ANGLING UNITY ? A MAJOR STEP FORWARD

Chairmen of the major angling bodies in England have taken a major step towards a single unified body to represent all anglers. In a joint statement they said

‘We have agreed that the following bodies intend to wind up their organisations and form a single new organisation to represent all anglers. This will be subject to each organisation passing the necessary legal and financial checks – known as ‘due diligence’.

· Anglers’ Conservation Association
· National Association of Fisheries and Angling Consultatives
· National Federation of Anglers
· National Federation of Sea Anglers
· Salmon and Trout Association
· Specialist Anglers’ Alliance

The transition process is being managed by the Fisheries and Angling Conservation Trust, the umbrella body for fisheries and angling organisations. FACT has retained legal, financial and marketing professionals to advise on the formation of the new body.

Each of our organisations has contributed £10,000 to FACT to cover the new body’s start-up costs, a clear indication of our commitment. In addition to funding the essential due diligence much work is needed to improve marketing and our services to members.

The target date for incorporation of the new body, ie legal registration as a company, is early July with full operation by January 2009. Before then each organisation will seek approval to proceed at a general meeting - NAFAC has already done so.

As Chairmen of long-established organisations with loyal members we have not taken this step lightly. However we all believe that a single new organisation is needed to fight for the interests of all anglers and the fisheries they enjoy. We have already received many messages of support for the move and look forward to a bright future.’

Stephen Marsh-Smith, Chairman ACA
Martin Read, Chairman NAFAC
Terry Fell, Chairman NFA
Richard Ferre, Chairman NFSA
James Carr, Chairman STA
Chris Evans, Chairman SAA

No further statements are likely while the detailed due diligence and other preparatory work continues.

Something a little strange here:

I thought MH wrote some short time ago that the SAA would not be particpating as they had no 'physical contributions' in the way of offices etc"

Now apparently they have forked out ?10,000 towards the 'unified kitty' and that from 300+ Individual Members and approx. 10,000 'members' from affiliated Groups?

Maybe in the interestes of unity and informing their members the various constituent bodies will now publish the report of the Marketing Consultants for all to see?

Also, this is the first I have heard that there has been an about-turn from the Sea Anglers.

the sea anglers now have to face licence charges, no wonder they have decided an about turn, but yes it sounds favorable, at least they are still having a go, fingers crossed/forum/smilies/smile_smiley.gif

<u>Maybe in the interestes of unity and informing their members the various constituent bodies will now publish the report of the Marketing Consultants for all to see?</u>

After all some of us have paid for it twice.Haven't you Peter?

Should be ready for issue by now, surely?

Having said that Peter,would your Company issue a marketing report to it's shareholders?

Probably not I'd say,if they did it would only be the points they wanted them to know!

"Haven't you Peter?"

Yes, as a member of 2 of the constituent bodies, I suppose I have.

Sorry Peter, added a bit!

"Having said that Peter,would your Company issue a marketing report to it's shareholders?"

Well Fred, Yes we do; in fact some of them we are obliged to issue.

However, I am unsure about those Company's who have registered 'Charity" status.

I think we all pay more than once through of membership of other bodies, it is however only a small percentage though, I know I`ve been members of the National Angulla, Manchester Carp Group, Carp Society, Perchfishers and Catfish Conservation Group, all at one time members of the SACG/NASA, I never had a problem with that though because of all the benefits I was getting from the groupsI belonged too, many are in a similar position of course.

Pity that there are two threads on the same topic, maybe GM could merge them?

I've locked the other thread and put a link to this one.

Thanks Graham.

So, no one wants to comment - Amazing!

Given that this is probably your last chance to have a proper 'say' I am totally amazed that no one wants to add anything to his debare!

Now, who was it who said that you get the 'government that you deserve?

Peter; I wish them all the best, and now hopefully that angling down south can and will benefit soon,it,s only the way forward.

YES it is amazing as to how many members have replied to this thread, it just shows you just how much that they care for there so called sport.

"The only way forward"?

I beg to differ Jimmy.

We, down South, (or anywhere else in the Country come to that) don't actually need any form of United angling authority to 'govern' our sport, especially if it means the demise of such august bodies as the ACA!

As to the 'only way forward' I remain totally unconvinced.

So, come on MH and the others, lets see the "hooks" that have been devised by your rather expensive 'Consultants'

Seemingly, the 'powers that be' are relying upon the apathy that is rife in our Sport.

I have rather mixed feelings over this. I have in the past worked hard for the acceptance of a "super union" (Unison) which I thought would be of immense benefit to the members of the union I was then a minor officer for (Nalgo). Although no longer in that organisation I have relatives and friends who are still in, and from the interests of the old nalgo folk it has been a disaster...

I am now extremely suspiscious of any amalgamations.....

Having said that it would seem that if all bodies do combine with equal weight..then there is the potential for this organisation to be a very significant player. I do worry,as an ACA member, that the unique focus of the organisation may get lost in the megalith...and I am sure similar concerns are held by members of the other constituent bodies.

I too, accepting the rules and regulations regarding due diligence etc, wish that the consultants reports were available for the members of these organisations. It would be better if they were.

The one thing we cannot afford is for this organisation to be launched with a fanfare only to dissolve into nothing as acidic infighting destroys the body. It has happened a little too often in our sport.

"So, no one wants to comment - Amazing!"

Peter, I've got be honest mate and I probably speak for a lot of anglers. I don't feel qualified to comment on the subject becuse of the lack of available information, or my knowledge on the subject.

But I do feel we need the unification, how it happens is another matter?

Steve,

I too want to see a 'unification' process succeed.

That said, I really do not believe that the current process is either 'transparent' nor right.

That the ACA, and others, have committed members subscriptions, ( to the tune of, ?60, grand?) without their prior approval, is just . . . . Plainly Wrong!

Unless, and until, the various 'consultants' reports and findings have been published to the members (who have actually paid for them) then we - you and I, are kept in the dark!

So, how can we have a full knowledge with which to decide if this is a good or and bad initiative?


Paul said:

"I am now extremely suspiscious of any amalgamations....."

You and I both Paul.
As an ACA member I am very concerned that their peculiar place in Angling's position is going to be totally compromised, despite Mark's assurances!

I have a couple of questions, individuals choose which angling body they wish to be a member of, so should not the individuals of each body have been able to cast a vote, as to whether the said body should amalgamate into FACT? These angling bodies each charge a membership fee, and the majority will have more than the £10/000 "joining" fee, so what will happen to the rest of their assets?

Ian,

I agree totally, the members of the constituent bodies should have been given the opportunity to vote on whether or not we wanted to be allied to the self appointed FACT, who have seemingly led this 'unification' effort.


There are, of course, those who (mistakenly) believe that there should be some sort of compulsory fee, or license levy, in order to fund this 'unified' body.

YES it is amazing as to how many members have replied to this thread, it just shows you just how much that they care for there so called sport.

how can you say that? while there are some very knowledgeable people on here, i think most members are like Steve and myself. not having a clue about how, what, where, when etc, and as such cant/wont post for fear of taking the thread of topic or confusing the issue.

Monk, the sea licence is still being discussed,its not coming yet. but again, whats the point in one, the EA cant police the lakes and rivers correctly as it is. and there would be no clear gain to sea anglers if there was.