NFA Conference 2004

April 17th 2004 - Wakefield - 99th NFA Conference.

Notice of Motion:
That with immediate effect the National Federation of Anglers withdraw their support of the National Angling Alliance (NAA) and cease to hold any form of office within the NAA.

Notice of Motion:
That with immediate effect the National Federation of Anglers withdraw their support of the Moran Committee Joint Bird Group and cease to hold any form of office within the Moran Committee.

Any views?

Does anyone give a flying whatsit?

The SAA aren't very happy about it all.

Could be good fun on the day if this sort of thing tickles your ribs.

I wonder just who stirred up all this fuss and furore?

John Wright is the proposer of these motions.

Mike

Jesus John, why the hell are you hiding behind the Matthew Black name and posting stuff like this as though we don't all know who you are?

Why don't you just post as John Wright, say that you've made these proposals, and then ask what people think about them?

Why all the subterfuge?

I think anyone who has had experience of Comorants and has read "Protecting your fishery from Cormorants" published by the Moran Committee would not be particularly surprised by such a suggestion.

Over the last year i have had a lot of fish with Cormmorant damage including numerous large fish e.g. several 9lb+ Tench.

Cormorants were a problem 10 years ago when there were debates in the House of Lords on a growing problem. Ten years later just like crayfish we have a very serious problem and the relevant authorities have taken far too little action using obviously flawed research to hide behind.

After the war there was a seriouys problem with cormorants in this country and it was solved - by shooting them.

The problems we have today are becasue a pest wrongly enjoys protected status throughout Europe - its that simple.

A little bird tells me Matt's (AKA John Wright) motions are likely to fall down the toilet.
Interestingly isn't that where all crap goes?

Pete, not hiding just amusing myself.

If you knew me then you would know I have a strange sense of humour.

Phil, you could be right in that both NoMs will fall but not after a lively debate has taken place which is surely why CONFERENCE was put in place in the first instance?

So why bother with them in the first place you ask?

In the debate certain revelations will come out and as the NFA's 'National Executive' like to conduct themselves behind closed doors (no minutes of the LAST THREE NEx meetings have been circulated going back to September 2003) and prefer to keep things to themselves and treat the PAYING membership as 'mushrooms' (in the dark covered in sh#t) I am sure those going to Conference will be interested in what I may or may not have to say.

Conference is the only time and place you can force the 'secret society' to reveal all.

Jobs for the boys, the gravy train, 32p per mile, free telephone, computer, trips to 'Fishfinger Hall' and tea with his Lordship etc. etc. etc.

By the way Phil, don't be surprised if one of the NoMs goes through, as I think I might just have a bit more of an inside track than you could ever hope for where the NFA is concerned?

The SAA are going to get up and speak against the NOM to remove the NFA from the NAA.

Tim Marks (he's an 'academic' by the way ... as he keeps reminding me) will send shivers down the spine of the membership at Conference, what with his 500 per capita vote .... didn't the 'Gudgeon Society' join this year?

The club I am representing has the maximum 3,500 voting power and two of my 'co-conspiritors' have equal voting rights.

Think again Messrs. Hackett and Heylin.

Don't you just love a good row?

Oh dear, looks like the SAA will have to either withdraw their ransom note or bugger off elsewhere ... tee-hee!

Barrie Rickard's comments

This article was received from Barrie almost three weeks ago.

Graham.

As always, I read and respect whatever Barrie Rickards pens, even if I don't always agree with his thoughts and words of 'wisdom'.

The point is that if the AFA does ever get off the ground (and I doubt it will) it will be the same old faces and 'jobs for the boys'.

There are some good people out there but the 'old guard' are holding them down under the water with one hand while grasping onto their own precious position and 'nice little earner' with the other. You would have to pull out their finger nails to make them let go!!

First year funding required of the AFA, by the way, is a minimum of ?347,800.

The 'gravy train' is about to pull into the station and they are queuing up to get on!

I can tell Barrie that a number of people within angling adminstration (if you can call it that looking at the state we are in) have a nice little earner and some great 'trips' (abroad in many cases) to look forward to each and every year once they 'pay the ticket collector'.

Been there, witnessed it but didn't get voted a tee-shirt!

Too many committees, too many so-called 'Governing bodies', and too many parasites.

Example: At a NFA Cormorant Action Group meeting, a member of the National Executive spent 20 minutes filling in his expense claim form; my pen ran out, and he gave me his as he said he wouldn't be needing it anymore; then asked if we could hurry the meeting along, get stuck into the buffet lunch, and then he could get in his car and drive the 300 plus miles (32p per mile) back and beat the traffic!

Same old story and you wouldn't believe what goes on in the Salmon & Trout Association ..... Allegedly!!!!

so what's the point of the NFA what do they do.
and what do any of these so called governing bodies do for me.
do i have to be a member of the NFA to go coarse fishing?
Do i need to be a member of the STAA to go trout fishing?

