Leon Roskilly

quote: Originally posted by Dunk Fairley: [QB]I balance the lure again by sticking lead wire to the bottom of the lure, with araldite.[QB] Dunk, I've found wrapping solder wire around the hook shank is good, or else try buying some adhesive lead strip from a glaziers. This is more generally used for giving a 'leaded lights' effect to double glazed windows, but sticks well to the bottom of a lure. The beauty is that you can carry lengths of either material in your tackle box and use them to make adjustments to the action of a lure at the waterside. Tight Lines - leon

The NFA has hundreds of thousands of members. The SAA has around 10,000. If each body gets one vote, isn't that a bit unfair on the NFA membership. If each organisation casts a block vote, then the Specialist Anglers lose all the time. Voting is an intrinsically unjust system, leading to the domination of minorities, by simple majorities, with no regard to the justice or ethics of the subject of the vote. A system whereby each party is committed to work towards a consensus usually produces a much better result for everyone. It has to be a win/win situation for the parties to agree, or at least to agree a compromise where what is given up is balanced by the general good, and is recognised as such by the parties reaching the compromise. When it becomes necessary to move to a vote, it is an admission of failure of one side or the other, to come up with a convincing solution acceptable to all. One side wins, the other loses. Who is right is immaterial. That isn't unity, its a recipe for bitterness, revenge, shady deals ('you vote for me and I'll vote for you and we'll crush them) and injustice. Tight Lines - leon

The NFA has hundreds of thousands of members. The SAA has around 10,000. If each body gets one vote, isn't that a bit unfair on the NFA membership. If each organisation casts a block vote, then the Specialist Anglers lose all the time. Voting is an intrinsically unjust system, leading to the domination of minorities, by simple majorities, with no regard to the justice or ethics of the subject of the vote. A system whereby each party is committed to work towards a consensus usually produces a much better result for everyone. It has to be a win/win situation for the parties to agree, or at least to agree a compromise where what is given up is balanced by the general good, and is recognised as such by the parties reaching the compromise. When it becomes necessary to move to a vote, it is an admission of failure of one side or the other, to come up with a convincing solution acceptable to all. One side wins, the other loses. Who is right is immaterial. That isn't unity, its a recipe for bitterness, revenge, shady deals ('you vote for me and I'll vote for you and we'll crush them) and injustice. Tight Lines - leon

An interesting one Steve. 'Unity' can only be sacrificed once. The SAA can only commit political suicide just once. The number of issues out there 'worth' sacrificing unity for, or losing the SAA as an influential body for are many. Remember once it's gone, it's gone - at least for many decades. So how about a list of all those issues where we should pull the plug, all go home and do a bit of fishing, instead of (more effectivly)working for the benefit of angling? hmmmm! lets see some of the candidates. - All fish hooked must be killed - Fishing allowed with more than four rods - Close season abolished on all waters - Livebaiting banned - All Zander (or any restricted fish) caught must be killed - Examinations to be passed before a licence can be purchased Oh! I'm too tired for this!! What would be on your list folks? And once Unity has been lost, because of a single issue, and government etc will no longer talk / take notice of all the various individual angling interest groups, some with opposing agendas, who will work to try to rebuild unity and give us an effective voice again. Tight Lines - leon

An interesting one Steve. 'Unity' can only be sacrificed once. The SAA can only commit political suicide just once. The number of issues out there 'worth' sacrificing unity for, or losing the SAA as an influential body for are many. Remember once it's gone, it's gone - at least for many decades. So how about a list of all those issues where we should pull the plug, all go home and do a bit of fishing, instead of (more effectivly)working for the benefit of angling? hmmmm! lets see some of the candidates. - All fish hooked must be killed - Fishing allowed with more than four rods - Close season abolished on all waters - Livebaiting banned - All Zander (or any restricted fish) caught must be killed - Examinations to be passed before a licence can be purchased Oh! I'm too tired for this!! What would be on your list folks? And once Unity has been lost, because of a single issue, and government etc will no longer talk / take notice of all the various individual angling interest groups, some with opposing agendas, who will work to try to rebuild unity and give us an effective voice again. Tight Lines - leon

