Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter Waller

A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.

Recommended Posts

Dear Alan,

 

Reaping the whirlwind is no veiled threat. It is a reality that is coming to pass. Unfortunately.

 

But, at last, you at least from someone within SAA posting here have got nearer the crux of this matter. And that is, the S&TA I feel are the main players in the NAA. We all know why of course. Money. And lots of it that gives them a powerful voice within NAA. Clearly, game angling does not suffer from the apathy that course angling does. Good news for game anglers in NAA.

 

You say there is a lot of anglers who back this MOU. I should say you might be right.

 

As Peter states, the SAA ARE one of six within NAA so they must be prepared to face searching questions or criticism, especially from their own members when said members are aggrieved. This is democracy is it not? Airing ones views.

 

When I praised Chris Burts valuable work regarding Otters on another thread, I did so because I believe that this area has been greatly represented by the SAA and is much to its credit as an organitation working for what is, mostly made up of course anglers. So plainly, I am not anti-SAA and paid my £20 in support.

 

I always give credit where I personally and genuinely feel it is due and thoroughly deserved.

 

But if you Alan, Mike or anyone else in SAA honestly believe that this MOU is a good thing for the SAA membership or indeed course angling generally, then that is your choice.

 

Time, soon will tell whether all do.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trent.barbeler:

But if you Alan, Mike or anyone else in SAA honestly believe that this MOU is a good thing for the SAA membership or indeed course angling generally, then that is your choice.

Lee,

 

Unfortunately mud thrown has a habit of sticking.

 

I really mustn't let you get away with that.

 

Read back carefully through these posts.

 

No-one from the SAA even comes close to singing the praises of the MOU.

 

Signing it was a decision taken by the NAA, who represent all branches of angling and must carefully weigh all arguments, from all anglers, from all disciplines.

 

Debate within the SAA was heated - see Mike's earlier post :

 

'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.'

 

The SAA came to what can only be described as reluctant acceptance of the decision.

 

As I posted earlier:

 

'IMO opinion, weighing up all the factors, they have done a good job, or at least made the best of what could have been a very bad job indeed.'

 

I’m sorry that not everyone here have been party to the real debate, but I’m as certain as can be that the views you hold were fairly represented, and in proportion to all other views pertaining throughout the angling world.

 

<rant snipped>

 

Gotta go now – so much to do!!

 

Tight Lines - leon


RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alan Roe:

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....

Firstly Alan, thank you for your replies!

 

"hammering Mike and the SAA alone..."

 

I have a great amount of respect for Mike as I know of and understand the work he does. The SAA is the organisation I joined and therefore the organisation I will or have questioned. I am not in a position to question others. But, as mike is prepared to post of this forum, such media provides a wonderful media for the likes of me to put forward my views.

 

If it is the S&TA that presently head the NAA, then why should their views be seen to be representative of angling as a whole?

 

"especialy given the fact that the head of the NAA Tony Bird and the secretariat of the NAA are all game anglers."

 

If this is so, then why did the SAA at the meeting allow the NAA to sign the MoU on their behalf? Or why did those representing the SAA sign along with the S&TA? I feel a grave mistake has been made.

 

The SAA, imo, would have been more truly representative of its members views if it had temporarily withdrawn membership from the NAA as a form of protest against such an alliance. Then it could have publically made it known that it did not agree with the NAA on this issue and that it was the SAA that worked in the best interests of the ordinary Course Angler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mpbdsnu:

The SAA, imo, would have been more truly representative of its members views if it had temporarily withdrawn membership from the NAA as a form of protest against such an alliance

Oh Christ!

 

UNITY

 

Government are besieged by bodies demanding to be listened too, demanding funding for projects, demanding this demanding that!

 

Not only govenment, arms of government, regional authorities, Associations of Town Councils.....whatever.

 

They don't have the time or resources to listen to piddling little organisations and their piddling little demands.

 

Especially when one group representing some anglers wants one thing, another has different views.

 

'Minister, I've scheduled ten meetings with different angling groups for you this week and cancelled the meeting with the Society of Refugees. I've outlined all the different and conflicting interests of the angling groups, but I'm sure more will come out during their dicussions'

 

'What, I'm not sorting that lot out, tell them to s*d off until they can all agree on what they want to say to me, and come back with one voice.

