Whats happening at the ACA ?
Posted 21 October 2004 - 06:51 PM
And how would you have come to that incredible statement Jon? You obviously know what your talking about!
So in the (combined) 28 years that the James's have been working for the ACA they have 'achieved next to nothing'
So you mean that they haven't won any cases? They haven't spent countless days at angling fairs trying to sign new members? They haven't raised the profile of the ACA by persuading Chris Tarrant to take the role of President?
Can anyone here even remember the name of the last President?
I thought not!
[ 21. October 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: PeterK ]
Posted 21 October 2004 - 08:21 PM
JOIN ANMC TODAY
Posted 21 October 2004 - 08:21 PM
[ 21. October 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Lid ]
Posted 21 October 2004 - 08:35 PM
Your right it really was an 'excellent publicity move' I guess JonHedges thinks that Mr Tarrant just wandered into the ACA office and begged for the job?
Lid - lol!
[ 21. October 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: PeterK ]
Posted 22 October 2004 - 01:50 AM
I am a member of both, and support them because improving the water for salmonids also improves it for other fish.
Any thoughts on the best use of one´s money to improve our waters ?? Leon? Anyone?
World species 471 : UK species 105 : English species 95 .
Certhia's world species - 215
Eclectic "husband and wife combined" world species 501
"Nothing matters very much, few things matter at all" - Plato
...only things like fresh bait and cold beer...
Posted 22 October 2004 - 06:01 PM
Its not that he isn't a fine bloke, he is. He is also an exceptionally fine angler. But he is also the husband of the chief executive of the ACA. And that he was employed, I believe after the wedding, by the ACA has always worried me.
That Bob has very strong links with the CA has always worried be.
Bob did a calender for the ACA a few years ago, a venture that cost the ACA a few pounds. Many of the pictures had an unpleasing lack of definition.
That the ACA links itself to the CA has always worried me. Whatever my views on the CA I think it undesirable that the ACA can be seen as linked to the CA., or any other lobby group. Afteral, how many CA supporters are involved with big businesses, big businesses that might pollute?
At the end of the day, for all the good work Bob has done, I have always had a nagging feeling of doubt about his employment by the ACA.
Whatever, I hope it soon blows over. Our rivers need the ACA, the ACA can do without the agro.
[ 22. October 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]
Posted 22 October 2004 - 06:49 PM
At one time I was an ardent supporter, not just through my writing, but also financially (as an example, I asked clubs etc. to whom I gave slide-shows etc. to make a donation to the ACA in lieu of a fee or expenses). When I withdrew my support, I never made my views public - I did, however, find in private conversations that my concerns were shared.
The ACA were once an excellent organisation; hopefully they will be able to move forward from their current difficulties and regain that status.
Posted 22 October 2004 - 08:19 PM
On the subject of the ACA I have been a member for a long time and as Jim have always put any extra dough earned through fishing their way.Also as you both have mentioned I have been a bit concerned that they have lost there way a bit.Still keep backing them as I dont really know of a viable alternative? As for Bob James involvement I dont know him or the internal workings of the ACA to really comment.