We certainly have ruffe in the Medway. Small perch like fish that take a small hook baited with maggot down deep, rarely hooked in the mouth This, together their small size have not made them a popular coarse species) Another name for them is pope. When catholics were going through a period of unpopularity in England's history, the poor ruffe suffered. Their dorsal spines were embedded into a cork, and the unfortunate creature left to bob around, to great mirth and merriment. (This was before even my time, I hasten to add) The appearance of ruffe in waters not previously colonised by them has been blamed upon live-baiters, which is stange because ruffe are universally reckoned to be at the bottem of the list for preferred live-bait species. However the ruffes' appearance has been used as part of the argument to ban the practice of live-baiting on some waters. Tight Lines - leon [ 09 April 2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

We certainly have ruffe in the Medway. Small perch like fish that take a small hook baited with maggot down deep, rarely hooked in the mouth This, together their small size have not made them a popular coarse species) Another name for them is pope. When catholics were going through a period of unpopularity in England's history, the poor ruffe suffered. Their dorsal spines were embedded into a cork, and the unfortunate creature left to bob around, to great mirth and merriment. (This was before even my time, I hasten to add) The appearance of ruffe in waters not previously colonised by them has been blamed upon live-baiters, which is stange because ruffe are universally reckoned to be at the bottem of the list for preferred live-bait species. However the ruffes' appearance has been used as part of the argument to ban the practice of live-baiting on some waters. Tight Lines - leon [ 09 April 2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

I'm just guessing Peter, but I wouldn't be surprised if the initial proposal leading up to the eventual MOU was to join forces with the CA (remember that there are many anglers who cannot understand why other anglers refuse to stand alongside their country pursuits brethren, against a common deadly enemy, that wants to ban both hunting and fishing) . The Memorandum Of Understanding (I would guess)is the eventual compromise position which has finally been negotiated (did someone mention that there were seven drafts of the MOU?) I would find it incredible that we ever got as far as agreeing the memorandum, without an awful lot of politicking leading up to it, a lot of determined debate, and hard compromises being made on both sides. I cannot believe that anyone rolled over and died at the first whiff of disagreement, not in a million years! The MOU isn’t the start of a process, it’s damn near the end of a process. It’s what we have ended up with. Its what we have agreed to keep a careful eye upon, and watch how it develops from here on in. But as I say, I don’t know this. My first contact with the MOU was during a meeting with an agenda stuffed full of items, many of them of great importance, as happens at every quarterly meeting of the SAA committee. If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is perhaps that those that can attend should attend. Leave it in the safe hands of others, and who knows what may be agreed in the absence of your appointed representative! Tight Lines - leon ps I'll go along with Lee. This will be my last post on this thread too.

I'm just guessing Peter, but I wouldn't be surprised if the initial proposal leading up to the eventual MOU was to join forces with the CA (remember that there are many anglers who cannot understand why other anglers refuse to stand alongside their country pursuits brethren, against a common deadly enemy, that wants to ban both hunting and fishing) . The Memorandum Of Understanding (I would guess)is the eventual compromise position which has finally been negotiated (did someone mention that there were seven drafts of the MOU?) I would find it incredible that we ever got as far as agreeing the memorandum, without an awful lot of politicking leading up to it, a lot of determined debate, and hard compromises being made on both sides. I cannot believe that anyone rolled over and died at the first whiff of disagreement, not in a million years! The MOU isn’t the start of a process, it’s damn near the end of a process. It’s what we have ended up with. Its what we have agreed to keep a careful eye upon, and watch how it develops from here on in. But as I say, I don’t know this. My first contact with the MOU was during a meeting with an agenda stuffed full of items, many of them of great importance, as happens at every quarterly meeting of the SAA committee. If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is perhaps that those that can attend should attend. Leave it in the safe hands of others, and who knows what may be agreed in the absence of your appointed representative! Tight Lines - leon ps I'll go along with Lee. This will be my last post on this thread too.

