NUBA

Just wondered if many people were aware of this organisation: http://www.nuba.org.uk/

Featured on Keith Arthur's Talk Sport show this morning. I think it's worth ?3 of anyone's money!

A 'union' as opposed to an association for anglers is not my cup of tea.
A recent debate on the pros and cons of NUBA on the Angling Times website forum, to which founder Alan Suttie contributed, got quite heated and personal, suggesting anglers and what is essentially a political organisation in the best tradition of trade unions might not mix.
I do believe Alan Suttie was on Talk Sport as a result of lobbying Keith on that website to get some air time to put forward his views.

It's not just that, but I have my doubts about the 'decimation' as AT put it of the Wandle, losing 70% of its stocks of specimen barbel, roach and perch. (article {url http://www.nuba.org.uk/article.htm]here)

Putting aside for one moment the AT gaffe ('decimation' means reduction by a tenth) how does Alan Suttie know that it's 70% and how does he know that fish theft is to blame? And if '15lb barbel' were caught by 'hungry foreign anglers,' presumably with cheap tackle, how come we didn't hear of proper anglers bagging up?

The last point may be a bit of a wind-up, but the following is not. While the EA may have variable (and I agree nonsensical) byelaws controlling the removal of fish, riparian owners can introduce any they like.

After that it's just a question of bailiffing your own rules. Is Mr Suttie saying he'd prefer EA rules that he likes, so they can do his bailiffing? In the first place, they won't because they haven't got the manpower, and in the second people who break rules don't care whose rules they are; all the more so if they know that they won't get caught.

In the AT article (and Greg, give the subs a b****cking for not being able to spell your name) it says 97% of people support the idea of a ?1 levy to pay for a full-time 'angling body.' Depending on the proposal, that's something I WOULD support. A body which analyses angling's issues rationally, logically and scientifically and launches schemes which do more than NUBA proposes

Sorry, that AT article here

I was 'Whitehouse' the other week! A b*****king was the least of it that week - more like shed loads of mockery!
A ?1 levy would be the answer, but the question would remain, 'Who would you give that money to?'
I personally believe that we allow the Agency far too much say as to how our sport is run. But FACT is a faceless organisation and no single governing body has a wide enough appeal to say they represent all anglers.
I say fair play to Alan, at least he's giving it a go. The problem is, anglers just don't seem to care enough to unite (or if they care, they can never modify their passionate views in order to reach any kind of unity through compromise).
I'll send NUBA some dough, like I have done the SAA. If people like Mike Heylin (SAA) and Alan Suttie keep fighting for us then I'll keep sending them my hard earned!
It's up to all of us to set the agenda - what do we want from our sport? Who should run it? How do we best protect it? Etc, etc.

Well said Greg. Too many of us anglers sit back and criticise everyone who tries to organise our sport but we do very little to aid or encourage it. That is the very reason why our sport is a complete and utter shambles and has no national representation.

If there was a ?1 levy I'd want to be certain that we had a democratic elction to permanent posts and an agreed agenda. What the EA needs is to know from anglers is what they want. What do we want? MORE FISH.

I know I'm in danger of sounding like my own echo, but the way we will get more fish is first of all to hammer pollution and abstraction, the two greatest threats to angling, and secondly to ensure that the unpolluted rivers become capable of producing ample recruitment and supporting more insects.

I am fairly certain that the resultant improvement in stocks would more than compensate for the occasional Pole's supper.

But if there's any one thing fisheries management also lacks it's great bailiffing and enforcement, and for that to be paid for, we need better recruitment of anglers to our ranks.

I have the deepest admiration for Alan Suttie and for anyone who, as you say, puts his head above the parapet. And the Wandle is worth fighting for, for sure. But angling will never get the support it needs from the powerful environment lobby until it demonstrates that its campaigns are the result of good science.

Despite what many FMers say, environmentalists are not tree-hugging veggies who hate us. The majority of them actually see angling as a fairly benign hobby; our agenda should be to demontrate to them that angling is not benign, but a powerful force for conservation.

