As the secretary of a small club based in the Edinburgh Area, I'm disappointed that SANA are proposing yet another rise in the annual club subscription. If SANA Competitions follows suit the combined cost of renewing membership in order to allow 3-4 members to fish a couple of SANA competitions will be well over £100.
A small club like ours with an aging and diminishing membership can no longer afford this sort of money without increasing our own annual subs which would not be popular since the majority of members, not involved in competition, can't see any tangible benefits in membership of SANA.
In fact we have postponed our AGM this year until after the SANA/SANA Comp. AGMs so we could decide whether or not to renew our membership if the proposed sub rise is accepted.
I have attended SANA AGMs in the past and often made the point that a fairer way of levying the annual subs could be on a sliding scale relative to the number of members that an associated club had on their books. Unfortunately this has never been given serious consideration.
Sad to say I know we are not the only club in this situation whereby after 27 years of continous membership we are considering terminating our association with SANA.

Best,

Davie

I understand where you are coming from.and my club would support a sliding scale ,Or a levy per member.but the big problem is the 2 sections. the SANA ltd sub is really not enough to cover costs and if not addressed soon SANA ltd will fold.but SANA comps would /maybe survive,but as they have not one iota of interest in the day to day minutae of protecting anglers intrests in Scotland,For example, The forthcoming rod licence issue.and are only interested in the small world of competition angling(I am a comp angler) then it shows up the partnership for the sham that it is.
If the Anglers of Scotland want a representative body with some teeth to look after their rights then they have to wake up .come to the AGM(SANA ltd) and let their feelings be known.
If not then the future is bleak.

Jim

__________________
The Fishermans Friend is the Flirty Fly,Fickle Food for Fleeting Fish.

OK, you do that ,So who are you going to get to represent you at goverment level.These are very serious times for fishing in Scotland. after 27 years ,Is it not time that you realised that your c support to your national body is ridiculous.get a grasp of reality .Your sport/hobby/pastime is at risk more than ever before,are you prepared to back it.
otherwise ,walk away and suffer the consequenses.
Be it on your clubs head and all the other short sighted anglers in Scotland.
Or back us to bring it back,SANA ltd.

Jim

__________________
The Fishermans Friend is the Flirty Fly,Fickle Food for Fleeting Fish.

Think the 'big problem' is the small %age of anglers who are members of SANA Ltd, either as part of a club or as individuals. The average age of the majority of the membership is also on the high side which does not bode well for the future. More members are required, not more of the existing members at the agm (presumably only members can attend!)
SANA comps (SANACC Ltd) members must also be members of SANA Ltd, without that SANA Ltd would have fewer members, lower income and an even smaller pool of helpers for their various committees.
SANACC Ltd as a body concentrate on competitions, the wider angling issues are handled by SANA Ltd although competition anglers will be in involved individually. I fail to see what is wrong with such a partnership. It is nonsense to suggest that the competition side have no interest in the wider issues, would the joint membership want both bodies to be wasting the fees paid to them by duplicating activities?
The point raised in the original post, ageing and diminishing membership will not be resolved by the two bodies ceasing to work together in their respective areas. A sliding scale of fees depending on membership numbers has been proposed in the past and will no doubt be proposed again. Think it failed the last time on 2 main points
1. The financial impact of any change could not easily be quantified and there was risk of a loss of both income and membership count.
2. Should the number of members/fees paid be reflected in voting rights.

I think the future is probably bleak but I think it will be even bleaker if we spend too much time and effort arguing amongst ourselves.

Jim, I don't think that is helpful.
I agree with rest of your sentiments but the need is for more support rather than attacking the existing support.

Hi john, Do you have any suggestions out of the bleak future.

Jim

__________________
The Fishermans Friend is the Flirty Fly,Fickle Food for Fleeting Fish.

Hi Jim, nothing new, most folk involved in either/both organisations have discussed it with increasing frustration over many years. Just have to keep working at it (as united as possible). As with many things, the threats will probably have to be immediate rather than just imminent before the majority will get involved.

SANACC,Have to be members of SANA ltd. as only 1 national body gets recognition from FipsMouche . the quote above is exactly what I am talking about.Why do we need 2 bodies. would 1 not be more sensible and more user friendly,and would the membership not understand it better,and maybe be a bit more sympathetic to our urgent need for funds.

Jim.

__________________
The Fishermans Friend is the Flirty Fly,Fickle Food for Fleeting Fish.

The World and European championships come under Fips Mouche. Home internationals and national competitions do not. When there was only one body and competitions was a section within SANA understanding was no better than it is now. Providing they work together the extra cost of the two bodies is not significant.
Funding is and always has been an issue, the competition members pay extra for their competition membership/entries. They want that ring fenced for competition purposes rather than being in the bigger pot which would result in them paying more than other members for the broader services. Suppose a bit like road tax being used for roads rather than most of it going in to a general tax pot which they also contribute to.

Wolfclyde writes

"the majority of members, not involved in competition, can't see any tangible benefits in membership of SANA."

One problem with SANA Ltd. is that its meagre income does not allow it to send information to all of its club members. Information is sent to club secretaries, who are frequently unable to pass that information to their members.

For example, one copy of the Annual Handbook is sent to each club. If you can get access to your club's copy have a good read. On page 2 there is a list of more that a dozen groups where SANA is trying to look after the interests of anglers in general. Read the rest of the book and you will find evidence of other "tangible benefits".

You can also find the latest Handbook on the SANA Ltd. website (www.sana.org.uk). This has made considerable progress in recent months. It is now well worth a visit. There you will find information about the new restocking requirements, about Fishery Management Plans that are being prepared for all waters, about the Freshwater Fisheries Forum whose outcomes will affect all anglers, about the coaching of young people and many other things.

There is a great deal happening in the angling world and SANA needs the support of all Scottish anglers so that it can make sure that our interests are safeguarded. The best solution would be if every angler would take out individual membership. That would allow SANA's work to be properly funded.