Meeting with Defra in August.

[Steve Coppolo]

I got a copy Defra's latest Newsletter, Fisheries Focus, through the post last week. It mentions that Defra are meeting with stakeholders to discusss amendements to the RSA strategy this month. Apparently, amendments are considered necessary because of the nature of some of the responses to the consultation.

 

As this newsletter went out over a week ago, you would think that those who will be attending the meeting, to represent me and you, would have used the forums to get an idea of what the revolting anglers actually want them to say to Defra. As they haven't, to my knowledge, done so; maybe they don't consider themselves as representative of anglers in general and have consulted their respective memberships instead? If that is the case, are there any members of the NFSA, SACN or BASS who have been consulted by their representatives?

 

They may claim that the revolting anglers have already been consulted, but that was on the RSA travesty as was, not the new amended version that they are about to write up.

 

I would also imagine that those who have been invited to attend the meeting will be sent a copy of Defra's summary of responses to the RSA travesty consultation, which is supposed to be out in August. Could anyone on the attendees list please tell us the date of the meeting and, also, when the summary of responses will be out?

Edited August 13, 2008 by Steve Coppolo

[steve good]

I got a copy Defra's latest Newsletter, Fisheries Focus, through the post last week. It mentions that Defra are meeting with stakeholders to discusss amendements to the RSA strategy this month. Apparently, amendments are considered necessary because of the nature of some of the responses to the consultation.

 

As this newsletter went out over a week ago, you would think that those who will be attending the meeting, to represent me and you, would have used the forums to get an idea of what the revolting anglers actually want them to say to Defra. As they haven't, to my knowledge, done so; maybe they don't consider themselves as representative of anglers in general and have consulted their respective memberships instead? If that is the case, are there any members of the NFSA, SACN or BASS who have been consulted by their representatives?

 

They may claim that the revolting anglers have already been consulted, but that was on the RSA travesty as was, not the new amended version that they are about to write up.

 

I would also imagine that those who have been invited to attend the meeting will be sent a copy of Defra's summary of responses to the RSA travesty consultation, which is supposed to be out in August. Could anyone on the attendees list please tell us the date of the meeting and, also, when the summary of responses will be out?

 

Hi Steve

 

Thats a secret, not for rif raf rebels to know.

 

RSA representives only represent just afew anglers and the rest is of no matter

 

The presentives have their own agenda and nobodies view matters

 

QUOTE/ Apparently, amendments are considered necessary because of the nature of some of the responses to the consultation.

 

I hope they listened to my response and they make amendments based on my response

 

steve

[glennk]

Considering they, the rsa reps, have had a copy of the consultation response for over a week its about time they published it and asked for our views. Otherwise how are the reps going to know what to say at this meeting.

 

Oh I forgot, the voice of the people dont matter as the reps have their own agendas.

[barry luxton]

I hope they listened to my response and they make amendments based on my response

 

steve

 

Hiyer Steve, i think something was mentioned about file thirteen when they recieved yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JOKE:

 

 

i'm off.

[steve pitts]

there any members of the NFSA, SACN or BASS who have been consulted by their representatives?

 

Yes Steve.

As a member of BASS I have been consulted, as have all of the BASS committee.

 

As a member yourself, you'll appreciate that the committee have a mandate from the membership to act on such matters.

 

Democracy and all that, so bringing BASS into the equation, for the sake of controversy, is not required.

 

 

 

If anyone wants to know when the summary will be out they could email Anthony Hynes of Defra

anthony.hynes@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK

 

Cheers

Steve

 

PS

Draft summary circulated by Defra at 17:38 on Friday the 8th August.......meeting held on Tuesday the 12th

Edited August 13, 2008 by steve pitts

[Steve Coppolo]

Yes Steve.

As a member of BASS I have been consulted, as have all of the BASS committee.

 

As a member yourself, you'll appreciate that the committee have a mandate from the membership to act on such matters.

 

Democracy and all that, so bringing BASS into the equation, for the sake of controversy, is not required.

 

 

 

If anyone wants to know when the summary will be out they could email Anthony Hynes of Defra

anthony.hynes@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK

 

Cheers

Steve

 

PS

Draft summary circulated by Defra at 17:38 on Friday the 8th August.......meeting held on Tuesday the 12th

 

Sorry Steve, but I don't understand some of what you've said in that post.

 

What you appear to be saying is that you have been consulted as member of the BASS committee, not as a BASS member. Is that correct?

 

You also say that as a member of BASS, I have given the committee a mandate to do whatever they like, when that isn't the case. I thought the idea of joining an angling organisation was, among other things, to be able to have some say in the future of my sport? Maybe it's in the terms and conditions of BASS membership that you can only join if you agree to let the committee make it's own mind up what they say to Defra on your behalf? If it is, I didn't read it. Sorry.

 

If that is the case, or even if it isn't, is that really a democracy? And why is the mere mention of BASS considered being controversial?