 

With any luck they will spend the next ten years fighting amongst themselves over some piddling little matter and we won't have to bother with them at all - cancel the anglers and rearrage that meeting with the refugees lot please.'

 

UNITY

 

Can you even begin to understand the amount of work put in by dedicated individuals to get this far.

 

The years of hard work, the issues which have had to be thrashed out, the disagreements resolved, the unwelcome compromises that have had to be made on all sides.

 

The toll taken of those poor sods involved, those very few of the 3 million of us who are prepared to make the effort?

 

UNITY

 

Without it anglers are nothing.

 

It's still a hard and a rocky road, but it is a way forward.

 

It brings us out of the swamp where we blunder around fighting each other, ignored by the authorities concerned with more powerful and better organised lobbies.

 

UNITY

 

Look at all of the issues that the NAA is dealing with, look at the lengthy agenda for any SAA meeting.

 

Many, many matters, many important matters, many issues to be resolved by angling.

 

Through the NAA we have a chance.

 

UNITY

 

er, we don't like the MOU, so we are going to drop out of UNITY for a while. You blokes carry on making all the important decisions without us (but if we don't agree we would still expect you to take account of our views while we are out).

 

Then we will we decide when would be a good time to come and join you again.

 

Listen, if SAA were to drop out of the NAA, do you really think they would ever be allowed back in?

 

What of UNITY, if every organisation that fought to be around the UNITY table decided to drop out any time a decision was made with which they didn't agree?

 

UNITY

 

Do you really want to throw away all those years of hard work, by all those dedicated anglers?

 

Do you really want to throw away all the benefits that UNITY brings to angling?

 

Well, if someone else did all the hard work to bring it about, and someone else will need to do all the hard work to try to rebuild what has been destroyed, rebuild the trust and the confidence.

 

Well yes, I can see your point.

 

Only you will have to do that over my dead body.

 

<rant ends>

 

Tight Lines - leon


RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your answer leon. perhaps I was 'clutching at straws' with my suggestion. But that is unfortunately how strongly I feel about the whole situation! So, what can I say?

 

Yes there are only a few working on behalf of millions - but how often does anyone else get a chance to do anything? Probably never!

 

I'm just a thick-headed ordinary bloke - but I have an opinion. Too stupid to do the work that those in office are heavily engaged in - but I have an opinion.

 

My opinion is now known to one or two involved within the hierarchy of the CAA - will it actually be heard? NO! Will anything actually be done about it? NO! Could it be that had they sought members views would the decision made have been any different? Quite possibly! But its now too late!

 

UNITY Leon. Yes we all want unity, unfortunately the present set with the top of the pile being influenced to strongly by the S&TA, we will never have it.

 

In my opinion, if Course Angling had to be sacrificed to meet their own ends (CA), then that is what would happen! Because those in contact with the CA are game anglers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unity, yes, unity. Had the NFA, SAA etc been unified in support of the opinion of those that they claim to represent then we would not be having this discussion right now. Unity, if only.

 

The CA is the one single most deviding factor in Angling for a generation or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mpbdsnu:

Yes there are only a few working on behalf of millions - but how often does anyone else get a chance to do anything? Probably never!


 

The ones who do don't really have the time, and they certainly don't have the time to do everything they feel they should, and some of them get pretty depressed at times about that.

 

They often feel that they are trying to paddle up a waterfall, with blokes at the top throwing rocks down upon them.

 

At some time everyone feels like throwing in the towel, asking 'Why bother'.

 

Some very good people have done just that and we all lose when that happens.

 

It's so very easy to criticise and condemn, and forget all about it tomorrow, leaving the hurt and frustration caused to take its toll.

 

I'm just a thick-headed ordinary bloke - but I have an opinion. Too stupid to do the work that those in office are heavily engaged in - but I have an opinion.

 

You'd be amazed at some of the numbskulls you have all elected, or allowed to be elected into office on your behalf!

 

Jobs need doing, if there's no competition for those jobs, then only those who are prepared to step forward are the ones we get. Like 'em or loathe 'em!

 

(Of course, having let them in we can all feel a lot better by moaning about the decisions they have taken - it doesn't help)

 

I'd describe most of the anglers who do get involved as pretty ordinary blokes, most doing pretty ordinary daytime jobs.