We won't do that with half-baked campaigning based on hearsay, particularly if it can be misconstrued as racism. I'm not saying it IS racism BTW, but even the merest whiff of it being about 'blockers' as AT terms Eastern Europeans and they'll put as much distance between them and us as possible.

I agree with you in large part Mark. But I don't think the campaigning of a body like NUBA should be relevant to government or other bodies as yet. Its first and greatest hurdle is to recruit members from within angling. Only if it has the numbers will anyone listen to it. That is what angling has always lacked - a unified vioce backed up by numbers.
Yes, stocks, bailiffing and good management are important. But the MOST important thing is to mainstream angling again by making our huge numbers apparent and un-ignorable (sorry, invented that word!). That way we can TELL the EA how it's going to be (or hold them to ransom over their only revenue source if they ignore us) and we could lobby terrestrial TV channels and get fishing back on the box where it belongs!
But do we really need elected reps though? Sounds democratic, but a soon as you have elections you get politics and power corrupts absolutely! Before you knew it you would have candidates whose primary motive was to get elected, as opposed to growing the organisation and its influence! (please excuse my cynical view of democracy!)
As for a clear outline of what NUBA represents and what its constitution is, well, now's everyones' chance to get involved. No time like the present!

Oh, and nice point about 'decimated'. I never knew that (obviously!)!

Thanks for that, Greg. You're so cynical, anyone would think you worked on a national fishing newspaper!

I've written a few words along these lines for FM, and GM's threatening to publish them soon, so that will possibly give you a gist of my blueprint for angling's future (or at least a part of it).

on quite another subject, when I was on AT, I always felt (and often said) it was in a prime position to organise with sponsorship a proper recruitment drive for angling, and connect kids with people and places where they could get into the sport.

It's my belief that, although such drives exist, they tend to be publicised where anglers will see them - it's the non-anglers we should be interested in!

decimation.

was the roman practice of going along a line of legionaries and killing every tenth one.

they did this when they hadn't fought well or had panicked and routed.

The one area of angling that frustrates me the most, is that of the governance of the sport.

That we have still never had the one person or body that could truly unify the whole sport is a huge embarrassment.

This is my first post on here and possibly the most important post I will ever make, I am a sceptic by nature and not easily hoodwinked, over the years I have witnessed the NFA (anglings governing body) erode into a deaf,dumb blind (Tommy if you like)organisation, I understand that anglers are represented by a self appointed organisation calling itself FACT now, FACT appear to suffer from the same three ailments as the NFA.

I want anglers views to be heard, I want anglings voice ringing in the offices of the RSPB,DEFRA, the EA and Government, I demand to be heard, for too long angling has rolled over to various small pressure groups.....simply because we have lacked a strong united voice, there is strength in numbers if only us anglers would realise it, I have recently joined NUBA, I took the family option, it cost me ?10, for that I have registered myself,my wife,my son and daughter and my grandson who is only 2 years old....thats 5 votes....5 voices to be heard for ?10, I have nothing to lose by becoming a member of NUBA and everything to gain, joining may be a long shot, it may be a hopeful punt on an outsider.......but what if NUBA does grow into a united voice for angling to fight our corner? all it takes is a little effort to join,you do not even have to pay to join if you do not wish to.......what are you as an angler waiting for?

Regards ( a very ordinary angler) Bob.

Well said Bob. That's what we all need to do. Pay a few quid to be a number. Alan Suttie will do the rest - he's a tenacious b*****d! Exactly what we need.

Before we all get carried away here - I thought that the AT 'survey' outcome was:

"That 97% of anglers would support a VOLUNTARY levy of ?1.00 on the annual EA license"

If correct, and I do remember asking Greg to provide whatever demographincs he had on that survey, incidentally to no avail, then I wonder how many would then 'voluntarily' give that extra pound?

Personally, I would support a VOLUNTARY levy inasmuch as I would then decide NOT to PAY IT!

