together under the banner of the Joint Angling Governing Bodies, to work together on common issues, they each have their own agenda, and their own funding.

 

They will respond to their members who are the only ones they really seek to represent (fair enough).

 

If you really want to influence their agenda, you need to become a member of one or more of them, and, better still, play an active part.

 

If you are (say) a specialist angler and are unhappy with the NFA position on (say) livebaiting, then you may want to join the SAA who meet with the JAGB organisations at the level of the NAA.

 

Of course you can belong to both the SAA and the NFA etc.

 

Only you can decide where your angling interests are best represented and support the appropriate organisation(s) both with your money and perhaps also (more importantly) your time.

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 28. August 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[Leon Roskilly]

Peter,

 

Regarding membership numbers.

 

Sorry, I'm not ignoring your question, I simply don't know, and I don't have time to do the research for you.

 

In fact it's a very difficult question to answer.

 

Some organisations are umbrella organisations, having no individual members but claiming to represent the membership of each of the component organisations.

 

So, the NAA will claim somebody who is a member of the PAC and the NFA twice!

 

Some organisations don't know what their membership is until the end of the year, when a new membership year starts and they wait for renewals to come in/lapse/new members.

 

Some organisations have both individual and organisations as members (eg SAA). Do you count direct memebrships, or include the membership of the member organisations as those you represent.

 

If the CA is claiming organisational members amongst its representation, then it is not nearly as big as say the NAA!

 

If you are really interested, I suspect that you won't get a trustworth definitive answer from a question posted on an internet forum, you need to go to each of the organisations and ask, and make sure you know what you are asking for!

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Vagabond]

Leon Roskilly:

Let's see 5 million anglers in the UK (fresh&saltwater), each contributing a tenner to representative organisations

Just totalled up what I contribute as an individual:-

 

Wild Trout Trust £20, Salmon & Trout Ass £40

Salmon licence £31 Sussex Ouse Conservation Society £10

 

NFSA £17 IGFA £25

 

SAA £20 Coarse licence £11

 

So that is £101 as a game fisher, £42 as a sea fisher, and just £31 as a coarse fisher.

 

Total £174 Thats before I join any clubs.

 

Plus of course the ACA,(£15) and the contributions of the various clubs that I belong to make to NAA NFA etc etc .

 

I reckon I must count as about 34 anglers out of the alleged 5 million. I don't mind that, as I am a perch angler, a seatrout angler, a skate angler, a roach angler, etc .......

 

I don't really care who claims to "represent" me, as long as they are achieving something. I think all of my above subscriptions are justified in that the organisations concerned actually achieve something.

 

Yes, they might achieve more if there was a bit more unity, but I can't see that happening in my lifetime.

 

I did my stint in angling organisation when I was younger, now I just pay my subs and offer advice if asked.

 

Do not underestimate what is being achieved already by the likes of Leon.

 

Just remember, next time he asks you to write to your MP (or anyone else) just DO it.

[chesters1]

give money ,join a group and the chairman pops round to discuss how you would like to be represented

ok so far ,join lots of groups have lots of chairmen round ,buy a few more cakes ,ok is that how it works

[snotty]

So just a quick recap of a couple of points here, the CA have the professional publicity machine, funding and the ability to get into the media on a regular basis. They don't however do much of the important work.

The other angling groups generally lack the publicity machine, the funding and hardly ever get into the angling press let alone the nationals. But they do work their balls off behind the scenes. (apologies to the lady members of said groups).

 

Mmmm.... now what if.... nah there's the nasty foxy thing of course... that wouldnt work at all.

 

I have heard it said many times that the way to change an organisation is from the inside, maybe we should swell the ranks.... nah that nasty foxy thing again.

 

Perhaps we are destined to fight each other ad nauseam until the foxy thing goes away.

[Peter Waller]

There are those who are convinced that once that nasty foxy thing goes away then the CA will cease to operate.

 

I once heard a rumour that Chinese money, from the tackle trade, has financed the CA in the past.

 

Might only be a Chinese Whisper but if its true, then maybe angling proper will be able to lay their hands on it eventually. Well, if the CA no longer need it!

[kleinboet]

I really don't care who represents me (except the NFA, you don't want to know why), what I want is an organisation, that if I see something important (dead fish etc,) I'll let them know (tel. no. will be on my license) and they will argue anglers corner in any top (gov?) argument.

The sooner this happens the better. I know that there are so many branches of angling, but remember this WE ARE ALL ANGLERS! all this infighting must stop. I am an angler, I'll catch Carp, Pike, Sea fish etc. I don't care. I just want to catch fish and whats of more importance I want to CONTINUE to catch fish. I would feel much happier if we (ALL anglers) banded together as one. If the CA can do it (fox hunting, deer hunting, hare coursing etc.)then why can't we?

[Cranfield]

"I once heard a rumour that Chinese money, from the tackle trade, has financed the CA in the past"

 

"Chris has reminded me that the CA is opposed to the closure of rural services, yet it has shares in Barclays bank, a bank that has closed more rural branches than just about any other."

 

"The CA is also opposed to building on greenfield sites, yet the CA apparently has shares in a major building company that builds more houses on greenfield sites than any other builder."

 

Straight from, Wallers Wildest Quotes.

 

Peter, I think you are providing more publicity for the CA, than their own Publicity Department.

[Peter Waller]

Just for the record Cranfield, the suggestion is not a guess, it came from an official of another angling body. I hope that you read Leons postings re the CA.

 

I have only passed on quotes from other sources. I'm sorry that they don't, for whatever reason, meet with your approval.

 

I only mention 'Chinese Money' by way of a hint that tackle trade sponsorship MIGHT be available. I heard the suggestion from someone who is not prone to speculation.

 

[ 28. August 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Jim Roper]

I get regular newsletters from the Countryside Alliance and I'm not even a member, YET!

 

I expect I am one of the people who has filled in a questionaire for them and included angling as one of my interests.

 

I am happy for them to represent my angling interests and will be joining them shortly. I't all in the word, ALLIANCE.

Divided we fall!