Hi Steve, I enjoyed that Er, I didn’t say that Lee should ‘have’ to be at the meeting. I remarked that it was a pity that he wasn’t there to guide us. It was unfortunate that circumstances were such that he couldn’t be there! Maybe things would have been very different if he had been there, maybe he would have had the arguments to have changed the course of angling history – but he wasn’t. Steve, I’m so confused at some of the stuff that has been posted here, I’m not sure what meeting we are talking about. If it was the meeting of the 17th February, then yes I was there. I remember the utter dismay I felt at the announcement of the MOU. I remember listening to the considered reasons, heard those speak who weren’t too happy (remember that David Bird had resigned his position within the ATA over this issue), considered all the options and arguments and joined the consensus that reluctantly agreed. Now, please remember that I go along to the SAA meetings irregularly, not representing anyone’s views other than my own. (er, actually that’s untrue. The person I try to represent is a seven-year old kid, holding a gudgeon for the very first time, marvelling at the beauty of the glistening blue spots along its body, and with a lifetime of angling before him! I feel that I owe him the same future that I had, and which I was able to take for granted thanks to the tireless efforts of the many who went before me). I’ve never stood, nor intend to stand for any office within angling! That gives me a freedom to state my personal views. (Bloody selfish if you ask me! I really don’t know how the guys with the courage to put themselves up cope. I guess that at the end of the day, battered and bruised from the politics and brickbats, they are satisfied with the self-knowledge that they have made a difference from time to time). Others are answerable to (or at least via) the constituencies they represent, not the members of this forum. (I bet the number of posts to this forum would be double what has been posted if it weren’t for the delete key!) I also help out from time to time with tasks that are within my skill set, and when I have the time. (That’s not very much, but more than that which would get done if I didn’t!) I don’t have any special relationship with the officers or committee, especially regarding this issue. The only contact I’ve had was at my instigation to assure myself that my postings have not been causing any problems for those who bear the greater burden of responsibility. Who was in the room? Well, there was a full table (though not all the food was eaten!). An attendance record was passed round for signing, but I don’t have it. (Anyway, I’m not sure that it would be right to divulge names to all and sundry. Those representing constituencies are answerable to those they represent. Those like me, well the list will be in the minutes of the meeting (still to be issued) for all with legitimate access to see). I don’t know what went on at the NAA meeting. Well there you are – plenty more information for the conspiracy theorists to work on. For paranoid minds to pick over, to find tempting tit-bits of pointers toward who knows what, why decisions went this way not that. 20-20 backward vision over what actions those present should have taken, coming from those who for one reason or another couldn’t make the meeting. Hell, even I’m becoming paranoid now!! I look forward to what you all make of it! We all know that you (not just you Steve) don’t like the MOU. Hell, I don’t like the MOU (I don’t know anyone who does) but now, can we PLEASE have a well thought out suggestion as to how we move this forward, a feasible workable alternative that addresses the issues that the MOU is trying to address. (And preferably one that doesn’t involve Armageddon for angling; tearing down all that’s gone before so that we can build a new perfect civilisation? ) And can we give the guys at the sharp end a little encouragement now and again, make them feel that all that effort and trying is sometimes appreciated? A little understanding of the complex and complicated real world they are trying to deal with. Oh! why do I bother? Tight Lines - leon

Hi Steve, I enjoyed that Er, I didn’t say that Lee should ‘have’ to be at the meeting. I remarked that it was a pity that he wasn’t there to guide us. It was unfortunate that circumstances were such that he couldn’t be there! Maybe things would have been very different if he had been there, maybe he would have had the arguments to have changed the course of angling history – but he wasn’t. Steve, I’m so confused at some of the stuff that has been posted here, I’m not sure what meeting we are talking about. If it was the meeting of the 17th February, then yes I was there. I remember the utter dismay I felt at the announcement of the MOU. I remember listening to the considered reasons, heard those speak who weren’t too happy (remember that David Bird had resigned his position within the ATA over this issue), considered all the options and arguments and joined the consensus that reluctantly agreed. Now, please remember that I go along to the SAA meetings irregularly, not representing anyone’s views other than my own. (er, actually that’s untrue. The person I try to represent is a seven-year old kid, holding a gudgeon for the very first time, marvelling at the beauty of the glistening blue spots along its body, and with a lifetime of angling before him! I feel that I owe him the same future that I had, and which I was able to take for granted thanks to the tireless efforts of the many who went before me). I’ve never stood, nor intend to stand for any office within angling! That gives me a freedom to state my personal views. (Bloody selfish if you ask me! I really don’t know how the guys with the courage to put themselves up cope. I guess that at the end of the day, battered and bruised from the politics and brickbats, they are satisfied with the self-knowledge that they have made a difference from time to time). Others are answerable to (or at least via) the constituencies they represent, not the members of this forum. (I bet the number of posts to this forum would be double what has been posted if it weren’t for the delete key!) I also help out from time to time with tasks that are within my skill set, and when I have the time. (That’s not very much, but more than that which would get done if I didn’t!) I don’t have any special relationship with the officers or committee, especially regarding this issue. The only contact I’ve had was at my instigation to assure myself that my postings have not been causing any problems for those who bear the greater burden of responsibility. Who was in the room? Well, there was a full table (though not all the food was eaten!). An attendance record was passed round for signing, but I don’t have it. (Anyway, I’m not sure that it would be right to divulge names to all and sundry. Those representing constituencies are answerable to those they represent. Those like me, well the list will be in the minutes of the meeting (still to be issued) for all with legitimate access to see). I don’t know what went on at the NAA meeting. Well there you are – plenty more information for the conspiracy theorists to work on. For paranoid minds to pick over, to find tempting tit-bits of pointers toward who knows what, why decisions went this way not that. 20-20 backward vision over what actions those present should have taken, coming from those who for one reason or another couldn’t make the meeting. Hell, even I’m becoming paranoid now!! I look forward to what you all make of it! We all know that you (not just you Steve) don’t like the MOU. Hell, I don’t like the MOU (I don’t know anyone who does) but now, can we PLEASE have a well thought out suggestion as to how we move this forward, a feasible workable alternative that addresses the issues that the MOU is trying to address. (And preferably one that doesn’t involve Armageddon for angling; tearing down all that’s gone before so that we can build a new perfect civilisation? ) And can we give the guys at the sharp end a little encouragement now and again, make them feel that all that effort and trying is sometimes appreciated? A little understanding of the complex and complicated real world they are trying to deal with. Oh! why do I bother? Tight Lines - leon

