A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

Firstly, let me clarify imediately that Alan Pearce is wholly mistaken if he thinks that the SAA represents my style of angling. I am NOT a specialist angler. I am an ordinary angler that prefers to fish for barbel but I am also happy to fish, as I have done in the past, for salmon, trout, almost every course species together with some sea fishing in years gone by. This fact I am certain, is soley responsible for my embracing ALL anglers and their many fishing styles. As I see no difference between the Sunday angler who fishes for what ever comes along or the most determined or dedicated specialist angler fishing who puts in many long hours for a chosen species.

 

I have re-joined the SAA to be involved in helping to promote their work as I see as valuable to angling and to speak out against anything that effects angling either in or outside of SAA that I dont believe IS valuable.

 

In Alans opening lines he tells anglers to stop bleating and to instead join something. Well, from what I have seen on this thread, the "bleaters" such as Peter, Malc, Steve Richardson and myself HAVE actually done just that. Steve Richardson in particular has worked for angling for some considerable amount of years. Longer infact than most. Once again Alan, you have scored an own goal in the PR department.

 

Well done.

 

Tell me Alan, how does an ordinary course angler have his voice heard if he is either a individual member of the NFA or if he has a so-called route into the NFA via his fishing club membership because I am sure that all the ordinary course anglers here would love to know how this is achieved. Indeed Alan, tell us all how does an indiviual get to speak at NFA conference.

 

So, the six representative bodies within the NAA are equal are they Alan. Tell me then, do the SAA have equal voting rights in NAA and do they pay the same contribution to be within the NAA as say the NFA, the ATA or the S&TA? Please, dont give me the "concensus" trot as an arguement because we all know there is a reason why all within the NAA do not pay the same to be members. Apart from the fact of course some cant afford it and if I'm wrong here Alan, just simply tell me that the SAA pays the same as the rest.

 

So Alan, the S&TA are not all powerful and are NOT strong financially are they? Just who are you trying to kid. Who else apart from the ATA within NAA has so many paid employies working for it? How the hell does the S&TA pay all these people if it is NOT financially strong?

 

"The NFA could have been selected to become the NAA secretariet". Not in a million years Alan and you know that full well. By your own admission you state that the S&TA have the people, the structure and offices to do the job. I wonder just how the S&TA managed to obtain all this and their business structure without being financially strong. Did everything that they have just fall out of the sky one day?

 

Your quote Alan;

 

"At some point in the not too distant future it is hoped that the NAA will be able raise enough finance to be able to 'go it alone".

 

What a strange statement! I thought that the NAA were going it alone already! As the voice for anglers. So if they are not going it alone, who exactly are they linked to at the moment that are preventing them from "going it alone"?

 

This business about raising money for a angling govering body via fishing licences is NOT going to happen as you well know Alan due to legal constrains that prevent such a thing from happening. Why then, have you brought this up?

 

Your quote Alan;

 

"Gentlemen and ladies, the choice is YOURS, there is a system in place with the NAA, its there for you, use it and make it work, or forever run around in circles chasing your tails and going no where".

 

Alan, I dont believe that regarding this MOU, it was created to stop the CA saying bad or unwanted things about course angling. You lot are just not that daft. The touble is, you think that everyone else is.

 

How does one of the many drafts which is two and a bit pages long entitled "A memorandum of understanding" get rendered down to the press statement given out? And why has not this or the final draft been displayed in its entirety for all to see either in the drafing process or as the final draft?

 

As far as I am concerned, this MOU has NOTHING to do with looking after the interests of ordinary course anglers. Specialist or otherwise.

 

And if it was or is of value to course angling, I repeat, like many already have, why was not everyone within SAA consulted over it? And; Was this MOU given out to membership clubs and individual members of the NFA in its early thought process? And if not, this clearly shows that Alans views concerning having ones voice heard within NFA to be a tad naive. Or are we not going to get a viable answer to this and other questions seeing as Alan, Leon and others are so up for us all joining something so our voices are heard. Because to me, as has been demonstated clearly with this MOU, we can all join one of the six organisations within the NAA, or indeed all of them if their criteria are met and still not get to know whats going on! So lads, how do you faithfully still try and convince anglers to join something so that their views and voices can be heard. After the event as in this case? No where near good enough an arguement I'm afraid. And I am gobsmacked that you can all still be trying to convince everyone.

