Question for everyone

[M.P]

All these anglers that keep saying NO to being a member of the NFSA....what INSURANCE DO HAVE????

How much do you pay per year to another source???

 

NFSA membership includes insurance.

 

Or are you about to make a statement, that you are so irresponsible that you don't have any insurance cover.

 

Maybe a rod licence could include an insurance cover, this would make sure that we are all protected from fate of an accident, at least the argument of getting nothing for your money would end.

[stavey]

1. Are you a member of the NFSA no, affillated yes

 

 

2. Are you a member of any Federation. yes

 

 

3. Do you think a single UK governing body is the way forward. yes

 

 

4. Would you join a National body that covered the *whole* of the UK. yes

 

i am beggining to find in my local area that there seeems to be two types of attitudes to the whole way of thinking to licences, organisations, and conservation etc. the average leisure angler wants and agrees there is a need to do something about the lack of overall larger fish to catch and is willing to contribute more finacially ie, license, organisations, conservation,etc, and the other, match anglers, who seems to be fairly content on what is already there, some of these match anglers believe it or not say they dont like bass and are not worried if they disapeared altogether. i fished a club comp last night and asked this question and i was very disdapointed with there views. i would like to say one or two of these anglers have represented england in world championships and i think there attitude leaves a lot to be desired, all they seem to care about is how much beer money they can win and it doesn't matter if it means catching 18cm rockling all day. i know this deviates from the original question but, i can honestly say that the only money these match anglers want to pay is for the pools in comps that they want to try and win. i am totally confused? and i think some of these anglers especially the match fishing type are going to prove very difficult to convince to part with there money and support joining organisations etc unless there is something to win.

[tugmistress]

M.P,

I do not have insurance cover, nor do I class myself as being irresponsible.

If i were fishing somewhere that was regularly 'populated' by walkers, other anglers etc then it would be an option I would have to seriously think about. As it is, I fish in places we don't see anyone for months on end, and if fishing with people.... usually hubby, sometimes the brat, whenever doing anything like casting, reeling in or whatever, we always make sure each other is aware of movement and out of the way. I'm sorry, but not every angling venue has people wandering around that are unaware of the damage a lead can cause, therefore in my opinion an anglers own common sense must prevail.

[Spur-Hound]

Norm,

Isnt the NFSA realy just englash?? Why do all the teams that come from the NFSA are known as Team england...??? Dont think they do an awfulll lot of work in any of the other countries, Mind you iether do the feds that are sopposed to be for there country:)

 

Answering davys question

No

Yes

Yes

Possibly

[Zigs]

who knows

perhaps

maybe

i don't know

could you repeat the question

[Spur-Hound]

Would you like to ask the audience ?

 

I think ill shutup

[Leon Roskilly]

Spur-Hound:

Norm,

Isnt the NFSA realy just englash?? Why do all the teams that come from the NFSA are known as Team england...??? Dont think they do an awfulll lot of work in any of the other countries, Mind you iether do the feds that are sopposed to be for there country:)

Being recognised by Sport England as the governing body for the sport of angling within England, the NFSA recieves funding from Sport England for angling Sports Development.

 

In Scotland, the body that funds Scotland's sport as far as I am aware refuses to fund angling, so no such funding for 'Team Scotland' is available there.

 

(And Sport England would not be pleased to think that funds for developing English Sport and the English team in International competitions was being diverted to 'the competition'!)

 

Just one of the problems that would face a combined sea angling lead organisation.

 

There are aslso differences in the legal and political administration of fisheries matters in Scotland, England and Wales, so any combined lead sea angling organisation would need to have, and be guided by local expertise.

 

Then comes the difficult question of funding and it's application.

 

Just suppose that Scottish fisheries interests were to go along with a one mile exclusion of netting, but in return required anglers both to have a licence, and to be members of the combined lead organisation. But Wales had something different in mind, their Tourism authorities determined to attract anglers away from Scotland.

 

And England would have nothing to do with anything like that, fiercly protective of the livelihoods of netsmen and their families.

 

Where should the combined lead organisation spend the bulk of it's funds?

 

Rewarding Scotland for taking the initiative and ploughing money into the development of angling where the authorities are keen to cooperate?

 

Or having an easy ride in Scotland, spend the larger part of available funds campaigning in England for similar measures?

 

Funny how even the simplest thinking turns into a potential political morass once you start to go beyond the obvious and start looking at the details!!

 

Personally, I'll go along with a combined lead organisation for the whole of the UK, but only so long as Head Office and the majority of the meetings are held near me in London!

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 28. December 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[Zigs]

have phoned a friend & gone 50/50.

 

 

yes, my whole family belongs to the N.F.S.A.

 

Much respect for leon

 

[Diabolos]

Leon

 

'Sport Scotland' does recognise sea angling as a sport, and thus recognises the SFSA as the governing body in Scotland. To this end, Sport Scotland does indeed provide minimal funds for both the SFSA and their various international teams. To put it politely however, the SFSA are a shambles and their position as the governing body in Scotland may change if mismanagement continues to choke the sport and its partakers.

[Norm B]

Originally posted by Spur-Hound:

[QB] Norm,

Isnt the NFSA realy just englash?? Why do all the teams that come from the NFSA are known as Team england...???

:cool: That's where the problem lies. There is the SFSA for Scotland, the WFSA for Wales but no federation for England. If there was an English federation, what would it be called? It can't be called EFSA, that's for something else, I suppose it could be called FESA, Federation of English Sea Anglers, then the NFSA could really be the 'National Federation', looking after all the Regional Federations. At the moment, as you all rightly realise, the NFSA runs the English federation, which is, or is perceived to be wrong.

Were there a FESA, 'English Federation', then the NFSA could rightly and properly been seen as the 'National' governing body covering all the Regional federations but as Leon points out, it would be a legal nightmare, with Scotland and Wales having their own National Assemblies and laws. Why doesn't England have it's own National Assembly? I don't know but it should have, even if just to maintain our own identity and laws.

I think the simple answer would be to form an English Federation, totally seperate from the NFSA, then the NFSA could concentrate on National issues, funded by all the federations on a per capita basis and fund teams like Team UK, while the regional bodies would fund their own teams.

I'm sure that between all the federations there is enough common ground to start the ball rolling and that from the informed opinions of the contributors to this NG it shouldn't be TOO difficult to set out some ground rules. If we could stop the in-fighting and devote all our energy to improving what we already have, we could achieve even more than what we already have.