trent.barbeler

Dear Alan, I will reply to your post in due course. I am at the moment tied up with writing up another thread. One that saddens me greatly. Regards, Lee.

Dear Phil, Where was it that I said that the SAA was a stillwater orientated group? I think you will find I never have. If you read back in my earlier posts, I was emphatic about the work that the old SACG did in regard to keeping the rivers close season. So given that, how would I be seen to pressume that the new SAA would be stillwater orientated seeing as the same people head up the SAA in a similar way that they did in SACG. I repeat, I HAVE asked certain questions concerning the SAA's rivers group in order so that I may be in a position to help out. So far, I have recieved NO answers from either Duncan or anyone else. As you say, I might get an answer to these questions but they ARE a long time coming. Now obviously, given your record on talking and writing about Endocrine Disrupters and your stated interest in rivers, I shall assume that you yourself are active within the SAA rivers group, perhaps holding a position such as environmental co-ordinator or advisor. So perhaps you would like to answer my questions Phil which are;  How many members do the SAA rivers group have.  What is the structure of the SAA rivers group.  How many of the SAA rivers group sit on consultatives.  Does the SAA rivers group reps sit on NAFAC  What input has the SAA officers given to Duncan Fairley in order to establish the SAA rivers group  How many SAA rivers group members sit on RFERAC's Please be aware Phil, my questions are concerning the SAA rivers group and not the whole body of SAA. Seeing as the SAA played up considerably the fact that they HAD a rivers group and still DO have a rivers group, these are questions asked concerning the SAA rivers group. They have been asked for the sole reason to establish, for myself, the SAA rivers group progress so far, and to ascertain where I can help out in building it further. Not unreasonable questions surely? Now please be aware Phil, that I have on record written confirmation that the SAA rivers group has had LITTLE input from the SAA membership. These confirmations have come from officers in the SAA and stated, "we need more commited river anglers involved to help out". I would have thought that this was a viable comment seeing as EVERY organisation struggles to get people involved and is not something that only the SAA suffers from. So from that, I have re-joined to do exactly that. HELP OUT. So to be effective in doing this, I have asked certain viable questions in order to be able to do just that. And I did originally ask these questions privately Phil. The SAA are always making a big point of needing people to help out. Well, here I am Phil. This is not a point scoring exercise. The future of our river systems are to importnt for that. What I want to do is help Duncan out, and in order to do that properly, I need to know just how far the SAA rivers group structure has established itself since it was formed. Now going on to the matter of my resignation as head of SAA rivers group which I thought someone like you would raise eventually Phil; I was asked this question by Chris Burt some while ago in a "looped" email. Were you in that "loop" Phil? If you were, you would already know the answer to the question. But seeing as you may not have been, here is the reason I gave Chris Burt back then; Chris Burts question; 1) why did you leave SAA when you had the Rivers Group ready formed to run, and form the same thing as a separate entity? It was yours, we had a measure of unity which gives strength, so well done for wanting to rejoin now but I cannot understand the initial split...!!! It divides loyalties, duplicates effort etc My answer to Chris; As you will probably remember Chris, I was very keen on heading the SAA rivers group and probably like Duncan now, I had many plans on forming a effective structure to form the rivers group which would go a long way to protecting and preserving the rivers environment. Added to that, I held the passionate view then, as I still do perhaps even stronger now, that not only our rivers environments needed ongoing input from a strong rivers lobby, but our river fishing clubs nationally needed support from those who still passionately believed in fishing within the river systems. In recent years for various reasons, match angling in particular has been going away from river fishing preferring instead, to fish within various Stillwater venues in search of match weights caught in the heyday of previously river based matches. As a result, many fishing clubs have already gone to the wall and many more are on the edge of being unable to carry on. It was my opinion then, as it is now, that a really effective rivers group should gather together grass roots ordinary anglers at their local levels to encourage them to become more involved with their local river fishing clubs but within a national organisation. From that, a national system could be built whereby all river systems anglers attitudes start to change because they come to appreciate that it is their LOCAL fishing that they are preserving and not simply just being members of a national organisation that knows little or nothing of their existence. At the formation meeting of the SAA, Nev Fickling asked the question, "why do we need a rivers group"? Nev's question knocked me sideways. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect someone of Nev's standing who made much of his reputation from catching fish from our rivers and drains, to be asking such a question. Also, when Nev asked that question, I watched the faces around the room and I could see that many held similar views. Or that was my impression. From that meeting I began to have nagging doubts as to whether the SAA rivers group would have the support so vital for its concept to really take off and grow. I spent a lot of time seriously considering this and took the view that without everyone's input and support, the SAA rivers group would go nowhere. I also took the view that one or two committed people would not be enough to make the rivers group work. So, with regret, I resigned. When I say regret, it was much more than that because with my resignation came the end of a dream. In order to see if my doubts were founded or indeed unfounded, let me ask some questions myself Chris. How far has the concept of the SAA rivers group gone since I resigned? What is