Brian Crawford

THE REAL EEL DEAL Following the pathetic response from the EA and DEFRA to the freshwater eel crisis. See: http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/freshwater/fishman.htm#EELS The Irish are showing a real determination to preserve freshwater eels. Best of luck! The Irish Government has submitted a plan to the EU Fisheries Commission proposing a ban on commercial eel fishing in Ireland. Rightly so! The Irish are all so often the first to do something positive when action needs to be taken! The reason for the proposal is that the Irish eel population is at an all time low and are feared to be now outside safe biological limits. The concern is if something isn’t done, and quickly, then eels may become extinct in the long term. The Irish proposals include an immediate stopping of all commercial eel fishing and the closure of the market, improvement of water quality, and safe passage in all rivers for migrating eels. They also propose to maintain a three-year cyclical evaluation of the eel populace until 2018 to fully monitor their progress, and every six years after that. This severe reduction in eel numbers is evident here in the UK too. Sea anglers fishing estuaries throughout the country were once plagued with eels at certain times of year, but now it’s a rarity to catch one in many areas. This is partly due to over fishing by commercials with the elver fishery in The Severn Estuary a prime example where juvenile eels are caught, but also to poor water quality in many rivers in the past and the lack of easy passage for migrating eels due to man manipulating the river systems. Although a very few anglers in the Southeast partial to jellied eels and mash for tea do take the odd eel, generally eels are not a species UK sea anglers deliberately target, and as mentioned even catch very often nowadays, so for once we can’t be blamed. That said, any sea anglers catching eels, it’s worth making absolutely sure they are handled correctly and returned alive to the water immediately. Any anglers thinking “so what if the eels disappear” need to think again! Eels are an essential part of the eco-system and taking just one species out of the game can have serious repercussions for other species within that habitat. Each has its part to play which is why Mother Nature put them there! There is some suggestion that UK anglers may be approached to contribute to a survey on eels in estuaries in the future, and WSF will keep you informed for those of you that would be interested in helping record any eel catches for scientific purposes as more information becomes available. (Many thanks to Mike Thrussell for this update) http://www.worldseafishing.com/blogsdiarie...ell_2ndfeb.html

Thanks for that Warren. Sorry it was not 17lb as I would love a new record eel to be caught by a proper eel angler in my lifetime. However, many congratulations on such a magnificent catch and your techniques. Congratulations also to Andy for his great catches of eels. Carry on the good work. Brian

Anyone any information on the 17lb 15oz eel captured by Warren Gaunt of Hemel Hempstead from a southern gravel pit reported in News of the World today?

Very naughty Peter. Good job I know you. (on this Forum anyway) Anyway, at this time of the year you would be lucky to see an eel let along be able to spear it. Most sensible big girl Anguillas will be well buried in the mud or deep gravel, dreaming of a nice juicy worm or small fish for their Xmas feast. Actually, having said that, several eels on the Top 50 Eel list were caught by pike anglers in the winter using small live or dead-baits. However, it can be soooo slow. frosty santa Brian

"The Association needs your continued support to bring about these changes and I ask that you give the new Committee your continued support. The proof will be in next year’s annual report and also in the accounts. Please let us have your views and please can you can use email (to guy@a-c-a.org) if possible, as communication by e-mail is a very cost effective way for the Association to keep in touch with you. Our website is www.a-c-a.org With my very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. Yours sincerely Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith Chairman" I am now in the process of rejoining as an individual. I am not happy with what went on concerning both sides of ACA management. However, I have always believed very strongly in the need for the ACA. There is still a great deal to do but I know that the steps being taken at this time should aid the healing process. It is hoped that one of these steps will be to provide a more democratic organisation. There is no real excuse for any angler to not support the ACA, if they can financially afford the £15 subscription. Without clean, unpolluted waters, our sport is finished. I think that aim is worth £15 of any angler's money and you do not need to work or attend meetings to achieve this, if you do not want to. The ACA will do it for you. Just give them enough money to continue being the number one pollution fighter for the sake of all our waterways. Brian Crawford P.S. £75K is peanuts to the alternative.

