Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter Waller

A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.

Recommended Posts

Peter, through your membership of ACANS your route to the NAA is via NAFAC, not the SAA.

 

Alan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Alan. Something that our hon sec came up with. As I understood his comments, the SAA stood further up the ladder. I'm sure you are right, the political jungle of angling, it needs sorting.

I wonder what NAFAC had to say re the CA?

 

[ 04 April 2002, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, for anyone who had any doubts, surely the fact that the Tories and the CA are hand-in-hand is sufficient reason to steer as clear of the CA as possible?!!

 

Likewise, the fact that the majority of hunt-with-hounds are tories just gives me another reason to want to see it got rid of.

 

Sadly, it will be with us - like the Tories - for many years to come.

 

(Just goes to prove how utterly slim are the chances of angling ever being banned too!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee, I quote

 

"Mike, how many of the general 'angling' public were notified that the NAA were even considering signing this MOU with the CA? I dare say the answer will be none!" Correct Malc and neither were individual members of any of the constituent bodies as far as I am aware".

 

”So what you are in fact saying then Mike is that those bothering to turn up for SAA meetings on Sundays were not informed of this highly important decision either at the start, or in the ongoing stages of drafting this "memorandum of understanding"? If this is the case, which by your very own admission seems to be the case, why do you and many others bang on about people joining something and "come to meetings". There seems little point in attending committee meetings if no one ever gets told anything.”

 

Lee, you should read what is said and not try to insert meaning, or words that were not used. The NAA/CA situation was discussed, with no little heat, at the SAA meeting in February. The consensus from those present, mostly reps from SSGs, was that we should proceed with care but get CA under some control. The problems and dangers were well understood, not only within SAA, but within all the bodies present at the NAA meeting which finally signed the MoU.

 

My Quote “Sorry Malc, Parliament takes decisions for all of us all the time and we only elect them every five years. Those who sit around the NAA table are elected, for the most part annually, by their memberships to take decisions, not to keep coming back to those same members for the OK to take a decision. If all those at the table are elected by their memberships how can any decision they take be undemocratic?”

 

Your view of my comments, regarding representation. is much too simplistic. I did not compare angling organisation with government. I used our form of government as an illustration. Officers in corporate bodies, elected for set periods, shorter, for the most part than Parliament, are appointed to carry out the policies of the body which elects them, the detail is normally left to the officers to solve. If you want to attend meetings every week to reach, even the most minor of decisions, go ahead, but you will achieve little and spend an awful lot of time and money doing it. Money, and time, which angling does not have!

 

The SAA committee decides policy, the officers put it into operation, that is how most bodies in government and commerce operate, otherwise the world would grind to a halt.

 

Your quote "Consensus" agreements is definitely one thing I DONT like. Why? Because true, utter and unequivocal consensus can only be achieved by taking a VOTE on important issues.”

 

Consensus, in my definition means “agreement in opinion”. Votes do not make consensus, they divide opinion. One side wins and one loses. That is not consensus. That creates divisions, which is precisely why SACG was able to achieve so much for and between the single species groups within angling over such a relatively short time. By seeking consensus we avoided confrontations between groups over contentious issues.

 

Your quote again, “consensus agreements mean that they are NOT official and officers can run around doing what they please only being answerable after the event.”

 

Utter rubbish. If the decision is reached at a committee meeting properly called and with a quorum present then whether the decision is by vote or by consensus, as long as it is constitutional, that decision is legal and stands.

 

Your quote again, “Clearly Mike, by your own admission, the SAA membership was not consulted or given the chance to vote on this "memorandum of understanding" at meetings and it absolutely should have been in my opinion.”

 

Lee, as I said above, you read too much into my words. Individual members were not consulted. I made no mention of the SAA committee not being consulted.

 

Based on your false premise the rest of your comments are factually inaccurate and plainly wrong. I think you owe all of us an apology.

 

I am looking forward to this whirlwind. It seems to be composed mostly of hot air.

 

Peter

 

“Before you ask, no I am not a member of the SAA, the quantity of the subs is not encouraging!”

 

I know you are not in membership of SAA Peter, and I respect your decision. You are involved with ACANS and through NAFAC will have the opportunity to have your voice heard. What worries me in your quote above is the part I have highlighted. It all comes down to money. Angling has no money to defend itself or develop the sport because most anglers want it for nothing, or at least as little as possible. You only have to hear the moans every year when the licence fee goes up or attend a club AGM when increases in subs are discussed.