its structure and how many rivers group officers do you have on the ground on various rivers or looking after each river catchment area? How many individual members of the rivers group do you have to date? How many of the EA consultatives do the rivers group members sit on? What has been the input from yourself Chris or indeed other senior members of the SAA committee in establishing the river groups structure and if so, how effective has this input been? Duncan is just one man, how many others are in positions within the rivers group? These are not questions intended to bring anyone down, they are just honest questions which may prove that my original reasons for resigning may be proven to have some foundation for myself. Namely, a lack of interest from the majority within SAA. And if this lack of interest is evident, I would be standing in the shoes that Duncan is now. On the other hand, if I am wrong, then my decision to resign was the wrong one. That email to Chris Burt was sent on the 26th of February 2002. I have received no reply from Chris. Viable answer Phil? Tell me exactly what the SAA rivers group structure is and how many within SAA are within that structure, and all here will be able to see if my original concerns were viable. But this need not be the end of the story because as I constantly repeat, I have re-joined to help out. So if the SAA rivers group is NOT doing well, say so. If the SAA now believe that river orientated issues can be effectively met within the SAA structure as a whole with no need for a seperate rivers group then also, say so. And perhaps then we all can start to build something of real value for river systems anglers TOGETHER instead of this constant point scoring PR exercise that the SAA seems to be bogging itself down in. You either want people to help out, or you dont. You either have a seperate and effectively established SAA rivers group or you dont. Yes, I have been critical in this business of the MOU and the SAA's involvement in it. This IS my right is it not as a SAA member and as such, my link to the wider NAA organisation? But there is a world of difference in criticism and condemnation because I have openly said that the SAA do some valuable work for angling. Just the same as the NAA does. But it would be quite wrong of anyone to imagine that any forthcoming praise coming from me comes openly whilst my criticism remains private affairs as some might like. Sorry, I dont work like that because I will always tell it how I see it and that means privately and publicly as well. But the fact remains that many anglers, myself included, emphatically believe there is a need for a specific rivers lobby working for the interests of river systems anglers. This is underlined by the existence of the RSSG, its growing membership and the interest being shown from species groups and fishing clubs. This interest by the way is not just about the RSSG but in something other existing river organisations are already talking about forming that the RSSG would be a part of. So it is clear, that there IS a growing need for a rivers lobby because anglers out there, say so. And it is their voice, their concerns and their opinions that is the driving force. Now moving on Phil; Your quote; "As to me joining the RSSG, I’m pleading the barbel amendment on this, and waiting and seeing what happens with this group". Now exactly what, is that statement inferring to Phil? By now, you must surely know that I tell the truth, and the truth is, the RSSG is NOT a barbel fishing organisation as you should know by now seeing as you are an "informed" person. The RSSG is "open to all" and has been since the start of its formation. To confirm this fact, we have members already consisting of, game anglers, sea anglers, pleasure anglers, match anglers, predator anglers (all kinds) specialist anglers (all kinds) conservationists (all kinds fishing and none fishing) How on earth you could either imagine or seemingly promote into imagining that the RSSG is barbel orientatd is beyond me, and beyond the thoughts of the RSSG's present membership. Indeed, the RSSG committee itself is made up of a wide range of different types of anglers. Furthermore, you would know all this if you spent £3 to join the RSSG Phil. The person, actually male, who is to be the RSSG's Environmental and Conservation Co-ordintor is well known within the world of angling conservation. Not just in England or Europe, but world wide as well. He has impressive contacts with highly qualified people in their respective fields of expertise around the globe. He has presented documentation in regard to species preservation to the old SACG that has took the recipients breath away with its detailed documentation. He is, without doubt, the very best that any fishing organisation could hope to have in regards to species protection, conservation, or environmental concern. His election to this post and his name will be revealed after the final RSSG formaton meeting shortly when his position will be officially confirmed via democratic election. Those who are coming to this meeting from all over the country are indeed anglers who fish for many species and are NOT only barbel related anglers. I fully understand that everyones time has limits. I have long since forgotten what it is to be in bed before 1.am myself since becoming involved in the RSSG. I run my own business which entails being up at 6.am five days a week. Two young boys means a similar wake up call for family business to begin at weekends with similar commitment to the RSSG in the evenings at weekends. But still I carry on even though at times, my personal imput to RSSG makes me ill. Indeed, just recently, Steve Pope has suggested that I might have to take a year off fishing to go on the road promoting the RSSG. Such a thought of not going fishing for a whole week never mind a year fills me full of horror but I take his point as he had to do this in order for the Barbel Society to get to where it is today. To few doing to much? We know all about that. River anglers want their own lobby. That is now an undeniable fact. Those wanting that lobby, not just RSSG members, are here, and we are here to stay. What becomes important now is how we, and others already established and working for their own memberships within angling, proceed in partnership. Just one Allsort and one jellybaby? Cheapskate. Regards, Lee. [ 14 April 2002, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: trent.barbeler ]