 

Coming along to meetings, having your say, and taking on a bit of the workload doesn't need a degree. If you can argue a case here, you can argue a case there. (or you can just leave it to others, then moan!)

 

UNITY Leon. Yes we all want unity, unfortunately the present set with the top of the pile being influenced to strongly by the S&TA, we will never have it.

 

er, actually we do :)

 

Not every angler agreeing with everything.

 

Not every organisation happy with every consensus reached.

 

That is totally unachievable and anyone who thinks that that is what UNITY is, or can ever be, must be from some other planet.

 

UNITY is the ability to work together, to take decisions together, to take a little, and to give a little, despite our different backgrounds, different views, different aspirations.

 

On all issues, there will never be total agreement.

 

On some issues there will be passionate disagreement.

 

But on most issues we can work together, we do work together and UNITED, we achieve much, much more in so many, many ways.

 

That's the way the world works.

 

You can either all pull on the rope in different directions or move forward together(but you can't have it yourway all of the time).

 

When angling speaks now, it speaks with one powerful voice (never to everyone's liking)

 

And now Angling gets listened to.

 

That's what UNITY is, not some hopeless, idealistic, unachievable, dream of universal consensus on everything.

 

And of course there will always be those whose opinions differ from the opinion which is triumphant, and who feel betrayed because the world doesn't recognise that they are the ones who are right, and who want the whole ediface ripped apart in retalition.

 

Unfortunately, that too is part of the cost of UNITY.

 

(The working UNITY, the real UNITY, the UNITY that we have, the UNITY that is fact, the UNITY from which all we anglers benefit. Not the unachievable unity of dreams)

 

Er, do you think we could start talking about the devastation of the spawning bass stocks now, or perhaps the sex-change pollution of our rivers, or how to get youngsters hooked on angling?

 

I'm getting concerned that our SAA committee aren't getting to spend enough time on the issues that I think are important

 

Tight Lines - leon


RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malcom and Lee I feel that I should point out that I have not at any point suggested that the MoU was in any way a good thing for angling and this despite being predominantly a game angler myself!

 

I belive that the SAA and other coarse angling representitive bodies have had to deal with an issue of realpolitik and that on this occasion we have found ourselves in a 'dammed if we do and dammed if we don't' situation.

 

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.

 

Looking for a scapegoat is no answer clear appraisal is the way forward.


"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 All,

 

Well, I was going to post something again concerning this after talking to some within SAA, and answering their emails. But after reading Leons last posts, I rather feel that the context of that intended post would now be lost because frankly, whats the point. You all seemed determined to defend this MOU no matter what.

 

What exactly Leon do you think will happen to your unity when the CA press for a lot more than this MOU. And if you or others more involved dont think that they are NOT going to, then you are dead right about knumbskulls. I am fully aware that this MOU is as far, as many who were involved in creating it are prepared to go. But this will NOT stop the CA and the S&TA pressing for more. Much more. This should have been realised at the very beginning.

 

And if yet more ground IS given in the "interests of unity" to the CA and the S&TA, where exactly will all this leave the outright majority, our countries COURSE ANGLERS in all this?

 

Do you honestly think that course anglers will want to sit under the all seeing, all powerful lobby of the game angler under the direct auspices of the CA and not be asked or consulted over their future? And there Leon, lies the very crux of this matter and the one single thing that the authors, apart from the CA of course, of this MOU have overlooked.

 

Another reality in all this, is the plain fact that the overiding majority of game anglers are NOT members of the CA either. Why is this?

 

If you Leon, or anyone else continue to defend this MOU in the manner you are or in the interests of what you see as future angling unity, then thats your right to hold such an opinion. But individual course anglers have just as much opinion as anyone else in all this and it matters not one jot that they are not signed up to any of the six organisations within NAA. I particularly find this constant criticism of ordinary anglers not being a part of anything as a reason for them not being considered as part of anglings equations, to be disturbing.

 

Tell me, how the hell are any of us going to encourage anglers to join something, anything, that shapes angling's future, unless we start to convince them that we work together as equal partners as a governing body.

 

And if some partners within the angling governing body are not equal with the rest, then they should get the hell out of it into something that is.

 

Furthermore, if all the hard work spoke of has resulted in some organisations being told what to do in order to sustain a governing body membership, tell me, is that the result everyone looked towards getting at the start?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

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...