So, how to sum up this excellent thread started by Andrew Boyne? Andrews stance is that there are shining examples out there of angling clubs working closely with non angling groups for the betterment of the environment as a whole. This is a fact and I have had personal experience of this approach being a success. Working with the local council, the EA and the landowner we were able to provide additional waters for the club that have been a huge asset.
I also have experience of it being a total failure.
A club I was involved with formed an alliance with English Nature to renovate a completely overgrown pond of about 3 acres. Planning meetings went well and the interests of both parties were taken into consideration regarding providing ideal habitat for fish and shallower areas to suit Demoiselle and Dragon Flies which was our partner’s particular aim. Months of hard work followed and the end result was a testament to the sweat of both parties. However the moment we started fishing the water there were nonstop artificially created “incidents” between us that resulted in the club being kicked off following a closed meeting between English Nature and the landlord. It turned out that this was their agenda all along and they had no intention of sharing the water with us; using the club only as a means of getting an inroad to the site and free labour.
The point is that there are many groups out there who have the good of environment at heart. However they will NEVER be suitable for working with anglers for one very simple reason which we choose to conveniently forget. No matter how much good work we as anglers do (and there is absolutely no doubt that we do a lot) the people in the RSPB and English Nature and God knows how many more will not join with anglers because they think angling is CRUEL. This reason above ALL others is why we cannot have a lasting alliance and why we need to stand alone and be strong. If we were to ally with anyone it would need to be the pro fox hunting lobby as this group is the only one we have anything in common with as we both pursue a live animal for sport.
It has also been stated that we will never be strong because of the fact that we as anglers cannot get along, and the spats that occur in forums such as this are given as an example. This is simply not true and the reason there are so many heated posts is because of the medium of the forum itself. If the same discussion was had in a pub there would, of course, be differences of opinion but because of the fact that we could talk directly to each other then other subliminal avenues of communication such as body language come into play and entirely different meanings are conveyed. Emoticons just cannot do this. To the best of my knowledge I have never insulted anyone on this forum, but that does not stop people sending me offensive PM’s because they have taken what I have written incorrectly.
So, is the AT the right way forward for us to be a standalone force to get things done? I make no bones about having been critical of the AT on this forum. But what I want to make completely clear is that I really WANT the AT to be a success but I have grave reservations that their agenda at the highest level has more to do with providing self sustaining employment for officials first and anglers second. I get no pleasure from writing this. Personally I used to think the old ACA were brilliant and I subscribed to them for many years. They sent me regular updates listing all the court cases that they were involved in and to me seemed to really be fighting for the environment. Then came the Bob James resignation over the apparent misuse of funds. I immediately contacted the ACA for the facts which they flatly refused to provide, so there must have been some skulduggery going on that meant that my subscriptions were lining pockets rather than going where they should have. Therefore my reticence to join a body to represent my interests is born out of bitter experience rather than being the "nit picking doomsayer" that my PM's accuse me of.
I do not have the answers regarding how we find a way to move forward, I wish I did, but I know that we must if something as simple as a nice days fishing is ever going to survive.
Steve
Steve,
I agree with what you say in the para 5, 5 & 7 of your comment. It's also very poor that you've received offensive PM on the basis of holding a different opinion to someone else, very poor indeed.
Your experience with EN sounds bad, where did it take place if you don't mind me asking? Did anyone take this up with EN or Defra at a higher level? Rogue staff are present in almost every organisation and it is critical that instances such as this are exposed.
I have to take issue with some of your other comments:
"… the people in the RSPB and English Nature and God knows how many more will not join with anglers because they think angling is CRUEL.”
Really? Says who? There is a lot of evidence that contradicts your view. Take Natural England's policy statement on Freshwater Fisheries for instance (they've not been English Nature since 2006) which was prepared by Andrew Wood (Director of Science, Evidence and Advice).
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/NEBPU1912_tcm6-17025.pdf
It seems like a very sensible and balanced document to me, it recognises the positive contribution that angling can make to the environment but also the negatives (e.g. inappropriate stocking, transfer of non-native species etc).
Take the following excerpts:
•
'Angling is a popular recreation that can improve wellbeing and offers opportunities to engage with, and learn about, the natural environment, particularly freshwater and wetland biodiversity. Some angling and fishery management practices can, however, be damaging to the natural environment.'