I'm always amazed - no I'm not, that it's always "their" fault, never your own.

If I had big enough hands I'd knock all your bloody heads together. I'm so sick of the infighting, backstabbing, nail-scatching and outright handbag throwing it makes me sick to say I'm an angler and somehow might be a part of it. It's no wonder we're still classed as a third rate sport.

no change here it seems.

too many Governing bodies?????

same arguments, year in year out.
still we all moan on about it amongst ourselfs and to the Bodies, Any Changes?

we need just one governing body for angling
with a department for Coarse, another for Game and one for Sea angling.

The ACA can sit on the side and work with this Body and ACA members as they are doing a great job that everyone understands.

all the other specialist groups can become members of this one governing body as too will members of these specialist groups become represented by the governing body.

a rep from member groups could sit on this one governing body.

all members vote in a chairman, with the knowledge and respectability to over see the running of such a body with a team of expert angling advisors etc.

there is no need to stop recognising fellow groups. we must be united as we all need to stand up and protect our environment, sport, pass time, way of life.

is this too simple?

Ashe,

You are the voice of reason and I couldn't agree more.

Martin Salter MP (the "minister for fishing and shooting") is a bloody good angler in his own right with PBs (not that I'm into that sort of thing myself) that most anglers would die for.

I am also fortunate enough to have known Martin for over 25 years, long before he got into politics, and I still fish with him at least once a year.

I can tell you he is appalled at the state of angling re everything you have said Ashe.
When he looked at the BASC he was amazed at how professional they are. I won't bore you with all the gory details but 85 salaried staff and hefty funding should say enough.

Apart from the ACA name me one 'governing body' that has the word 'CONSERVATION' in its title?

Shooters go round killing things and yet for the most part we return our catches and yet they have that magic word 'CONSERVATION' in their name and NFA, NFSA & S&TA do not!

One united PROFESSIONAL governing body is the ONLY way forward but will we ever achieve such a miracle?

In Europe most countries have one governing body and also control the Rod Licence out of which they take a automatic sum.

Food for thought but probably 'food' that none of us anglers will ever be able to 'eat'!

Ashe, it is too simple. I remember a quotation that went something like "The more simple you make something, the more stupid are those that try to understand it." - that might not be perfect, but it gets my point over well enough.

And John (or Matthew or whatever) if you agree so much with Ashe why are you even considering putting these proposals forward that take away such an opertunity for cooperation? If everyone, including the and most specifically the NFA, knuckled down and started listening to all the anglers out her and represented us we'd have much better organisations. It strikes me that everyone is in it for their own glorification.

Cheeky Monkey

If you read this thread through properly then you would know why I have put forward both NoMs for the forthcoming NFA Conference to DEBATE!

You don't want to know exactly how many committees, quangos, bodies etc. etc. the NFA and other so-called 'governing bodies' attend .... and they are far from once or twice a year jobbies!

It's not only ludicrous and time-consuming, it's pointless, drains the lifeblood of any organisation ie: resources, money, manpower etc. etc.

ONE GOVERNING BODY WITHIN ANGLING or why not just let every angler go his or her own way and just fish?

Tell me Cheeky Monkey; when hunting is eventually banned, who is going to protect your sport? Or are you stupid enough to think that the antis won't come hunting for us?

If you won the National Lottery on ten consecutive Saturdays you still wouldn't have enough money to match the annual budget of PETA!

Angling hasn't got a pot to piss in!

By the way, a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary is in the post, especially for you.

mathew you still don't appear to have answered my question on what is the point of the NFA.
What do you do, as i've been fishing for 30 years and i still don't know.

If you claim to be the governing body of my sport then why do i know nothing about you.

or are you the bunch who do match fishing.

"Or are you stupid enough..." and there you go offending people again, or trying to. No wonder I wouldn't want to join the NAF (mispelling intended). If you are who people think you are why the pseudonym, you may as well come out.

I do however believe that none of the present political parties would dare to ban angling, not with 1.5 million anglers prepared to overthrow any government. Count in their wives and supporting relatives and we could wipe a party of the face of British politics.

But I wouldn't depend on the NFA defending me. I wouldn't depend on them for anything.

matthew black:where`s deep pocket? or is that a snide rumour and dirty lie?

one other question do you have one conference per year if so that's 99 years that so far the NFA have managed to do nothing useful and you are trying to say that the sport must rely on them when things get awkward. oh dear we've lost already.

Mr Wright perhaps you’d like to explain why you are the instigator of the two motions and the reasons behind why they have been put forward?

As for the NFA, I think Jason’s got it about right. It’s crap! And has been that way for a very long time.