Jump to content

Specialist Angling Unity


Guest STEVE POPE

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith Truscott

Hi Alan,

 

It would appear that you acknowledged Graham's Post but did not heed it, judging from your last post.

 

From this post and others you make it appear that it is a personal vendetta by Steve to block any moves made by the other bodies.

 

Steve in his position represents a large body of anglers who were well aware of the BS views and principles prior to joining, we must therefore assume that they all agreed with the majority of them before paying there money and reasonably happy with the way it is run.

 

I think that if you took a a vote across all anglers regarding the contentious issue of livebaiting then you might be surprised how this is viewed as keeping angling in the dark ages. This has been debated many times on many forums and can be left for another day.

 

The only reason that I bring the subject up is that you use the principles of the BS and there disagreement with some of the practices of the other bodies quite rightly as there reason for not joining in with the discussions.

 

Would the PAC partake if one of the conditions were to ban livebaiting????

 

Also to satisfy my own curiosity, Mike states that the meeting was scheduled back last September, were all representative bodies officially notified at that time of when and where the meeting would be taking place to see if they could attend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest waterman1013

Keith

 

All members of SACG were informed by copy of the minutes for that meeting. SACG have always established their meeting dates for the following year either in the September or November preceeding.

 

Unfortunately, because BS are not members of SACG, they would not have been so informed by us, neither were other non-members, but I cannot answer for NASA, of which BS are members, I understand.

 

Mike Heylin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest waterman1013

On the topic of livebaiting Peter. If such a move was made by some members of SACG/SAA to offer no support to the predator groups, that would effectively mean the end of the organisation! frown.gif

 

The predator groups would probably leave as one. That would include PAC, the Zander Anglers, Perchfishers, the Eel groups and perhaps Chub Study Group. If they left there would be no unity in specialist angling and that would be the end of it.

 

Most of the officers would leave as well, since most of us are predator anglers, amongst other things, so the remainder would have to be ready to step into the breach created by such a proposition.

 

Frankly I cannot see that happening. All the groups support livebaiting and the predator groups stance on it.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith Truscott

Thanks Mike,

 

For a very informative post to both me and Pete.

 

This to me raises two issues:

 

As we are all now aware that the scheduled meeting now clashes with the BS AGM, You state that as the BS was not a member of the SACG so they were not informed, can you please explain to me how Steve can be brought to task over blocking specialist angling unity when he or the rest of the BS committee were not informed when the meeting was taking place??

 

I was under the impression that the idea was once and for all to unite all the groups, this can not happen if they are not informed of when discussions are taking place and officially invited.

 

You also state that on the subject of livebaiting if this was to be considered to be banned within the framework of the new constitution, Then all predator groups would walk on mass causing the collapse of the so called new alliance.

 

It is allright then for predator groups to stand by there principles, but then it is inferred by various people on here that Steve and the BS are going out of there way to block progress for standing by thiers.

 

This smacks to me of step in line and play by our rules, is this what the new angling unity means, sorry but it dosen't look a lot different to the old one.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mark Leathwood

With every respect to all who have contributed so far, I think the key word which has so far been ommitted from this particular discussion on angling unity is tolerance.

 

Unity doesn’t mean that we all have to adopt an identical approach to our fishing. What we do all need to accept is that unless we strive to protect and promote the freedom we currently have to fish in the way that we want to, our sport as a whole will suffer in the long run.

 

Although livebaiting is regarded as being of fundamental importance to predator angling, nobody is suggesting that it is compulsory for all to adopt that method, any more than anyone is suggesting that carp anglers must use four rods all the time.

 

Often the differences in the way that each of us approach our fishing are what make us ‘specialist anglers’, they don’t make us ‘wrong’. We need to respect each other’s fishing, for each is a vital component of what makes angling as a whole. Surely that has to be worth fighting for ?

 

Thankfully the SAA will provide a platform for all specialist anglers, regardless of the species they fish for, to have issues which are important to them represented at the highest level. By supporting one another on such issues we have a greater opportunity than ever before of ensuring a bright future for specialist angling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest waterman1013

Keith

 

To quote “As we are all now aware that the scheduled meeting now clashes with the BS AGM, You state that as the BS was not a member of the SACG so they were not informed, can you please explain to me how Steve can be brought to task over blocking specialist angling unity when he or the rest of the BS committee were not informed when the meeting was taking place??”

