Representative Organisations

[H.A.]

.... if DEFRA are going to take on board the thoughts of such small groups, then they should afford the same right to the rest of us.

 

But they do in so far as there are stakeholders' consultations .....

 

and what happens then? Around 300 anglers BOTHER to respond + 80 or so organisations.

 

We (hobbyist anglers, please) can't have it all ways ... you either join an organisation because of the representation/recognition that gives you OR you make your individual views known through consultation.

 

Unfortunately and misguidedly (in my opinion), most anglers don't respond and then others (commercials, hybrids and those with very different agandas) pull any anglers' responses apart by saying anglers actually DON'T want a say in their own futures.

 

Ridiculous .... of course they do!

 

They're just too koofin' lazy and apathetic to read the writin' on the wall.

 

Other contributors here and on WSF know that what will be will be (from the viewpoints of ignorant bureaucrats/eurocrats).

 

The most we can hope for is to exert some small influence on 'the masterplan' (sic) which is almost certainly already on the tables at Whitehall and Brussels.

 

[Steve Coppolo]

But they do in so far as there are stakeholders' consultations .....

 

and what happens then? Around 300 anglers BOTHER to respond + 80 or so organisations.

 

We (hobbyist anglers, please) can't have it all ways ... you either join an organisation because of the representation/recognition that gives you OR you make your individual views known through consultation.

 

Unfortunately and misguidedly (in my opinion), most anglers don't respond and then others (commercials, hybrids and those with very different agandas) pull any anglers' responses apart by saying anglers actually DON'T want a say in their own futures.

 

Ridiculous .... of course they do!

 

They're just too koofin' lazy and apathetic to read the writin' on the wall.

 

Other contributors here and on WSF know that what will be will be (from the viewpoints of ignorant bureaucrats/eurocrats).

 

The most we can hope for is to exert some small influence on 'the masterplan' (sic) which is almost certainly already on the tables at Whitehall and Brussels.

 

 

As you know, Ada, by the time things get to consultation stage, it's already too late. Things have already been decided by then and will happen anyway, regardless of the results of the consultation. They cherry pick bits and pieces out of the summary of responses that appear to back the decision that's been made and ignore the bits they don't like. If anyone doubts this, here are a few examples of the majority view, as expressed in public consultations, being totally ignored; Stour and Orwell consultation. (a local issue, but still relevant), Bass MLS, RSA strategy.

[Elton]

1. I can't join a representative organisation if those in power don't tell me who they are.

 

2. As a tax-paying citizen of this country, why the hell should I be expected to pay yet more money to be regarded as worthy of having my opinions heard over issues that concern my hobby? I pay income tax, VAT on all my purchases, etc. That SHOULD be enough in the UK to be classed as a human being worth listening to, surely? If ten people write in and complain about a TV programme, those in authority jump. They don't get told to join a totally undemocratic organisation, which is what it appears is happening to anglers.

 

3. Which of the secret organisations involved, if I pay to join them, will guarantee that MY concerns and wishes are communicated, and not those of some official who goes fishing twice a year, when it's not raining?

 

The whole thing stinks. The longer questions go unanswered, the more the mind tends to think something sinister is afoot. It's human nature. Right now, I'm beginning to think that it's very possible that certain individuals are kissing politician's arses in order to gain some kind of 'fame' as gurus of angling. In the meantime, the VAST majority of anglers are getting sold down the river, without even being told what's going on.

 

I hope this new Angling Trust lot conduct themselves better when they start getting involved in the new year. They'd better do, because they won't be getting £20 from me until I see evidence of it.

[Cranfield]

A very persuasive argument that I keep hearing is that we should have no representation at any discussions with Defra and let the cards fall where they will.

The basis for this argument is that the Minister is unlikely to impose anything that will be really unpalatable to the sea anglers/voters.

It also takes away the chance of well meaning representatives being colluded into agreeing to some "restrictions" on our behalf, a bit like the "turkeys voting for Christmas" syndome.

[glennk]

As an SACN member I requested quite some time back that the organisation should withdraw completely from any talks with DEFRA. Sadly about 10 of the 500 members who actually replied said they wanted to continue.

 

Its my opion that DEFRA should try force their new ideas onto sea anglers and face the backlash rather than listen to NFSA and SACN and think they are hearing the voice of the UK sea angler. In the 3 or 4 years Ive been watching our Representative bodies I cant think of one time they have brought something worthwhile out of any meeting with the authorities.

 

 

Drew Reports, Prime ministers Strategy, Marine Bill, Rsa Strategies, BMP, 2020 Vision, Inshore fisheries working groups, Coastal waters management. I am left thinking what is the point of all of this ?? Leave the bearocrats to it.

Edited December 13, 2008 by glennk

[Steve Coppolo]

A very persuasive argument that I keep hearing is that we should have no representation at any discussions with Defra and let the cards fall where they will.

The basis for this argument is that the Minister is unlikely to impose anything that will be really unpalatable to the sea anglers/voters.

It also takes away the chance of well meaning representatives being colluded into agreeing to some "restrictions" on our behalf, a bit like the "turkeys voting for Christmas" syndome.

 

I agree, totally.

[barry luxton]

Drew Reports, Prime ministers Strategy, Marine Bill, Rsa Strategies, BMP, 2020 Vision, Inshore fisheries working groups, Coastal waters management. I am left thinking what is the point of all of this ?? Leave the bearocrats to it.

 

 

I think defra are talking to themselves when you look at the number of respondants to the e.g. rsa strategy 385 in total. How many rsa in the uk are there. That number must be miniscule in comparison.

[Brian Carragher]

The problem is not in identifying how many RSA's there are but their collective worth to those that wish to control their supposed collective catching capability

 

Its already been reported to Government by those who say represent anglers that bass anglers (about 40% of all sea anglers) are worth £200 million to the economy and the full figures are £500 million from the catching effort of all English sea anglers

 

Thats a heafty sum worth controlling don't you think and who do you think supplied it

 

 

Those figures are in the BMP as submitted to DEFRA and now form , I think, the basis of the Governments desire to control catchs and finance

[H.A.]

..... bass anglers (about 40% of all sea anglers)

 

I'm interested to see the origin of that stat?????

 

Wassa 'bass angler' ... a Steve G-Good, who does it for a living or me who goes fishing 150 times a year including 6 of those sessions targeting bass?

 

[Brian Carragher]

I'm interested to see the origin of that stat?????

 

Wassa 'bass angler' ... a Steve G-Good, who does it for a living or me who goes fishing 150 times a year including 6 of those sessions targeting bass?

 

 

Taken directly out of the previously submitted BMP given to DEFRA

 

I have a PDF copy on my hard drive