Angling bodies

P

Paul Williams

Guest
Flicking through various sites and magazines this evening i came across one or two refrences or links to the various bodies within angling, i'm talking of two in particular, the ACA and the BRFC, another site requested the ACA acknowledge a donation that they made, nothing was forthcoming, when questioned about this those who "run" the ACA replied their pc was in a bit of a mess and they hoped to have it up and running for December.....aint we heard that one before on this site? at least a year ago??
The BRFC... Phil Smith(BRFC member) writes a very good article about the Linch hill roach in the second addition of a monthly (Don't know if i can name it!)now i don't want to raise the roach/hybrid thing again but requests to initiate a means of identifing species went totally unanswered, Phils catches are legendary and deserverdly so, but i feel uneasy that there seems to be a wall of silence to the requests to initiate a modern means of identifing a species.
So my question is are the majority of "angling bodies" nothing more than a variation of the old quangos? eg full of thier own importance but deaf to any constructive critism, or do they do a good job???
 
A

Andy Thatcher

Guest
Two days without a reply suggests that there is no arguement with your thoughts Paul.

I agree with them.
 
C

Chris Bishop

Guest
What has always struck me is that there are so many different bodies, ranging from the so-called big-guns like the NFA, ACA etc; umbrella groups like SACG; regional groups like NACA; single species groups; small clubs, big clubs...

Paul, RE quangoes do you mean that they are undemocratic and would be better off replaced with some structure of elected officials..?

There is no definitive body which sets down a code of conduct, definitive fish identification etc etc.

The EA enforces the rules which have statutory force.
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
Chris,
I don't pretend to have answers, that is up to the angling world to discuss, i just find it hard to swallow that the ACA for instance appears to have no common courtesy......i had a private mail from an angler whose wife had raised ?250 for the ACA, she had no thank you whatsoever!!! my wife and her work pals didn't send each other Xmas cards last year, they pooled the cash and sent ?25 to McMillan nurses, almost by return post they had a signed "thank you"......i'm afraid i find the fact that the ACA can't be arsed to have a standard letter ready to be signed a down right disgrace.......perhaps "they" are too busy moving again or looking at new cars?.......Phew!! my fingers to tired to talk about the BRFC ;o)
 
D

Dave O'L

Guest
On country file on Sunday yet again there was a piece about improving habitat for birds organised by the RSPB, using water/windmills. I couldn't help thinking now if only we had a body like that, we could all rally round, savvy PR & lots of good news presentations.
Like many of us, 2 years ago I prevented a pollution incident on the river Brent. I did report it to the EA, but thinking about it now if we had a body I could have spoken to, they may have been able to post a 'good news' story in the local paper, ie Local Angler.....etc. I think the days of 'quiet behind the scenes work' are gone & we need to tell people that we don't just catch fish.
 
D

Dave Johnson

Guest
I see Elton just pulled the plug on this one 'on the other side' Paul.

But I do agree that not to send a standard letter-especially for a registered charity-as a thank you is just down right poor management. Perhaps worse for an organisation relying on contributions to survive is the PR that evolves from it.
 
A

Andy Nellist

Guest
I have personally suffered a lot of backstabbing as a result of having the balls to speak out on this one.

The BRFC are aware of what is being said on this site and are aware of the availability DNA tests which could be carried out with no significant harm to the fish for little if any cost.

That they chose to keep silent explains why most on most committees a conflict of interest necessitates the committeee member stand aside whilst the issue in which the member has a personal interest is dealt with.

If the BRFC want to know who can do the test I will be happy to put them in touch with an expert who has expressed interest in carrying out precisiely this role for the committee.
 
GrahamM

GrahamM

Managing Editor
Joined
Feb 23, 1999
Messages
9,773
Reaction score
1
Whatever is there to be frightened of it makes you wonder. And their reaction to constructive criticism (and offers of help it must be said) certainly give the impression that they're frightened of something.

I can't believe it could be that they think they're above criticism. Never, surely not.
 
C

Chris Bishop

Guest
The big problem is that these people seem totally divorced from the average angler on the bank.
 
A

Andy Nellist

Guest
Graham

The BRFC has a history of making mistakes so I suppose failing to take up a full proof method of ensuring hybrids don't get onto the list (and for that mattter that a true specimen from any water would be recognised as such) is par for the course.

The Rudd record demonstates admirably the need for change. The BRFC has already wrongly accepted a claim for a 4lb 10oz Rudd (1987) and is about to announce its findings on a claim by an angler for a fish of 4lb 10oz. The same angler has since caught another "Rudd" of 4lb 10oz which if his present claim is rejected could result in another claim.

The likelihood of these fish being hybrids is very high. Even with a body submitted to the AW in 1987 the BRFC got it wrong (see Nev's article in the Nov issue of a certain monthly mag that shall reamin nameless). This time they don't have the body of either fish. Any decision will be based on a (useless) analysis of photos and an (equally useless) analysis hybrid record of the water from which it was caught. In reality whatever way the decision goes people will be left wondering if it was right.

