New angling governing body!

This thread is about what we anglers actually want out of any future governing body.

I am not privy to any inner circle, but I have emailed some of the main players and the responses tell me that the unification process is far from being a fait accompli. Far from it, ‘they’ are looking for input from sites such as this as to what anglers want.

Lets face it, if they fail to gauge opinion and thenew body is crap anddoesn't give us what wewant, thenwe won't join it in the numbers required! So what better way to have your voice heard?

So, if previous groups drove you to despair let us know here what you actually do want in future. If you have served those same groups, sat on their committees then tell us from your experience what positives you would like to be brought into the equation.

If you are so intelligent that all this talk is beneath you,or you are a member of the ‘not in my lifetime’ brigade, then fine, just steer clear and let those of us who are interested get on with it.

This is not the thread for recriminations, so please, lets keep it to just plain and simple ‘wants’ and ‘wishes’!

From my point of view apart from the standard tackle insurance and possibility for 3rd party cover, I would like to see ‘the new body’ as being one that is allowed to own, rent or control waters especially those waters which may fall into the hands of non angling bodies or where angling could potentially be restricted.

I want a credible voice for angling who represents our best interests

I'm keen to see and will support any unification of the various bodies into one governing body for the whole of angling.

I feel that for the body to act in the best long term interests of the sport it ought to have a single, clear mission statement as a benchmark to evaluate any of it's initiatives, actions, policies or activities. That mission statement needs to be along the lines of 'The conservation of angling' or 'The preservation of angling'. This statement would also then be an integral and important part of the name; some suggestions could be:- Anglers Conservation Society, Angling Preservation Association, Society for the Preservation of Angling. The overarching aim of the conservation/preservation of angling can be supported in various and justifiable ways e.g. fighting pollution, positive promotion of angling to get and keep new entrants (free coaching, match fishing etc.), law changes to protect stocks.
I'd like the new body to dictate that all fisheries have to managed in a natural and sustainable way as far as possible; if that means the match boys have to sometimes fish for smaller weights and more bags of silverfish, then so be it. If it means the banning of imports of all big foreign fish and the carp community having to lower their benchmark, then so be it. The fish, fishing and fisheries in the UK ought to be a reflection of our natural environment and not an artificial one.

If it is to be as successful as it needs to be then ALL anglers MUST join, for this to happen it needs a definite 'must have' factor. Perhaps insisting that all anglers must have public-liability insurance, which would be covered by membership to the ACS (or whatever it'll be called). Ultimately we ought to be paying our licences to such an organisation, with them 'contracting in' the EA to do the work they do well. If they did get control of rod licences then updating the admin. of that would be an appropriate action. Of the current angling bodies I get the impression that the ACA is probably the most professionally run and therefore should be the body at the hub of things to steer it in it's embryonic days.

A 'must have' factor or, 'no brainer' factor. I agree with youentirely Chris.

IF clubs were to back the initiative, say for example by increasing their membership fees by an amount approximatelyequal to the cost of the new body membership,but then offer a discount of approximately the same amount to members of the new body, those of us in several clubs would either have to join upor pay increases across the board.

Of course if what is to be offered is that good, then there might be no need, but I do not see any harm in clubs giving a helping hand.

I also want a 'one angler one vote' system in place.

I want something that truly represents the whole of angling, somthing that lobbies for us in westminster and which has the clout that 4 or 5 million people should wield. It should be supported by us and run as a business, stopping the likes of the RSPB and the national trust from covertly closing down our waterways to anglers.

I'd like to see it as an organisation that is run on an individual membership basis. In another thread I calculated that IF every angler was a member of the ACA then for it to have the same funding as present we'd each only pay a matter of pence.
I think that to rationalise funding they wouldn't need to then charge excessive amounts to join and do all that they need to in the name of anglers IF all 1.5m of us were members.
Eg If they were to get control of licences then a way of increasing sales (and perhaps making a move in a fairer direction) would be to issue both single rod and multiple rod licences. There must be some anglers out there that only fish with one rod, but have a licence to cover two. A rod licence of ?25 for one rod (Ok the same as now, but without the extra free rod would have other 'free' benefits eg a body that does all that the current bodies do now) additional rods upto a maximum of THREE (we have become more proficient in catching fish than when the current limits were set, I feel that it is only 4 as licences are in multiples of two rods.... they don't HAVE to be do they?) so a two rod licence that includes all the membership benefits would be ?35 and a three rod one (how many anglers fish waters where four rods are allowed?) priced at ?45.

I just want it all under one "roof".... by all i mean the main angling bodies including the ACA, i want it funded at licence payment by us the people who need it........and yes we will need it!!

I want the head honcho voted in by licence payers every 3 years and failure tovote rendering a voting year licence null and void.....in fact a voting slip issued instead of a licence untill a vote is made.

I want all the single species groups to be self financing and take nothing from the angling body.....but for them to have a rep on the mainbodies commiteeas i do any major angling club.

