Request that SACN withdraws from the negotiation table wrt RSA Strategy

[glennk]

I have sent a request to Leon that the membership of SACN be consulted on their wishes to be represented by the organisation within ongoing talks regarding the Recreational Sea Angling Strategy. I have sent the following email to Leon and am aware that currently the membership of SACN are being consulted as requested. I will post my initial letter up here for all to see. I will not post up anyone's response that I have seen as they are private within SACN although should anyone wish to post their own response up here then please do so - I'm all for openess and honesty.

 

[After a lot of thought on the issue of the RSA Strategy I have written to the SACN asking them to withdraw from negotiations with DEFRA on the strategy. I feel that the strategy will be detrimental to sea anglers. Licence fees and bag limits will impact negatively on club fishing in the area and will also be damaging to the local charter industries.]Hi Leon,

 

I write with regard to SACN Policy with regard to the Recreational sea angling Strategy. As a member of SACN I am unhappy with the groups policy to meet with DEFRA and take part in the formation of the Strategy. At present I am unsure if I stand alone or others share my concerns but I feel all angling organisations should walk away from the negotiation table and not take part in forming a strategy which is clearly to be detrimental to sea fishing in the UK.

 

I do not wish to get bogged down in if's, but's, and when's etc. My motion is that sacn membership as a whole should be asked if they require the organisation to represent them on this issue or should the organisation walk away from negotiations. My reasons for the motion should be made clear to the membership when they are asked.

 

After reading your SACN membership policy at :

 

http://www.anglers-net.co.uk/sacn/membership.htm

 

I think it would be possible to put this to the membership as a whole as set out in the sentence below taken from the sacn site.

 

"The way that the Executive Group administers SACN, or any decisions taken by the Executive can be challenged by any member, and any dispute taken to the membership as a whole."

 

I realise this will not fit happily with your view on the strategy but as this is such a serious issue I feel the views of the whole SACN membership should be sought and policy should be in line with their thinking on the issue as a whole.

 

Kind regards - Glenn

Edited February 25, 2007 by glennk

[Steve Coppolo]

I have sent a request to Leon that the membership of SACN be consulted on their wishes to be represented by the organisation within ongoing talks regarding the Recreational Sea Angling Strategy. I have sent the following email to Leon and am aware that currently the membership of SACN are being consulted as requested. I will post my initial letter up here for all to see. I will not post up anyone's response that I have seen as they are private within SACN although should anyone wish to post their own response up here then please do so - I'm all for openess and honesty.

 

Feel free to post any of my comments as you see fit Glenn. Openess and honesty is essential.

[glennk]

Seems to be quite a few people in favour of staying in negotiations although there have been a couple against.

 

One good suggestion has been that all future decisions be put the SACN membership as a whole. This is something I agree with strongly as : If they are not then SACN are only representing the views of the main man, perhaps the exec committee and at best a subjective perception of the wishes of the membership based on the exec committee's perception of what the membership want - none of which are really representative of the whole SACN membership.

[nick]

As I have said elsewhere I strongly believe that we need to stay in the negotiations.

 

For many years many many people said that anglers were ignored. Now some people are saying lets not talk to them as they don't agree with us 100%. This is proper grown up politics, which I am sure all concerned would prefer not to be involved in. It is a pain in the backside. BUT if we are not involved in the discussions we will get nothing we want. If we are involved then we get to have a say. It does not mean we will like what emerges, but there is a better chance than if we do not participate.

 

As to all members being consulted on all things which are discussed. It is frankly not possible, nor is it the way that democracy works.

 

Yes the members must agree with the fundamental principles being discussed. But after that it is up to the people representing us to do their best for us. I for one have no doubts that Leon and others are doing nothing which they believe to be against the interests of a ) SACN members and b ) RSA as a whole. It would be physically impossible for all members to be consulted about all the minutiae of all the points being discussed. Trust those who we have empowered to work on our behalf, they will not sell us down the river. Just the opposite they will do their very best to get as much out of the process for the benefit of RSA as they possibly can. It may not get close to what we want. It may seem as though we have been given nothing. But in truth we will gain far more by being involved than walking out. A very empty gesture indeed.

