Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter Waller

A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.

Recommended Posts

Dear Alan,

 

I can freely speak for those that I represent within the RSSG and confirm that there are simply to few working for angling. And within those that are, there are undoubtedly some shinning lights amongst them.

 

But even so, when we take on these roles working for others, we have the outright responsibility to those who have elected us, to represent them in a manner that they want representing. And if we fall short of their expectations or aspirations, no matter how hard we work, we must face criticism when it comes.

 

Undoubtedly, there are lessons to be learned here. Whether or not these lessons turn into a learning curve for the future remains to be seen.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Leon,

 

Your quote;

 

"Sorry lee, what was your alternative"?

 

Yes Leon, quite a clever one lined quip.

 

My answer?

 

Exactly the same alternative that IS already being talked about within the SAA. Trouble is Leon, you obviously havn't been informed about this latest alternative. Again!

 

Either email me privately Leon for information or try some more clever one lined quips and I will gladly answer. Right here!

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trent.barbeler:

Dear Leon,

 

Your quote;

 

"Sorry lee, what was your alternative"?

 

Yes Leon, quite a clever one lined quip.

 

My answer?

 

Exactly the same alternative that IS already being talked about within the SAA. Trouble is Leon, you obviously havn't been informed about this latest alternative. Again!

 

Either email me privately Leon for information or try some more clever one lined quips and I will gladly answer. Right here!

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Lee,

 

I wasn't trying to make a clever quip.

 

None of us was too happy with the signing of the MOU, but as it was explained, as I've said a couple of times above, it seemed to be the best

solution to what was becoming a very dangerous situation. OK, maybe not the 'best' but better than anything I could come up with.

 

I am genuinely interested any alternative you might have to offer!!

 

Tight Lines - leon


RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Leon,

 

It is NOT me that is offering an alternative, but certain people in the SAA. I suggest that you ask them.

 

Once and for all, to make it perfectly clear. Course angling is NOT going to accept this MOU and no matter how many times you say that this was the best thing available at the time to get out of a sticky situation that presented itself, it still remains unacceptable to me and many many more.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Leon,

 

Another reality;

 

You say that at the time, you couldn't come up with a better solution other than the one that created the MOU.

 

Well here's one;

 

What you should have suggested was that the whole SAA membership was consulted. It was certainly important enought to have done this.

 

Then; from that consultation, a directive could of been realised either way. At least then, those SAA officers involved in this would have had the full backing of its membership which of course would have saved all of this.

 

Was that such a hard idea to have come up with at the time? Seems like the obvious course to have taken to me. Or this there something else?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me thinks I detect a mood swing in this increasingly tedious, but important discussion. It would appear that the SAA, bless 'em, was actually against the 'agreement' but, nevertheless, voted in favour rather than rock the boat called Unity. An abstention might, in hindsight, have been more acceptable. Atleast the other parties wouldn't have felt that they are getting it all their own way. And, more importantly, it might have been more acceptable to us ordinary mortals. The poor buggers who have to suffer the eventual consequences of a duff decision!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear ALL

 

Last night I went eel fishing....caught nothing but it was fabulous being there all night, even if it was very cold.

 

I then re-read all of this thread this evening....'thread of the year' to Peter Waller I think.

 

I am not going to get into the debate, other than state my opinion on what should have happened. My opinion being just that and not being swayed by any amount of 'we thought this' and 'this would have happened if we didn't' ....everyone posting on here are my friends and I ain't taking sides.......Similar to the NAA set up me thinks!!

 

Where do we go from here?

 

Read on and inform me, if it is possible, what the answers are....without beating me up, OK....and the question is aimed at those who are 'pro' the agreement only.

 

Coming under 'being pro' the agreement is all those who said YES....whatever the reason why.

 

"The NAA is made up of six bodies....all able to have the same clout vote....this time the bodies within the NAA all wanted this 'CA sideling up tactic' to come about, all except the SAA. The SAA 'had to' choose to go along with the call, due to the 'if we leave, we won't get back in again' mentality.

