Here we go again, the current episode of 'Blithfield, The Repercussions'. I'm going to be as brief as I can and change the title to 'Blithfield, The Repercussions (The Untold Story)'.
Why? Because I am peed off with all the misinformation being spread by people who want to knock the PAC for their own agendas.
For those who are bored or have no real interest in all of this, I give this potted version. Once upon a time some pike anglers fished Blithfield reservoir, the PAC took action because of the circumstances and as a result, the saga, sadly, continues. It really is a case of the 'prima donna' syndrome -v- a club that tries to do its best for everyone - and especially for the pike, itself.

For those who want to read only bits of this -
a) Blithfield - (The event that started it all)
Blithfield PAC Member Expulsions - (How it happened and what happened)
c) Neville's Campaign Against PAC
d) PAC Membership Feelings (What the members said and did)
e) Barrie Rickard's Chairmanship of PAC
f) Current Events (The saga drags on, down new roads)
g) Barrie's Input To Blithfield (Committee discussions with Barrie etc.)
h) Piking 2000 Convention (What it was really like without Neville)
i) New Group (The details)


a) Blithfield
This series of events started back in October/November '99, when I was on the PAC committee and when Blithfield took place. The raw basics of Blithfield was that a group of pike anglers joined Blithfield AC to participate in that club's pike fish-in. As Blithfield is a trout reservoir, their members had, for years, fished for pike to cull them at these fish-ins. The pike anglers joined the club to fish the cull in the hope of catching a potential 'lump'. In joining, they were expected to adhere to Blithfield's rules, one of which stated that ALL pike under 25lb MUST be killed. Although many of the pikers swore blind that they, themselves, would not have killed pike, they each had paid big money to fish among loads of trout anglers, who definitely would (did) kill all the pike they caught.
So, point 1 - the pike anglers not only endorsed a pike cull, they paid to do so.

PAC did not find out about this until the Thursday prior to the event. When PAC was totally certain of the facts, on Sunday, we issued a press statement condemning the cull and the pike anglers' participation. Next day, Monday, PAC and Angling Times (AT had then got the press release) moved like bats out of hell to limit damage to pike by trying to get the kill rule lifted and to get holding tanks in place for pike transfer. We managed to do this, the rule was lifted to become 'optional' and a holding tank was made available.
Point 2 - none of the participating anglers had made a move to get the rule lifted or holding tanks put on.
Point 3 - It was no use the pikers saying that, in the end, there was no cull and therefore it was all OK. They would have gone ahead and fished under cull conditions if PAC had not acted.
Point 4 - PAC acted in line with its Mission Statement - no more, no less.

Blithfield PAC Member Expulsions
PAC requested the resignation of its members who participated. This was done on the grounds that, despite the fact that PAC and AT had reduced the cull, those who joined Blithfield, solely to fish for very big pike, did so in the full knowledge of the kill rule. This applied to them as Blithfield members, and as already pointed out, this rule would have remained in effect if PAC had not stepped in.
All the participants were given the opportunity to discuss the situation with PAC to reach some accord instead of confrontation. The way it works with PAC is that if a resignation is called for - time is given for discussion to take place. All PAC got was a public slagging that we dared do this. After that time had elapsed, a letter went to each of the pikers that they were to be expelled from PAC but they had more time to get back and put their case - no response, except more slagging. (Mick Brown had resigned by then). So, to all who think these members were just kicked out, can I say that, overall, they were given 2 months in which to talk to PAC before they were expelled.

c) - Neville's Campaign Against PAC
Once the pikers were no longer in PAC, Neville Fickling started a bitter a campaign against the club. Through Pike & Preds etc. and on the net, he let his feelings about the situation and people be known.

While he was doing this he offered an ultimatum to the incoming committee of PAC prior to their take over in May. Basically this took the form of him saying that he was starting a new group but he wouldn't if PAC let him back in - he also said that he would delay the setting up of a group for 3 months while he awaited an acceptable response. But for him to accept being let back in, PAC had to go back to the 'good old days' and not do everything 'by the book'. He also said that if he did start a new group, PAC could merge with it, if the time was right, (as above). In effect, it was felt that he was trying to hold the new committee to ransom.
Mark Leathwood (the incoming General Secretary) could only say that, prior to taking office, he had no authority to negotiate, let alone promise anything and that Neville should get back to the then, current committee. Mark did add that if Neville could reconsider reasonable ways that this might be resolved, to let Mark know.

