|
|
| |
He is President of the Lure Angling Society, and President of the National Association of Specialist Anglers.
As I write this in early January 2002, angling is going through a quiet spell in its battle with the antis. PETA have gone home to the US after a somewhat dismal and lacklustre campaign in the UK, when they shot themselves in the foot so often it’s a wonder they can walk at all. And the more local antis have gone home for the winter, as they always do – or perhaps they are more concerned with the just-resumed hunting. The loss of June 16th has really put the antis in a quandary because they have no date to work up steam for! Given that it is rather quiet at present perhaps this is a good time to review recent events and to suggest where to go from here.
The first thing to note is that the PETA campaign (for want of a better word) was timed to coincide with the birth of angling’s coming together as the National Anglers’ Alliance (NAA), but before that body was up and running strongly enough to fight its corner. I’m sure the timing was deliberate. However, the angling section of the Countryside Alliance (CA; run by Charles Jardine and Bob James) was up and running and fight they did – extremely well. The NAA, I know, assisted them, despite the fact that some NAA leaders themselves are uneasy about the CA. Even so, enormous credit must be given to the CA. They have really earned their laurels now, and a majority of anglers at last realise that the Countryside Alliance is about the countryside, all countryside activities, not just hunting. I think, in consequence of these actions that we actually won the battle against PETA, and the general public were singularly unimpressed by them.
|
|
| |
Angling’s objective must be to stop this decline and to reverse it. Some of the initiatives taken up recently will help, such as the encouragement of youngsters by the NFA and by the DACE movement, as well as the quite splendid school pack that the CA have prepared and sent out. And then we have John Wilson doing a splendid job too, on TV.
The disturbing trends are reversible. We should, of course, encourage youngsters at a much earlier age – 5 to10 years old – with pond dipping (and showing them a few fish caught by an angler). This way we’d quickly show their parents the great value of angling as well as preparing youngsters to grow up pro-angling. In short we need to adopt a whole variety of positive strategies nation-wide. In the long term this will pay off.
Am I boring you? Would you rather go fishing than listen to this stuff? Well, of course, we all would. But personally I’d like to be fishing in twenty years time, unencumbered by silly restrictions (such as keep-net bans, bait bans, water bans, etc, etc, etc,) and unless we take the declining image of angling seriously, and do something about it as individuals (joining the right bodies, writing letters) then angling as we know it is at risk.
Some argue that angling will never be banned. Well this is true enough, but it quite misses the point: If angling is so restricted and fettered with rules and regulations devised by non-anglers, will it be worth doing at all? So when Jim Macdonald, a man I have a great deal of time for, writes in the vein that angling will never be banned (Angling Star, Nov 2001) he is missing the point rather.
The reason I asked that question at the beginning of the last paragraph was because one editor, a good friend, tells me that all this stuff goes above the ‘ordinary’ angler’s head. I think he’s wrong, and my own mailbag proves it. At long, long last ‘ordinary’ anglers are getting fed up with being pushed around and they do want to hear the arguments that will help them face the public. Let’s face it, if 30% are against angling then you are going to bump into one of them most days.
The same editor said to me that a far greater danger to angling came from people like the Environment Agency, RSPB, RSPCA and others. I think he is dead right on this. These are people not directly in angling itself, who are effecting regulations which hamstring anglers. Thus we are denied the right to fish nature reserves, or SSSI’s, or tied around so much with silly rules that the fishing is worth nothing anyway. The close season was not retained on rivers because anglers pressurised the EA, but because one of the above bodies thought an angling close season was a good thing (for them). Actually, what they’d really like is a close season running from January 1st to December 31st.Too many people are now interfering in angling who know next to nothing about it. In part this is because the EA committees (on which I sit myself) have representatives nowadays from just about every non-angling organisation imaginable. Anglers are relatively reduced in numbers and, I’m given to understand, have very little power or input on some committees. This is not the case in the Anglian region, where our representation, though small, is very effective: indeed the chairman is the match angler Colin Clare, and one of the important sub-committees is chaired by Ken Ball. I myself am active on the river management schemes. It’s a pity the whole country is not so active, but you do have to fight to get your foot in the door (I was once sacked for being rather forthright with a water authority chairman) Like it or not we do have to get involved with those people to make our complaints efficiently rather than just whinging on the sidelines. EA guys are, by and large not anti-anglers: some are anglers themselves; but some are, it has to be said, rather ignorant of the sport, and some are still wet behind the ears when it comes to thinking about ecosystems.
So where are we in 2002? Well, for one thing we are united for the first time in angling’s history. The National Angler’s Alliance includes sea, game and coarse anglers, the angling trade and others. The Specialist Anglers’ Alliance is in there too – some people seem to be excluded (does anyone know if the commercial organisations are represented – as they should be?) but generally it is a soundly constructed body. Only time will tell if it’s going to work, to be effective, but one thing is for sure, it will be very ineffective if the ‘ordinary’ angler does not back it by joining the appropriate affiliated organisation, eg, if you are a specialist big angler join the SAA. That’s all you need to do, just join. This will have the effect of giving the SAA power, and hence the NAA power, and the contributing angler will be kept informed directly.
The theme of this article is that there are things anglers as individuals can do, and things clubs can do, which will strengthen angling’s position for the next battle – and there will be one, make no mistake.
I have not, so far, mentioned the Institute of Fisheries Management. In effect this is a forum where anglers and Environment Agency people can meet and discuss fisheries and fishing. In reality the IFM has not sold itself well enough to anglers and angler participation is low. It is true that anglers are, as always, apathetic, but the real cause of lack of uptake by anglers is that the IFM does seem to look down upon anglers, especially if they hold forthright views on, say, cormorants. The IFM has regional meetings, and I must say that these are much friendlier gatherings, and much more angler-orientated, than the regional IFM gatherings (to which I have lectured on three occasions). There is, at these latter gatherings, a sense in the air that fisheries biologists know best, which is certainly not always the case. It is up to the IFM to change this image, not the angler. Having said all that it is clear to me that the IFM is a body that could provide a fruitful link, a cross-fertilisation of ideas with anglers. Perhaps they need a few more anglers in their council?
In conclusion then, if my editor friend is correct in having the EA as anti-angling, perhaps we should consider joining the IFM and indulging in a little forthright discussion.
You can only get sacked!