Dear Phil, Where was it that I said that the SAA was a stillwater orientated group? I think you will find I never have. If you read back in my earlier posts, I was emphatic about the work that the old SACG did in regard to keeping the rivers close season. So given that, how would I be seen to pressume that the new SAA would be stillwater orientated seeing as the same people head up the SAA in a similar way that they did in SACG. I repeat, I HAVE asked certain questions concerning the SAA's rivers group in order so that I may be in a position to help out. So far, I have recieved NO answers from either Duncan or anyone else. As you say, I might get an answer to these questions but they ARE a long time coming. Now obviously, given your record on talking and writing about Endocrine Disrupters and your stated interest in rivers, I shall assume that you yourself are active within the SAA rivers group, perhaps holding a position such as environmental co-ordinator or advisor. So perhaps you would like to answer my questions Phil which are;  How many members do the SAA rivers group have.  What is the structure of the SAA rivers group.  How many of the SAA rivers group sit on consultatives.  Does the SAA rivers group reps sit on NAFAC  What input has the SAA officers given to Duncan Fairley in order to establish the SAA rivers group  How many SAA rivers group members sit on RFERAC's Please be aware Phil, my questions are concerning the SAA rivers group and not the whole body of SAA. Seeing as the SAA played up considerably the fact that they HAD a rivers group and still DO have a rivers group, these are questions asked concerning the SAA rivers group. They have been asked for the sole reason to establish, for myself, the SAA rivers group progress so far, and to ascertain where I can help out in building it further. Not unreasonable questions surely? Now please be aware Phil, that I have on record written confirmation that the SAA rivers group has had LITTLE input from the SAA membership. These confirmations have come from officers in the SAA and stated, "we need more commited river anglers involved to help out". I would have thought that this was a viable comment seeing as EVERY organisation struggles to get people involved and is not something that only the SAA suffers from. So from that, I have re-joined to do exactly that. HELP OUT. So to be effective in doing this, I have asked certain viable questions in order to be able to do just that. And I did originally ask these questions privately Phil. The SAA are always making a big point of needing people to help out. Well, here I am Phil. This is not a point scoring exercise. The future of our river systems are to importnt for that. What I want to do is help Duncan out, and in order to do that properly, I need to know just how far the SAA rivers group structure has established itself since it was formed. Now going on to the matter of my resignation as head of SAA rivers group which I thought someone like you would raise eventually Phil; I was asked this question by Chris Burt some while ago in a "looped" email. Were you in that "loop" Phil? If you were, you would already know the answer to the question. But seeing as you may not have been, here is the reason I gave Chris Burt back then; Chris Burts question; 1) why did you leave SAA when you had the Rivers Group ready formed to run, and form the same thing as a separate entity? It was yours, we had a measure of unity which gives strength, so well done for wanting to rejoin now but I cannot understand the initial split...!!! It divides loyalties, duplicates effort etc My answer to Chris; As you will probably remember Chris, I was very keen on heading the SAA rivers group and probably like Duncan now, I had many plans on forming a effective structure to form the rivers group which would go a long way to protecting and preserving the rivers environment. Added to that, I held the passionate view then, as I still do perhaps even stronger now, that not only our rivers environments needed ongoing input from a strong rivers lobby, but our river fishing clubs nationally needed support from those who still passionately believed in fishing within the river systems. In recent years for various reasons, match angling in particular has been going away from river fishing preferring instead, to fish within various Stillwater venues in search of match weights caught in the heyday of previously river based matches. As a result, many fishing clubs have already gone to the wall and many more are on the edge of being unable to carry on. It was my opinion then, as it is now, that a really effective rivers group should gather together grass roots ordinary anglers at their local levels to encourage them to become more involved with their local river fishing clubs but within a national organisation. From that, a national system could be built whereby all river systems anglers attitudes start to change because they come to appreciate that it is their LOCAL fishing that they are preserving and not simply just being members of a national organisation that knows little or nothing of their existence. At the formation meeting of the SAA, Nev Fickling asked the question, "why do we need a rivers group"? Nev's question knocked me sideways. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect someone of Nev's standing who made much of his reputation from catching fish from our rivers and drains, to be asking such a question. Also, when Nev asked that question, I watched the faces around the room and I could see that many held similar views. Or that was my impression. From that meeting I began to have nagging doubts as to whether the SAA rivers group would have the support so vital for its concept to really take off and grow. I spent a lot of time seriously considering this and took the view that without everyone's input and support, the SAA rivers group would go nowhere. I also took the view that one or two committed people would not be enough to make the rivers group work. So, with regret, I resigned. When I say regret, it was much more than that because with my resignation came the end of a dream. In order to see if my doubts were founded or indeed unfounded, let me ask some questions myself Chris. How far has the concept of the SAA rivers group gone since I resigned? What is its structure and how many rivers group officers do you have on the ground on various rivers or looking after each river catchment area? How many individual members of the rivers group do you have to date? How many of the EA consultatives do the rivers group members sit on? What has been the input from yourself Chris or indeed other senior members of the SAA committee in establishing the river groups structure and if so, how effective has this input been? Duncan is just one man, how many others are in positions within the rivers group? These are not questions intended to bring anyone down, they are just honest questions which may prove that my original reasons for resigning may be proven to have some foundation for myself. Namely, a lack of interest from the majority within SAA. And if this lack of interest is evident, I would be standing in the shoes that Duncan is now. On the other hand, if I am wrong, then my decision to resign was the wrong one. That email to Chris Burt was sent on the 26th of February 2002. I have received no reply from Chris. Viable answer Phil? Tell me exactly what the SAA rivers group structure is and how many within SAA are within that structure, and all here will be able to see if my original concerns were viable. But this need not be the end of the story because as I constantly repeat, I have re-joined to help out. So if the SAA rivers group is NOT doing well, say so. If the SAA now believe that river orientated issues can be effectively met within the SAA structure as a whole with no need for a seperate rivers group then also, say so. And perhaps then we all can start to build something of real value for river systems anglers TOGETHER instead of this constant point scoring PR exercise that the SAA seems to be bogging itself down in. You either want people to help out, or you dont. You either have a seperate and effectively established SAA rivers group or you dont. Yes, I have been critical in this business of the MOU and the SAA's involvement in it. This IS my right is it not as a SAA member and as such, my link to the wider NAA organisation? But there is a world of difference in criticism and condemnation because I have openly said that the SAA do some valuable work for angling. Just the same as the NAA does. But it would be quite wrong of anyone to imagine that any forthcoming praise coming from me comes openly whilst my criticism remains private affairs as some might like. Sorry, I dont work like that because I will always tell it how I see it and that means privately and publicly as well. But the fact remains that many anglers, myself included, emphatically believe there is a need for a specific rivers lobby working for the interests of river systems anglers. This is underlined by the existence of the RSSG, its growing membership and the interest being shown from species groups and fishing clubs. This interest by the way is not just about the RSSG but in something other existing river organisations are already talking about forming that the RSSG would be a part of. So it is clear, that there IS a growing need for a rivers lobby because anglers out there, say so. And it is their voice, their concerns and their opinions that is the driving force. Now moving on Phil; Your quote; "As to me joining the RSSG, I’m pleading the barbel amendment on this, and waiting and seeing what happens with this group". Now exactly what, is that statement inferring to Phil? By now, you must surely know that I tell the truth, and the truth is, the RSSG is NOT a barbel fishing organisation as you should know by now seeing as you are an "informed" person. The RSSG is "open to all" and has been since the start of its formation. To confirm this fact, we have members already consisting of, game anglers, sea anglers, pleasure anglers, match anglers, predator anglers (all kinds) specialist anglers (all kinds) conservationists (all kinds fishing and none fishing) How on earth you could either imagine or seemingly promote into imagining that the RSSG is barbel orientatd is beyond me, and beyond the thoughts of the RSSG's present membership. Indeed, the RSSG committee itself is made up of a wide range of different types of anglers. Furthermore, you would know all this if you spent £3 to join the RSSG Phil. The person, actually male, who is to be the RSSG's Environmental and Conservation Co-ordintor is well known within the world of angling conservation. Not just in England or Europe, but world wide as well. He has impressive contacts with highly qualified people in their respective fields of expertise around the globe. He has presented documentation in regard to species preservation to the old SACG that has took the recipients breath away with its detailed documentation. He is, without doubt, the very best that any fishing organisation could hope to have in regards to species protection, conservation, or environmental concern. His election to this post and his name will be revealed after the final RSSG formaton meeting shortly when his position will be officially confirmed via democratic election. Those who are coming to this meeting from all over the country are indeed anglers who fish for many species and are NOT only barbel related anglers. I fully understand that everyones time has limits. I have long since forgotten what it is to be in bed before 1.am myself since becoming involved in the RSSG. I run my own business which entails being up at 6.am five days a week. Two young boys means a similar wake up call for family business to begin at weekends with similar commitment to the RSSG in the evenings at weekends. But still I carry on even though at times, my personal imput to RSSG makes me ill. Indeed, just recently, Steve Pope has suggested that I might have to take a year off fishing to go on the road promoting the RSSG. Such a thought of not going fishing for a whole week never mind a year fills me full of horror but I take his point as he had to do this in order for the Barbel Society to get to where it is today. To few doing to much? We know all about that. River anglers want their own lobby. That is now an undeniable fact. Those wanting that lobby, not just RSSG members, are here, and we are here to stay. What becomes important now is how we, and others already established and working for their own memberships within angling, proceed in partnership. Just one Allsort and one jellybaby? Cheapskate. Regards, Lee. [ 14 April 2002, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: trent.barbeler ]

