Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter Waller

A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.

Recommended Posts

One Press Release.....

.....Peter infers from it that CA/NAA have joined

forces,whilst Leon avers strongly that they have

not....

Talk about Divide and Conquer...

If the NAA are to be the mouthpiece for our sport

then why do the CA need a Director of Angling?

Be Lucky!...miasma..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies Lee, I'm being too obscure.

 

My post was very shorthand for:-

 

There is an argument that it is better to change things from the inside. In this thread you've mentioned that arguement in the context of the CA/NAA agreement.

 

As, presumably, anyone who uses this argument should - to be consistent - also apply it elsewhere to any similar situation, I just wondered whether you personally would do so. (For example, as in the case of further EU integration)

 

The reason I ask is because I would say, with regards to the EU, that we should change things from the inside. Therefore, to be consistent, I should agree that - as regards the CA/NAA agreement, which I'm more or less against - it would be better, as you say, to change things from the inside.

 

Yup! My previous post was very shorthand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Geoff, and all,

 

Quote from Geoff;

 

"There is an argument that it is better to change things from the inside. In this thread you've mentioned that arguement in the context of the CA/NAA agreement".

 

Answer;

 

Yes Geoff, by being inside, or in this case, a member of something that took part in the drafting of this "Memorandum of Understanding" between the NAA and the CA, namely the SAA, I might have had a chance to influence the decision to go ahead with this agreement. But as I have only just rejoined the SAA, I wasn't even aware of it all happening until after the event. Some have already asked for a copy of this agreement to be posted on this site. Bruno came in and gave two statements. Presumably on behalf of the NAA.

 

There "may" be a major difference between the press release contained in the "press release" section in this site and the "whole" document of the "Memorandum of Understanding" between the NAA and the CA. And if so, I would like to see the FULL document posted within this media so that everyone concerned can read it in its entirety given the obvious concerns and deapth of feeling over this. Surely, if this "Memorandum of Understanding" is harmless enough, its authors would have no problem revealing it.

 

Quote from Geoff;

 

 

"As, presumably, anyone who uses this argument should - to be consistent - also apply it elsewhere to any similar situation, I just wondered whether you personally would do so. (For example, as in the case of further EU integration)"

 

Answer;

 

I feel that if arguments retain the same consistency on every occasion within all issues being argued over, it wouldn't be long before there were no arguments to be made. I'm not sure whether I'd lke that.

Anyway Geoff, from your question can I take it that you feel that if there is something we either dont like, or dont agree with, that is being done by organisations within angling, we should rush out and join them so we can change what it is that they are doing from the inside which we dont like. (phew, that was a gobfull)

 

Well Geoff, I am not naive enough to think that I can change this understanding between the NAA and the CA by merely attending SAA meetings. Especially when on this issue, existing members of SAA knew nothing or very little of it at the time. This is obvious given that some have stated they have not read the full document to date AND have asked for it to be posted on this site.

 

I actually DO want to be involved in the SAA because it WILL have some bearing on certain area's the RSSG will be working in. I also WANT to support some valuable work that the SAA have done and are doing. I also WANT to try and change certain SAA aspects that I DONT like. I have no chance of doing any of the above by being outside of the SAA. But inside, I can definitely try.

 

Quote from Geoff;

 

"The reason I ask is because I would say, with regards to the EU, that we should change things from the inside. Therefore, to be consistent, I should agree that - as regards the CA/NAA agreement, which I'm more or less against - it would be better, as you say, to change things from the inside".

 

Answer;

 

I cant comment on the domestic political issue of the EU because the more I read on this, the more puzzled I become. The whole thing seems like a forest of opinions coming from politicians that I dont trust anyway.

 

As for the "Memorandum of Understanding" between the NAA and the CA? Like yourself Geoff I dont agree with it. This is not because I dont agree with hunting because I have already stated that I am neutral on hunting. I am against it because I feel firstly that the majority of anglers are against it, and secondly because I am against anything that would portray angling in a bad light with regards to how angling is percieved by the general public.

 

Yup! My previous post was very shorthand...

 

My reply wasn't though Geoff so should make up for it.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trent.barbeler:

Some have already asked for a copy of this agreement to be posted on this site. Bruno came in and gave two statements. Presumably on behalf of the NAA.

 

There "may" be a major difference between the press release contained in the "press release" section in this site and the "whole" document of the "Memorandum of Understanding" between the NAA and the CA. And if so, I would like to see the FULL document posted within this media so that everyone concerned can read it in its entirety given the obvious concerns and deapth of feeling over this. Surely, if this "Memorandum of Understanding" is harmless enough, its authors would have no problem revealing it.

Nope, I was posting as myself, although I had a hand in drafting the MOU (and sit on the NAA for the ATA).

 

I can only repeat: I have posted the FULL MOU wording, and the text in it are repeated almost verbatim in the press release. That's it. The lot. In toto.

 

Sorry it is so drama-less.


Bruno

www.bruno-broughton.co.uk

'He who laughs, lasts'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many postings have we had on this subject? And we are still not one jot nearer an open and all embracing answer.

 

We only know what we knew some weeks ago, that Mr Bird, angling, is now on the CA committee & that the Chief exec of the CA now sits in on NAA meetings.

 

I wonder exactly why Mr Bird has accepted this appointment. Perhaps, from the CA's point of view, its a bit like having an all-night rave in the garden, you invite the neighbours so they can't complain.

 

Did Coarse Anglings representaive's have any say in this matter? Who suggested that Mr Bird be elected to the CA Committee? Don't tell me, let me guess, the CA by any chance?

 

We also know that the CA's angling representative is Charles Jardine, a man who appears to be well in with the ACA.

 

As has already been asked, why do the CA need an Angling representative if they are going to leave angling matters to the NAA?