 

£20.00 a year to SAA for two newsletters, two magazines, four main committee meetings, with 98 people and groups on the minutes and agenda distribution, four administrative meetings, with a different distribution list, attendance at NAA meetings every month or six weeks, meetings with Ministers and Opposition MPs, letters to Ministers, MPs, MEPs, European Commissioners, more than fifty NGOs, and other interested parties, meetings every quarter with the EA, attendance at conferences up and down the country, written responses to Government White and Green Papers, including all the primary research, written responses to European Green Papers, including all the reading and research needed, attendance at RFERAC meetings, liaison with other angling and non angling groups across Europe as well as within Britain, personal communication with individual members and responses via this bulletin board – and “the quantity of the subs is not encouraging”?

 

I will let others decide if they get value for money and whether angling and anglers benefit. SAA may not be as good at making the same noise as other groups but we have achieved a lot over the years as both NASA and SACG. Noise is easy to generate, working relationships with other bodies, gaining respect from them and encouraging them to see life through an anglers eyes takes time and money. That work generates little noise, often none at all, but it remains vital for the future of fishing. At the moment too much of the money needed comes from too few anglers and it costs us all dear, as I am sure Lee will vouch.

 

“But that doesn't alter the situation, the SAA is talking on OUR behalf because we are all anglers”

 

I have said repeatedly on these boards and in other places SAA speaks for its’ members. It does not speak on your behalf or anyone else’s if they are not members. SAA does not claim to represent you and others who are not in membership. You may think it does but that does not make it so!

 

Regarding the structure of NAA. NFA, NFSA, S&TA, SAA, NAFAC and ATA all sit as equals. NAA is the top of the angling pyramid, regarding matters political, but the constituent bodies are equal at the NAA table, just as is the case within SAA for the single species groups. Big groups have the same say as the smallest groups and the same voting rights. That way consensus can be achieved with no individual or group feeling they have been ignored, overlooked or sat upon. Indeed at NAA, as in SAA, it is the smaller, faster moving groups which often drive the agenda and achieve real change.

 

Sorry this post is so long, but you both set interesting arguments and I have tried to do them justice in my responses. I hope nothing in this reply offends, it is not meant to. I think we all know each other too well to be upset by open debate.

 

Regards,

 

Mike.

 

[ 05 April 2002, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: waterman1013 ]


Join the SAA today for only £10.00 and help defend angling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dacer, I don't vote for the tories, but that certainly is not my reason for being anti CA.

 

We have a situation, I believe, where us ordinary blokes on the bank are being used as a pawn, and not just by the CA.

 

Before I go on any further, let me make an important point. I am absolutely not conducting a 'class' war, nor a political one. It is strictly an 'angling' matter.

 

For whatever reason Mr Bird, of the NAA, has joined the board of the CA. A fact of history. He is a 'trout & salmon' man. Where do we stand?

 

Trout anglers, like pheasant shooters, breed to kill. In the past coarse anglers caught what was there, now we also breed prey for us to catch, but we don't kill. That, I think, sets us above the 'fluff flingers', but I have heard it used so many time as a critiscism by the 'game fishing' fraternity. So, where does it leave us?

 

For many years I have considered that the division between game & coarse anglers was fast disappearing. Now, I'm not so sure.

 

Killing all that is caught is, as I understand it, a legal requirement in Germany, a fellow member of the E.U.

 

If this became law in the UK, from the point of view of people who already kill their catch, there would be no problem. We, as coarse anglers, would be the sacrificial lamb.

 

I don't resent people having money, afterall, I'm not exactly a pauper. But lets go back to Lee's point about people spending thousands of pounds for a day's sport. We have a situation where monied sport fishermen are linking with the people who own & control the hunting ground that these folk wish to use.

 

I have no grouse with that situation, provided I can be confident that 'coarse angling' can retain its independence & identity, that we are not being used.

 

It worries me that all the coarse angling bodies that constitute the NAA have pandered and cowtowed to a sector of society, and our sport, that appears intent in ruling the roost for its own ends.

 

We should be equal, anglers helping fellow anglers & fellow sportsmen, a halcyon dream I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

Mike, given that the "memorandum of understanding" IS, to many anglers, an important issue, tell me please;

 

Was this issue EVER placed on the SAA's meeting agenda's or, was it ever recorded in the SAA meetings minutes? Because "legally", your word not mine Mike, if it was talked about and discussed within any SAA meeting, especially as it IS an important issue, it should of at least been minuted surely. That way, SAA members not in attendance get to read exactly what is said at meetings. Isn't that the purpose of recording minutes?

 

Also, I have not "read" anything into your words. I have merely taken them as you wrote them and comented on what you actually said. Its no fault of anyone Mike if you come back later to say you didn't mean what you wrote or that others misread your words. I certainly feel that your words were plain enough for anyone to understand.

 

Now as for my "hot air"? We shall soon see how high the balloon flies.

 

Tell me Mike. How many SAA members do you think you will loose after the SAA AGM? I would like an opinion on this one Mike so I can quote your thoughts later on. Then we might see where the hot air is.

