I am not sure where I should post this so I will leave it to the mods to decide if this is the appropriate place however it is about fly fishing and the politics of fly fishing so I will start here.

I am going to quote some of the statements on the new SANA website and I am going to ask how the hell some of their members can sleep at night. I know some members have had some deep reservations about the way things have gone and I am in no way criticising them however there are people responsible for the decisions that I am going to point out and as a public organisation that accepts taxpayers money I think we should be able to find out who these people are. I know some will say "why should I be concerned with an organisation that I have never been a member of?" and I will answer that as a taxpayer I have the right to know what kind of an organisation that my and my family's taxes are going to. I would also add that as SANA deem themselves as "SCOTLAND'S GOVERNING BODY FOR GAME ANGLING" they ought to be transparent to those very Scottish Game Anglers.

Firstly I would urge you to read some of the verbage from the brand new SANA website.

"By joining SANA as an individual member you are helping to protect the future of game angling in Scotland by ensuring the continued growth, development and sustainability of the sport."

I am sure you would agree these are noble sentiments, I would question perhaps the desireability of continued growth but otherwise I see this as a good mission statement.

Now my main interest as an angler is salmon and sea-trout fishing so I am drawn to the migratory page where I find this.

"It is campaigning against certain activities of Scotland's West Coast marine salmon farming industry in the belief that these are endangering wild migratory stocks and the environment."

This is great stuff. Greedy irresponsible companies have polluted and destroyed salmon and sea-trout rivers robbing anglers of fishing and local communities of monies gained from the visting anglers as well as local salmon netting businesses.

The members of this committee are named below this statement and I wish them every success with this aim.

So when I found out that the Youth Competition team had accepted sponsorship from one of these salmon farming companies I was shocked. How could the governing body of anglers in Scotland accept money which was no doubt made from causing (albeit inadvertantly) the demise of the fish that the migratory committee are trying to protect?
Unfortunately it is true! SANA now find themselves in the position where they are campaigning against a company that has its name on the team blazers of their youth!
How could this come about? Why has someone been allowed to let this happen. I have been told that there was a vote allowing the various arms to find their own funding and if true this sounds like a sneaky way of someone with this very scenario in mind sidelining the members with any semblance of integrity and who would have blocked this. How Machiavellian!

So we now have the situation where to allow the youth team to be dressed in matching jackets and travel to competitions to fish for artificial fish the enviromental and conservation ideals of the Scottish governing body of game anglers finds itself hopelessly compromised. What a sad result! I know I couldn't support an organisation in such a muddle and I am sure there are many who would agree with this.

I would also ask these gentlemen of the migratory committee what they are going to do about this as I would say they are terribly compromised.

Euan McGrandle Chairman
Dr John Pirie - Secretary
Bill Balfour
R Craig Campbell
Fred Rhind
Bob Dey
Dr Andy Walker

I would also ask the people ( there is no mention of who they are on the website) who accepted (solicited?) this dirty money why they made this decision which compromised their organisation so badly.

Perhaps an e-mail to SANA should be sent.
This will at least give them an oppertunity to respond.

I whole heartedly agree with the points you are making here.

__________________
It is in truth not glory,nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting,but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with his life.(Declaration of Arbroath, 1320)

One name on that list would put me off straight away, its at the bottom, the man is only interested in his own agenda, he had the opportunity a number of years ago of making a statement about fish farming after a visit to the Irish west coast he chose not to as it may have affected his Piled Higher & Deeper I have been to meetings where he spoke wisely about the biology but not about any possible out come, I was a member of SANA, w/hen I took the salmon and trout coaches courses, the first one, but I am not into competetive angling
and that seemed to be the main thrust of SANA at that time, needless to say They did nothing about fish farming when it first went into the west coast, and now when the horse has mainly gone out would they act now ?easker1

I have emailed them.

It just takes me a little time as my net link is quite slow.

Depending on what the response is I may start to contact their funding bodies about this. If they wish to take commercial funding from dubious sources then they do not deserve public money.

I for one would be very interested in any reply you get.
ATB
GRaham

__________________
It is in truth not glory,nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting,but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with his life.(Declaration of Arbroath, 1320)

How many of you read the catch reports at the back of your fishing magazines?

How many of you fish these venues for your farmed fish?

As long as anglers frequent these venues and pay them money then you are keeping the fish feed companies in business.

Many of us bleat on about salmon farming and the effects of so, but we don't realise how intricately hypocritical we are.

Another point about the "fish feed companies" is that most of them existed prior to the rise of farmed salmon as a market for their goods!!
Cattle. Pigs. Sheep. Deer, (both farmed and wild) Chickens. Turkeys. Pet and Working dogs.
To name but a few of the recipients of manufactured dry foodstuffs
PELLETS!!!
Just because a manufacturer of pellets, and indeed producer of table fish, decides to sponsor an angling team, doesnt mean that the team (or indeed the teams association) has been compromised in future actions!!
Do BP Shell et al not spend millions in environmental projects and alternative energy projects?
or is that just a bit out of the box for you zeolite?
regards
bert

Yes, a salmon farming company thinking about putting something back into local communities to develop the future of our sport.

Hold on... That will never do... Then that will kill the argument that the Norwegians rape our west coast and take all the profit back home.

A bit out the box for many also.

OK guys lets open the box and see what is in it.

As far as I know the company is called Scottish Sea Farms and they are owned by a company called Leroy Seafood Group. Their corporate structure can be seen here.
Corporate structure- Lerøy

We can see that there is salmon farming, fish smoking and white fish processing.

Scottish Sea Farms website is here
Home - Pioneers in the production of the very best Scottish Salmon - Scottish Sea Farms

Thi is about salmon farming and what great product they produce.

So while we are in the box I ask you why do SANA state this on their website "It is campaigning against certain activities of Scotland's West Coast marine salmon farming industry in the belief that these are endangering wild migratory stocks and the environment." if they don't believe that salmon farms are endangering wild fish stocks and if they do believe their statement why have they allowed their youth to be sponsored by one of those migratory fish killing companies?

The motives of the sponsor are very clear. Drop a little goodwill cash and get some good PR with some of their strongest critics ie anglers.

So what of the future? Some are saying it is the youth competition teams and don't know because I have never fished competitively and never will.
My hope for the future is one where the salmon farmers spend their money to repair the damage they have done and learn to go about their business in a way that does not damage the future of the fish that I wish my grandchildren (my kids don't fish but I have hope for my grandkids) and any others of their generation to be able to go and fish for. The salmon farmers have not reached that stage yet it seems and until they do any angler with any sense of conservation should be boycotting their products ( and 30 pieces of silver)
until they do.
Giving a paltry sum (to them) to a youth team to fish for non-wild fish really doesn't cut it for the devastation to the west coast rivrs now does it?

What is your suggestion then? How much is required to be spent by the salmon farmers, and on what exactly? What is it they can do exactly, to repair the damage they have done?

Isn't it the case that what they are accused of can be rectified for free, gratis?

Or do you just want them paying money out?