Whats happening at the ACA ?

[Vagabond]

Agreed Peter - I think we are both saying much the same thing. Which is why I asked about the ACA's status much earlier in the thread - Since then, there has been some reference to its assets being held by a limited company, but the ACA is not itself a limited company.

 

The whole set-up needs urgent ventilation IMHO.

[Steve Burke]

I seem to remember Allen Edwards telling me that the reason the ACA isn't set up as a charity is that charities can't sue over pollution.

 

We should also remember that simply because the ACA is active any potential polluters are much more careful about what they do and therefore there's less pollution.

 

The ACA's not only very successfully taken on Big Business but the Government too. This hasn't been just to get damages for its members, but also to get Court Orders to stop pollution continuing.

 

The present troubles are hopefully only temporary and we mustn't lose sight of the main issues here. Angling really needs the ACA, both to fight pollution, and also to improve our image to show that anglers really do care about the environment.

 

I accept that there are questions that now need urgent answers. However, I sincerely hope that once the dust has settled and the ACA has sorted itself out again that every single member of Angler's Net joins. At least the publicity will have drawn attention to the ACA as clearly many didn't know what it did or didn't even know it existed.

 

Assuming it does sort itself out, then any member who doesn't join the ACA should be ashamed of themselves and isn't fit to call himself a true angler!

[Peter Waller]

What constitutes a 'True Angler' Steve :confused:

 

Am I a devil's advocate or not? Such a topic could be a good one in its own right.

 

Must belong to the ACA, Yes! Provided it sorts itself.

 

Respect the Close Season, well, now I'm asking!

 

Mustn't have a TV on the bank, of course not!

 

Err, think we better go back to the subject in hand!

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

For the vast majority of us who enjoy coarse fishing club membership, ACA cover already protects the fisheries we fish providing such clubs are members of the ACA. No small wonder then that the ACA struggles to get far more individual members than they do.

 

Vagabond is wholly correct when he says that the James's is water under the ACA bridge now. Not so sure that the question of their supposed severance pay is though. I firmly believe that questions should be answered by the ACA committee, trustees etc. In any case, if nothing untoward has taken place on any side of the fence why not disclose all information??

 

The ACA should in my opinion now be taking serious stock of its member’s opinions over this issue and other issues within the ACA.

 

When one seriously thinks about it, the ACA is primarily a compensation seeking organisation working for its members. But in this day and age where all sorts of compensation lawyers are touting for compensation seeking business in a vast array of situations, how long will it be before the "no win no fee" businessmen move into the area of fisheries protection/compensation?? And if it did, how would the supposed un-transparent ACA stack up against such professional competition?? Especially if such new opposition provided the same ACA type service but at a much lower cost?

 

Having served on various fishing club committees myself I am well aware that ACA subscriptions are seriously mulled over at times of renewal. Very often, serious debate takes place when club committees ask themselves if they can continue to afford the ACA subscriptions? Most continue to stump up of course because they want protection for their valuable assets which are the fisheries they run, but times are hard out there for a lot of UK fishing clubs.

 

Vagabond said;

 

“I agree 100% with those that say we need the ACA - all the more reason to ensure that its aims, activities and finances are transparent."

 

He then went on to say;

 

"What IS essential is to ensure this scenario will not happen again. Members should press for a SGM, at which the future structure and accountability of the ACA should be addressed."

 

I entirely agree with Vagabonds opinion here. I also feel that unless the ACA embraces such opinion and acts upon it in a positive manner, many will be looking again at ACA membership come renewal time.

 

Dear Peter (Waller),

 

You said;

 

"Fact:- Fred Frence MBE is a former committee vice-chairman. He resigned in 2003 because he was refused access to financial accounts."

 

Peter, I find it mind boggling that a vice chairman of the ACA committee was refused access to the financial accounts. If such a high office can't get to see them I beg the question;

 

WHO CAN!!??

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Dick Dastardly]

Steve speaks a lot of sense here.Although things must be sorted we must not lose track of all the good the ACA have (and hopefully will carry on)done.

[poledark]

Then that makes me a "shamefaced untruthful angler" Steve....at least I am still an angler....phew...had me worried for a minute..

 

What cobblers...all the clubs I have ever belonged to have been members of the ACA on my behalf, and I have absolutely no guilt feelings re individual membership whatsoever.

 

I would also have thought that any sensible fishery owner/lessee would look to having their own insurance to cover loss of amenity and stock...or is it that the ACA was seen as the cheap option??

 

 

Den

 

Den

[Steve Burke]

poledark:

I would also have thought that any sensible fishery owner/lessee would look to having their own insurance to cover loss of amenity and stock...or is it that the ACA was seen as the cheap option??

I do and it costs me an absolutely huge sum in comparison to my ACA subs!!

 

I don't consider the ACA so much as insurance but as a way of putting something back into angling. It's also a way of hitting back at polluters who receive paltry fines that don't make it worthwhile putting their house in order. The bad publicity from the ACA suing them has much more effect!

 

It's a shame that many others don't feel the same way as me. The attitude seems to be "what's in it for me/us?". I prefer to ask what I can do to help angling/wildlife. After all, we need all the help we can get!

 

I've been a member of the ACA as far back as I can remember, and have supported them in many ways.

 

For instance, Peter Rogers and I sent all the profits of "The Book of the Perch" to the ACA.

 

Then when I ran my mail order business I never used to give discounts to anyone except ACA members. Customers could join and get their discount, which in most cases more than covered their ACA subs. Surprisingly some ignored this easy way of saving money! However, many didn't and I'd like to think some are still members as a result.

 

In retrospect the term "true angler" was a poor choice of words. However, if my post causes just one person to join the ACA (although I recognise that many won't until the current problems are resolved) I'll consider it worthwhile.

 

[ 09. December 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Steve Burke ]

[Peter Waller]

I think most of us read your comment in the spirit in which it was intended Steve. Made a good subject for another thread with some interesting replies.

[Steve Burke]

Peter Waller:

I think most of us read your comment in the spirit in which it was intended Steve. Made a good subject for another thread with some interesting replies.

Thanks, Peter - your new thread is certainly an interesting one.

[Alan Stubbs]

There's a piece in today's Times about the affair and it makes the not unreasonable point that there is a credibility issue facing all parties - especially the ACA in how they respond to what has happened.

 

From a personal point of view, I fully support the aims of the ACA, but despair of the politics and egos in the sport, of which the recent goings on at the ACA seem to me as fairly representative. I stand to be corrected, but somehow doubt I will be.