 

I don’t think I have brought Steve to task over unity. I have, here, been trying to answer people’s legitimate questions and concerns. In reality the concerns of SACG, NASA and in the future SAA are for the members of those organisations. I know that Steve and BS have reservations about SAA and respect their view, but do not have to agree with it. It is one of those areas where we have to agree to differ.

 

Steve and I regularly talk on the telephone and I don’t think there is a vast distance between us or our organisations. As soon as the May date was confirmed by the members present I called Steve to let him know. It became apparent that there was a clash of dates and I sought to change the SAA date. That proved impossible.

 

I have said repeatedly that I am not interested in the history of events or the luggage that some bring with them, only the possibilities for the future. BS have for some time stood apart from the other single species groups for their own reasons. Those reasons have not necessarily been understood by all concerned. That is a great pity. Angling has few enough servants as it is.

 

We are not in a situation where right is on one side or the other. We are in a situation where mature people should be able to come together in a spirit of goodwill. How we achieve that I do not know and I don’t think Steve does either. But I think we both want it.

 

“I was under the impression that the idea was once and for all to unite all the groups, this can not happen if they are not informed of when discussions are taking place and officially invited.”

 

The “aim” is to unite all the single species groups but unless they want to take part none of us can drag any group to the table against its will. The principle objective for the members of the two existing groups, NASA and SACG, is to unite to provide a stronger organisation for their respective members, to reduce by one the plethora of angling organisations and to be even more active in seeking that unity in angling which the formation of the National Anglers Alliance now offers us all.

 

I have already said that SACG members were informed last year about this years dates. I have no remit to speak for NASA and when their members were informed of the likely timetable for the formation of the new group. Yes, I would have liked all angling groups, likely to join SAA, to be informed but had no remit from SACG to do so and in many instances have no point of contact to advise. This is simply about membership. No corporate body owes anything to non-members. You and others may not be happy with the sentiment but I speak of reality. How can we justify spending members money informing non-members of what may be? Like BS, The Grayling Society were not informed, and I am sure there may be others in a similar position.

 

I have now been empowered, by the members of both NASA and SACG, to organise the first meeting of SAA and have done as much as I can to inform those groups, for which I have a contact point, of the date concerned. I wish it were different but I have to live in the real world, where diaries get full and dates become unavailable for a variety of reasons. It is especially galling that BS cannot attend. It is also galling that I cannot attend my first BS AGM.

 

“You also state that on the subject of livebaiting if this was to be considered to be banned within the framework of the new constitution, Then all predator groups would walk on mass causing the collapse of the so called new alliance.

It is alright then for predator groups to stand by there principles, but then it is inferred by various people on here that Steve and the BS are going out of there way to block progress for standing by thiers.

This smacks to me of step in line and play by our rules, is this what the new angling unity means, sorry but it dosen't look a lot different to the old one.”

 

Keith, I think we are dealing with two situations here.

 

Firstly livebaiting is presently a legitimate angling practice. Defending that is the job of the predator groups and consequently will be so for SAA, while they are in membership.

 

Secondly the use of keepnets, multiple rods, up to four, and livebaiting are all legitimate angling practices. Attacking those practices and seeking to change attitudes towards them is unlikely to be part of the SAA remit. Anyone seeking to join SAA needs to consider the likely policies of the body they seek to join before making their decision. Do turkey’s vote for Christmas? The existing members of SACG support livebaiting, many NASA members livebait. Support for livebaiting is likely to become SAA policy.

Keepnets, used properly, are not considered a contentious issue with either SACG or NASA, to my knowledge. So it is unlikely that SAA will seek to change the EA by-laws which affect keepnets, although we will continue to defend the use of sacks and tubes for the safe retention and recovery of captured fish.

 

Anyone or any group seeking to change those policies from within SAA will need to carry the consequences of such action.

 

When all this talk of unity started on this BB it seems to have been assumed by many here that angling bodies seek to represent all anglers. That is not so. They seek to represent their members. That is their remit and it goes no further. If anglers want to change how those bodies represent their sport then anglers need to join and get their individual voices heard. That is what I did when I joined SACG about five years ago. Anglers also need to realise that by raising contentious issues, those that presently represent them may choose not to do so. We give of our time freely and in the real world if the agenda slips away from our concerns we take our inputs elsewhere. That is not blackmail, it is a simple fact of life. No one pays us for our efforts. So we call our own tune, in line with the policies of whatever organisation we represent, for as long as it suits us.