 

Please let us not forget that these are the people that have put an enormous amount of time and effort into getting us represented at government level, without them we would not be having this discussion about whether or not we should be talking to the powers that be.

 

Also copied to the SACN email discussion.

Edited February 25, 2007 by nick

[glennk]

Fully respect your opinion Nick and all those aired. On something as important as this strategy we need to know that the actions of sacn represent the majority of its members. I believe in organisations working for the majority and that should also be true of SACN. Without me asking this question we would never have known.

 

------------------------------------

 

On a different note does anyone evr wonder just how many of the countries anglers have actually read this draft or know if its existence ?

 

Cheers - Glenn

Edited February 25, 2007 by glennk

[nick]

Please don't get me wrong glenn, I'm pleased you asked the question, as you say it is important that SACN is and continues to represent the feelings of it's members

[RobStubbs]

One good suggestion has been that all future decisions be put the SACN membership as a whole. This is something I agree with strongly as : If they are not then SACN are only representing the views of the main man, perhaps the exec committee and at best a subjective perception of the wishes of the membership based on the exec committee's perception of what the membership want - none of which are really representative of the whole SACN membership.

 

With respect you can't expect any group to consult their members all the time. You voted the committee in and with that goes the responsibility that they in turn represent you. If you don't agree with what they then do, then don't re-elect them.

 

Rob.

[Steve Coppolo]

Please let us not forget that these are the people that have put an enormous amount of time and effort into getting us represented at government level, without them we would not be having this discussion about whether or not we should be talking to the powers that be.

 

Actually most of the people who did the hard work to get RSA recognised and get us talking with government departments about all this, aren't involved any more, which is a great shame. Most of those representing us at the moment are relative newcomers who think differently from the people who originally fought to get us a better deal. Some of the old guard are still doing a bit in the background and giving advice when it's needed, or accepted, but it's the people who get to talk to DEFRA on a regular basis, and the impressions they make, that are shaping the future of RSA.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Leon,

 

I agree 100% with your views, if we are not represented RSAs will lose a lot of ground and the outcome could be a total disaster.

 

Glen has raised a valid question and the only answer I can think of is more philosophical than practical; The Sea Angling world is a scattered fraternity with many different views, many will never know what is happening or even care and unfortunately they are probably the biggest percentage. If a well published petition was put in place how many of the estimated 1.5 million would actually bother to take part? 5% would probably be a very optimistic outcome. And at the end of the day if we find ourselves saddled with a licence maybe that will make the other 95% sit up and take notice of what is happening to their recreational pursuit. For what it is worth I don’t see a £25 licence fee is really going to stop RSAs from pursuing their hobby and bag limits and other restrictions are already being introduced for certain species.

 

In thirty years time Glen I will re-appear and ask you how things are going mate, I would like to think by then you will be sat at the table where it matters.

[Cranfield]

I have every sympathy with your views Glen and also believe that the RSA representatives have not fought as hard for our "rights", as I think they could have done.

I am also highly suspicious that the suggestion of sea fishing licences and bag limits came from our representatives, not the imagination of Defra.

As a "give and take" negotiating ploy it might have been a good idea, but I believe it was tabled far too early.

Now we are playing catch up in the negotiations.

Nothing anyone can say will dissuade me from this view.

 

Having said all that, I believe SACN has to stay within the negotiations.;

A lot of hard work has already been done and good communication routes opened up.

These facilities were not there a few years ago.

I only know Leon personally, from among our representatives and although we don't always see eye to eye on matters, he has my respect and trust.

 

There is too much momentum in the current discussions for the withdrawal of SACN to have any impact.

All it will mean is that SACN will not have a place at the table.

That can not be a good thing.

 

I am sure the recent furore amongst anglers and the angling Forums, on the subject of licences and bag limits, has done no harm at all, as it will have made our representatives very aware of the feelings of many sea anglers.

Probably the closest some of them have ever come to having a true mandate.