Why Should You Join The SAA ???

[Guest Peter Waller]

At the end of the day I don't think anybody has come out of this thread smelling of roses. A crying shame because it started with a simple, and reasonable, request that we all join the SAA.

 

Mr Bird has critiscised the ACA because of Bob Jame's personal opinion re livebaiting. Should we all now critiscise and condemn the NFA because of Mr Birds personal opinion of the ACA? No, of course not.

 

The ACA, warts and all, has, IN MY OPINION, done far more for angling than Mr Bird ever has.

[Guest Steve Randles]

Specialist anglers..=.. Anglers, who in pursuit of their quarry, have gained the knowledge to judge what is best for OUR waterways and its future. So others may just arrive at the waters edge, cast and enjoy.

 

Now you see the relevance of the "Specialist Anglers Alliance"...

 

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

Tight Lines,Steve Randles

><(())*>

Anglers-Rest.co.uk

mailto:steve@anglers-rest.co.uksteve@anglers-rest.co.uk

[Guest Peter Waller]

There would appear to be some right dinosaurs at the NFA, so maybe the SAA is the route forward for the ordinary, non match fishing angler.

[Guest phil hackett]

Originally posted by Cranfield:

Well,

     After reading that lot......most of which few of us understood, being full of "in" references etc........I am quite pleased that I do not belong to any of the organisations mentioned............In fact, if I did, it would not be for much longer..

 

Nobody came out of that looking good !!

Cranfield, they me be as you put it "in" refereces, but they are principles that I personally hold dear and have done for over 30 years.

I have over that time argued at all levels political, social as well as at the angling level, that this is the proper way to go towards being a true democracy. That in turn makes it transparent and accountable to its electorate/membership.

 

It would IMO be foolhardy to discount such advancements because we don’t like the words used.

[Guest Cranfield]

Phil, I have no problem with "principles", I respect yours and have a few of my own.

My "in" point ,referred to a lot of the politics being mentioned in this topic, the detail of which would only be known to a few "in" people.

 

Steve, read your post again.

Does that sound arrogant or what !

I do not want any "Specialist Anglers" to judge what is best for our waterways, on my behalf, so that I may arrive at the waters edge ,cast and enjoy.

I am capable of doing most of that for myself.

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Hi Brian,

 

Totally agree my friend.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Dear Brian

And even though I come in behind my fishing partner on this thread, quite by accident by the way, I agree with you also.

Sound words my friend.

 

Yours With Respect....

Steve.

[Guest Newt]

Originally posted by phil hackett:

Cranfield, they me be as you put it "in" refereces, but they are principles that I personally hold dear and have done for over 30 years.

 

phil - if I understood Brian, he was indicating that for the angler who is not current on all the politics and all the "alphabet soup" of angling/conservation/hunting organizations in your area, many of the posts made no sense.

 

I've tried hard to follow this thread as I have many in the past year or so that dealt with similar topics. And failed totally. Too many very brief references to happenings that made little sense to one not already fully aware of the details.

 

Some on this bbs are very much up-to-date on all the infighting of the various organizations but others obviously are not and they can easily get lost.

 

When I thought it was just me who didn't have a clue, it didn't matter much since I don't live there and really don't need a clue except for my own personal satisfaction. Since there are evidently serious anglers in the UK who are equally clueless, it might be nice if members of the various groups laid out the current reason-for-being, what they are doing for angling, etc. After that, questions could be reasonably posed and answered.

 

Since these are all more-or-less public organzations, I cannot agree that problems should be hidden or kept totally within the membership if they have an effect on angling in general. Internal personality/philosophy differences should stay private but public items - like the ACA guy taking an inapropriate public stance on live baiting should be open to public discussion. Period.

[Guest phil hackett]

Originally posted by Newt:

phil - if I understood Brian, he was indicating that for the angler who is not current on all the politics and all the "alphabet soup" of angling/conservation/hunting organizations in your area, many of the posts made no sense.

 

I've tried hard to follow this thread as I have many in the past year or so that dealt with similar topics.  And failed totally.  Too many very brief references to happenings that made little sense to one not already fully aware of the details.

 

Some on this bbs are very much up-to-date on all the infighting of the various organizations but others obviously are not and they can easily get lost.

 

When I thought it was just me who didn't have a clue, it didn't matter much since I don't live there and really don't need a clue except for my own personal satisfaction.  Since there are evidently serious anglers in the UK who are equally clueless, it might be nice if members of the various groups laid out the current reason-for-being, what they are doing for angling, etc.  After that, questions could be reasonably posed and answered.  

 

Since these are all more-or-less public organzations, I cannot agree that problems should be hidden or kept totally within the membership if they have an effect on angling in general.  Internal personality/philosophy differences should stay private but public items - like the ACA guy taking an inapropriate public stance on live baiting should be open to public discussion.  Period.

Newt point taken watch for personal incoming!

[Guest Graham E]

Just to clarify, my post was simply to say that the internet allows one to judge/consider others replies to salient questions.

 

It should provide a platform for debate. Wrinkles included

 

Over the past year I have found that Mike Heylin and Steves views on fishing and political issues tie in very much to my own.

Therefore I would be happy in giving them the trust they semmingly deserve for their efforts.

 

Not too difficult was it Phil?