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE ACA, Wednesday 1st December 2004 The ACA and the James family part company Bob and Jane James and the Anglers Conservation Association jointly believe that it is in the best interests of the sport of angling that they should part company and have agreed to do so by way of mutual agreement with effect from 30 November, on the basis of the James' accepting severance terms which will remain confidential. NOTES: • The ACA was founded in 1948 with the purpose of using common law to fight to protect fisheries. • Since that time, we have won in excess of two thousand cases and recovered over £2 million in damages, ALL of which is returned to the members we represent. Throughout our history, we have lost only three cases. At any one time, we typically have about fifty cases running. <ENDS>

Bob and Jane James and ACA have now parted company. End of story. As from 30th November 2004. (ACA Press Release!!) Brian Crawford

I'm sorry to hear that Peter. I've not come across that kind of attitude - "dictatorial" I've been a member of NAFAC as an individual and as a member of several Consultatives, Welland and Nene, Great Ouse, River Severn and currently the Furness and South Cumbria Consultative, probably from NAFAC's early days as a Consultative Standing Committee. I have known several members of the NAFAC Executive Committee for many years now and felt able to get them to listen to me and to carry my concerns to relevant parties, particularly on the serious eel situation. This is why I have been so positive about them. I also understand that NAFAC is activly assisting in the establishment of consultatives in new areas or where established consultatives have folded. I believe we need consultatives to cover all fisheries, particularly in light of the coming proliferation of fishery action plans. I also believe in the need of a national organisation such as NAFAC to co-ordinate the work of all consultatives and those responsible for fisheries. Perhaps the NAFAC Regional Officers for your area were not up to the job or responsibility? Without knowing the events leading to your negative opinion, I could not really comment further.I can only hope that that problem gets resolved. The general opinion is that NAFAC is a good organisation. However, as I have said before many times, when an organisation is administered by people on a part-time basis, using their own time, energy and resources, you are bound to get problems from time to time. As NAFAC continues to grow, it might have to go down the path of employing regional and national officers to cope with the demands of an increasing membership base. Brian

Hi PeterK, At least we agree on the issue of being current ACA members. It certainly is news to me that the ACA owns its own offices. This is contrary to what information I was given earlier this year by someone who should know. I'll have to have a word with him!! I'm not sure I would be happy about having to pay £5.00 for a set of accounts - at least I would not be if I were a member. I never had to pay in the past. Regarding NAFAC - if you visit its web site, you will read that it now has more members than the NFA and is increasing dramatically every year. It is regionally based. It is far more representative of all users of waters, being based on angling consultatives, angling organisations and individual members, with direct access at local, regional and national levels to officers of the EA. It now has the use of the BAA offices so does not require its own separate offices or the services of a paid administrator. All income and donations are passed back to all members as services rendered, which are considerable. In fact it is probably more able to replace the work done by the ACA if it so desired, and its members expressed that desire at its AGM - to be held in February next year, together with the angling Seminar at Oxford - details on its web site. Given the choice of ACA or NAFAC - I know where my subscriptions are sent! Brian [ 23. November 2004, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Brian Crawford ]

