Why Should You Join The SAA ???

[Guest davidP]

Originally posted by DCB:

Footnote.

Why the begging letters to join the ACA?

The ACA want angling to join the CA.

Why?

Could it be that ACA Boss, Jane James, wants her husband Bob James, to have some kind of paid future in their old age because the ACA is dying on it's feet

What have the ACA done recently for angling?

IMO the CA's the kiss of death for our sport and should be resisted at every level.

Lots of Love - ish!

David

 

 

From Angling Times 6/1/2001

 

The Anglers' Conservation Association is the most effective anti-pollution organisation in Britain - according to an independant publication.

It has been revealed that the voluntary body, which has a staff of just 7 people, has lost only 3 court cases out of more than 920 fought according to 'Saving Our Streams', published by the Institute Of Economic Affairs.

.

.

.

This has been seen as a huge achievment for the organisation, as the only other body to rival its success is the Environmental Agency, a body which boasts a budget of £600 million-a-year ad employs over 10,000 staff for all its departments.

.

.

.

"We do all of our work behind the scenes and therefore most of the good work we do for fishing, clubs and fisheries largely goes unnoticed, apart from the clubs and anglers affected" said Bob James.

.

.

.

The organisation has recently launched its own legal helpline to offer expert help and advice to anglers who are looking to carry out legal proceedings, a move which has already proved a success - with many clubs ad anglers seeking advice from Peter Carty, the ACA's full-time solicitor.

.

.

.

The ACA is currently dealing with 39 individual casesand each are being investigated.

Anging Time editor Richard Lee believe the need to join the ACA is more important than ever.

"The use of our waterways is increasing ad so is the number of colous individuas who will stop and nothing to illegally dispose of their waste. The ACA is the best hope many clubs will have of getting compensation after devastating polution incidents" said Richard.

 

The two biggest cases won by the ACA were on the River Tees in 1989 when itwon £365,000, and the River Eden in 1999 when it won £405,000. Most cases that the ACA win are around the £10,000 to £20,000 mark

 

 

Personal Comment

Who says the ACA is dying on its feet? On what grounds do you base this opinion? Do you really believe that the board of the ACA would allow the ACA to be run for the benefit of 2 people as you seem to think? It's bad enough that you post potentialy libellous comments on a board that you don't own and are not responsibe for, but to attempt to publically run down an organisation that many people regard as a shining example of the good that anglers can do is inexcusable unless you can back it up with facts. I suggest you either back up what you said or have the guts to apologise!

 

As has been stated previously, the ACA is purely about fighting pollution. Their raison d'etre is fundamentally different to the CA, NAA, SAA and any more political organisations that you care to think of. And what have they done for angling? Probably more than any of the political organisations put together!

 

Is it just me, or is all this anti-ACA sniping starting to annoy other people as well?

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Dear DaveP

I think that 'The Bird' cannot be serious....there was no use of the words he always uses....and that is strange.

The words missing that he usually states are.....Unity, Unity, Unity.

Maybe one too many allsorts from the bag.!!

 

Dear 'The Bird'......

Not quite what I wanted to hear from someone as positioned as yourself in the SAA...is this your personal opinion or that of the organisation?

Maybe you will have to apologise twice, once on here and once at the meeting on 25th November....

Come on David.....you can do better than this.

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

 

PS....However, I would say that Bob James has been a tad more than just pollution fighting since he joined up with the ACA....his stance re-livebaiting some time ago was misplaced in his seen position within the ACA, but to attack the ACA organisation outright is not good or sensible in the present environment. What must others 'lurking' be thinking?

 

 

[This message has been edited by 'eelfisher' (edited 13 November 2001).]

[Guest davidP]

Eelfisher, thank you. For some reason I hadn't realised who DCB is. For me that makes it even more sad that such a statement could come from someone who I've supported and respected over the years.

[Guest Chris Burt]

Coming back to the earlier posts on this thread, there are a lot of thought provoking questions posed which I'd like to comment on.

I think the biggest problem comes when one tries to bring complete clarity to the original, individual aims of each organization, when set against the wider scene of angling politics as it is now developing!

Peter for instance mentions his support for the ACA but not the CA to which they are linked, whilst emphasizing the great work ACA do on fighting pollution. When helping to run SACG we attracted both praise and criticism, which is natural with any organization in the public gaze. Then, Leon gave a very good summing up of how SACG and now SAA came into being to represent specialist anglers, which originally the NFA were not doing, which is why for historical reasons we have two bodies representing coarse angling, with NFA of course being by far the larger body.

What is now important is that, as never before, as members of the NAA we are all working together for the common good, which in some instances means we ignore our minor differences of outlook too. The NAA has brought together both the three Angling Governing Bodies and others including ourselves to pool results, adopt a common stance on many major issues, and to improve representation for anglers. It has also fulfilled a long-standing Government objective to be able to talk to one body, not its various constituent parts, to get our views. That gives us strength in numbers and a voice that will and is being heard.

We are in the early stages yet and we all have a long way to go. Having seen us develop from conflict ten years ago with other anglers to the present, huge level of cooperation which exists between all the NAA members I have to say that we have all taken a major step forward. Support whichever NAA member is closest to your interests, be it NFA, S&TA, NFSA, NAFAC, ATA or SAA-rest assured though which ever it is, the end result goes into the same shared efforts!

I know this won’t answer all your points but I hope it helps. I’ll close with one last plug-please do support at least one of us……

Chris Burt, SAA/NAA.

 

PS-Re the ACA, personally I give full support to them and sit on the ACA Council. SAA also fully support the work of the ACA.

 

 

------------------

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Dear DavidP

If I am wrong, then I shall apologise.

However.....we'll see.

Yours With Respect....

Steve.

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Dear Chris B

 

Nice reply.....leaving David to come back on this may be the best thing to do....I do not think his posts were particularly inviting of anglers to come and support one of us, when he goes for the throat of the one organisation that those outside of 'us' look towards.

 

Still, can't expect anyone from within to knock the man....like I said, too many allsorts probably.

 

I should assume that Alan Pearce will not be too pleased either with the comments.

 

Thanks for the contribution to the thread.

 

Yours With Respect...

Steve.

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Hi All,

 

Given the fact that an aweful lot of anglers, especially river anglers posting on open forums care a great deal about the existence of the ACA, David ain't scoring any points for angling unity with his anti ACA posts.

 

Personally, as a ACA life member myself, I do not want to see the ACA going outside of its present remit but if it appears that it is, I would write to the ACA trustees and lodge my opposition in the proper manner.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest Chris Burt]

RE ACA-Nice reply Lee, and absolutely the proper route

Regards

Chris Burt

[Guest Peter Waller]

I am rather ammazed, and sorry, that my question re the CA has generated such a venomous reply from Mr Bird. In what capacity is Mr Bird making these comments? It was neither my wish nor my intention that this thread should have soured as it has. I wonder, can he substantiate his claims that the ACA is dying on its feet? Perhaps he would care to withdraw his comment or substantiate it. That way, if its nescessary, the anglers ammongst us can increase our support so it does not die. I take it that the CA does not come under the NAA banner.

[Guest phil hackett]

Hi Guys

It’s looking like the Northern Alliance is starting to attack itself in Afghanistan as move cautious council thought it might.

 

Wiser council would suggest that public, no global forums are perhaps not the place to fight such factional battles.

 

As with any issue, constructive criticism is good, even if the receiver may not wish to hear it.

 

And yes I have my opinions on the ACA, which I would gladly share but not on here.