Lee, Why use such combative language? Why take such an aggressive stance all the time? Why not use language more along the lines of 'Together we can thrash something out' 'We should all be working together on this'? Remember this? Leon Roskilly Anglers' Net Regular Member # 7 posted 28 October 2000 05:31 pm -------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Ian Cresswell: I also wonder how much support the CA would give to angling if it was currently in the firing line. -------------------------------------------------- See it from the foxhunters' point of view. They live close to the reality of natural world. They are following practices which they and their families have followed for generations, which binds their social life and their community. Individually, they listen to the pro and anti arguments and make up their own minds as to whether the legal practises they follow are acceptable. Then a bunch of people, who know nothing of their lifestyle and traditions, decide that they can't live with them making up their own minds. The forces of Beatrix Potter and Walt Disney threaten their way of life, the lifestyle that they choose to live. Yet their numbers are few, they desperately need the support of many. Millions of anglers! It is a deliberate strategy of the men in 'pink' coats to ensure that angling is labelled a blood sport, to describe anglers as brothers in country sports etc etc Largely, they care not for coarse angling. They are willing, if hunting is banned, for angling to be dragged down too, tarred with the same brush, and tarred by them, an unfortunate casualty of the fight for freedom. When the men in pink coats talk about fighting for the rights of huntsmen and anglers, they are looking for cannon fodder. But can you blame them? Personally, I was always neutral about hunting. Though it holds no appeal for me (perhaps a little disgust). I've seen the good it does the natural countryside. Habitats preserved for the benefit of the prey, and for all wildlife. However, when I see angling cynically being pushed into the firing line by people with another agenda, they forfeit any support I might have been tempted to give them. Who can blame me? Tight Lines - leon -------------------------------------------------- That's still my view!!. Look back on other archived posts, made by those that you seem so eager to cross swords with. You will find a lot of the same. (You'll also find a lot of support for the idea that Angling should join with the CA! Yes 'many, many' are against it but so are many, many for it!) We haven't stumbled into this fight straight out of the cradle, we have been hammering this issue around for years. Instead of being too ready to cast potential allies as mortal enemies, why not take time to see exactly where they stand and why. Where the shared ground is, and how to bridge it. After all, no one has said any more than they have reluctantly accepted the MOU. Understand why they have accepted it, find out what price they are prepared to pay to be rid of it. Find where the common ground is, where bridges can be built. Give us an alternative that doesn't mean throwing everything else down the drain. That's bloody hard to do. It requires a lot of diplomacy and statesmanship. Perhaps coarse angling would be better off with the MOU rejected by the SAA, and UNITY ditched - set forth your reasoned arguments and persuade us. Instead of talking the language of combat and destruction, try using the softer speech of those that build. Fighters have victories, true. But in the long run, it is the builders of cities who prevail, not the destroyers. Let's find a way of achieving what you want, without destroying all else that has been worked for over far too many years. Build something that will stand anglers in good stead for decades, perhaps generations to come, something we might need sooner than any of us can imagine. Or dig the trenches, make enemies of allies, brandish a sword into ultimately pyrrhic victory, and stand in the empty smoke, wondering why. Lee, it is a great shame that you were not there when this issue was discussed. Perhaps if you had been, perhaps if, at the time, you had suggested a canvassing of the 10,000 members of the SAA, found a way of financing the communication, managed to find a way of getting everyone's views gathered and recorded that precluded any rigging, without occupying too much of the time of other overstreched activists, perhaps...... But you weren't there to take that on (I'm not blaming you for that - just an observation). Lee, we need you to put a viable well thought out alternative on the table, not simply attack what others, trying to get the best for angling from a very difficult situation, have done. Make friends and persuade, you'll achieve much. Be ready to fight everyone, tooth and nail ..... Tight Lines - leon

