ANGLING UNITY ? A MAJOR STEP FORWARD

[Steve Spiller]

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

"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."

Peter, that is one point that we don't agree on mate. A compulsory percentage of the licence fee could be used towards it, but we know the E.A aint gonna go for that!

You're right about apathy though [Insert sad face]

"hello mate would you like to donatea contribution to the unification of angling?"

"nah sorry mate I'm skint, but I'll have a rod licence and six cans of lager please"

I don't think voluntary contributions will sustain/finance it Peter, but that's just my honest humble opinion.

 

[Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA)]

"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."

And why are you in the dark Alan?

Because this whole process has been conducted; 'behind closed doors', with little or no information published, and yet you are going to be asked to go along with this process, "because it is the only way forward"

 

[Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA)]

Steve,

Forget Angling for a moment, and the fact (sic) that any change to the annual license fee would require government legislation to bring about, what other area of life do you know where 'compulsory' levies are applied?

IF, and its a big 'if', this new organisation is worthy of support, then it should be based on results, and not a levy!


Even Mark Lloyd (ACA) has stated that support should be on a results-oriented basis.

 

[alan]

And why are you in the dark Alan?

because quite frankly the whole issue has become so confused with so many bodies trying to unite all the others i no longer have a clue as to what the hell is going on.

FACT, NUBA, this new one. as an angler with out all the connections some on here enjoy(not a dig at any one) the only way to find out what is going on is through the forums, but there are so many differant veiws and stories as to what is going on i dont think most peple can follow it any more.

 

[Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA)]

Alan,

As a virtual neighbour (I live in Salisbury, Wiltshire) I really do sympathise with you.

Tell you what . . . . when the new river season starts, lets arrange for a day fishing on the Avon and simply forget all this nonsense and just . . . . Go fishing.

 

[alan]

Peter, having only fished a small river(rother in midhurst)once i wouldnt know where to start. im looking at joining a club in april so i can try a few more.

ive not been fishing since October, im hoping to go on saturday with the kids, then on good friday with my brother.

 

[Steve Spiller]

I agree with you Alan, we hear so many stories about in-house fighting Peter and the fact that the many different bodies will never agree it just clouds the whole picture.

Can it happen? Will it happen?

I sincerely hope it does, to have so may different bodies all striving to look after themselves, which I think is the truth of it and is ludicrus!

We need to unite and have one voice, all the different factions of angling are doing US no favours at all and Joe Bloggs aint gonna put his/her hand in their pockets to support it due to apathy.

 

[Steve Spiller]

Let's make a date for next Autumn Peter and hope the weather is kind to us this time.

We can sort it out over a beer andcurry/forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

 

[alan]

i would like to see it happen as well, when you look at what the SACN have achieved with no real funding and only a few supporters, it makes you wonder what could be achieved if all anglers and groups clubbed together.

but until its explain in a basic, easy to understand way most people are not going to be bothered as trying to find out the info needed is to confusing.

 

[The bad one]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>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. </blockquote>
Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

 

[Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA)]

"Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!"

A typical comment from the apathetic angling majority, what a pity it isn't the silent majority!




and from your other contribution:

"This is my one and only post ??.probably?"

What a pity that you didn't keep to your word.

 

[Graham Marsden (ACA)]

Peter, 'The bad one' has made a lot more than two posts, he just chooses now to hide behind a nickname.

Pity that, I gave him more credit.

Come on 'the bad one', it's not like you to shoot from behind cover./forum/smilies/smile_smiley.gif

 

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

It seems to me the naysayers want it both ways,they are calling for a vote to determine whether angling stays as it is or amalgamates into one organisation, then on the other hand they state quite clearly on here, anglers are apathetic!!!

To my mind, a vote would be redundant, only a small minority of anglerswould bother to vote!, becauseonly a small minority are members of anything! so the minority will get their way and dictate to the vast majority of ill informed or even unaware anglers, this coupled with a huge amount of lost and wasted time conducting such a vote, is this really the best way forward?

I welcome this move for angling unity, in relative terms it is moving along at warp speed, I welcome that also, angling needs to get this sorted ASAP, we have wasted far too much precious time squabbling amoung ourselves, this latest press release shows real purpose and thrust, a forward thinking and pro active agenda, and a true direction,I am excited by the proposals, and if they pull it off, the MAJORITY of anglers will joinandbenefit from it,

Bob.

 

[JIMMY---PAAS]

Well said Bob.

 

[Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA)]

Bob,

The problem at the moment is that the current constituent bodies are aiming at a representation of about 35,000 (see Mark Lloyd's post on the other thread) compared to the 1,000,000 EA license holders, so the 'minority' are already in the driving seat.

Add to that the fact that only a relative handful of those are in possession of all the facts and figures, and it is readily apparent that any vote at the moment would be based on little or no available information.

I would dearly love to see a united angling representative (not governing) body, my fears however are that this is being driven at break neck speed, without informing those who subsidise these bodies via their membership dues and that some of the constituent bodies have a lot more to loose than others if this initiative fails.

 

[Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA)]

"'The bad one' has made a lot more than two posts, he just chooses now to hide behind a nickname."

In which case Graham he obviously does not have the courage of his convictions.

The topic of Unity in Angling is far too important to take this "Yawning" attitude towards, and if some of the contributors are to be beleived and this really is our 'last chance' then it should be debated fully, openly, logically, in an adult manner and be based on all the known facts.