If the BRFC members recalled why the previous BRFC went down the pan they might have pulled their fingers out and required a small sample from the fish then the decision would have been simple and there would have been no doubt.
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
Andy,
The hybrid debate aint going to rest is it? at least not as long as there are anglers who want to "know" (like me!)...in todays AM Adrian Smiths exellent stillwater roach piece states "For true roach be prepared to cross a lot of waters off your list"......a statement that cuts me to the quick,but a very logical statement, unless the powers that be stand up and give guidelines there are imho going to be a lot more 3lb "roach" and 4lb "rudd"......
 
A

Andy Nellist

Guest
Paul

Just read the piece. I know Adrian and he's a very nice bloke but the bits on hybrids had me in stitches.

The presence of Bream in a Roach water is not a problem (hybrids identifiable as such) but the presence of numbers of Rudd should set the alarm bells ringing (even F1 can be difficult to distinguish from Roach).

Strangely the article doesn't name Willow (loads of Rudd but no Bream) but does mention Startops (Loads of Bream and Roach/Bream hybrids but virtually no Rudd).

I understand from Phil Smith that the price to fish Willow has gone up from ?100 to ?250 for this winter and that he is not planning to get a ticket this time round. Thats a strange decision because if they are true Roach on Willow its worth every penny. Me thinks actions speak louder than words!
 
A

Andy Nellist

Guest
Paul

Just read the piece. I know Adrian and he's a very nice bloke but the bits on hybrids had me in stitches.

The presence of Bream in a Roach water is not a problem (hybrids identifiable as such) but the presence of numbers of Rudd should set the alarm bells ringing (even F1 can be difficult to distinguish from Roach).

Strangely the article doesn't name Willow (loads of Rudd but no Bream) but does mention Startops (Loads of Bream and Roach/Bream hybrids but virtually no Rudd).

I understand from Phil Smith that the price to fish Willow has gone up from ?100 to ?250 for this winter and that he is not planning to get a ticket this time round. Thats a strange decision because if they are true Roach on Willow its worth every penny. Me thinks actions speak louder than words!
 
P

Paul Williams

Guest
Andy,
I have to leave the scientific bits to guys like yourself as far as hybrids go, as Graham said ages back most anglers go on the look of a fish, if it don't look right then it probably aint.....Rik caught a fish when we went to Sway, i'm convinced some would have claimed it as a big crucian, but it obviously wasn't.
One of the guys who fished Willow stated to the weeklies he would pay a ?1000 a year to fish there after he had a "three" i wonder if he is still there and what the other guys think now the fee has gone up 150%? i wonder how the guys who join the syndicate year round feel too!, i don't blame the owner at all for doing this, he has a business to run, i just hope that when the big roach dissapear and the circus move on he still gets a full syndicate.
 
A

Andy Nellist

Guest
Paul

The problem with relying on the way they look is that if people keep putting hybrids in front of you and telling you they are Roach or Rudd then your perceptions change. You end up accepting fish that previously you would have rejected and that opens the door for patheticically obvious hybrids like the "rudd" in the AM last week to be claimed as true specimens.

People are willing to pour scorn on the likelihood of 9 x 6lb Chub from the Avon in day yet are willing to accept numerous catches of very large Roach and Rudd with odd characteristics. In the last year we have seen record braces of "Roach" and "Rudd", two 4lb 10oz "Rudd by the same angler and huge numbers of fish over 3lb 4oz.

Are they getting bigger or have we been turning a blind eye to the obvious "hybrid" characteristics of a substantial proportion of these fish?

Talking of Crucians did you see the one SH caught that accompanied PS's article last month. Crucian my A**E. How anyone could imply there was even a chance that it was he genuine article is beyond me.

Any way enough of my beligerance, i'm off to bed.
 
A

Andy Nellist

Guest
Paul

The problem with relying on the way they look is that if people keep putting hybrids in front of you and telling you they are Roach or Rudd then your perceptions change. You end up accepting fish that previously you would have rejected and that opens the door for patheticically obvious hybrids like the "rudd" in the AM last week to be claimed as true specimens.

People are willing to pour scorn on the likelihood of 9 x 6lb Chub from the Avon in day yet are willing to accept numerous catches of very large Roach and Rudd with odd characteristics. In the last year we have seen record braces of "Roach" and "Rudd", two 4lb 10oz "Rudd by the same angler and huge numbers of fish over 3lb 4oz.

Are they getting bigger or have we been turning a blind eye to the obvious "hybrid" characteristics of a substantial proportion of these fish?

Talking of Crucians did you see the one SH caught that accompanied PS's article last month. Crucian my A**E. How anyone could imply there was even a chance that it was he genuine article is beyond me.

Any way enough of my beligerance, i'm off to bed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top