 

I see in the P.S at the end of your post that the meeting has already taken place, yet there has been no mention of it on any of the forums, or to any of the memberships, in the build up to it.

 

And people wonder why the RSA organisations are taking flack?

 

I suppose it would be too much to ask what was said and what the outcome of the meeting was?

[steve pitts]

Steve

 

As you attended the last BASS AGM and the one before that, you'll be aware that a good deal of time is devoted to disscussions on what the BASS restoration team and the committee has been doing and what it is likely to do in the forseeable future. One item on the agenda this year was the sea angling strategy consultation, to which this summary document relates.

 

During these discussions a mandate has been given by the membership for the committee to sanction the actions and the direction of the restoration team, without having to refer back to the membership for every decision that needs to be taken. That, after all is one of the functions of a committee. You'll also be aware that I am a member of the restoration team, not a committee member.

 

A copy of the draft responses was circulated on Monday to the committee and members of the restoration team by the BASS chairman, who asked for comments relative the meeting of the inshore working group of which BASS is a participant. I picked up this email late Monday afternoon.

 

I then forwarded a copy of this document to you and several other BASS members early on Monday evening. I also copied Glenn in for info.

 

Your post infers that BASS has not consulted its membership or fed back information.

 

This is the part of your post that I find difficult to accept as anything other than contraversial.

 

As they haven't, to my knowledge, done so; maybe they don't consider themselves as representative of anglers in general and have consulted their respective memberships instead? If that is the case, are there any members of the NFSA, SACN or BASS who have been consulted by their representatives?

 

You appear (to me) to be implying that BASS is not conveying relevant information to its members and its representatives are acting without their authority.

 

It also appears me that you are having a poke at BASS for the sake of it and I find that contraversial.

 

You know me well enough to know that I hide nothing from you or any other BASS member.

 

So if I may re-phrase my answer to your question - are there any members of the NFSA, SACN or BASS who have been consulted by their representatives?

 

Yes Steve - you were.

 

OK, so an 11th hour email from me is admittedly not enough time to get sufficient feedback, but with the draft of responses only being circulated by Defra late Friday afternoon (blame Defra not BASS), I hope you'll agree that practical steps were taken to get a concensus on the draft.

 

As to what was said and what the outcome of the meeting was - I expect that a report will be forthcoming from the BASS representative as soon as is practical and you'll be kept informed via the BASS forum, the BASS magazine, the BASS Newsletter and by email as always.

 

I know you have a beef with the NFSA and SACN and certain individuals, but I don't see how you can suggest that BASS is not democratic and does not keep its membership informed.

 

Regards

Steve

Edited August 14, 2008 by steve pitts

[glennk]

Ive published the info on my site so that anyone who wants to can take a look.

 

http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/rsa-stra...nse-summary.pdf

 

Do you know if NFSA and SACN have the same mandate and can the info be found on the NFSA site ? with them being the main voice for the UK sea anglers you would hope they have kept their angling public informed.

 

Just looking at the list of respondees. The presence of YALASA in the list has me foxed. This organisation was dispanded 2 years ago, unless they carried on meeting in secret without inviting me ?

[Steve Coppolo]

Morning Steve

 

I don't wish to get involved in a forum tennis match, but I can't accept a lot of what you say there, Steve. I'll try to explain why in the hope that you can see the reason for my concern. This isn't childish tit for tat and is written in my friendliest voice!

 

Steve

 

As you attended the last BASS AGM and the one before that, you'll be aware that a good deal of time is devoted to disscussions on what the BASS restoration team and the committee has been doing and what it is likely to do in the forseeable future. One item on the agenda this year was the sea angling strategy consultation, to which this summary document relates.

 

Yes, there was a lot of discussion about the future direction of BASS. I remember the RSA strategy being mentioned briefly, although I definately didn't hear anything about the meeting that took place on Tuesday, or the summary of responses. Hardly surprising because no one knew anything about them back in March. So this years AGM isn't relevant to my original post and I don't know why you brought it up.

 

During these discussions a mandate has been given by the membership for the committee to sanction the actions and the direction of the restoration team, without having to refer back to the membership for every decision that needs to be taken. That, after all is one of the functions of a committee. You'll also be aware that I am a member of the restoration team, not a committee member.

 

 

I remember a vote being cast on whether the restoration team should carry on or pack up, but I don't remember any mandate being voted on. Maybe I just wasn't listening properly? I do remember some of the members asking and being told that they would be kept informed and consulted on all future developments, though.

 

 

A copy of the draft responses was circulated on Monday to the committee and members of the restoration team by the BASS chairman, who asked for comments relative the meeting of the inshore working group of which BASS is a participant. I picked up this email late Monday afternoon.

 

That appears to be a breakdown in communication, then. Why were the committee only consulted the day before the meeting? That isn't enough time to digest the contents and get any worthwhile comments back to the chairman, is it? If the committee have indeed been given a mandate to act for the membership, I would have hoped that things would be done a bit better than that.

