OK Bob, but pin back your eyelids and take no notice or stupid critics like the "Bad One".
Yes, I wanted to see a single organisation that could take on Whitehall and P*TA and challenge RSPB or anyone else that threatened angling's continued existance. It would merely be a PR and lobbying body staffed by experts in that field, not necessarily anglers. In fact, anglers would be last on the staffing list.
The new body would reach out to encourage EVERY angler throughout the land to join and would not put cost in the way, so a membership or £3-£5 maximum would be required. All other services, match organisation, coaching, fisheries consultatives, funding, fighting polluters would be carried on by the then existing (now defunct) bodies. My hope would have been that at least 50% of anglers would eventually become members - approx £6m - £10m per year - just to fight our corner in parliament and elsewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------
However, what happens when a committee designs something new? You get a Frankenstein's monster.
My fear is genuine. It is that this new organisation is promising far too much and some of its promises will fall by the wayside. In trying to be all things to all anglers, it wants to charge £20, four times more than my maximum and this will disuade far more anglers than it will encourage, unfortunately.
What was wrong with going for a minimal amount and then anglers could still join the other organisations if they wished - ACA, NFA, NFSA, SAA, NAFAC, VHF, B&Q etc. I don't know, but the 'leaders' have now decided.
And what of the professional LOBBYISTS and PUBLIC RELATIONS people I had in mind? Well, not one of the current board is qualified in that department and to my knowledge, no-one will be engaged for the time being. They may come on board later in 2010, but I just wonder if some of the existing board will have become a little too comfortable by then with their feet firmly under the boardroom table.
Since many comparisons are being made to the RSPB it would be interesting to learn just how many 'professional' lobbyists they employ? Yes I know they've been going longer, but you have to set some targets as priorities, the main one being REPRESENTATION to Parliament. I still don't feel that this is going to be achieved in the short term at least and the only reason AT is getting so much press coverage at the moment is thanks to Martin Salter and a few other supporters - it hasn't yet made the 6 o'clock news, has it?
It doesn't end there, but that is my chief worry. They want £20 per year for amateurs.
(I don't mean to insult members of the board whose intentions I'm sure are good, but they just do not have the required accreditation for doing the dirty job that they want to get into.)