Dear All,

I want all those that head up FACT to come on here and tell us all what "they" wan't from us? Bet a block of flats that they won't!? And if you think you can do anything without their involvement you've got to be dreaming. Simply because they are already in place talking to "ALL" the right departments that matter concerning our sports future. So everything hinges on what they think not what we think. Yes admittedly a few within FACT might listen, but the blokes heading up the big orgs? Dream on.

The biggest angling collective in the UK isn't S&TA, it isn't the NFSA, and it isn't the NFA either. Its the massive collection of angling clubs we have up and down the country because its here nestled in each one as ordinary members where the massive overal majority of anglers are. If FACT were truly serious about uniting "ALL" of UK anglers then it should have looked towards the clubs for support as thats where we "ALL" are in one form or another. The NFA may claim it already has "ALL" these coarse angling clubs in their own house, but the truth is they haven't. So the "whole" of the UK's coarse angling clubs is up for grabs. Problem is, the clubs that NFA do have on board, they wan't to keep because without them they wouldn't have any dosh to run NFA on. So expect no help from that quarter. Same story with S&TA and NFSA who all wan't their membership bases for themselves. And you simply won't achieve squish with the few thousand individual members (at best) you might drum up by going it alone. Stalemate.

The angling clubs hold the key, but even here don't expect those that are NFA members to stump up more dosh as well as their NFA fees. And don't expect none NFA member clubs to stump up the rates that NFA already charge because that's why they "aren't" in NFA membership now.Finding unity is simple. Dissolve all the orgs that make up FACT, every last one of them, then build the "one" organisation by uniting all the clubs. Coarse, game and sea, unite the lot of them and charge them all "affordable" rates in order to finance the umbrella organisation they all stand beneath.

If this were a national knitting club it would be up andrunning in two weeks, so in the meantime whilst another hundred years passes by, send your suggestions to;

Suggestion Box.

Ivory Towers

I'll have the same as Bill's having, funded by individual membership.

I do not think a levy ona licence fee is the way to go about it though.For a start why should the EA,a Government funded body do it, and would sea anglers go for a licence?

There needs to be a body formed initially, to sell the reason why an angler should be a paid up member. Once you have the interest go from there. If the interest is not there,well, we get what we deserve.

Why not ask anglers,through all media available, if they would be prepared to give,say a £1 each to start up an organisation to look after every aspect of anglers interests,but in particular lobbying Government, and the Sports governing bodies, to acknowledge that as a participating sport, anglers have clout.

If FACT can get finance from a commercial fisheries organisation,why can't a new body get finance without commercial interests involved?

I think that all anglers should consider the inauguration of any 'governing' body very carefully, as once established it will most probably live a charmed and very long life.

I don't see a successful body as being anything but totally and fully independant from the existing bodies, based in individual memberhsip only with the individual members electing officials for a fixed term period of service, or indeed a vote on any matter.

I would not want to see the funding based on a levy system as this takes away the individual's right of choice.

I believe that there will have to be very strict guidelines drawn up between the EA and this new body to avoid dupliction of effort and possible areas for future contention and disagreement.

The new body should be totally independant from today's existing groups and organisations.
That said I would like to see twice a year Consultation sessions convened, but only as a forum for two-way information harvesting and disemination.
The biggest obstacle I see with the current proposed organisation is the obvious conflict of interest that anyone with half an ear, and the abilty to use it, can readily understand.

These are just a few of my thoughts on the subject, others I prefer not to disclose at the moment.

The idea of a 'governing' body has me spitting feathers. This is terminology that's been adopted to appease bodies like the Sports Council, the better to get dosh out of them.

Imagine being a brand newbie angler; you buy some tackle, a rod licence and a permit and go fishing. Simple as that. Nobody governs you. Could we agree that it is a 'representative' body that we should be talking about.

Rant over!

Good point Dave.

I would like the new body to be able to promote angling and raise its profile.

At the moment I believe angling is perceived (by many non-anglers) as sitting somewhere between train spotting and fox hunting - ie nerdy anoraks who torture living things for enjoyment. While this is the case the non anglers of this country will never comprehend the amount of conservation work brought about by angling or accept it as a sport enjoyed by many.

What angling really needs as opposed to another governing body run by well meaning but faceless amateurs is a couple of high profile spokespersons. People the general public either already know and trust, or can identify with.We need toget the message across that we are not nerdy anoraks from another universe and actually are the real guardians of the nations waterways and countryside.

In short we need an angling 'spin doctor'. Every other group has such people to brief the media and exploit every opportunity to show us in a good light. We just take it all on the chin and never respond, because we are never able to put up a sufficiently articulate and well known face to defend our cause.

If the Foxhunting brigade had put up a few celebrities to state their case instead of unknown Horrah Henries in tweedjackets and jodpers they might have turned public opinion and still be able to practice their sport legally.

An angling spin doctor? I likesit.

Dear All,

Already we have gone from individual membership to spin doctors.

Pick up your coconut door mats as you pass by for a ride down the helta skelta. And if Helta Skelta is spelt that way is was a pure guess!!

Regards,

Lee.

That's what the thread is about Lee, 'wants and wishes'.

You clearly have a lot of experience in this area, how about sharing what you would actually want from a governing/representative body.

I like the idea of a spin doc........prefrably an angler, but if not, so long as the job gets done!