Lee, Why use such combative language? Why take such an aggressive stance all the time? Why not use language more along the lines of 'Together we can thrash something out' 'We should all be working together on this'? Remember this? Leon Roskilly Anglers' Net Regular Member # 7 posted 28 October 2000 05:31 pm -------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Ian Cresswell: I also wonder how much support the CA would give to angling if it was currently in the firing line. -------------------------------------------------- See it from the foxhunters' point of view. They live close to the reality of natural world. They are following practices which they and their families have followed for generations, which binds their social life and their community. Individually, they listen to the pro and anti arguments and make up their own minds as to whether the legal practises they follow are acceptable. Then a bunch of people, who know nothing of their lifestyle and traditions, decide that they can't live with them making up their own minds. The forces of Beatrix Potter and Walt Disney threaten their way of life, the lifestyle that they choose to live. Yet their numbers are few, they desperately need the support of many. Millions of anglers! It is a deliberate strategy of the men in 'pink' coats to ensure that angling is labelled a blood sport, to describe anglers as brothers in country sports etc etc Largely, they care not for coarse angling. They are willing, if hunting is banned, for angling to be dragged down too, tarred with the same brush, and tarred by them, an unfortunate casualty of the fight for freedom. When the men in pink coats talk about fighting for the rights of huntsmen and anglers, they are looking for cannon fodder. But can you blame them? Personally, I was always neutral about hunting. Though it holds no appeal for me (perhaps a little disgust). I've seen the good it does the natural countryside. Habitats preserved for the benefit of the prey, and for all wildlife. However, when I see angling cynically being pushed into the firing line by people with another agenda, they forfeit any support I might have been tempted to give them. Who can blame me? Tight Lines - leon -------------------------------------------------- That's still my view!!. Look back on other archived posts, made by those that you seem so eager to cross swords with. You will find a lot of the same. (You'll also find a lot of support for the idea that Angling should join with the CA! Yes 'many, many' are against it but so are many, many for it!) We haven't stumbled into this fight straight out of the cradle, we have been hammering this issue around for years. Instead of being too ready to cast potential allies as mortal enemies, why not take time to see exactly where they stand and why. Where the shared ground is, and how to bridge it. After all, no one has said any more than they have reluctantly accepted the MOU. Understand why they have accepted it, find out what price they are prepared to pay to be rid of it. Find where the common ground is, where bridges can be built. Give us an alternative that doesn't mean throwing everything else down the drain. That's bloody hard to do. It requires a lot of diplomacy and statesmanship. Perhaps coarse angling would be better off with the MOU rejected by the SAA, and UNITY ditched - set forth your reasoned arguments and persuade us. Instead of talking the language of combat and destruction, try using the softer speech of those that build. Fighters have victories, true. But in the long run, it is the builders of cities who prevail, not the destroyers. Let's find a way of achieving what you want, without destroying all else that has been worked for over far too many years. Build something that will stand anglers in good stead for decades, perhaps generations to come, something we might need sooner than any of us can imagine. Or dig the trenches, make enemies of allies, brandish a sword into ultimately pyrrhic victory, and stand in the empty smoke, wondering why. Lee, it is a great shame that you were not there when this issue was discussed. Perhaps if you had been, perhaps if, at the time, you had suggested a canvassing of the 10,000 members of the SAA, found a way of financing the communication, managed to find a way of getting everyone's views gathered and recorded that precluded any rigging, without occupying too much of the time of other overstreched activists, perhaps...... But you weren't there to take that on (I'm not blaming you for that - just an observation). Lee, we need you to put a viable well thought out alternative on the table, not simply attack what others, trying to get the best for angling from a very difficult situation, have done. Make friends and persuade, you'll achieve much. Be ready to fight everyone, tooth and nail ..... Tight Lines - leon