Prior to the committee handover, I was contacted a couple of times by Neville's shop as they wished to be invited to the recent Piking 2000. I refused. Why support his shop when he had contacted the old committee, after Blithfield, stating that he was withdrawing his advertising from the PAC magazine, 'Pikelines' as he had no intention of supporting PAC. I also stated that even though I was, at that time, organising Piking 2000, it was the next committee's first convention and their Promotions Manager would be taking over from me.
After taking office, the new committee was approached on this subject, with Neville then saying that he was NOT going to form a new group and would apologise. The committee waited and Neville apologised in Pikelines and Pike and Preds. for the personal insults against his 'tormentors' (as he put it) but did not address his involvement with Blithfield either publicly or privately. Equally, various writings from Neville were still being put about that were no different in content to the older stuff so the new committee felt that they were being chased for the PAC to support Neville's business financially with no support, whatsoever, coming in the opposite direction.

Neville's tactics were to throw loads of red herrings of his own, deal with those and appear to be getting together with PAC but at the same time, to ignore the original issue in the hope it would be forgotten or overlooked in the resultant mess. It was obvious that he was causing fresh problems only to clear them up to appear the 'good guy' in all of this. If he had once said that he had misjudged Blithfield or made a mistake over the issue (and honestly meant it) - then things would have been much different.

d) PAC Membership Feelings
When the new committee took over in May, at the annual Regional Organisers' Working Dinner, Mark put the subject to those in attendance - i.e. the grass roots of the PAC. He did this to gauge the strength of members' feelings on the issue, bearing in mind that Neville had written to all the PAC RO's to do the same thing. The result, from the floor, was that Neville was to be excluded from PAC for at least 3 years and that his reinstatement would not be discussed at the Working Dinner for the next 2 working dinners. The result was not just as a result of Blithfield itself but on Neville's attitude to the PAC and individuals, subsequent to Blithfield, which was said by many there to be totally 'out of order' and vicious. It might be noted that it was also agreed that Nige Williams, the Blithfield pikers' organiser, would never be allowed entry to the PAC. This also was proposed from the floor.
The vote on Neville was 95% for the 3 years, none against, 5% abstained. Those abstaining did so, not because they thought PAC was wrong and Neville should be reinstated - they thought that Neville's removal was right but it should be discussed at the next meeting. The vote on Nige William's was unanimous.
Mark had only asked for viewpoints - the actions, above, came from the grass roots of PAC by proposals from the floor - not the committee!
So the idea of PAC committees being at odds with its membership is totally unfounded.

e) Barrie Rickard's Chairmanship of PAC
Another proposal from the floor was this:
As the PAC committee changed every 3 years to maintain the commitment and enthusiasm needed, shouldn't the post of PAC Chairman be handed over every 3 years also? Barrie Rickards had held this post ever since PAC began. This was discussed at length and everyone at the meeting agreed the idea had much merit but that Barrie be contacted for his views before anything was actioned. As far as I know, Barrie's response was that it was a good idea and that it would be a bit of a relief, in some ways, to step down after all the years. This was not to be actioned until the 2002 working dinner because it would be the landmark of PAC's 25th year and an appropriate time to honour Barrie on retiring after a 1/4 of a century's work.


f) Current Events
Now onto the current phase. Yes, Barrie Rickards and Martin Gay have resigned their membership of the PAC. No small matter this, because they were both Honorary Life Members and had served on previous committees, with Barrie being one of the founding fathers of the club. Let them give their own reasons for resigning.

g) Barrie's Input to Blithfield
Due to the usual rumour monger machine that starts up at times like this - let me put the record straight.
There is talk that Barrie was at odds with this and the previous committee over the Blithfield expulsions, suffice it to say that prior to resignations being called for, the PAC committee contacted Barrie as he was the PAC Chairman. Firstly, Barrie was asked about Neville Fickling's honorary life membership and what happened to that if Neville went. The reply was along the lines of where's the problem? And to the question of did Barrie think they should go? His reply was that PAC didn't have much choice.

Barrie, together with Mick Brown, did offer a formula to Mark Leathwood, when Mark became General Secretary, to sort out the Blithfield thing and which might allow expelled members back in.
Mark felt that the document failed to acknowledge that PAC had acted appropriately on the issue of Blithfield and that it didn't take into account the ethics of fishing such an event. In fact, it left the door wide open for just such another incident to occur if it was accepted. Nothing further came back from Mick and Barrie.