I am always suspicious about private "internal inquiries". Especially as the unelected ACA Committee are answerable only to themselves. I feel the ACA Committee members have got themselves into a deep hole and it will be interesting to see them extract themselves with any honour. I would wish that the ACA does have an open meeting, an EGM, for all paid-up members only - to clear the air, either before or soon after this sorry affair is concluded. I would like to see all the present self-elected ACA Officers, Directors, Lords, M.P.'s Honourables, whoever, resign and stand for re-election, together with any other nominated member as in any democratic organisation, at a properly constituted AGM. I would like to see AGM's open to attendance and voting rights by any paid-up member. I would like to see the ACA reborn from these ashes, stronger and as successful as ever. This debate has been a long time coming. PeterK, I'm very pleased to hear you have a copy of a 2003 ACA Report. I would be interested to know how long you have been an ACA member and how many Reports you have received. As I stated earlier, I left the ACA Committee over 10 years ago, when Allen was Director and things may have changed. I first joined the ACA in the late 1960's, or early 1970's, I cannot be too certain as I do not have my records for that time. During the 1970's and 1980's, I had many hours of chats with Allen at NASA Conferences, and got to know the organisation quite well in that period. I do believe I am entitled to my opinions and freedom to make relevant and speculative statements or ask relevent or speculative questions, based on my opinions and information received via my contacts, especially where there is a lack of information emitted from ACA. I joined this debate long after it started and my input was to add information and questions based on what my past experiences with the ACA indicated and also questions raised by information given to me by others who were privy to what was not common knowledge to most ACA members. I can assure you all that any statement factual or speculative that I have made, arises out of information given publicly at various meetings (not ACA based)I have attended this year. Do you really think that the likes of Fred French MBE, Terry Mansbridge, Alex Armstrong and Dick Hodges, would resign from the ACA Committee if they did not feel, very strongly, that the ACA had a serious problem - a serious problem that they could not/were not allowed to resolve. This is something that really worries me. When senior figures of that calibre walk away. I am not publicly pre-judging Bob & Jane, they may be perfectly innocent of any wrongdoing. The fact is, they have been publicly suspended by the ACA Committee - whoever is still on that body - the nameless and faceless inquisitors. I am raising issues that are causing concern by many people who have heard the rumours and quite rightly, demand answers - not a cover-up. When this issue is resolved - will those senior officers who did the right thing by resigning, be offered a reappointment on the ACA Committee? Will they be castigated for drawing attention to the shortcomings of the ACA? Why were these eminent senior anglers not able to influence logical and democratic policy within the ACA. I'm sorry, PeterK - in my swim, you appear to have your head deep in the sand. There are just too many unanswered questions and gaps in information for anyone who supports the ACA to feel comfortable. A final point is, considering just what a small organisation the ACA is, in terms of membership and income, how can it justify paying expensive rent for offices, expensive salaries to several staff, maintain expensive cars, provide for expensive pension funds, etc. I know people say if you pay peanuts you only get monkeys - however, for instance, NAFAC is many times larger than the ACA in all directions - yet they have no offices, no paid staff, no cars, no pension plans, all officers only get certain expenses, yet NAFAC achieves many, many times more effective results than the ACA - considering individual membership of NAFAC is just £10 and no, this is not a commercial for NAFAC, but just a typical example. I'm not saying the ACA should go back to the days of Ken Sutton and Allen Edwards, which would not however, be a bad thing, but it does need more care in the management of its finances in future - if it has one. Brian

Peter, I expect there will be a big cover-up by ACA Council and Committee; no consultation or input by ordinary members; no EGM; a new financial donation or donations from unknown benefactors, to get back into the black; Bob & Jane given early retirement (on convenient ill-health grounds - on very much reduced pensions if the ACA can fix it - and probably MBE's), and a new Director appointed (without consultation of ordinany members) on very much reduced salary than that enjoyed by Bob & Jane - if "they" can find a suitable "mug". Then it's back to business. Remember the ACA Committee and Council are self-appointed and only they attend AGM's. All members get for their money is a bit of plastic and copies of the ACA Review with no say in the affairs of the ACA - or have things changed in the last 10 years? Oh yes, members do get protection for their waters, don't they? Brian

Watch "A Passion For Angling". Brian

"PRECISELY" - The moral and FINANCIAL support is vital - the promotion is only one part of the whole. If the ACA Council, Committee and members have no confidence in its finances, where is its future? Why do its officers keep resigning? Do YOU know what the ACA financial position is? Do YOU care? Will the ACA still be here in 10 years time? In 5 years time? Next year????? Does anyone care??? I do, but I want the truth. I want to see a financial balance statement for the ACA for the past 10 years. Will I get one??? Is the Pope a Jew? Is Blair Conservative? Is Rooney the next England Football Captain? demon demon demon demon

Jeepster, "ACA", "PAC", "SAA", are what keeps our sport alive. The fact that you feel so omnipotent to deride their efforts speaks volumes for your lack of understanding of angling and as Ultravox also said, you are "Sleepwalking" and will see that the above organisations will "Reap The Wild Wind", so do not "Dance With Tears In Your Eyes", or "Lament" for the future of angling if you are not prepared to financially back those organisations who ignore "Passing Strangers" such as you in "Slow Motion", but respond to those who listen to "The Voice" and work for the future of angling. Tight lines, Brian [ 20. November 2004, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: Brian Crawford ]

"KEN SUTTON"