 

I left RSPB because they could not give me satisfactory answers to the cormorant problem. RSPB carries on without me and I continue to address the problem of cormorants on fishing waters. I do not have a battle with RSPB over it. I just get on with my approach.

 

That is apparently what BS have chosen to do. And I do not blame them. I would like them to be part of SAA, but if their principles will not allow that, then so be it. I don’t think that should stop us talking and trying to act together in those areas we do agree on.

 

I cannot and will not speak for others here. I am posting this not as secretary of SACG but as the guy charged, with others from NASA, with bringing SAA into being. If that means shooting the messenger then fire away. If that means accepting my word of sound intentions and hopefully an objective future. Then do so.

 

I know what I want and will fight to get it. I may not succeed but I shall continue to try as long as I can see the possibility. I think that is a position which Steve would respect and understand.

 

Sorry this got very long winded but I thought your questions so important as to warrant a somewhat detailed response. I hope I have answered them to your satisfaction smile.gif

 

Mike Heylin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Graham E

Mike, as usual an eloquent response, outlining firmly held views, actions and convictions, this without the need to attack individuals, well done.

 

I have a feeling of disappointment that the dates for the BS AGM/meeting clash, given the history, I suspect they may feel an attempt at sidelining?

 

Looking at the BS picture, you must understand that when the majority of members

1/ Do not agree with keepnets

2/ Do not agree with 4 rods(on RIVERS...any chance here?)

It would be difficult without loss(me too) of members to catapult the BS in.

 

On a personal note, I have no probs with livebaiting.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith Truscott

Sorry Mike,

 

Just spent the last hals hour or so posting a reply to your very informative post.

 

Seeing as i'm 6 hours in front of you my bed is calling spent to long last night talking to the England cricketers and drinking. Before the press jump on it they were only drinking Coke and water it was that bloody Rudi Kirsten the umpire that kept me up.

 

Sorry mike if I gave impression I was having a go at you. this was not the intention and I only addressed the post to you as a thank you for your previous post.

 

Will try and think what i was saying tommorrow and post it.

 

Goodnight

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest waterman1013

Keith

 

I didn't think you were having a go. Us Hertfordshire lads have to stick together! biggrin.gif

 

By the way tell Team England that we are all behind them. What umpiring?? It has been a joke. This is no way to run a Test Series. frown.gif

 

Graham, I understand how barbel people feel about keepnets but what about all the matchmen who rely on keepnets for their sport and all the "pleasure anglers" and newcomers who do like to see their catch assembled at the end of the day. We may have moved on in our fishing but must, in all fairness, accommodate others who have not yet got there.

 

To get EA to split the by-laws between still waters and rivers would open up all sorts of cans of worms. I think we would be well advised not to go there either.

 

I just accept that some anglers want to use that many rods for their fishing. I wouldn't, but I don't think that gives me the right to dictate to others, regardless of how offensive I might find it to my sporting instincts. I put the issue into the same bracket as the moral dillema, I find myself in, over abortion. The new by-law did at least reduce the number of rods being fished in the southern area, so there was a positive by-product to it.

 

Each of us chooses to fish in a particular way each time we go out. Unless the method being used by others is unsporting I do not think it is for us as individuals to dictate how they should fish. If that were the case there would have been little progress in angling since the fifties. You and I may regret some of the changes which have come about, since we were youngsters, but new methods have accounted for some very large fish, which might otherwise have remained uncaught. And I don't think four rods is the worst of them.

 

But each to his own, as they say. We will have to agree to differ on that one, whilst agreeing on most other aspects of angling.

 

Mike

 

PS

 

Sorry Graham. Yes it might look like sidelining. It wasn't and isn't. Steve and I are talking and as long as we trust in each others good intentions, these problems of bad timing may be resolved.

 

See you at Reading?

 

Mike

 

[This message has been edited by waterman1013 (edited 13 March 2001).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paul Williams

Forgive my lack of knowledge but would someone tell me the reasons the BS don't appear to want to "belong" at this stage, from what i can grasp they are,

 

They want keepnets banned,

They want livebaiting banned,

They want multi rods banned,

 

The way i have written that may well sound severe but at least it's to the point.

 

Are they the reasons????

 

A genuine question....Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.