Although not input to PAC but putting himself into the centre of things, recently, Barrie became part of the Lucebait organisation, run by Neville.

h) Piking 2000 Convention
Now, onto the PAC's Piking 2000 Convention at Manchester on 23/9/00. There are lies floating around that numbers were substantially down. No way - maybe 20 visitors didn't come to join the 600 people who got there, bearing in mind the recent fuel shortages. The place 'buzzed' like it does every year but not with bickering and moaning but from people thoroughly enjoying themselves. As I had organised the event up to the May committee hand over, you would have thought that if people were missing Neville's stand, someone would have mentioned it to me. It was not even commented on! And talking to others, afterwards, nobody said that they had heard anything along those lines - everyone seemed more than happy with the stands that were there.
There was NO friction whatsoever and I detest the people who stir up non-existent muck for whatever reason - don't they ever think of the 100s of hours given, voluntarily, by so many people to make something happen that EVERYONE can enjoy.
Anyway to those going on the net and into print - after the event, why should Neville's Tackle Shop be there? Why try to blacken a load of people's enjoyment just so one man's firm can go and make a profit from an organisation that he has tried to kick into touch.


i) New Group
If you believe that certain people should be able to cause mayhem when they don't get their own way because they are big names and therefore ARE more important than all of the PAC membership - then join the following new pike group, (when you can).

From a posting on the forum of fishingwarehouse.co.uk
It's an answer to a response to Neville's original posting requesting reasons people wanted to join the PAC

"
Many thanks for the reply. It has been a bit slow getting a response. I was a PAC member for exactly the same reason. I think the same applied to Barrie Rickards and Martin Gay who are both now ex PAC members. We do need an organisation to represent pike anglers and help protect the pike. That is why Nige Williams, Eddy Turner, Mick Brown and I have formed the Pike Anglers Group. as outcasts from PAC we see this is the only way forward. PAC are not willing to meet any of us face to face for a meaningful dialogue, so we have no other choice. Watch out for the Pike Anglers Group and Zander Anglers Club predator conference next autumn. We are not taking membership at the moment. We are waiting until we have the right package to offer members.
------------------
Neville Fickling
"

j) End Bit
I had hoped for a quiet life after the PAC committee but I'm not prepared to see PAC shoved through the proverbial, yet again, by a few people who think that they can ride rough shod over the membership for their own ends. Today we call for unity within angling - so much for that idea when some 'names' in the sport cannot tolerate it if people, clubs or groups do not bow down to them by adapting rules to allow them to do as they please. Some have hidden behind the name of PAC for too long.
I've nothing against a new pike group - all well and good. If it did better for the pike and piking than the PAC, then even better because no group should hold a monopoly if it can be bettered. That applies to a group starting for the right reasons - for the fish and for ALL who fish for that species.
But to start a new group to serve every extreme of a few self-interests verges on the despicable - it kicks all angling and all of those who once respected these people in the teeth!


Ray Farrell

Thank you Ray, a lot of words and hardwork and much appreciated. Lessons will come out of this I'm sure. Of course there was a lot of guessing, but information is always lagging behind guesswork. I for one hope the PAC will come out of this as a stronger and wiser organisation. Perhaps the net is an established fact we can have an active PAC web site. It is a pity that Barrie Rickards, a man for whome I have a great deal of respect, had not pre-empted the guess work with a public, via the net, statement. The whole saga has been very worrying for us keen members who wanted information when none was forthcoming.

Interestingly Eddy Turner tells me he is not is this new club! Messrs Ferrell and Flickling, can we please have the facts, without rose tinted specs. Especially as to why Barrie Rickards resigned.

Peter,

As far as I'm aware both Barrie and Martin Gay resigned because over the last couple of years they have felt at odds with the PAC and felt that they could no longer endorse it.

The following is not rose tinted spectacle wearing but a grave omission in my posting - I didn't thank them. Whether folk agree or disagree with them, nobody can take away the huge amount of work that both have done over the years. Their input has been immeasurable and we should all sincerely thank them. They are both better anglers than I'll ever be and have been great ambassadors for the sport. Whatever is happening now cannot take that away.

