What a shambles!!!!!

As an ordinary angler that lurks on this site on a regular basis, and occasionaly posts I sit back and wonder what fishing has become.

I have seen these squabbles so many times within small clubs with everybody throwing there toys out of their prams and resigning on a point of principle then regretting it or starting a breakaway club, which only in the end dilutes the following.

Arne't you lot supposed to be a/or the representative body of Pike anglers in this country. There would appear to be so many personal battles going on within this so called body that it is in danger of losing total credability. What really p***** me of is that this is amongst named anglers that the ordinary person has for years looked up to and admired. Reading these postings amongst yourselves and it is quite obvious that you all know each other and the majority have fished together for years as friends, then over one incident BLITHFIELD it destroys all the years of good work and comaraderie that has been built up.

OK! lets look at Blithfield situation and there are two viewpoints. If I go back in time and I am sure you will all correct me if I am wrong. When Pike Fishing was first introduced to Trout resevoirs all pike had to be killed or moved, if I remember correctly Pike fisherman were queing up to get tickets, I am not saying this is right but it happened.

Now lets relate this to Blithfield the anglers in question could have followed the guidline of the PAC and not fished, but if I remember correctly a lot of the so called Trout reserviors that have been opened to Pike anglers over the years were only opened over a period of time when the riparian owners realised that there was another source of income when they were getting nothing from the Trout anglers. The majority of these were started as so called experiments, So in this new found sense of rightesnous were these people just supposed to turn there backs on the chance of another venue or to participate with a good chance of changing Blithfield policy.

I am sure that all of the people that have resigned have done so because they thought it was the only option left to them. this I can fully understand and sympathise with, as I have done the same in the past, but, and it is a big but you were there in the first place because you wanted to get involved and the membership as a majority voted you in to that postion and don't lets lose the wood for the trees, it should be the majority that you represent, not your own personal ambitions and petty squables.

You can not represent the best interests of the membership sat in your armchair,or on the phone to those that agree with your viewpoints or slagging of those that are trying to pick up the pieces left behind from your resignations on a point of principle, so you have two choices rather than trying to justfy your actions on here the only other way is to rejoin and fight from within or give your support to those that are trying to pick up the reins and restore some semblance of order so that what was once a great society and led the way for other societies to model themselves on.

Keith

[This message has been edited by Gaffer (edited 20 January 2001).]

COARSE FISHING OFFERS
CARP FISHING OFFERS
FLY FISHING OFFERS
SEA FISHING OFFERS

Guests - this sponsored link will vanish when you log-in. Click here to register for free.

Well said Keith!

Tight Lines - leon

In February 2001 edition of P&P Mr Fickling accuses Mark Leathwood of having a poor grasp of the English language. Perhaps he should evaluate his own understanding of the language and read Mr Rickards statement once again.

Mr Rickards clearly states that he did support the Scottish Committee's decision to expel members. However, he also indicates that privately he let it be known that he did not. The Scottish committee were not privvy to his private opinion on the matter.
In most parts of the UK this type of communication is deemed 'two faced' or at best 'underhand'. Hence, we did not expect to see him come face to face with the Scottish Committee in May 2000 and were not surprised to hear of his subsequent resignation.

Why Mr Rickards was forwarded a copy of the Change of Policy document, by the present committee in mid November 2000, remains unanswered? He was not a PAC member. I also question why the L.O. for Scotland did not recieve this document, circulated in November, until the 19th of December 2000? I am sure that Rob Murray, Dennis Moules, Paul Sanderson, Jon Cotton and the rest of the L.O.'s would not appreciate this type of treatment. A life of serving PAC - Ralston, did not deserve to be treated like this and I am sure most L.O.'s would agree.

In addition, in the Change of Policy reference was made to the fact that Neville Fickling had apologised for personal attacks in Pikelines. However, the General Secretary and some of the L.O.'s know this apology was written by Mr Rickards.

I apologise to all PAC members that I cannot accept that 'unity in angling in the UK' is dependant on the admission of any individual angler to PAC. I'm sorry, Mark. I also apologise that I was bitterly disappointed that Mr Fickling was not asked to submit an apology to the membership as a condition of his readmission. I know that John Milford is desperately disappointed with Mr Fickling's so called efforts to date - so am I.

Indeed, the vitroilic attack on PAC in February 2001 P&P demonstrates just how much Neville had reformed his views in December 2000.

The Scottish committee stood by PAC principles with regards to Blithfield. With the Angling Times and all the big names involved it was never going to be easy to defend the ordinary pike angler - or the ordinaruy pike for the matter. However, we stood firm and were not intimidated, bullied or broken by the **** that was flung at us.

I also apolgise to Mr Rickards but to be fair even the bannister was not going to break his fall when he embarked on the staircase of playing two sides against the middle. (No pun intended with the bannister).

There are some involved in Blithfield who try to sculpt an epitaph that reads: "There goes 7 members of the Scottish Committee. A bunch of lying ********, swindling their way through the destruction of pike to enhance their reputations and conning PAC members".
The sad thing is that PAC also appear to be structuring a similar epitaph on the basis that it lends credibility to Neville's readmission.

However, it must be a ******* that the financies, membership numbers and correspondence on Blithfield do not hang well with the epitaph. The truth has a strange way of saving people's reputations.

Salute


Frank




[This message has been edited by Gaffer (edited 20 January 2001).]

Please refrain from swearing and remember that this is a public forum.

Many thanks,

Gaffer

Another addition,

I would also like to add that your comments are more likely to be taken seriously if you give a contact email address.

In 'single species group' arguments like this it's also best if you don't assume that people know who you are or what the background of the argument is.

This thread is getting close to being locked. Can we please keep it civil.

Just remember that this is a free service and not a 'right'. Kids maybe reading what you have to say.

TIA

Ian.

Apologies Gaffer/Elton

Hadn't realised I had untill i saw your edit.

Keith

Nod, Nod, wink wink, say no more, know what I mean....

Mac

Well,Well, have you ever heard the like,its about time time that "THE BLITHFIELD INCIDENT" was Brought to an end,all those involved Know the part they have played in this handbag swinging soap opera,you have done nothing to promote the Pike Anglers Club,Well not in my eyes any way and I suppose in a lot of others also,Iam just an ordanary bloke who goes fishing,Iam sick to death of the whole saga,you all know what you have to do,get on with it,we have enough problems out side of angling,without scoreing own goals,there Ive said,I feel better,Rant Over.
david platt

As an angler who likes fishing for Pike, and is doing more and more piking as i get older.
The PAC was an obviuse group to consider joining.

NOT ANY MORE

You have made a complete abortion of this saga and put off any new members ever considering joining

As a non member who knows none of the party's involved there seems to be a lot of hidden agenders in the back ground.

In my opinion the PAC should be closed, and those who have a genuine interest in the welfare and protection of pike should start again.

And not with such a close minded and dictaor like commitee.

This is only a personal opinion of somone who knows nothing about the PAC and is making asumptions on all the dirty washing you have hung on the line over the last few months.

------------------
dave kennedy