 

Now know this Alan. I dont care how many I have to face over this and I dont care if I stand alone to face the lot of you. Either on this forum or face to face at the SAA meeting in May.

 

I am a brave man who will stand up to be counted when the chips are down. And I will not stand by to watch course angling being dragged into the CA when clearly, incase you hadn't noticed, the majority of course anglers dont want to go there.

 

Peters thread was inspired by comments made by Roy Westwood of the Anglers Mail.

 

Straight away suggestions were compared to "sensationalism" in journalism being the case for Roys editorial. I dont think so. Roy isn't that daft.

 

Perhaps Peter might like to contact Roy for an opinion poll to be conducted by the Anglers Mail so we can all see where course angling lies in all this.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Chris Goddard]

Having just come back into the country and not knowing really what all this post is about but having read your original post Peter and skimming over Leons I have only this to say on the subject.

I am opposed to hunting with hounds as in the pursuit of foxes and hare coursing such as that practised recently in Liverpool.

I and I suspect a majority of people (the same people who say they are opposed to hunting with dogs) would not be averse to anyone out there with a dog (be it intentional or not) allowing that dog to chase/catch any small animal. Be that animal fur or feather. And would therefore see the statement as an affront to their intelligence. As indeed I do!! The Countryside Alliance is made up of far more intelligent people than your man gives credence to I fear, that number does include a very large percentage of grass root anglers such as myself, who do occassionally enjoy a spot of hunting with dogs. But in the manner as detailed above!!

So It Is with this in mind that I support any alliance which goes with MY belief. As It Is the law (As proposed) will not allow ANY so called hunting with dogs. And lets face It what have we been doing all these years with dog breeds If not to promote hunting instinct and ability?

 

Chris Goddard

[Leon Roskilly]

trent.barbeler:

Now know this Alan. I dont care how many I have to face over this and I dont care if I stand alone to face the lot of you. Either on this forum or face to face at the SAA meeting in May.

 

I am a brave man who will stand up to be counted

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

['eelfisher']

Dear Leon...and others who may think like Leon but cannot command the words...

 

Why should Lee have to be at a meeting to be able to say that the SAA should ballot with its members....and we're not sure that the SAA actually exists until May my friend.....when those in committee places who were at whichever meetings drafts 1-7 were discussed, KNEW what the vote by SACG members was...never mind the NASA members thoughts as well.....and as such didn't need to ride over their paying members wishes and hope that it would be taken lying down.

 

These are not people who were unknowing of such thoughts Leon.....but well informed people, people with a mandate to stay away from the CA....but you already know this.

 

I have heard, via Mike, that those who attended spoke hard about this subject and said go with it but go carefully.......question????

 

Who was it in the room who managed to sway the those who did not want this to come about?

Name them and lets see who it is who feels that they know best for me and other SAA members.

Were you there Leon?

AND..........

Why are they NOT posting on here....or are they?...stating why they thought it right to go along with the other five groups within the NAA.

 

Surely a 5-1 vote constitutes a majority move to go along with this alliance with the CA....and would have ALLOWED the SAA to have kept their credibility with their members by having voted NO.

 

We all understand the voting situation in this land.....although there are some who keep pushing stuff like this down our throats on posts such as these, people who think we are thick or just do not know how to get out of the hole they are standing in.....and to be fair, this scenario would not be as it is. We could all then be saying that we have to follow the majority vote and the decision to stay within the NAA would have been based on...

Stay and try to change the way others are thinking.....or...leave the NAA.

This decision could have been made at the SAA AGM in May.

 

Then thinking anglers like yourself and the rest could set about trying to sway the others away or just melt into another dimension or whatever.

 

Lee, Peter, Malc and others speak their mind....when those elected to look after our angling position do good they are praised by these people....rightly, when they seem to be going astray they are given a nudge....the trouble is, the nudge always becomes a smack in the ear due to the deafness coming from the questioned quarter.

