Be warned!

[kleinboet]

Thanks for those answers, but as was mentioned earlier, these guy want to boat on STILL waters.

Is it only the larger waters that are in danger or are ALL waters liable to have this abomination happen to them? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[waterman1013]

Peter

 

Glad to be of service, but the postings since hardly add up to anything constructive. Too many around here seem keen enough to rubbish those few who try to do anything. One of the reasons why I seldom post now!

 

Nugg

 

Yes, many people have heard of these proposals before. Principally members of NAA, Moran, SAA, NAFAC, angling consultatives and RFERACs who give much of their time to monitoring issues such as these and dealing with the EA and DEFRA on them.

 

Lee

 

“overlong goble-de-gook”. Yes, but it was a DEFRA document I published and exactly what we have to deal with, so all of you had better get reading and understanding, overlong or not. Thankfully there are a few anglers who can be bothered to read the detail and respond in kind to construct the arguments which kept CROW away from waters.

 

Mike

[Peter Waller]

Mike, perhaps things are more positive than you realize. The non constructive remarks could be seen as highlighting the shortcomings of the NAA, as seen by many whome the NAA purports to represent. There is no doubt that the set up of the NAA does not meet the requirements of many caring anglers.

 

It reassures me to read that the Crow Act was not applied to our rivers due to, presumably, the NAA. In saying that I am not being sarcastic! But it hasn't stopped the canoists attacking angling from another angle. At this moment H.M. Government, presumably as a result of effective lobbying, is still looking for a means of allowing canoes access to our more hallowed rivers.

 

I think Nugg's comments are valid. If we see Nugg as yer average angler the problem becomes immediately apparent, yer average angler doesn't know whats going on in his, or her name. In this day and age of immediate access to information I feel that more info would be appreciated.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter,

 

Your post of;

 

"Lee. My sentiment re the RSSG was simple, we need a national body devoted to our rivers, especially from an anglers point of view. The RSSG was a disaster, and no, I don't wish it to be resurected, but it had the beginnings of a national body. The need for such a national body, with a membership and an elected committee, was there, it still is. No, lets not start a debate on the RSSG, thats over & done with, and as I said, R.I.P. But the rivers still need a united body, not a bevvy of disunited consultatives, associations, quangos, self elected committees, and clubs pulling in different directions."

 

I agree with your words. Angling in this country unfortunately, has a chequered history of different directions. Especially on its political front. Like ants on a hot pavement. The NFA "should" have been anglings vehicle, its umbrella, but history saw many angling factions going their own way instead. The SAA is a perfect example of this when its own origins decided to go it alone years back.

 

But, at least we now have some sort of foundation to build upon in the NAA. But from where I sit, its making all the same old mistakes. Or perhaps they are not mistakes merely intentions. Tell me if I'm wrong here, but to me, the NAA set up appears to be a closed shop to anglings majority. All I read is the same old story. "At least some of us are doing something". Thats all very well if the somethings undertaken by the somebodies were known to anglings majority. Are they? Where exactly, can anglings rank and file get to know whats going off on their behalf? Do the NAA have a website for example that it updates regularly so at least internet access anglers can get more information? Where's the plan for the NAA to be independently funded? Why no plans for NAA individual membership?

 

As far as I am concerned as an individual angler, the NAA does not represent me. How could they? I am not a paid up member of it and I have no voice whatsoever in anything it does. Being a member of one of their constituent bodies also means nothing to me. Been there done that and I never got any information even then. How many NFA members get regular updates on NAA activities?

 

Sour grapes then on my part? Nope. I'd rather boil my feet than wade through the cods wallop that Mike does periodically when it comes out of DEFRA or where ever. But then again, Mike does actually enjoy the angling political hubub.

 

I just happen to think that the NAA should be independently funded by the overal majority of anglers that it claims to represent. And as yet, no NAA politico has given any reasonable reason why not such a thing should not happen.

 

Makes perfect financial and democratic sense to me. Oops. I take back democracy. Ruffles a few feathers that one.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Leon Roskilly]

kleinboet:

Sorry, but I am going to bang on a bit about this. If you work out that a day ticket will bring in between £1200 - £5000 per year. Which canoe organisation is going to pay this (or more!) for a SMALL stretch of still water when there are loads of navigable rivers available FREE all over England. :mad: :confused: :mad: :confused: :mad: :confused:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/...c=&area=&month=

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Peter Waller]

Be nice to think that the E.A. £25,000.00 wasn't sourced from our licence fees .

[Nugg]

Peter Waller:

Be nice to think that the E.A. £25,000.00 wasn't sourced from our licence fees .

Peter read again it was £50.000

[Peter Waller]

Nugg:

Nugg:

Be nice to think that the E.A. £25,000.00 wasn't sourced from our licence fees .

Peter read again it was £50.000

But didn't half come from the canoists themselves?

[Leon Roskilly]

Peter Waller:

But didn't half come from the canoists themselves?

For those who have difficulty clicking on the link:

 

'The BCU first negotiated the purchase four years ago and launched a fund raising appeal. This week the Environment Agency contributed £50,000 towards the purchase and the BCU a further £25,000.'

 

Tight Lines - leon

[waterman1013]

Peter & Nugg

 

I am told by the EA that the funding came from Recreation not Fisheries, so according to EA no anglers rod licence revenue was used for these purposes.

 

The canoe access drive comes in part from BCU but much more strongly from the Government which wants to be seen to increase access. CROW was just stage one in the process of getting the great Britsh public and all their litter onto private land. The Countryside Agency has been very loose in drawing up the access maps, with any land shown as for access and not disputed to their timescale being included for ever! I fear the same is being tried on our rivers but every access arrangement is being fought at Consultative and RFERAC level.

 

Lee

 

We have had the discussion about NAA organisation and structure too often to keep going over old ground. Whatever WE may want, we have to recognise that getting dead horses to move is sometimes easier than getting those in entrenched positions to vacate them.

Good to see you back BTW.

 

Feathers not ruffled.

 

Mike