Dear Simon, Oops. Forgot about you Simon. Sorry. The information you require, is actually contained within this site Simon and many others. For a copy of the first RSSG meetings minutes, where lots of RSSG information so far is contained,(more infact than you ask) please email me on trent.barbeler@ntlworld.com and i will be only to pleased to send it on to you Simon. Regards, Lee.

Dear Simon, Oops. Forgot about you Simon. Sorry. The information you require, is actually contained within this site Simon and many others. For a copy of the first RSSG meetings minutes, where lots of RSSG information so far is contained,(more infact than you ask) please email me on trent.barbeler@ntlworld.com and i will be only to pleased to send it on to you Simon. Regards, Lee.

Dear All, Firstly, in my posts on this thread, I thought I made it perfectly plain from my comments that I didn't think that a serious threat to the rivers close season could come about from a conversation that Steve Pope had with the AT. Smoke without fire? Maybee, but until such a thing becomes OFFICIAL, I dont really think any of us need worry about it. What I did make plain though, was what the RSSG response would be in regard to any threat to the rivers close season becoming a reality. Phil, Sorry you are miffed. Have you forgot that you gave me some information on Endocrine Disrupters at a SACG meeting once? I have also read I think, two articles you wrote on this subject. I also have other papers on this subject written by other qualified authors to. So clearly, I have taken an interest in this subject that you have/are involved in. Now with regards to the SAA and its rivers group, please be aware that I have asked many questions of officers in the SAA regarding this. I base my comments on answers on what I have been given. OK. Furthermore, I have offered to help Duncan with the SAA rivers group and sent him two or three emails to this point. The last one I sent to Duncan was on the 18th of March this year when I asked him what he wanted to see the SAA rivers group achieve. I stated my reasons for asking so as to establish in what way I could help out or indeed, what help the RSSG might be able to offer. This is so that everyone can work together for the rivers environment surely in the spirit of what the SAA and RSSG promote. To date, I have received no reply to my email sent on the 18th of March. Rest assured though Phil, that the RSSG's Environment and Conservation Co-ordinator is fully aware of Endocrine Disrupters. And to make doubly sure, perhaps you can send me everything you have on this subject to balster up what we already have. Even better if you join the RSSG. Then you can advise and consult for us on this very important issue. And; The SAA will have the opportunity to do more for the rivers environment shortly when the RSSG offers them affiliate membership. See? The RSSG are NOT anti- anyone. Everyone is welcome to join us. UNITY UNITY UNITY. Regards, Lee.