The reason being; that at present the 'idea' was to fund FACT with that levy, which I found to be unacceptable.

Currently FACT are already receiving 'income' from various different member subscribed to organisations, which in my case, (the ACA) I was never asked if this use of my annual membership was okay with me! I believe the same is true of those who subscibe to the SAA, but I do not have first hand knowledge of this.

Do we need a National Body to fight the case of the ordinary angler?
Of course we do!

Do WE need that organisation to be wholly funded by INDIVIDUAL Members?
Too Bloody true we do, otherwise 'vested' interests and politics will rule the roost instead of the common average angler!

Peter, NUBA is the answer to your concerns.
As for a voluntary levy on the licence, the EA wouldn't entertain the proposal. Having said that, I defy anyone to name a single time where the EA have done something significant at the behest of their customers (ie. anglers). We are legally obliged to pay a tax to fish, but we have no say in how that money is spent or how angling is run. Let's face it, none of our governing bodies 'run' angling, the EA does. But it usually does so without listening.
The National Union of British Anglers will be just that, a union. Its aim is to represent the average angler on the bank. To listen to what he thinks is important, how he wants to be represented and where angling goes in the future. And as a union, NUBA's strength will lie in direct action.
Alan Suttie wants to gather 300,000 NUBA members in three years. Who in their right mind would mess with 300,000 unified anglers? And how would you stop 300,000 anglers fishing without a licence when they get fed up of the EA's archaic bye laws that allow the decimation of fish stocks nationwide (sorry, there's that word again).
NUBA would be a voice that fills the present deafening silence that up until now has only been filled by a few lone individuals like Martin Salter.
At ?3 I'm in. I think it's worth that simply to see if we can't get it off the ground. After all, what have we got to lose? ?3?

Get in there: http://www.nuba.org.uk/

Greg, I do not want to decry NUBA and I appreciate it is a fledgling organization, but the problem with angling politics is not a lack of represenative bodies but the fact that there is too many of them.

Having an additional one, albeit of a slighlty different nature, does not address that issue unless all the others wither away in due course as a consequnce of NUBAs mass appeal.My fear then would be the loss of experience and also influence the existing bodies have.

My prefferred option would be for the existing organizations to be given opportunity to amalgamate into one represenative body which would allow individual memebrship.There was a long thread on this topic several months ago and it was intimated that FACT were considering trying to go down that route.Perhaps NUBA will be added impetus to that development.

I would also be interested to hear how NUBA intends to work with or alongside established angling bodies or whether it will remain independant from them and lobby seperately.It would be a shame not to use the lobbying channels which I am sure the existing bodies have built up.

Nigel Conner, I, like you and and millions of other anglers feel that there are simply too many angling organisations, all with their own agenda,all in conflict with one another and with the exception of the ACA and PAC achieving very little for the ordinary,unrepresented angler, no one listens to us , no one is interested in what we want....if unity is what anglers want we have to stand together and say so......NUBA will be our way of making them listen, every angler in the land should join NUBA, even if they do it for free, at least then we will have a fighting chance to change things for the better, the alternative is more of the same from FACT,the EA,DEFRA and the RSPB, plus all of the cranky minority anti angling groups that appose angling because we are such an easy target and do not defend ourselves, regards Bob.

Bob, I do not disagree but I think that any new organisation that does not work in tandem with existing bodies to secure some form of unified represenation is bound to fail unless and it is a big unless, it can secure mass membership, then mere numbers alone will give it influence.

Unfortunately the track record of anglers mobilising is not good.The ACA is effective but has been hampered ny low mebership for years from taking a more proactive role.

It seems NUBA may have some backing from the press but how come it has not so far had any profile on FM even though it has been in existance for a little while?Any body that aspires to mass membership has to be able to manipulate all forms of media from the outset to obtain members and convey its vision.I appreciate it is an embryonic affair and being run by one man it seems but if it is to meet its goals it needs momentum quickly.