And as a post script to that - Neville. Probably one of the best pike anglers there has ever been. I've been accused of hating him - I don't. I'm just really sad that he cannot see further than his own vanity - he could do so much for ALL of piking if he wanted to.

If anyone thinks that I get any pleasure from this constant discord and the sharp barbs of the written word - I don't. I hate it and I loathe it but I feel beholden to give a version of events that I know to be true because I think the good name of the PAC is worth fighting for. After all, it's fought for everyone's piking for over 20 years.

Ray Farrell

I've posted this reply to the other places that this post has appeared.

Some blokes disagreed with each other.
Whooppee, it happens every day in the real world.
Just because they think they are famous are we supposed to be shocked?

Ray, having been chairman of a large(750) Angling club for a few years in the past, I have to say that PAC appear to have given every opportunity for the wrongdoers to explain their position.
One wonders if it had not been for "fame" whether they would have had so many chances.
They were prepared to kill pike for fame and prestige. Wrong. Goodbye.

Graham, I don't think there was ever a question of Neville or anyone else ever killing a Blithfield pike. They had no intention of being involved in any cull.
None were killed by PAC members.
So why the drastic response from the PAC leadership in depriving honorary life members of their memberships?
Neville has replied to Ray briefly at fishingwarehouse.

[This message has been edited by Paul Selman (edited 30 September 2000).]

Hi Paul,
Im sorry but your argument doesent hold water.
The anglers involved new there was to be a cull but still took part!

From where I stand PAC took the only option open to them it matters not that no Pike were actualy killed they paticipated knowing the rules.

If anglers think thier fame is above a fishes welfare it is a sad day for all forms of our sport.

Yes these people may have done great things for Pike angling in the past, but the moment they took part in this event they sacrifised both thier good names and credibility, and in my view got thier just deserts.
Barry Ford

Paul,

To answer your question, I have reproduced here the last Statement issued by the last committee relative to this matter. I believe it to be self explanatory:


Tuesday 16th October 1999

Blithfield - Final Statement

The Committee have concluded that all the information required for informed opinion to be arrived at, relative to this issue has been presented both on the PAC web -site and elsewhere. The Pike Anglers Club position throughout has been one of the ethics involved relative to pike fishing in the UK, in tandem with the promotion and conservation of pike angling in general terms.

The Executive Committee would like to take this opportunity of making clear, as we have attempted to do over the past week, on this web-site and elsewhere, that it is accepted by the Committee that those taking part in the fishing at Blithfield never had any intention to kill any pike.

However, what P.A.C. cannot accept is the premise that it is acceptable to purchase a permit or permission to fish for pike on any fishery where it is implicit with that permit or permission, that all pike under 25 Lbs are expected to be killed, the anglers concerned being aware of this condition , prior to the event taking place as was the case relative to Blithfield Trout Fishery The fact that those anglers would choose to ignore the rule is irrelevant. Indeed, some of the anglers concerned have already acknowledged that they were aware of this condition, in their quotes in the angling press of last week. This action implies willingness in principle, if not in practice, to accept this condition, as part of the contract or agreement, entered into by the angler concerned, with the fishery when the permit or permission was purchased.

It is the contention of the Executive Committee that no PAC Member should have set foot on the fishery as long as such a condition applied relative to their fishing thereof. It is in this regard that the Committee takes issue with those anglers that are PAC members who are known to have taken part, as they have been seen, by implication, to support the fishery's policy relative to pike management, and financially support the fishery into the bargain.

This action in itself, flies in the face of the Mission Statement of P.A.C. and for that reason, if no other, the Executive Committee must address the issue in compliance with the Constitution of the club. To do any less would be an abrogation of their responsibility to the clubs ideals, and its membership.

The Angling Press may choose to continue to run with this affair, that being their privilege however, PAC now considers the matter closed, other than those matters of an internal nature currently being addressed.

Frank Gibbons, General Secretary,
Pike Anglers Club of Great Britain & Ireland.

In my humble opinion, the matter is closed!

Mac

It isn't Mac, with due respect, because it seems to me as an outside observer that the PAC is in danger of disintegrating which is not good for angling.
The PAC clearly overeacted. My understanding was that Neville for one had made arrangements for any pike that would according to the cull rules have to be killed, to be conserved and moved elsewhere. Neville has put this in black and white on my site, so I don't think he's making it up. Isn't his desire to conserve Blithfield pike also in line with the PAC's mission statement?