Angling Unity Update ? May 2008

Perhaps only a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but the following quote from the above press release says volumes about the general attitude towards angling websites:

"Angling newspapers and magazines have all been very supportive of the plans, which have also been reported in national newspapers."

Great, that's good news for those of us who support the initiative.

But it's what remains unsaid that concerns me, and begs two questions.

1. Are they saying that angling websites have not been supportive of the plans?

2. Or do they consider what we think as insignificant and can be ignored?

Two thoughts spring to mind: when they say that angling newspapers and magazines have been very supportive, what they really mean is that the publisher/editorial staff have been very supportive. I don't think for one second that the readership have been consulted before the publication published any supporting editorial.

Now, angling websites (and I don't mean just FishingMagic) have also generally come out in support of the initiative. But this support, apart from a minority of dissenting voices, has come from anglers - not me, or any other website editor, but from you, the people who have voiced their opinions on the forum andwho will be most affected by a unified body.

And yet umpteen thousands of us who voice our opinions on angling websites have been totally ignored.

Doesn't it matter what we think? Don't they know that print readership is falling as rapidly as website readership is growing?

Of course I realise that the editors of print media still have lots of influence on the angling public, but surely that's not a reason to ignore you, the anglers whose money they will want when you consider joining the new body.

I should add too that it is the minority of dissenting voices that make website forum opinions much more valuable. You then end up with a balanced view and not just an editor's view.

Graham, you raise some interesting and very valid points.

I wonder if the participants in this process simply consider that the majority of the members of Angling websites/Forums are already members of clubs, associations, constituent bodies etc., and as such are being 'reached' via those vehicles?

As for the update itself; I would like to know if our existing memberships will be simply transferred, or will we be consulted as to if we want this to happen?

Also, what about those of us who are members of more than one constituent body? Will we be expected to pay twice, or more, to be members of this new body?

And for some of those (not GM b.t.w.) who apparently suffer from word blindness, let me repeat, I am very much in favour of having a unified body (not necessarily a governing body though) providing that this time we actually get it right!

I'm not sure what the national average is for people connected to the Internet but from a group of users I definitely do know of, the CSG, we have about 33% with a connection.

Out of those I would estimate only about 10-15% are active on web sites, although others may be lurking in the background.

Given that members of such a group are probably more interested in 'angling & fisheries' than the average anglerbuying a pint maggots on a weekend and 'going fishing',I would suggest that some may have an over inflated opinion of the importance of fishing web sites.

As for angling 'news papers', I do not know one angler who I come in contact with on a weekly basis who actually buys one these days.

Then of course we have the club officials who know of nothing other of when the next batch of F1's will be delivered. If it had been for me bringing up the FACT initiative at committee none of the rest, especially the Secretary and Chairman,would have had any idea what was being proposed, even though the Secretary receives the quarterly bulletins from the likes of the NFA, S&TA, NAFAC etc.

Those of us who do use angling web sites and choose to get involved do know what is being proposed, but the vast majority of those who 'fish' don't have a clue, and dare I suggest, don't give a damn... and thereby lies the problem. Just what the FACT team of consultants and 'scoping meetings' will show (fora reported £17k-£20K)I fail to see.

"Angling newspapers and magazines have all been very supportive of the plans...."

The point I've made is that the opinions, or support if you like, that you see on website forums is the opinion of you, me, and other everyday anglers, and not just the support of the guy running the publication.

Papers are there to make money, and will as we know edit a story to sell it.

Websites such as FM give anglers a voice, many of the comments regarding this subject would not go to print, papers are for selling papers nothing more.

The reason some dont like websites is because some of the facts come out that they dont want you to know about.

I think the FM membership says it all.

But it's what remains unsaid that concerns me, and begs two questions.

1. Are they saying that angling websites have not been supportive of the plans?

2. Or do they consider what we think as insignificant and can be ignored?


Graham is it not possible that it was simply an oversight on their behalf, seeing as how some of the players have actually had an input on the initial debate some months back?

I have actually written a ranting article (decided not to send itto Mr Marzdenn now..!) about the print vs internet.

A couple of well known anglers have been getting digs in recently about internet forums and article writers.The gist of these commentsappears to beto dismiss both the quality of the contributions,and the validity of postings on the fishing websites are irrelevant

Perhaps falling circulation figures are causing editiors to become slightly uncomfortable, what betterjustification for their position than to claim they are the one (and only) true voice of angling?

And if that means belittling the 'opposition' to achieve and maintain that position, then apparently, so be it.

Send it in Kevin, I did one similar a few years back, always good to stir it a bit!

The angling media take a pop at anyone and at each other unless they are getting their own way. As one angling journalist has said on this forum,unless a picture of a fish goes to print then it hasnt been caught, yeh right.

There is of coarse the other side, and that is, they always think they are right and those writing for them the be all and end all to angling, well sorry but that couldnt be further from the truth.

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Kevin Perkins wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>A couple of well known anglers have been getting digs in recently about internet forums and article writers.The gist of these commentsappears to beto dismiss both the quality of the contributions,and the validity of postings on the fishing websites are irrelevant

Perhaps falling circulation figures are causing editiors to become slightly uncomfortable, what betterjustification for their position than to claim they are the one (and only) true voice of angling?

And if that means belittling the 'opposition' to achieve and maintain that position, then apparently, so be it. </blockquote>

Kevin means Coarse Fisherman, but to be fair they also have me spouting off in two columns every month obviously giving the opposing view.