Steve, I can't speak for the SAA, but IMHO it would be when the benefits of trying to go it alone, the benefits of having no single voice for angling, the benefits of being largely ignored as one of a babble of angling voices outweighs the benefits of working together and of talking with a single voice and being listened to. And when the NAA has nothing to offer, and is not likely ever again to have something to offer, and when there is an issue on which we cannot agree -that would be the time to throw it all away. I think that what many do not appreciate, in this debate on the MOU, is that the NAA and SAA are not single issue organisations, they are actually involved in many, many other issues, and mostly work together effectively to the benefit of all of us, whatever our disciplines. Sadly, as is life, all the positive things they do, don't get talked about much. It's only when something comes up that gets the mud flying, that people become enthusiastic to join in - that creates and reinforces a negative view of the organisations, and angling politics in general. It is the whole package we should be looking at, not just looking at one item in a very full bag and throwing away the whole bag full of goodies. It is so, so, much easier to destroy than to build, for one person tear down in moments what it has taken years of effort by others to build, in trying to reach and tear down a weed, to unknowingly tread down a host of beautiful plants. Yes, there will be compromises that will need to be made in the future, some of those will be difficult to swallow, not only for coarse anglers, but for all that join and work together; but that has always been the way of the world. Angling is no different. What we don't need is people who are inclined to throw the toys out as soon as something comes along which doesn't go their way. What we do need are able negotiators, that have the people skills to sell the case for coarse anglers, to navigate complex issues and reach the best possible solution. People who can build trust and confidence, not only in their own camps, but perhaps more importantly, with the people with whom we need to work with. In the end, it's the only real way forward. Tight Lines - leon

Steve, I can't speak for the SAA, but IMHO it would be when the benefits of trying to go it alone, the benefits of having no single voice for angling, the benefits of being largely ignored as one of a babble of angling voices outweighs the benefits of working together and of talking with a single voice and being listened to. And when the NAA has nothing to offer, and is not likely ever again to have something to offer, and when there is an issue on which we cannot agree -that would be the time to throw it all away. I think that what many do not appreciate, in this debate on the MOU, is that the NAA and SAA are not single issue organisations, they are actually involved in many, many other issues, and mostly work together effectively to the benefit of all of us, whatever our disciplines. Sadly, as is life, all the positive things they do, don't get talked about much. It's only when something comes up that gets the mud flying, that people become enthusiastic to join in - that creates and reinforces a negative view of the organisations, and angling politics in general. It is the whole package we should be looking at, not just looking at one item in a very full bag and throwing away the whole bag full of goodies. It is so, so, much easier to destroy than to build, for one person tear down in moments what it has taken years of effort by others to build, in trying to reach and tear down a weed, to unknowingly tread down a host of beautiful plants. Yes, there will be compromises that will need to be made in the future, some of those will be difficult to swallow, not only for coarse anglers, but for all that join and work together; but that has always been the way of the world. Angling is no different. What we don't need is people who are inclined to throw the toys out as soon as something comes along which doesn't go their way. What we do need are able negotiators, that have the people skills to sell the case for coarse anglers, to navigate complex issues and reach the best possible solution. People who can build trust and confidence, not only in their own camps, but perhaps more importantly, with the people with whom we need to work with. In the end, it's the only real way forward. Tight Lines - leon

I was fishing a point on the local estuary where the tide run is almost non-existent, just a gentle drift. I was bottem fishing using a match rod and a feeder. On the stiffer match rod, I was getting the beginning of bites, which didn't develop. It was on the feeder, with a much finer tip, that the pluck, pluck would turn into a hittable bite. Schoolie bass, flounder and pout. I reckon that on the stiffer rod, the fish were dropping the bait as soon as they felt the resistance. Those around me, using traditional beach rods weren't registering any bites at all! When the water is fast, the fish just snatch at bait before it/they are whisked away in the tide. Slacker water, they have more time to be finnicky. Tight Lines - leon

Lee, I wasn't trying to make a clever quip. None of us was too happy with the signing of the MOU, but as it was explained, as I've said a couple of times above, it seemed to be the best solution to what was becoming a very dangerous situation. OK, maybe not the 'best' but better than anything I could come up with. I am genuinely interested any alternative you might have to offer!! Tight Lines - leon