 

Elected committee people have a hard time doing the jobs they volunteer for.....I know this as well as any other committed committee person.....but when the members start to say "Whats going on, this can't be right"....we do not expect to be 'cloaked'.....we expect to be at least listened to.

 

All I have heard from yourself, Alan and Mike is its not good but we had to do it.....and frankly thats ***** ......and insults mine and others intelligence.

However, at least you are posting and expressing your views.....others who are reading this find this a subject that they do not want to post on.

 

Maybe the reason you went along with this is understandable once aired.....hell fire, who knows...its not been aired.

 

Some who came in at the start of this thread have gone away to lay low.....or they do not think the subject worth bothering with now they have stated their bullshit gloss over.

 

Or do you think that it is just a minority of the SAA members who feel this way?

 

One last thing Leon.....there would be no need to finance a ballot of 10,000 members...if thats what we have...the SAA could just have called a meeting to discuss this with those members who turned up on the day. The bad move was to just have this discussed at a normal, non-well attended committee meeting. For me, the down side was that this is an issue that needed more input on ideas and thoughts and it was never attempted. But Guess what?....the Code of Conduct re-draft has done a zillion miles round the single specie groups. Which do you think is the more important issue?.....Don't say both, cos the 'Code' was already in place......it was only a re-draft that was needed so that the NAA could front it up.

 

Can't see this getting sorted out now.....too much twatting of many heads has gone on in this thread without anyone listening to paying or potential members thoughts....what a shame.

 

And yes Alan, some good advice in your last post but some advice from me to you.....stay away from the PA job....you need the right tools, NOT a shovel.

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

[Gaffer]

Gentlemen, up to now this thread has been civilised and respectful to most parties.

 

I would like to think that further replies to this thread will continue in this manner.

[Leon Roskilly]

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

[Alan Roe]

Good Shout Leon! my position within the SAA is similar to that of Leon in that I am an individual member answerable only to my lad if I get it wrong, I have no elective office but I will help out with the specialist skills as and when necessary.

 

Sadly I couldn't have make the last SAA meeting though I had planned to go this was due to sickness at work.

 

What alarms me about this thread so far is that the general tenor has been very critical without the leavening of some positive ideas about the way ahead.

 

As I have said before

"Rather than issue sackcloth and ashes all round we need to take a cool look at the situation in an non 'blame culture' and assess what the next move should be so that we don't find ourselves in this sort of situation again in the future."

 

I am sure that those who work for the general benefit of angling would welcom any and all valid positive suggestions as to the best way to move this whole thing forward.

 

These ideas might involve stratagies for ways in which coarse angling bodies can afford the relevant paid officials to run the NAA for example.

 

I know that there are some considerable intellects amongst you lot. Can we now begin to put those minds to work in looking for short mid and long term solutions to ways to project the needs of all coarse anglers into the relevant arenas in such a manner as they are liable to be listened too.

 

I for one feel that this thread in it's previous incarnation as a vehicle for letting off some steam over a valid concern is coming to the end of it's useful life.

 

Time for a change to the positive! and how can we all work to improve the present situation.....

[TheDacer]

Who said that those who are opposed to hunting with hounds don't have a clue what they're talking about?

 

Whilst those who do hunt are best able to judge whether or not their pursuit needs regulating/banning?

 

What nonesense!

 

Let's stick to facts not fantasy!

 

[ 07 April 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: TheDacer ]

['eelfisher']

Dear Leon and Alan (Roe)

 

Thanks for those answers......however, the point was missed...possibly for the right reasons....and now I shall call a halt to the questions.

 

Questions need answers or else they are usless as tools.

 

Leon, you danced around answering them quite brilliantly......and I enjoyed that.

 

I shall read the minutes , as I am entitled, and read how the debate went and who said what.

 

I was possibly being unfair in asking one question at least on this forum.....well shielded.

 

Catch you both in May...

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

[mpbdsnu]

I shall also stop asking questions on this thread. As Steve has already stated, no actual answers have been forthcoming! What a waste of time.

 

I have learnt one thing, that a number of you would make good polititions!