The bad one
Well-known member
Problem is, angling politics is hard work.... Fishing is the fun bit and time is precious.
Chav, it is, but if you don't do it nothing will change... dayfacto you accept the way it is.
On the wider point of greedy clubs, if a club is well run and gains a good reputation you have Land Agents, owners contacting you to take on their waters, because of your Kudos as a club.
I know of a club who was courted several times over several years to take on a water by the owner before they said yes. The same club has turned down many waters it's been offered because they don't fit its portfolio and or there were problems with access, location, etc.
What many don't realise about owners is their need for security, particularly so if it's a farmer with 100's of K in plant, equipment, stock around their farm/land.
Rural crime is rife and millions of poundsworth of stuff get nicked every year.
So you can’t blame them for wanting a body that they perceive as having some control over, ie a club.
Where it’s a free for all and they have no control over who turns up to fish they feel vulnerable rightly or wrongly.
For many it’s a Catch 22, they may need the income from the fishing to stay viable, but also would prefer the security of not having anyone on the land. So for them the best option is to lease it to a club, where they feel they have some control.
If the owner gets this and no one fishes the length from the club that has control, then for them it’s a win win situation. Money and no one on the land!
It would be wrong to assume if a club didn’t have a length of river, or a water that it would automatically become available to the masses for fishing. The likelihood is it wouldn’t, not in today’s world.