Whats happening at the ACA ?
Posted 22 October 2004 - 09:15 PM
Posted 22 October 2004 - 09:24 PM
You seem to be a very worried man! If you don't like the links the ACA has then why do you continue to support them?
by the way I thought the calender was fine, what's your problem? Not enough pike?
I think it's a shame when people wait until someone like Bob is in the news in this way before posting with an 'I've always thought so' attitude before we even know who is at fault here!
[ 22. October 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: PeterK ]
Posted 23 October 2004 - 12:56 AM
Back to the oringinal question, none of the posts adds anything about why Jane & Bob have been suspended and I hope that the internal investigation currently underway exonerates them both. However, whatever transpires, as anglers we should ensure that the good work of the ACA (over more than 50 years) coninues.
Posted 23 October 2004 - 01:16 AM
I support the ACA because, by and large, it works well for angling.
That I have concerns that may or may not have a bearing on the suspension of Bob and Jayne is clearly upsetting atleast one of you. I'm afraid opinions can differ, such is life!
The matter is now in the public domain. I'm sorry, human nature being what it is, people will guess and will, as is the nature of forums generally, form their own opinions.
[ 22. October 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]
Posted 23 October 2004 - 11:05 PM
Peter K - you obviously believe in making your own first posts controversial!
In fact, there have been rumblings in the undergrowth about the ACA for quite some time, and long term readers will know that some of these misgivings have been aired here on the Forum as well as elsewhere. I gather that quite a few ACA members have already voted with their feet and haven't renewed their subscriptions in the last year or two.
In other words, Peter, it's far from being an "I've always thought so attitude"!
My own position has been to continue to support the ACA because of the good work it does, but then I run my own fishery and so am more directly affected.
Matthew, I'm sure Jim doesn't need me defending him, but one of the reasons he hasn't posted before (although he has written many articles for Angler's Net) is that he's only recently got internet access.
Paperweights Plus www.paperweightsplus.com Off the shelf and customised paperweights
Posted 23 October 2004 - 11:09 PM
....and very handy for me, as I received an email from one of Jim's old students to pass on this week
Jim - welcome to the Forum - it's about time is all I can say!
Anglers' Net Shopping Partners - Please Support Your Forum
CLICK HERE for Dragon Carp Direct, one of the cheapest tackle shops anywhere.
CLICK HERE for all your Amazon purchases - books, photography equipment, DVD's and more!
CLICK HERE for Go Outdoors. HUGE discounts!
Posted 24 October 2004 - 02:51 AM
Barry doesn't explain the reasons for his unease so we mustn't read anything into that. But clearly there are people out there, besides myself, with doubts, nagging or otherwise.
Whatever the reasons, and I have my suspicions, (dishonesty not being one of them,) I hope the ACA will come out of it as a force stronger and ever more able to deal with polluters.
The ACA is as much part of angling as running water, we need them.
Posted 24 October 2004 - 03:06 AM
Posted 24 October 2004 - 02:57 PM
On to the present day... Apart from having misgivings regarding the ACA, I wonder about their stated purpose. Now, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the ACA uses civil law to pursue its cases, and seeks to win damages for actual fish deaths. Nowadays, we have the Environment Agency who can, and do, bring criminal prosecutions against polluters. And they don't have to prove fish-loss. I've been pleasantly surprised by the metaphorical teeth displayed by the Environment Agency, and would like to publicly record my appreciation for what they do on our behalf.
So, at the risk of incurring the wrath of ACA supporters, I ask the question, "Is the ACA as important to us as it was back in pre-EA days?"
None of which, incidentally, has any bearing on my previously expressed concerns regarding the ACA - that's another matter entirely and one about which I shall continue to reserve comment.