The adverse comments in CF were, at the least, thoughtless, written by someone who has obviously forgotten that he too once took a step on the bottom rung of the writing ladder.

I wrote this in Coarse Fisherman:"I’ll be the first to admit that the web is still seen as inferior to the printed page. I’m not really sure why, except that the web is still relatively in its infancy compared to print and in spite of more people buying computers and logging onto the internet every day it does take time for a newcomer to become respected and established. It will probably take another generation before it commands the same respect as print for there are still too many old farts around, many of them younger than me, who view the web with ignorance and make remarks that prove it. All they can see is the daft, often offensive element that haunt every website’s forum and then draw conclusions that smear the skidmarks over the whole website rather than restricting their remarks to the few who deserve it. They complain about the internet few who tar all print media with the same brush and then retaliate in exactly the same fashion and in their own way are far more offensive as they should know better.

The internet may very well not be as respected as print media just yet, but the stark and undeniable truth is that as angling print media circulation figures plummet, angling website visitors continue to rise. There is a lot to learn to make a website - any website that is - the perfect media. But let’s just bear in mind that print media has a few thousand years head start."

"Graham is it not possible that it was simply an oversight on their behalf, seeing as how some of the players have actually had an input on the initial debate some months back?"

Just about sumsit up Eddie. Sorry Graham we will try to use the more inclusive "angling media" next time.

I think the problem (from emailing a mr Haylin at A/U) is similar to most organisations run by volunteers who also have their own private life & day job (along with input to their original angling body)- So many things to do at once and they just hadn't got around to targeting the many fishing websites out there, the handfull fishing newspapers are a much easier first step for contacting anglers. One letter copied out & posted to a few editors is signed & sealed in ten minutes but it would take forever to chase up every angling website and email them or register, log-on then post something up. When A/U gets up and running I fully expect there'll be a dedicated staff member hitting the internet hard to generate coverage and boost recruitment. The support of the angling websites is warmly accepted by the Angling Unity organisers and it's good to see FishingMagic is included in their webpage of supporting sites:

http://anglingunity.co.uk/supporting-websites/

What I do know is that they are prepared to listen to ideas from internet-anglers and act on them. A few weeks ago someone suggested they put an opt-in email system on their site so that ANY internet angler could show support, make themselves count and get their email address on a contact list so that Angling Unity could keep them informed of what's going on. They put a page up last week -

http://anglingunity.co.uk/2008/05/27/sign-up-for-the-angling-unity-newsletters/
They have the Fishingmagic email from their supporters webpage hence the delivery of the above mentioned e-newsletter.
The goings-on at A/U will just drop into everyone's inbox probably on a monthly basis and this will eventually overtake the circulation of the angling papers as their readers will join the contact list.

From the site:
The key to success in achieving Unity in angling will be in gaining the full support of the angling community. Clearly there is support for it in a large majority of those we speak to. It is clear from the support evident across the various angling and fisheries forums, angling websites and publications that there is a willingness to promote support for Unity


We need to get in there and help them rather than ....doing anything else,,,on the negative side.

OOPS
Sorry about getting your name wrong Michael.

As I suspected, it was simply an oversight on FACT's part. Interactive forums have become an invaluable way of helping to assess anglers' opinions on important issues.

John, how can you expect anyone to know what's going on if they don't read a newspaper? Whether you like AT, AM, etcor not, an angling weekly is the best one-stop shop to get up-to-date news on all things angling. I couldn'tfind the same amount of angling-related news, results and catches if I trawled the net 24/7.... I know that for a fact because it's my job!

So Fishingmagic isn't a profitable enterprise Ray? And as for the papershaving a pop if they're not getting their own way - how hypocritical are you exactly?

My point about publishing catches was that if people are going to publically talk about fish or claim they've caught big specimens then they'd better be able to back such talk up with evidence, otherwise most sensible people have to assume they're talking b******s!

And weren't you quite happy to court the weeklies when you caught a record Ray... That is until you decided to try and withdraw your record and everyone assumed you'd lost the plot! Glass houses and stones mate?

Greg,

You just proved the point, you dont like it if you dont get your own way, thats why you have a dig. Hypocritical, you talking S--te yet again.

FM gives me everything i need regarding fishing, and a hell of a lot more outside of fishing, something your comic could never do.

Greg,

You forget, no sorry you got your facts wrong (yet again), i did not court the press, they came to me. I wouldnt use the press again as i know what slime bags you are.

I did'nt try and withdraw the claim, i did withdraw the claim, get your facts right.

Whilst we are on this subject greg, why dont you tell us why AT only sent £40 to the ACA for the story. Glass houses and stones, and your still talking S--te, then again its understandable seeing who you work for.

Jesus, what a ripping one-toner!!!!!!

No, you tried to withdraw your record Ray. Last time I looked it was still the second-biggest roach ever caught. And if the Northern Irish are everfound to be hybrids yours will be reinstated.

Withdrawn my arse!

Witghdraw your arse if you like greg.

Fact is it was withdrawn, when you claim a record it is on a Voluntary basis, therefore you can withdraw as and if you want to, and No it will not be reinstated as the BRFC do not have the right to do so unless they contact me.

I still have the written proof of the withdrawal, i shall get it and inform you of the date.

Shame you cant come up with the facts about the £40 to the ACA, then again what else would we exspect.

Its not personal agaisnt you Greg, i am sure your a very nice guy, shame about the Paper.

I'm not sure if you can have your name taken off the BRFC list Ray, but you can't change history. Your fish will still remain as the biggest roach caught in Britain when the Irish fish gets thrown out.