 

I then forwarded a copy of this document to you and several other BASS members early on Monday evening. I also copied Glenn in for info.

 

Yes you did and, as I said in my reply to you, I really appreciated being kept informed. I was working on Monday night and didn't see your email until Tuesday morning, by which time the meeting was already in progress. Something you failed to mention in your email. You also told me that if I wanted to use any of the information in the email, it didn't come from you. That's fair enough Steve, I wouldn't have dropped you in it. Your revealing that you sent the document to Glenn and I, on this forum, was entirely your decision. As I said, I wouldn't have dropped you in it.

 

Your post infers that BASS has not consulted its membership or fed back information.

 

And, now that I've explained, perhaps you can understand why?

 

This is the part of your post that I find difficult to accept as anything other than contraversial.

 

As they haven't, to my knowledge, done so; maybe they don't consider themselves as representative of anglers in general and have consulted their respective memberships instead? If that is the case, are there any members of the NFSA, SACN or BASS who have been consulted by their representatives?

 

You appear (to me) to be implying that BASS is not conveying relevant information to its members and its representatives are acting without their authority.

 

Yes Steve, that was the point I was making. A meeting where the most important consultation to take place, regarding the future of sea angling, was being discussed and apart from a select few representatives, no one knew about it. I saw that there was to be a meeting in Defra's latest newsletter and was fully expecting details to hit the forums as soon as they became known. As you can imagine, my tendency to question things has meant that my channels of information have all but dried up. I told you that it was my intention to highlight the meeting but I didn't realise when I made the post yesterday that I was already too late.

 

 

To be continued!

[Steve Coppolo]

It also appears me that you are having a poke at BASS for the sake of it and I find that contraversial.

 

It's no more a poke at BASS than a poke at the NFSA and SACN. It's a poke at all the RSA representative bodies who attended that meeting and who didn't inform their members, or sea anglers in general. Why would I waste my time having a poke at BASS just for the sake of it? Do you really think that after coming home from two nights work, the first thing I think about is having a pop at BASS, just for the sake of it? Life's too short, Steve.

 

You know me well enough to know that I hide nothing from you or any other BASS member.

Yes, I agree Steve. You have always been straight, honest and up front. You've never hidden anything from anyone, as far as I know, and I have always respected you for that.

 

So if I may re-phrase my answer to your question - are there any members of the NFSA, SACN or BASS who have been consulted by their representatives?

 

Yes Steve - you were.

 

OK, so an 11th hour email from me is admittedly not enough time to get sufficient feedback, but with the draft of responses only being circulated by Defra late Friday afternoon (blame Defra not BASS), I hope you'll agree that practical steps were taken to get a concensus on the draft.

 

That's right Steve, an email on what turned out to be the day of the meeting wasn't enough time toget sufficient feedback from anyone. I appreciate that you were only told at the 11th hour, but that just isn't good enough. Someone, somewhere, F***ed up.

 

As to what was said and what the outcome of the meeting was - I expect that a report will be forthcoming from the BASS representative as soon as is practical and you'll be kept informed via the BASS forum, the BASS magazine, the BASS Newsletter and by email as always.

 

Same old, same old, then, Steve. These things, seemingly far too important to trust to the views of anglers, are discussed behind closed doors and then the results punted out after the event.

 

I know you have a beef with the NFSA and SACN and certain individuals, but I don't see how you can suggest that BASS is not democratic and does not keep its membership informed.

 

Regards

Steve

 

My "beef" is that the sea angling organisations are not truly representative of the anglers they claim to speak for. From what I've seen it is O.K if everyone agrees with what they are saying, but as soon as anyone questions them they are labelled a trouble maker, contraversial, hybrid, idiot, or whatever other insult happens to be trendy at the time. When will the RSA organisations realise that to be effective they have got to gain the support of the anglers, all of them. It's no good trying to please the same handful of people and their, often, misguided ideals; whilst ridiculing, berating and alienating all the rest. That isn't the way to gain support. Sea anglers are a diverse bunch and the views of one are just as valid as the views of another. It's almost like those doing the representing don't trust anyone else to have their say just in case it undermiunes their own views, and that is wrong. After all, what qualifications do these people have that makes their views right and any opposing views wrong? You mention democracy, Steve; I believe in democracy but when the RSA organisations represent such a tiny percentage of the sea angling population, (at present), and don't even consult them before discussing important issues, that is not a democracy.

 

When it suits, the internet forums are used to get lots of information, (and sometimes, misinformation!), out to large numbers of people very quickly. Yet something as important as this meeting was kept quiet. It begs the question, why? And that is the whole point of my original post. It is painful to watch the people representing sea angling making the same mistakes over and over again. It is also painful to admit that so far they have achieved nothing and learnt nothing. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes, everyone makes them, but I would have expected lessons to be learned by now. RSA reps still don't seem interested in the views of all the anglers they represent, just those whose views mirror their own.

 

Regardless of what you think of me, Steve, I doubt you could question my passion for angling. Everything I say, or write, is just a by product of that.