Dear All, Firstly, in my posts on this thread, I thought I made it perfectly plain from my comments that I didn't think that a serious threat to the rivers close season could come about from a conversation that Steve Pope had with the AT. Smoke without fire? Maybee, but until such a thing becomes OFFICIAL, I dont really think any of us need worry about it. What I did make plain though, was what the RSSG response would be in regard to any threat to the rivers close season becoming a reality. Phil, Sorry you are miffed. Have you forgot that you gave me some information on Endocrine Disrupters at a SACG meeting once? I have also read I think, two articles you wrote on this subject. I also have other papers on this subject written by other qualified authors to. So clearly, I have taken an interest in this subject that you have/are involved in. Now with regards to the SAA and its rivers group, please be aware that I have asked many questions of officers in the SAA regarding this. I base my comments on answers on what I have been given. OK. Furthermore, I have offered to help Duncan with the SAA rivers group and sent him two or three emails to this point. The last one I sent to Duncan was on the 18th of March this year when I asked him what he wanted to see the SAA rivers group achieve. I stated my reasons for asking so as to establish in what way I could help out or indeed, what help the RSSG might be able to offer. This is so that everyone can work together for the rivers environment surely in the spirit of what the SAA and RSSG promote. To date, I have received no reply to my email sent on the 18th of March. Rest assured though Phil, that the RSSG's Environment and Conservation Co-ordinator is fully aware of Endocrine Disrupters. And to make doubly sure, perhaps you can send me everything you have on this subject to balster up what we already have. Even better if you join the RSSG. Then you can advise and consult for us on this very important issue. And; The SAA will have the opportunity to do more for the rivers environment shortly when the RSSG offers them affiliate membership. See? The RSSG are NOT anti- anyone. Everyone is welcome to join us. UNITY UNITY UNITY. Regards, Lee.

Dear All, Interesting points made by Peter. It is interesting to note that so many, call for unity when in fact, the same people were responsible for the building of so many different angling organisations. Strange that they once considered a real need for these organisations to represent whoever it was that they thought needed representation to be now, later on, calling for "unity". Its a strange world really isn't it. Peter was quite right of course to question certain peoples thinking or opinions that the RSSG "HAS" to join the SAA or anything else for that matter. Why? And for what reason? For a strong political voice? It states quite clearly in the RSSG aims and objectives, that it will become active in any area's that effect the river systems environment. So given that, does anyone seriously think that the SAA or any other angling organisation hold the outright monopoly on who can speak out or speak too regarding any government agency or government itself? Going by some peoples comments one would assume so. I remember when some of those on the angling political scene were NEVER seen at NASA conferences. So to pressume that only they know how to open doors or remember a few telephone numbers is quite demeaning actually. It is constantly said that we must all get involved in something to protect or preserve our fishing, but when we do, as in the case of RSSG for example, it is further stated that we must join THEM in order to become effectively listened to. RHUBARB! The RSSG is taking its time at getting properly established because we want to get things right. And once we do, we have the guys that are more than capable to represent our membership properly. We actually do know how to ring a door bell and talk the required language once inside. The RSSG is NOT just a political animal in the way that the SAA is. It strongly believes in having a pure fishing and social content for its members to enjoy. Fishing after all, IS the important thing is it not? By becoming active in the rivers environment, we protect and preserve what we cherish so the fishing and surrounding habitats can thrive and continue. And what has all this to do with Steve Popes original thread? Pass the Allsorts David. Regards, Lee.

Dear All, Interesting points made by Peter. It is interesting to note that so many, call for unity when in fact, the same people were responsible for the building of so many different angling organisations. Strange that they once considered a real need for these organisations to represent whoever it was that they thought needed representation to be now, later on, calling for "unity". Its a strange world really isn't it. Peter was quite right of course to question certain peoples thinking or opinions that the RSSG "HAS" to join the SAA or anything else for that matter. Why? And for what reason? For a strong political voice? It states quite clearly in the RSSG aims and objectives, that it will become active in any area's that effect the river systems environment. So given that, does anyone seriously think that the SAA or any other angling organisation hold the outright monopoly on who can speak out or speak too regarding any government agency or government itself? Going by some peoples comments one would assume so. I remember when some of those on the angling political scene were NEVER seen at NASA conferences. So to pressume that only they know how to open doors or remember a few telephone numbers is quite demeaning actually. It is constantly said that we must all get involved in something to protect or preserve our fishing, but when we do, as in the case of RSSG for example, it is further stated that we must join THEM in order to become effectively listened to. RHUBARB! The RSSG is taking its time at getting properly established because we want to get things right. And once we do, we have the guys that are more than capable to represent our membership properly. We actually do know how to ring a door bell and talk the required language once inside. The RSSG is NOT just a political animal in the way that the SAA is. It strongly believes in having a pure fishing and social content for its members to enjoy. Fishing after all, IS the important thing is it not? By becoming active in the rivers environment, we protect and preserve what we cherish so the fishing and surrounding habitats can thrive and continue. And what has all this to do with Steve Popes original thread? Pass the Allsorts David. Regards, Lee.

Dear Al, You may recal when the rivers close season was under threat before. The Barbel Society were not in membership of the SACG, the NFA or anything else for that matter. This "restriction", if that's what it was or is, didn't stop them from doing a hell of a job regarding their contribution towards saving the rivers close season back then. And knowing Mr Pope and those around him, not being "IN" anything won't stop them doing exactly the same next time either. And let's not forget, there are a lot of other groups who are NOT in the SAA either. The Grayling Society for example who are possibly the third biggest single species group with an awesome reputation for being involved in rivers conservation and protection are NOT SAA members. These guys didn't get to where they are by depending on the SAA or anyone else. Its a big wide world out there. Regards, Lee.

Dear Al, You may recal when the rivers close season was under threat before. The Barbel Society were not in membership of the SACG, the NFA or anything else for that matter. This "restriction", if that's what it was or is, didn't stop them from doing a hell of a job regarding their contribution towards saving the rivers close season back then. And knowing Mr Pope and those around him, not being "IN" anything won't stop them doing exactly the same next time either. And let's not forget, there are a lot of other groups who are NOT in the SAA either. The Grayling Society for example who are possibly the third biggest single species group with an awesome reputation for being involved in rivers conservation and protection are NOT SAA members. These guys didn't get to where they are by depending on the SAA or anyone else. Its a big wide world out there. Regards, Lee.

