Whats happening at the ACA ?

[Andrew Boyd]

In case anyone try's to speculate lets keep it sensible. We don't know the reason(s). Hopefully it may just be down to personalities nothing more. . . . The ACA needs good publicity not bad.

[PeterK]

Peter Waller,

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?

 

Jim Gibbinson,

 

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 ]

[JohnCorby]

I am a member of the ACA and have been for several years, a bit embarrasssed that I didn't join many years earlier considering that the organisation has been our best hope of ensuring that we actually have waters in which fish can live. No organsiation is perfect but I strongly believe if more of us stumped up some cash to support the ACA the more we could do to tackle some of the the threats to our sport, such as excessive water abstraction and pollution by the water companies themselves.

 

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.

[Peter Waller]

Peter K, perhaps we saw diffent calenders! I bought a number to hand out to friends. I am a photographer by profession & can recognise a less than sharp image!

 

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 ]

[Steve Burke]

Jim - welcome to the Forum - it's about time is all I can say! Hopefully you'll be a regular contributor despite the mixed welcome. I certainly hope it hasn't put you off.

 

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.

[Elton]

Steve Burke:

Jim - welcome to the Forum - it's about time is all I can say!

....and very handy for me, as I received an email from one of Jim's old students to pass on this week

[Leon Roskilly]

Steve Burke:

Jim - welcome to the Forum - it's about time is all I can say!

Wha! What's he doing here?

 

(The mullet must have stopped biting!)

 

Welcome aboard Jim

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Peter Waller]

Interestingly Dr Barry Rickards, well known angler, for those who have never heard of him, writes in his editorial for the Specialist Anglers' Alliance magazine that, and I quote,'Like some other people, I am uneasy about some aspects of the ACA, although I support it myself.'

 

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.

[Dick Dastardly]

Not necessarily linked to Bob James but I feel that a lot of the loss of confidence in the ACA did start to surface around the time Allen Edwards retired.In all fairness a tough act to follow.Why dont things feel right? cant put my finger on it really but Im certainly not going to point any fingers because as I said Im not privy to any information.As a member and long time supporter maybe I should be? Will still keep suporting them and rather than look for an alternative hope all is sorted.Lets not forget the great track record the ACA has.

[Jim Gibbinson]

Allen Edwards was, indeed, a hard act to follow. He worked tirelessly: he had his ACA stand at just about every angling conference, tackle show etc. If asked, he would visit angling clubs to give talks etc. His enthusiasm was infectious; in addition to doing a great deal for recruitment, he generated a tremendous amount of goodwill. I liked him a lot, and had enormous respect for him.

 

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.