 

As for making any apology Mike? You are a bit quick off the mark asking for that. As you know Mike from personal experience, my shoulders are quite broad enough to apologise or admit if I am wrong. Are yours? But there again, my skin is thick enough not to ask for one anyway.

 

Now you should KNOW that you have dropped a massive clanger over all this Mike. And if you dont, like I said, the whirlwind IS coming.

 

This is a fact that the SAA are very soon going to have to face. Simply put, so as to make perfectly clear, you are going to be judged by your actions and not merely by words written to appease or convince.

 

Your explaination of "concensus" against the time honoured voting system within meetings is quite dismal. Why do you think that since the time meetings began, they have ALWAYS contained the voting system?

Oh, and by the way, so it is also crystal clear, I meant a voting system AT meetings. Not consulting the whole SAA membership who are not.

 

And if you think that you lot can keep me, Peter or anyone else from airing our concerns over this issue then think again.

 

I also remember clearly, at a SACG meeting not so many months before the SAA formation meeting that it was considered that under no circumstances, would the SACG have anything to do with the CA. I also seem to recal that NASA felt the same way to. And the reasons for that opinion felt then, are the same reasons now being given for having this "memorandum of understanding" between the NAA and CA. Now seeing as the very same guys are heading up SAA as were in SACG and NASA, where has the previous opinion gone?

 

So Mike, what has happened in those few short months to change peoples minds? Explain that one please.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It remains my view that the NAA were wrong to sign this MoU - particulary hen this decision was only based upon a general consencus of opinion of those present at the meeting.

 

If a 'vote' was'nt considered necessary on such an important issue then I would like to know why not?

 

If a decision is based on a consencus, then ALL the members opinions should be sought, so why were'nt they?

 

Further to the above, I would like to add that, though I joined the SAA last year shortly after its inauguration, I will NOT be renewing my membership this year!

 

No great loss you will probably say - but then I'm one of those ordinary anglers the SAA and NAA claim to represent!

 

[ 05 April 2002, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: mpbdsnu ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa gents!!!

Lets just have a slightly wider look at this issue rather than simply hammering Mike and the SAA alone...

 

The NAA consists of several bodies and is headed up at the present moment by the S&TA who are much more sympathetic to the CA than most coarse anglers. There are other groups who it appears have strong CA sympathies within the NAA now given this it is possible to see how it was possible to drive forward the CA's agenda within the NAA especialy given the fact that the head of the NAA Tony Bird and the secretariat of the NAA are all game anglers.

 

So perhaps Malcom and Lee there are other folk devils to persue who would be far more worthy quarry than Mike who at least does his best....


"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

Alan, fair comment. Unfortunately for Mike he just happens to post here! Perhaps it will help if we take personalities out of this for one moment. However, don't forget that the SAA, and its committee, have manouvered themselves into the position that they now hold within the NAA. They may not be there speaking for angling in general, but their actions effect us all, members & non members alike. So, I'm afraid, having put themselves into a position of political power, the SAA has opened itself up to praise, question & to critiscism. I am not a member of the Conservative party, over Dacer's dead body :D , but that doesn't stop me questioning their policies or actions. I'm afraid the same must be said of the SAA, especially as their policies directly effect all of us. In fairness, most of my CA comments are equally valid for all the Coarse Angling bodies within the NAA, especially those who didn't stand up for the obviously popular opinion of saying 'no' to the CA.

 

[ 06 April 2002, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter I have no problem with Praise, Critisism or Questioning.

 

What concerns me more is the veiled threats of " Reaping Whirlwinds" or the taking home of one's ball when we don't like a single decision..

 

All a bit strange when if you go onto some of the game angling sites forums as I do from time to time you see the same decision being heavily praised!

 

Surely the SAA stands for more than one single issue and there are many things within it's work and remit that we can all suport and applaud.

 

There will always be times that decisions are made that we as individuals are not happy with but there is no value whatsoever in dissapearing off in a flurry of pink kickers every time that happens!

 

Whilst I can't tell anyone to stay in the SAA what I would ask you all to do is to take a mature attitude, take a deep breath and get on with the other jobs that need doing in angling.

 

Why should the S&TA head up the NAA?? It does so because coarse anglers tend by and large to be too idle to do the day to day donkey work of running the administration.

 

Needless to say with that work goes the additional influence of knowing where the power buttons are and how to hit them this gives those who do the graft the advantage every time.

 

Hells teeth this is not rocket science left wing and anti groups have been doing this for years in all manner of organisations and are now reaping the rewards with the virtual takeover of the ethos of the RSPCA for example.

 

So the answer is if you want the influence get in and do the admin....


"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

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...