Dear Rob, Just to set the record straight; Yes, I was present at the SACG meeting when the subject of the rivers close season came up. Chris Turnbull spoke first and then myself in the remit I was given to do so from the Barbel Catchers AGM as their SACG rep. I would like to add at this stage, at the Barbel Catchers AGM, I was informed by Fred Crouch that prior to myself going to that particular SACG meeting, the SACG had no opinion on the rivers close season either way. Anyway, on that occasion at the SACG meeting, only the second vote in the SACG's history took place. And that vote was to determine whether the SACG went ahead with efforts to preserve the rivers close season on the Barbel Catchers and others behalf. That vote, was NOT. I repeat, was NOT, unanimous as you and Duncan say. Dave Lumb of the PAC voted AGAINST retaining the rivers close season. The reason he gave was that he wanted to fish the Drain Sytems for pike which of course, is Daves democratic right. On another occasion, I had to put Mike Heylin right on this subject as Dave's vote against retaining the rivers close season never made the SACG minutes. The SAA might well have river anglers within its membership or indeed stillwater anglers passionate about the rivers close season but not many of these seem to have come forward to help establish the SAA rivers group. My remarks were not written to offend Rob. They were merely repeated words that came to myself from Tim Marks, Chris Burt and Mike Heylin on the subject of getting more "commited" river anglers within the SAA. The plain fact is Rob, there is not enough people within SAA taking on roles to push forward all the issues that the SAA would like to become involved in. And because of that undeniable fact, the SAA rivers group has no structure and hardly anyone helping out Duncan who is heading it up. Leon, Your quote; At present, it has no political leverage (other than a strong moral and ethical stance, and the enthusiasm of it's members - me included). Could you please tell me these "strong moral and ethical stances the RSSG appears to have. Your quote; Though the RSSG will be able to make a lot of noise on this issue, primarily defence of the close season on rivers, as before, will need to be through the SAA. Please let me clarify Leon; If, and I really do mean IF, the rivers close season comes under threat once again, it will be up to the RSSG membership to decide what we do about it. Seeing as this subject is so important, there would be a ballot of the RSSG membership to determine what course it took either way. I myself and those close to me are definitely in favour of retaining the rivers close season. But that does not mean that the whole organisation of RSSG would be, although its a safe bet that the majority within RSSG are in favour of keeping the rivers close season. In EVERY case where any issue comes to the fore that effects the RSSG membership, the committee WILL consult with its full membership before embarking on any course of action. The RSSG is not a specialist angling organisation so I very much doubt that it will be joining the SAA. Although we are in talks with other organisations with a view to establishing and furthering our aims and objectives. In actual fact Leon, the SAA is not the be all and end all. To clarify once again, I have re-joined the SAA to help out where I can. I will attend every SAA meeting. I will also speak out, as others do, against anything I am not happy about because I don't hold the view that by being a SAA member, mean's that I must agree with everything for the cause of UNITY. I suppose that means I get no more Allsorts David. But then again, I've still got my two badges! Regards, Lee.

Dear Rob, Just to set the record straight; Yes, I was present at the SACG meeting when the subject of the rivers close season came up. Chris Turnbull spoke first and then myself in the remit I was given to do so from the Barbel Catchers AGM as their SACG rep. I would like to add at this stage, at the Barbel Catchers AGM, I was informed by Fred Crouch that prior to myself going to that particular SACG meeting, the SACG had no opinion on the rivers close season either way. Anyway, on that occasion at the SACG meeting, only the second vote in the SACG's history took place. And that vote was to determine whether the SACG went ahead with efforts to preserve the rivers close season on the Barbel Catchers and others behalf. That vote, was NOT. I repeat, was NOT, unanimous as you and Duncan say. Dave Lumb of the PAC voted AGAINST retaining the rivers close season. The reason he gave was that he wanted to fish the Drain Sytems for pike which of course, is Daves democratic right. On another occasion, I had to put Mike Heylin right on this subject as Dave's vote against retaining the rivers close season never made the SACG minutes. The SAA might well have river anglers within its membership or indeed stillwater anglers passionate about the rivers close season but not many of these seem to have come forward to help establish the SAA rivers group. My remarks were not written to offend Rob. They were merely repeated words that came to myself from Tim Marks, Chris Burt and Mike Heylin on the subject of getting more "commited" river anglers within the SAA. The plain fact is Rob, there is not enough people within SAA taking on roles to push forward all the issues that the SAA would like to become involved in. And because of that undeniable fact, the SAA rivers group has no structure and hardly anyone helping out Duncan who is heading it up. Leon, Your quote; At present, it has no political leverage (other than a strong moral and ethical stance, and the enthusiasm of it's members - me included). Could you please tell me these "strong moral and ethical stances the RSSG appears to have. Your quote; Though the RSSG will be able to make a lot of noise on this issue, primarily defence of the close season on rivers, as before, will need to be through the SAA. Please let me clarify Leon; If, and I really do mean IF, the rivers close season comes under threat once again, it will be up to the RSSG membership to decide what we do about it. Seeing as this subject is so important, there would be a ballot of the RSSG membership to determine what course it took either way. I myself and those close to me are definitely in favour of retaining the rivers close season. But that does not mean that the whole organisation of RSSG would be, although its a safe bet that the majority within RSSG are in favour of keeping the rivers close season. In EVERY case where any issue comes to the fore that effects the RSSG membership, the committee WILL consult with its full membership before embarking on any course of action. The RSSG is not a specialist angling organisation so I very much doubt that it will be joining the SAA. Although we are in talks with other organisations with a view to establishing and furthering our aims and objectives. In actual fact Leon, the SAA is not the be all and end all. To clarify once again, I have re-joined the SAA to help out where I can. I will attend every SAA meeting. I will also speak out, as others do, against anything I am not happy about because I don't hold the view that by being a SAA member, mean's that I must agree with everything for the cause of UNITY. I suppose that means I get no more Allsorts David. But then again, I've still got my two badges! Regards, Lee.