Lee, I wasn't trying to make a clever quip. None of us was too happy with the signing of the MOU, but as it was explained, as I've said a couple of times above, it seemed to be the best solution to what was becoming a very dangerous situation. OK, maybe not the 'best' but better than anything I could come up with. I am genuinely interested any alternative you might have to offer!! Tight Lines - leon

er, Nightwing, you usually only get lots of little pike when nature is trying to make up numbers to replace bigger pike that have been killed. see http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/authors/leon14.htm Or is there some other factor at work over there?(like what happens when pike aren't the top predator, on muskie waters wher pike don't get much chance to grow big). Tight Lines - leon

er, Nightwing, you usually only get lots of little pike when nature is trying to make up numbers to replace bigger pike that have been killed. see http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/authors/leon14.htm Or is there some other factor at work over there?(like what happens when pike aren't the top predator, on muskie waters wher pike don't get much chance to grow big). Tight Lines - leon

Sorry lee, what was your alternative? Tight Lines - leon

Sorry lee, what was your alternative? Tight Lines - leon

The ones who do don't really have the time, and they certainly don't have the time to do everything they feel they should, and some of them get pretty depressed at times about that. They often feel that they are trying to paddle up a waterfall, with blokes at the top throwing rocks down upon them. At some time everyone feels like throwing in the towel, asking 'Why bother'. Some very good people have done just that and we all lose when that happens. It's so very easy to criticise and condemn, and forget all about it tomorrow, leaving the hurt and frustration caused to take its toll. I'm just a thick-headed ordinary bloke - but I have an opinion. Too stupid to do the work that those in office are heavily engaged in - but I have an opinion. You'd be amazed at some of the numbskulls you have all elected, or allowed to be elected into office on your behalf! Jobs need doing, if there's no competition for those jobs, then only those who are prepared to step forward are the ones we get. Like 'em or loathe 'em! (Of course, having let them in we can all feel a lot better by moaning about the decisions they have taken - it doesn't help) I'd describe most of the anglers who do get involved as pretty ordinary blokes, most doing pretty ordinary daytime jobs. Coming along to meetings, having your say, and taking on a bit of the workload doesn't need a degree. If you can argue a case here, you can argue a case there. (or you can just leave it to others, then moan!) UNITY Leon. Yes we all want unity, unfortunately the present set with the top of the pile being influenced to strongly by the S&TA, we will never have it. er, actually we do Not every angler agreeing with everything. Not every organisation happy with every consensus reached. That is totally unachievable and anyone who thinks that that is what UNITY is, or can ever be, must be from some other planet. UNITY is the ability to work together, to take decisions together, to take a little, and to give a little, despite our different backgrounds, different views, different aspirations. On all issues, there will never be total agreement. On some issues there will be passionate disagreement. But on most issues we can work together, we do work together and UNITED, we achieve much, much more in so many, many ways. That's the way the world works. You can either all pull on the rope in different directions or move forward together(but you can't have it yourway all of the time). When angling speaks now, it speaks with one powerful voice (never to everyone's liking) And now Angling gets listened to. That's what UNITY is, not some hopeless, idealistic, unachievable, dream of universal consensus on everything. And of course there will always be those whose opinions differ from the opinion which is triumphant, and who feel betrayed because the world doesn't recognise that they are the ones who are right, and who want the whole ediface ripped apart in retalition. Unfortunately, that too is part of the cost of UNITY. (The working UNITY, the real UNITY, the UNITY that we have, the UNITY that is fact, the UNITY from which all we anglers benefit. Not the unachievable unity of dreams) Er, do you think we could start talking about the devastation of the spawning bass stocks now, or perhaps the sex-change pollution of our rivers, or how to get youngsters hooked on angling? I'm getting concerned that our SAA committee aren't getting to spend enough time on the issues that I think are important Tight Lines - leon