•
'There is scope to build upon the efforts of those anglers and fishery managers who make a positive contribution to the quality of the natural environment through the sustainable management of rivers and standing waters, and to encourage more anglers and fishery managers to take action in this way.'
•
'Sustainable angling and fishery management practices make an important contribution to the health of our fisheries and to the wider freshwater environment.'
•
'Angling is an activity that is accessible to people of a wide range of backgrounds, ages and abilities, and enables them to engage with and learn about the natural environment.'
• '
The promotion of responsible, environmentally-friendly angling is an opportunity to engage more people, particularly young people, with the freshwater environment and to improve people’s health and wellbeing. Angling can also be used as tool to combat social exclusion, particularly amongst the young in deprived, urban areas.
•
'Working in partnership with local fishing groups, the Angling Trust and SSSI landholders, Natural England will explore the opportunities for responsible, environmentally-friendly angling on National Nature Reserve estate and SSSIs, and consider expanding this effort where it already occurs. For example, by improving access to water bodies where this would be of benefit to anglers and other recreational water users and where this would not be detrimental to nature conservation interests.'
This is hardly the policy statement of an organisation that is opposed to angling is it? And there's not a single mention of any moral judgement regarding angling and cruelty.
I think I've already said enough about the RSPB, but take the Wildlife Trusts which is the 2nd biggest Environmental NGO in the UK, every County Group is it’s own self-governing entity so they do vary across the country, but I know for a fact that my local WT allows angling on some of its reserves and even organised an environmental festival back in September where they arranged for a local angling club to attend in order to give kids coarse fishing lessons on the adjacent mere. Hardly the actions of an organisation that is anti-angling.
See here:
News: Merefest 13
"If we were to ally with anyone it would need to be the pro fox hunting lobby as this group is the only one we have anything in common with as we both pursue a live animal for sport."
I can see the obvious logic in linking-up with other pro-field sports organisations; however I would urge great caution in linking up with the Countryside Alliance (I assume this is who you meant by pro -fox hunting lobby – as who else is there ?). The CA seems to reject the notion of evidence-led policy and tends to resort to vitriolic ad-hominem arguments to counter any dissenting views; and they didn't exactly do a very good job at fighting the fox-hunting ban did they? In fact many people hold the view that the clumsy campaigning tactics employed by the CA were self-defeating.
Shortly before his death, Roy Jenkins is reported to have said to Tony Blair;
“Tony, if you invoke the Parliament Act (re the Hunting Ban) it will be the most illiberal act of the last century". He was spot-on. The campaign should have been fought on these terms, instead the CA decided to devote most of their energies into promoting the false argument that banning fox-hunting would severely damage the rural economy, this was nonsense from start to finish and history has proved this to be the case.
Every-time an angry, ruddy-faced CA spokesman appeared on the TV and lectured the nation on how the rural economy would be irreparably damaged by the hunting ban, they lost public support. The CA’s campaign was an abject lesson in how not to win friends and influence people.
Since then nothing really appears to have changed much at the CA; they still lack leadership and the ability to self-police the rogue elements within field sports. Thanks to relentless and systematic persecution from ‘some’ moorland gamekeepers, Hen Harriers have, for the first time since the 1960's, failed to breed in England. As a result public opinion appears to be turning against driven Grouse shooting and questions are now being asked in the House of Commons.
See here:
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Oct 2013 (pt 0001) (10 Oct 2013: Column 140WH)
If the CA wanted to demonstrate genuine leadership that served the best interests of shooting, it should act to weed out the bad apples and hold them to account, instead it seems to be in complete denial about the extent of the problem.
I'm also intrigued by the comment that you made earlier in thread:
"It’s not economics that keeps coarse and game anglers apart............its class distinction"
I’m wondering how you reconcile this view with preferring to align with an organisation described by (fellow angler) George Monbiot as:
"…
as a neo-feudal organisation, run by the landowning class and resentful of the intrusions of democracy upon its traditional privileges"
The Countryside Alliance's neo-feudal shotgun lead campaign | George Monbiot | Environment | theguardian.com
Cheers,
Joe
As I say, denial of reality rules now. Today's generations are OK eating meat or fish....providing it is sanitized and disguised, so that they can pretend it isn't what it is. Many years ago, I served up a rabbit I had shot...and my wife nearly fainted, and it most certainly wasn't eaten. It's a weird, namby pamby world out there now chap, a world of closed eyes and pretense. 