Alan P, As yet, I have not paid two lots of subs. I have been frantically going through the SAA constitution to see if my awesome power within SAA would be twice, thrice or even ten fold by sending in £200 for increaced juice for my SAA torch batteries. Unfortunately, I can see no provision made within the SAA constitution for multiple repeated memberships to the same person. No matter how schitzophrenic they may be. Obviously, Alan Roe was not consulted in the constitution process but I remain hopeful that in attendance at the SAA AGM, Alan brings along the liquid cosh incase the other twenty two inside my head come along. Regards, Lee. (the others are asleep)

Alan P, As yet, I have not paid two lots of subs. I have been frantically going through the SAA constitution to see if my awesome power within SAA would be twice, thrice or even ten fold by sending in £200 for increaced juice for my SAA torch batteries. Unfortunately, I can see no provision made within the SAA constitution for multiple repeated memberships to the same person. No matter how schitzophrenic they may be. Obviously, Alan Roe was not consulted in the constitution process but I remain hopeful that in attendance at the SAA AGM, Alan brings along the liquid cosh incase the other twenty two inside my head come along. Regards, Lee. (the others are asleep)

Dear Leon, "Consensus" agreements are NOT immune to corrupt pre-meeting agreements made in just the same way that a "voting" system can. It all depends on the integrity of those sitting around the table. What voting does do however, is give a meetings proceedings a rubber stamped democratic majority decision that officers and committee members cant adjust or alter afterwards. I thought that Steves thread was about a new or possible threat to the rivers close season and to some extent, given Steves comments, how angling feels certain organisations would react to it. I feel that continued efforts at undertaking PR for the SAA and other governing bodies has been done to death on another thread. Please, lets not go there here but stick to the very important subject of the rivers close season which remains extremely important to river anglers. Regards, Lee.

Dear Leon, "Consensus" agreements are NOT immune to corrupt pre-meeting agreements made in just the same way that a "voting" system can. It all depends on the integrity of those sitting around the table. What voting does do however, is give a meetings proceedings a rubber stamped democratic majority decision that officers and committee members cant adjust or alter afterwards. I thought that Steves thread was about a new or possible threat to the rivers close season and to some extent, given Steves comments, how angling feels certain organisations would react to it. I feel that continued efforts at undertaking PR for the SAA and other governing bodies has been done to death on another thread. Please, lets not go there here but stick to the very important subject of the rivers close season which remains extremely important to river anglers. Regards, Lee.

Dear All, The rivers close season, according to the EA in their response to MAFF, stated that it should stay until scientific evidence is provided that proves there will be no threat to wild fish stocks by removing it. Now what that means, or should mean, is that the EA will continue to recommend that the rivers close season stays in place until "someone", not the EA, comes up with scientific evidence to prove otherwise. If say the NFA,the NAA or indeed the CA wanted to scrap the rivers close season, they would first have to come up with scientific evidence to back up their case. The gathering of such evidence would be very expensive arising from studies carried out over a number of years that would certainly run into hundereds of thousands of pounds. None of the above organisations have that kind of money available to spend on such research. And in any case, how do you gather such evidence anyway. I would think, or hope, that the SAA would back the retention of the rivers close season seeing as part of its fore-runners, the SACG backed the retention of the rivers close season before. I was part of that process back then so know first hand the commitment to retaining the close season on rivers given by the SACG. But, like Steve Pope, I have my concerns about the rivers close season coming under attack again and would like to clarify certain aspects on this now. The SACG "DID" become involved in retaining the rivers close season and thats a fact. So did the Barbel Society and many others at the time much to their credit. Indeed, because of those joint efforts at the time, we all managed to retain the rivers close season against seemingly overwhelming odds. But; In order for the "new" SAA to become involved in another campaign to retain the rivers close season again, there MUST be commited river anglers within the SAA calling for support from the rest of the SAA membership. That's what Chris Turnbull and myself did before in the SACG days and thats what is going to have to happen again if we want a similar continued support from the majority of specialist angling within the membership of SAA. This is a reality and one of the reasons why I re-joined SAA because the reality is, unless you are inside asking for support for major issues to be addressed and supported by others, you just ain't gonna get it. But that aside, the more voices river angling has coming from all sides like those in the Barbel Society for example, the louder river anglers voices become. Unity takes on many shapes and forms. Solidarity on the major issues facing angling is the important aspect to winning battles for angling. And does not necessarily go hand in glove that we all belong to any particular organisation in order to achieve this. I happen to believe that river angling issues should be addressed by anglers who are committed to fishing within river systems. Indeed, this is the underlying reason why the RSSG came into being so that ordinary river anglers voices and concerns could be listened to. Furthermore, the RSSG wasn't in place when the rivers close season came under threat before. But now thankfully, it is. Which means its river fishing members opinions concerning the rivers close season will be voiced. And if anyone out there want's to know what the RSSG position on the rivers close season will be, please ask. Not privately, but here on a public forum where I will be only to pleased to make the RSSG stance perfectly clear for ALL to see. Regards, Lee Fletcher RSSG secretary.

