Funding for angling's governing body

I wouldn't mind paying if what we were going to get was really professional representation that put itself forwards into public situations. By that I mean someone must always be available for TV news interviews and comments and also appearances on TV and radio shows.

Someone, and it would have to be a very skilful marketting person, that would give angling a polished valued image to the public. The body would also have to represent ALL forms of our sport, not just organise matches or, from the other side, be interested in carp only.

And then there is cost. I already pay to the SAA and the ACA and I buy a licence. I could join other groups such as NAFAC and PAC, but as it is and together with my rod licence I pay ?48 per year and that's before I wet a line.

Now I have to join clubs, average ?50, or buy day tickets. Sure I can afford it to some extent, but not everyone can. Some anglers are so tight they only buy a licence (and sometimes not) and find the free fishing areas to visit. So the trouble is; angling is cheap and anglers have become used to it being cheap.

How do you break that mould?

I would certainly contribute.

The main problem as I see it are that this would need to be a complete organisation, probably with an annual budget running into millions, if it were to be set-up and run professionally.
So, the big question would be would we all be prepared to pay a significant annual membership fee to ensure that this is done properly?

Then, the obvious question of finding a suitable "anchorman" would be problematic at best, and at worst set the angling factions at each others throats.

Graham brought this up before somewhere and I said 'yes providing that we the anglers had control over who represents us, and there was only one body'.

The last thing angling needs is another NFA type committee that seems to stumble from one disaster to the next and are match orientated. It would need to represent ALL branches of fishing and have a bit of clout at government level as well. Oh! and they would all need to be paid members who can devote their time to fishing matters and not be on a voluntary basis.

One body and one payment incorporated in the licence money, could work couldn't it? Bet it don't happen though.

It would not be that expensive if all anglers contributed. Apparently there are 4 million of us out there ?5 each thats 20 million. Its getting everybody to support it after the NFA etc. We as anglers do like to belittle the other types of anglers.

It may not cost that much Bryan. If everyone buying a licence coughed up another ?2 that would be close to 2 million and that sort of money can buy a pretty slik operation. Small admittedly, but with a LOT OF CLOUT!

If it means the safe guard of our sport I would pay to support it but I would like to see results, professionaly run by anglers for anglers.

Jeff - I'd contribute if it satisfied our conditions. It would have to be an umbrella over all the sport and include as asked elsewhere the control of the Record Fish list. And just as important for me it would need to totally stand alone from other country pursuit organisations. Personally I don't want any alliance with blood sport fraternity's such as fox hunters and would feel most other anglers would agree. As I suggested on the BRFC thread the leadership would have to be voted for by us and easily removable by us should we get disenchanted.