 

We are also able to reasonably deduce that our political representatives have actually to see the 'understanding' ( an agreement but not a link) that Angling now has with the CA.

 

It is also a reasonable deduction that the majority of anglers don't have a clue what is going on in their name but whatever it is, they are not exactly in favour of it.

 

Then we have a minority who are very clearly in favour of it, but even they admit that they have yet to see a copy of what they are clearly in support of.

 

I shall have to get my dictionary out & check the definition of 'farce'.

 

Why is the CA so keen to bring us onboard?

 

Bruno, please accept that many of us are not satisfied with the brevity of what we have actually been told. The published details leave far to many unanswered questions.

 

Perhaps I/we are being overly suspicious but, I for one, feel strongly that angling is being used, and abused, and that angling will eventually have good cause to regret this 'understanding'. The whole thing is, regretfully, a tad grey, if not exactly transparent.

 

[ 02 April 2002, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Waller:

[QB]How many postings have we had on this subject? And we are still not one jot nearer an open and all embracing answer./QB]

Thanks a bunch, Peter. I wish I hadn't bothered wasting my time responding openly and honestly. Lesson taken.


Bruno

www.bruno-broughton.co.uk

'He who laughs, lasts'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bruno Broughton:

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Waller:

[QB]How many postings have we had on this subject? And we are still not one jot nearer an open and all embracing answer./QB]

Thanks a bunch, Peter. I wish I hadn't bothered wasting my time responding openly and honestly. Lesson taken.

Sorry that you have taken offence Bruno. None was intended. Unfortunately there was cross over in writing and editing that meant I had initially started writing my last 'bit' whilst your last answer had surfaced in the meantime. You will see that I have edited my posting, which I had done prior to your bit above. Hope that all makes sense. Sorry you felt miffed.

 

I think that why I, and probably others, felt that your first answer was insufficient was the simple brevity of it. You say there is no hidden agenda. I'm sure that we all accept that, from the NAA point of view. But what of the CA? Basically I have a nagging doubt as to their agenda, as I'm sure do others.

 

Since you have surfaced on this one I'll ask you a direct question. What is your opinion on the popular feeling that 'angling' will be damaged by the CA & NAA being seen as bed fellows?

 

[ 02 April 2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MY My MY Peter! you do seem to have something of a penchant for having a goodly stir of the pot!

 

Assuming that you are an individual member of the SAA and if not why not? You along with other are codially invited to any of the SAA's meetings and can put your views and have your questions answered.

 

I have no doubt that someone with your obvious abilities will be offered the option of getting positivly involved with helping improve the lot of your fellow anglers!!

I would imagine that you would relish such a challenge....

 

Quite frankly like many other anglers I have my doubts on the value of the accord between the CA and the NAA but in the real world it was probably the only way in which the angling body politic could get any form of restraint on some of the pillocks in the CA who'se anti angling statements were rapidly becoming an embarrasment.

 

The CA do claim to have something in the order of 25,ooo individual members who are anglers so that's who Charles Jardine is able to claim that he speaks for.

 

If they have even 10% of that claimed figure then that is a larger membership than many anging groups, the fact is that the bulk of the CA's angling membership are predominantly game angling oriented and many will have have a very different philosophy towards their angling that many coarse anglers.

 

I have recently had to have strong words with a leading paid official of the CA as he opined in the press that Coarse angling is crueller than fox hunting because we put them back.

 

This chap is a game angler himself and eats what he catches hence his view.

 

I pointed out that there is a very different phillosophy in coarse angling circles in relation to fish care and husbandry but to be fair that view is only held by those anglers that have the thoughfullness to put it into action and that minority are predominantly specialist anglers as fish care is now an important part of the specialists ethos.

 

Many average anglers fish care remains too close to the Billinsgate model but these are the anglers who don't buy any angling media or indeed are unlikely to access sites such as this one.

 

How does the angling body politic reach those anglers Peter???

 

Bearing in mind that most of those anglers don't give a damn in the first place.

 

Peter perhaps you are the very man to reach out to these people......The evangalist of the angling body politic.....Are you up to it???

If not please support those poor sods that do try and do their best to promote angling and the best practise......Rather than just critisise...

 

[ 03 April 2002, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Alan Roe ]


"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical

minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which

holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd

by the clean end"

Cheers

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Allan, good to see you back on the forum.

 

Yes, I am 'stirring the pot' as you say. But not with any great joy. I'm doing it because I believe that, with a passion, the NAA has got it wrong, totally misjudged the mood of the angler on the bank. But even then my critiscism isn't so much of the NAA but of the CA, I don't trust their motives.

 

When people also tell me there is no link between the bodies, just an understanding, then, knowing that Mr Bird is on the Board of the CA, I start to wonder, are we unwittingly becoming puppets of the CA? Why has the CA invited Mr Bird onboard?

 

I am politically involved with ACANS, a body that is already doing positive work to promote good practice on the Broads. I should dearly like to become a Guardian Angel for angling, should the job become salaried and available.

 

No, I don't belong directly to the SAA. I do belong to bodies that subscribe though. I am very keen to see how the RSSG matures. I have very great hopes for that body and have happily subscribed to be a member.

 

In principal I am in favour of the political structure within angling, but they can never be above critiscism or question when a person that they claim to represent has doubts as to the rightness of their actions. I hasten to add that they should not be above praise either!

 

The CA has done nothing positive for coarse angling, except cause a devide & muddy the water. There have been numerous examples of CA members accusing us of cruelty, telling jo public that fox hunting is less cruel than angling! My feeling is that we are being used. Perhaps it is time for the NAA to publically distance itself from the CA.

 

[ 03 April 2002, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note the Mr Bird on the CA board is not me.

Its Tony Bird, NAA chairman and S&TA member.

DCB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...