Dear All, The rivers close season, according to the EA in their response to MAFF, stated that it should stay until scientific evidence is provided that proves there will be no threat to wild fish stocks by removing it. Now what that means, or should mean, is that the EA will continue to recommend that the rivers close season stays in place until "someone", not the EA, comes up with scientific evidence to prove otherwise. If say the NFA,the NAA or indeed the CA wanted to scrap the rivers close season, they would first have to come up with scientific evidence to back up their case. The gathering of such evidence would be very expensive arising from studies carried out over a number of years that would certainly run into hundereds of thousands of pounds. None of the above organisations have that kind of money available to spend on such research. And in any case, how do you gather such evidence anyway. I would think, or hope, that the SAA would back the retention of the rivers close season seeing as part of its fore-runners, the SACG backed the retention of the rivers close season before. I was part of that process back then so know first hand the commitment to retaining the close season on rivers given by the SACG. But, like Steve Pope, I have my concerns about the rivers close season coming under attack again and would like to clarify certain aspects on this now. The SACG "DID" become involved in retaining the rivers close season and thats a fact. So did the Barbel Society and many others at the time much to their credit. Indeed, because of those joint efforts at the time, we all managed to retain the rivers close season against seemingly overwhelming odds. But; In order for the "new" SAA to become involved in another campaign to retain the rivers close season again, there MUST be commited river anglers within the SAA calling for support from the rest of the SAA membership. That's what Chris Turnbull and myself did before in the SACG days and thats what is going to have to happen again if we want a similar continued support from the majority of specialist angling within the membership of SAA. This is a reality and one of the reasons why I re-joined SAA because the reality is, unless you are inside asking for support for major issues to be addressed and supported by others, you just ain't gonna get it. But that aside, the more voices river angling has coming from all sides like those in the Barbel Society for example, the louder river anglers voices become. Unity takes on many shapes and forms. Solidarity on the major issues facing angling is the important aspect to winning battles for angling. And does not necessarily go hand in glove that we all belong to any particular organisation in order to achieve this. I happen to believe that river angling issues should be addressed by anglers who are committed to fishing within river systems. Indeed, this is the underlying reason why the RSSG came into being so that ordinary river anglers voices and concerns could be listened to. Furthermore, the RSSG wasn't in place when the rivers close season came under threat before. But now thankfully, it is. Which means its river fishing members opinions concerning the rivers close season will be voiced. And if anyone out there want's to know what the RSSG position on the rivers close season will be, please ask. Not privately, but here on a public forum where I will be only to pleased to make the RSSG stance perfectly clear for ALL to see. Regards, Lee Fletcher RSSG secretary.

Dear Alan, If a single person has many split personalities, and one of the personalities eventually takes over the rest. Is that person deemed to be cured? Or do the police regard it as a hostage situation? Regards, The other bloke.

Dear Alan, If a single person has many split personalities, and one of the personalities eventually takes over the rest. Is that person deemed to be cured? Or do the police regard it as a hostage situation? Regards, The other bloke.

Hi Guys, Opinion poll? Christ Peter, we ARE slipping. Nothing to do with Malc's thread I know, but I received my SAA membership card and nice shiny SAA founder members badge today in the post pressumably from Pat Cross because the envelope had a Leicestershire post mark on it. Strange thing is, I received a SAA membership card and shiny badge several weeks ago. AND; Does anyone think this now means that seeing as I have TWO membership cards and TWO shiny badges, I can VOTE twice at the SAA AGM and SAA meetings? What about if I go dressed like Tommy Cooper in his famous sketch as a lady on one side, and a sailor on the other? Perhaps if I get two seats, no one will notice me moving from one to the other at voting time. Hey! I've just thought. With two membership cards and two shiny badges, perhaps its double rations of Birdy's Allsorts for me now! TWO shiny badges! Two membership cards! Whahoo! I'm fit to burst! Those guys had better watch out now. I've been doppleganged!! OR; Come to think of it. Are they trying to turn me into a Schizophrenic? Makes you think. No it doesn't. Yes it does. No it doesn't. I'm telling you it does! And I'm telling you it doesn't!! And I'm telling you........................... Regards, Lee and the other bloke.

Hi Guys, Opinion poll? Christ Peter, we ARE slipping. Nothing to do with Malc's thread I know, but I received my SAA membership card and nice shiny SAA founder members badge today in the post pressumably from Pat Cross because the envelope had a Leicestershire post mark on it. Strange thing is, I received a SAA membership card and shiny badge several weeks ago. AND; Does anyone think this now means that seeing as I have TWO membership cards and TWO shiny badges, I can VOTE twice at the SAA AGM and SAA meetings? What about if I go dressed like Tommy Cooper in his famous sketch as a lady on one side, and a sailor on the other? Perhaps if I get two seats, no one will notice me moving from one to the other at voting time. Hey! I've just thought. With two membership cards and two shiny badges, perhaps its double rations of Birdy's Allsorts for me now! TWO shiny badges! Two membership cards! Whahoo! I'm fit to burst! Those guys had better watch out now. I've been doppleganged!! OR; Come to think of it. Are they trying to turn me into a Schizophrenic? Makes you think. No it doesn't. Yes it does. No it doesn't. I'm telling you it does! And I'm telling you it doesn't!! And I'm telling you........................... Regards, Lee and the other bloke.

OK,OK,OK! I know what I said. OK! But theres no way I'm going to let Alan Pearce have the last say. OK! Regards, Lee.

OK,OK,OK! I know what I said. OK! But theres no way I'm going to let Alan Pearce have the last say. OK! Regards, Lee.