 

[Graham Marsden (ACA)]

<blockquote class="quoteheader">Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class="quote">"'The bad one' has made a lot more than two posts, he just chooses now to hide behind a nickname." In which case Graham he obviously does not have the courage of his convictions.
</blockquote>

I don't think it's that Peter, more a case of not being seen to back down on a statement he made, of which, in fairness to his right to anonymityI can say no more.<blockquote class="quoteheader">Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class="quote">The topic of Unity in Angling is far too important to take this "Yawning" attitude towards, and if some of the contributors are to be beleived and this really is our 'last chance' then it should be debated fully, openly, logically, in an adult manner and be based on all the known facts. </blockquote>

I agree Peter, and although I disagree with some of your stance on this issueI'm sure you would rather me say so than not say anything at all. Or just yawn.

 

[Peter Jacobs (ACA, SAA, CA)]

Graham,

You and I have always been able to debate, and to disagree from time to time in a proper manner, and hopefully we always will.

The 'yawn' type of comment is petty enough, albeit a little better than the ad hominem argument adopted by some others. When they cannot argue the point, then attack the person.

 

[Fred Bonney]

ACA News Update
Thursday 28th February, 2008


2007 was another record year for the ACA. We settled 34 legal cases, recovered over £200,000 in compensation and advised 140 clubs and owners on a whole range of issues. We look forward in 2008 to keeping up the fight against those that damage our water and hope that we continue to receive your much valued support while doing so.

Some of you have already received replies to your questions regarding the unification issue. Our Chairman has answered some of the more frequent queries and concerns in a Q&A update, shown below. For those that would like to discuss unification or any other ACA matter, we will be at the Spring Flyfishing Show this weekend - www.thespringflyfishingshow.com and at the Go Fishing Show from the 14th to 16th March at the NEC, Birmingham - www.gofishingshow.com
We look forward to seeing you there.

Best wishes from all at the ACA.


Update on Angling Unification

I wrote to you in December about the proposed unification of angling's representative bodies. We have had several hundred responses to this letter. I am very grateful to everyone who took the time and trouble to share with us their enthusiasm for the proposal and equally to those who raised their concerns about our plans.

Because of the sheer volume of correspondence, it is not possible to reply personally to everyone. There are a number of questions which have been raised more than once and we have attempted to provide answers to them where possible below. There is still a great deal of discussion to be had before the final proposal is fully formed, but our members' comments have been very helpful in helping to firm up ideas about the structure, activities and ways of avoiding potential pitfalls of the new organisation.

Above all, we have been reassured by the fact that more than 90% of the responses we have received have been unconditionally supportive of the concept of a unified body for angling. We are now working with accountants, lawyers and marketing specialists to develop a name, a corporate structure, membership arrangements and benefits package. This will help the joining organisations draft resolutions to put to their AGMs this Spring.

1. Q: I am a life member of one of the organisations. What will happen to my membership after unification?
A: It is anticipated that life memberships will be honoured and carried forward into the new body to recognise the substantial support of these members in the past. However, if this is the case, one-off donations from life members to help with the costs of establishing the new organisation would, of course, be very welcome.

2. Q: What if I am a member of more than one organisation at the moment?
A: You will only pay one subscription in the future. Four for the price of one! We realise that this will mean that we will initially lose some income from those people who have more than one subscription. However, we intend to grow the membership rapidly and cut overhead costs so that this initial dip will quickly be made up for by new membership revenue and efficiencies. This applies to clubs and individuals alike. Many clubs are struggling to decide to which of the many organisations they can afford to affiliate; now they will have just one annual membership charge but receive all the services offered by the existing bodies, and more. Donations will always be welcome of course...

 

[Fred Bonney]

3. Q: How much will membership cost?
A: We are working on this now with our advisers and will be testing the market over the coming weeks. We want the basic membership to be affordable for all anglers, but at the same time we need to make it possible for individuals to offer additional support for particular campaigns or activities.

Similarly, we will offer clubs, river and fishery owners a fuller range of services for much less than they would currently pay for membership of more than one of the participant organisations. In brief, we will charge less than the collective subscriptions, but do more!

4. Q: I support the concept of unification, but I want to be sure that the good work of the NFA/ACA/S&TA/NAFAC will continue in the future and will not get lost in a large organisation
A: Our vision for the new body is that it will be able to do much more for anglers and fishery interests than the current sum of its existing parts. This will mean that it will encourage more young anglers, organise more competitions, exert greater influence on Government and its agencies, make more legal challenges to polluters, offer discounts and generally protect its members' interests better. Our vision is not just for a body which does a little more of everything we currently do: we want to create an organisation which is in a completely different league to anything anglers, clubs and fishery managers have had before. It needs to be far more efficient, professional and dynamic. It must be nationally recognised by anglers and non-anglers alike.
5. Q: I'm worried that a larger organisation will be more bureaucratic and will waste money
A: It's true that when organisations are very large they can become faceless bureaucracies which spend most of their money on meetings about meetings and fail to deliver any real benefits. Many government departments and agencies seem to fall into this trap... Anglers need a single organisation to represent properly their interests and while this is bound to be larger than any of the joining bodies it will always focus on delivering real benefits rather than maintaining its own existence.

By unifying, we will merge at least 4 administrations. By so doing, we will reduce the costs of printing, design, postage, software licences, audit fees, accountancy, legal advice, insurance, training and property management, to name but a few. More of the staff will spend their time delivering the organisation's objectives, rather than on administration.