EA working for anglers

When I read the recent reports of a "coming together" of the Angling's councils I was impressed. However, when I got to the bottom of the news flash I noticed in the credits that out of the 14 or so organisations listed less than a third actually have full time staff. This concerns me. I am not sure if the merging of inefficient organisations actually delivers a bigger and better outcome
More importantly they have chosen to exclude professional press & media organisations such as the printers of the Times or the Mail and for a more varied reach David Hall's stable of magazines

I have just voted for the Environment Agency to adopt the role of Governing Body. Why?
Well, because they have the professional administrative & promotional staff to do the job effectively. They will need watching though! And this monitoring is the ideal job for FACT

The extract below is from the EA's own website.

>The Board
>We have a board of 15 members, including >the Chairman and Chief Executive, who are >accountable to Ministers for organisation >and performance. All are appointed by the >Secretary for Environment, Food and Rural >Affairs, except for Gareth Wardell, the >Board Member for Wales, who is appointed >by the National Assembly of Wales.

If the EA ever gets to run angling then it means that angling will, in effect, be at the mercy of whatever government is in power (accountable to Ministers for organisation and performance. All are appointed .... )
The EA budget is over ?800 million per year, revenue from licences is a tiny fraction of that amount. Angling is not, and never will be, a top priority for the EA. The EA does good work but it's a thoroughly bad idea to even consider giving them control of our sport.
I don't know of any sport in this country which is run by the government (albeit at one or two removes) but, since I have little interest in other sports, I'm prepared to be corrected. Angling should be run by anglers, people who know the sport and know what's what. Not some EA sub-committee which may contain people who've never fished in their lives (Or, worse, a closet anti or two).

So, I disagree with your view Pete, although you are right about the various angling bodies. FACT sounds like a brilliant idea to me - we just need to sort out the internecine squabbling, empire-building, self-interest and rivalry which often seems to divide anglers and scuppers attempts to form a unified body that can speak with one (very LOUD) voice on our behalf.

Pete and why should FACT include the Press?
Done Jack siht for angling in my lifetime!

As for the EA running angling that's a joke ain't it?

You also say ?This concerns me. I am not sure if the merging of inefficient organisations actually delivers a bigger and better outcome.? Perhaps you?d like to enlighten us with the evidence you have to state this?

Sport England recognises Governing Bodies under the following terms;

Governing bodies
The recognition of an activity does not automatically lead to the recognition of a governing body for that activity. Applicant bodies are assessed against a number of criteria. These include the requirement for applicant bodies to:
1. Be responsible for a recognised activity that does not already have a recognised governing body
2. Have as members a reasonable proportion of the total number of participants in the activity
3. Be democratic, with an appropriate written constitution and committee structure
4. Have an appropriate level of management and financial accountability
5. Be able to support financially their core administrative responsibilities
6. Make their services and membership available to all
7. Have been in operation for at least three years

The Environment Agency, whether it would like to be the Governing Body for angling or not, does not qualify under points 1, 2, 3 and 6.

Further the EA has indicated that they have no wish, or mandate, to act as a Governing Body for the sport. Indeed the EA has, at the moment, little responsibility for marine fisheries and so recreational sea anglers would find themselves outside a GB if EA were to take over.

In essence the EA supports an independent angling body (FACT) with whom they are able to work in partnership.

Angler Saxon

Your post is thought provoking and I agree with you that the EA (fish as it says on their site) is a small part of a monolith But I don?t see why this is a bad thing because I think they (fisheries) are run as an autonomous section who can largely decide where and when they spend their money. I agree that FACT is a GOOD idea it would have been BRILL one if they had resolved some funding before the launch ? what I was trying to say is that a better role for FACT would be to work as a pressure group (and united they are capable of exerting a lot of pressure) in tandem with the fisheries professionals at the EA who have significant financial resources to actually achieve the goals of FACT and anglers in general.

Phil Hackett 2

I work in the Aerospace industry and I have just checked the monster budget of our Media Resources Department ? IMO without an active Media Partner to constantly broadcast their aims and achievements they will struggle ? OK perhaps the weeklies are a joke but perhaps if the partnered with some of the more serious monthly?s some progress could be achieved.

I can?t give you evidence on whether FACT will improve through merger ? that?s why I said I am not sure if the merging of?
But what I do know is that we wouldn?t have an Easyjet, Virgin or a Ryan if our airline industry were still under the monopoly control of the government supported BA

Mike Heylin

I am assuming Mike that you are the same Mike Heylin who wrote the FACT Press Release if so I wish you all success and perhaps you can tell us how we can subscribe to your organisation which would allow us to show our support. However back to your post
I would ask you not to close your mind to the transfer of responsibility (perhaps a better wording than become the Governing Body) to the professionals at the EA and for you and your fellow volunteers to concentrate your efforts in guiding and monitoring the EA?s activities. OH BTW I am sure the EA don?t want this responsibility because they would love to carry on as they are ? playing around at the edges and if it goes wrong blaming it on the Governing Bodies

Mike ? start up a FACT supporters club and charge ?25 membership I am sure a lot of us would join to help you

Hi Pete

Yes, you got me. I think I am the only one the UK phone book.