The ones who do don't really have the time, and they certainly don't have the time to do everything they feel they should, and some of them get pretty depressed at times about that. They often feel that they are trying to paddle up a waterfall, with blokes at the top throwing rocks down upon them. At some time everyone feels like throwing in the towel, asking 'Why bother'. Some very good people have done just that and we all lose when that happens. It's so very easy to criticise and condemn, and forget all about it tomorrow, leaving the hurt and frustration caused to take its toll. I'm just a thick-headed ordinary bloke - but I have an opinion. Too stupid to do the work that those in office are heavily engaged in - but I have an opinion. You'd be amazed at some of the numbskulls you have all elected, or allowed to be elected into office on your behalf! Jobs need doing, if there's no competition for those jobs, then only those who are prepared to step forward are the ones we get. Like 'em or loathe 'em! (Of course, having let them in we can all feel a lot better by moaning about the decisions they have taken - it doesn't help) I'd describe most of the anglers who do get involved as pretty ordinary blokes, most doing pretty ordinary daytime jobs. Coming along to meetings, having your say, and taking on a bit of the workload doesn't need a degree. If you can argue a case here, you can argue a case there. (or you can just leave it to others, then moan!) UNITY Leon. Yes we all want unity, unfortunately the present set with the top of the pile being influenced to strongly by the S&TA, we will never have it. er, actually we do Not every angler agreeing with everything. Not every organisation happy with every consensus reached. That is totally unachievable and anyone who thinks that that is what UNITY is, or can ever be, must be from some other planet. UNITY is the ability to work together, to take decisions together, to take a little, and to give a little, despite our different backgrounds, different views, different aspirations. On all issues, there will never be total agreement. On some issues there will be passionate disagreement. But on most issues we can work together, we do work together and UNITED, we achieve much, much more in so many, many ways. That's the way the world works. You can either all pull on the rope in different directions or move forward together(but you can't have it yourway all of the time). When angling speaks now, it speaks with one powerful voice (never to everyone's liking) And now Angling gets listened to. That's what UNITY is, not some hopeless, idealistic, unachievable, dream of universal consensus on everything. And of course there will always be those whose opinions differ from the opinion which is triumphant, and who feel betrayed because the world doesn't recognise that they are the ones who are right, and who want the whole ediface ripped apart in retalition. Unfortunately, that too is part of the cost of UNITY. (The working UNITY, the real UNITY, the UNITY that we have, the UNITY that is fact, the UNITY from which all we anglers benefit. Not the unachievable unity of dreams) Er, do you think we could start talking about the devastation of the spawning bass stocks now, or perhaps the sex-change pollution of our rivers, or how to get youngsters hooked on angling? I'm getting concerned that our SAA committee aren't getting to spend enough time on the issues that I think are important Tight Lines - leon

Oh Christ! UNITY Government are besieged by bodies demanding to be listened too, demanding funding for projects, demanding this demanding that! Not only govenment, arms of government, regional authorities, Associations of Town Councils.....whatever. They don't have the time or resources to listen to piddling little organisations and their piddling little demands. Especially when one group representing some anglers wants one thing, another has different views. 'Minister, I've scheduled ten meetings with different angling groups for you this week and cancelled the meeting with the Society of Refugees. I've outlined all the different and conflicting interests of the angling groups, but I'm sure more will come out during their dicussions' 'What, I'm not sorting that lot out, tell them to s*d off until they can all agree on what they want to say to me, and come back with one voice. With any luck they will spend the next ten years fighting amongst themselves over some piddling little matter and we won't have to bother with them at all - cancel the anglers and rearrage that meeting with the refugees lot please.' UNITY Can you even begin to understand the amount of work put in by dedicated individuals to get this far. The years of hard work, the issues which have had to be thrashed out, the disagreements resolved, the unwelcome compromises that have had to be made on all sides. The toll taken of those poor sods involved, those very few of the 3 million of us who are prepared to make the effort? UNITY Without it anglers are nothing. It's still a hard and a rocky road, but it is a way forward. It brings us out of the swamp where we blunder around fighting each other, ignored by the authorities concerned with more powerful and better organised lobbies. UNITY Look at all of the issues that the NAA is dealing with, look at the lengthy agenda for any SAA meeting. Many, many matters, many important matters, many issues to be resolved by angling. Through the NAA we have a chance. UNITY er, we don't like the MOU, so we are going to drop out of UNITY for a while. You blokes carry on making all the important decisions without us (but if we don't agree we would still expect you to take account of our views while we are out). Then we will we decide when would be a good time to come and join you again. Listen, if SAA were to drop out of the NAA, do you really think they would ever be allowed back in? What of UNITY, if every organisation that fought to be around the UNITY table decided to drop out any time a decision was made with which they didn't agree? UNITY Do you really want to throw away all those years of hard work, by all those dedicated anglers? Do you really want to throw away all the benefits that UNITY brings to angling? Well, if someone else did all the hard work to bring it about, and someone else will need to do all the hard work to try to rebuild what has been destroyed, rebuild the trust and the confidence. Well yes, I can see your point. Only you will have to do that over my dead body. <rant ends> Tight Lines - leon