Thanks for that idea about a supporters club. There might just be something in that.

I have been searching for a way to engage individual anglers in FACT, although not everyone supports the idea. A supporters club might just swing it. Brilliant.

Ref. the EA I simply posted the statement from Sport England about GB qualification and the expressed views from EA Head of Fisheries.

At the moment of course EA have little responsibility for sea fisheries and if they were the GB for angling then recreational sea anglers might find themselves excluded from that arrangement which would mean we go back to a multiplicity of GBs. EA have confirmed to me twice ion the last week that they have no interest in being the GB for angling and the concerns expressweed by others on this thread about government interference are real. The EA responsibilities have been changed in recent years by government with no consultation with other interested parties, it could happen again and that might not be so good for angling.

Hi Mike

Thanks for your response.

In response to your point about the EA not wanting the responsibility - Well as I said earlier I am not surprised as they seem to have little in the way of checks and balances in the way they operate under the current systems

All power to you and your colleagues and I am sure that combining your efforts must have an increased effect in ?getting change?

Would you tell me you plan for making the new organisation democratic such as elections to the board and your ideas on how anglers will be able to contribute to your policies?

Glad you agree with the supporters club bit ? I suggest (respectfully) that you make that a high priority ? I am not aware of your current funding but I suspect by the nature of your makeup ? it is not as high as you would want it

Pete

At the moment the board is made up of directors appointed by the subscribing members of the Company; SAA, ATA, NAFAC, NFA, NFSA, S&TA, CCFA, AST and ASGFM.

That will stay the case for some time I imagine. I believe we have to move forward towards an involvement for individual anglers, but not all board members will feel the same. So as to time scales I cannot advise you but as to commitment, SAA wants the new body to represent individual anglers as well as the subscribing bodies.

Access for individuals at the moment is through those subscribing bodies and that means giving a lot of time and energy to get elected as a representative of one of the bodies and then to lobby the director of FACT from that body, long winded to say the least.

Your suggestion has started me thinking about how we can achieve angler involvement and some friends have suggested how we might develop the idea. Nothing concrete yet but I shall certainly be putting a document before the board for consideration.

Anyone who wants to make suggestions should feel free to mail me at mike@fisheriesand angling.com

Current funding of FACT is the initial subscription for shares by the founder members, as above. It is limited and we need to get funding on a strong footing, with certainty of continuity of that funding. Sport England cannot provide it, government may provide some but without certainty or continuity so my favourite is a levy on the licence fee so all anglers contribute. SAA are promoting the concept of a sea licence via the Environmnet Agency so that all anglers would be covered by a levy.

Then the entry level for all anglers could be through their local consultative or the replacement for the Sea Fisheries Committees, currently under consideration by government. That was a suggestion SAA made in early development plan for FACT, although not liked by some members of the board.

FACT will function really well when all members work for the benefit of angling rather than just for their own interests. That day is coming but it will take time to get the confidence in the future of FACT established throughout each subscribing members organisation so that we all feel more able to work for each other rather than for ourselves.

Letting people know your views outside this forum would help and there is no reason why anglers should not be writing to the organisations represented by FACT to let them know your views. You can pick up addresses for most by doing a Google search.

Hi Mike

I think that it is most important that FACT actively involve the angling public, not so much in your process but mainly in your achievements and aspirations. This means communication ? something I think the ACA & NFA (the 2 orgs my club is involved with) are rather poor at !

I think one answer to communication is through this site. The quality of contributions by members and articles by pundits seems higher here than on most other forums especially on the issues of Governing Bodies etc.

I am sure that you could have a spot for, say a monthly update, on here and this would generate feedback to your questions from within the forum ? something to think about?

Secondly, I noted your point about income from rod licence money. I may be a cynic but something tells me that FACT may have been behind the recent polls on Anglers Say as they seem to mirroring your development. (NO need to comment) But if you are not involved with them I would suggest you do so ? It seems a very (angling) political site and I am sure it would be a good place to do some solid market research on what anglers expect from you as an organisation.

I would like to volunteer to help with your growth but I will send those ideas to you via your posted mail. (That way you can you can tell me to **d off in private)

Keep up the good work

Pete

I think you will find the AnglersSay poll was generated as a result of Keith Arthur's column in AT, where he suggested a ?10 levy. In our drafts we have suggested between 3% and 5%, which is significantly less than ?10.00.

Bob Clarke, who runs AngersSay, keeps in close touch with most of us in angling organisations and so has a very good idea what some of the issues are, but his poll was not directed by anyone outside AS, as far as I know.