OK, accepted by me...(not really, but for the sake of this question, OK.)

When the next decision that does not work for 'coarse angling' comes up and the rest vote yes and the SAA don't agree again...do they stay in the 'loop' which is the NAA and the percieved angling UNITY...and take coarse angling and coarse anglers further down the rocky road"?

 

Sorry.....Two questions, not one...OK.

Question two....."When do the SAA decide that being a member of this UNITY is not good for coarse anglers"?

 

Before anyone jumps on my words 'coarse anglers',....I use 'coarse anglers' as the stated phrase because the SAA speaks for 'Specialist Anglers'.....who are, IN THE MAIN, ONLY 'coarse anglers' who seek bigger specimens of their selected coarse specie choice. (Please do not throw Bonefish, White Shark and Marlin at me, those anglers within SAA are the minority.)

 

My opinion.....I believe that the decision should have been taken to hold up these talks, an intermission if you like, whilst the SAA balloted its members on this issue. I say this because the SAA is headed up by the same people who were in NASA and SACG and these good hard working people KNEW the feelings held towards ANY alliance with the CA a year or so ago. Yes, perhaps this feeling might have changed in the time since that decision was made.....and then again, maybe it may not have.

 

The bit that is sticking in the craw of most throats is this....."We aren't happy with the alliance with the CA but we need to stay in the 'loop' that is the NAA....so you will have to come along with us" attitude.

 

Whats worrying for me is......will they?

The SAA committee guys obviously think so....but are they right?

 

Who knows?......but after the SAA Annual General Meeting, the elected Membership Secretary definately will.

Let's hope they were right, eh.

 

Crikey me.....you lost one already. One who was prepared to say so on this thread.

 

Never mind 'who' they might 'lose'. The bigger question is 'how many' will 'NOT' be recruited by this action?

 

Whatever occurs.....we all make mistakes....it is when one is seen to have been made, that the people are THEN judged by their actions afterwards.

 

I could have come in way, way sooner but was acting under desired, and aired, feelings within SAA, whereby getting involved in 'open' debates on angling web-sites re;politics is not encouraged.

As an SAA member (not sure if that is quite correct...maybe someone could comment?) I have tried to do just that...but considering that Mike, Lee, Alan and others are also SAA members, I just wanted to post this one contribution. (And it is a nice group to be included in.)

 

Heaven help me if I get too obsessed with all of this.....I am off eel fishing, whilst I still can.....without broken legs and less friends.

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

 

[ 06 April 2002, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: 'eelfisher' ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear ALL who read the above before editing.....

 

The mistake of using the word 'course'....and.....'coarse' couldn't have been made better on any thread.

 

Ones hunting and ones fishing.....which do the public prefer??????....maybe my elected leaders could tell me?

 

Anyway...mistake owned up to and edited....humour, if percieved as such, was extra.

 

Sorry.

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'eelfisher':

"When do the SAA decide that being a member of this UNITY is not good for coarse anglers"?

Steve, I can't speak for the SAA, but IMHO it would be when the benefits of trying to go it alone, the benefits of having no single voice for angling, the benefits of being largely ignored as one of a babble of angling voices outweighs the benefits of working together and of talking with a single voice and being listened to.

 

And when the NAA has nothing to offer, and is not likely ever again to have something to offer, and when there is an issue on which we cannot agree -that would be the time to throw it all away.

 

I think that what many do not appreciate, in this debate on the MOU, is that the NAA and SAA are not single issue organisations, they are actually involved in many, many other issues, and mostly work together effectively to the benefit of all of us, whatever our disciplines.

 

Sadly, as is life, all the positive things they do, don't get talked about much. It's only when something comes up that gets the mud flying, that people become enthusiastic to join in - that creates and reinforces a negative view of the organisations, and angling politics in general.

 

It is the whole package we should be looking at, not just looking at one item in a very full bag and throwing away the whole bag full of goodies.

 

It is so, so, much easier to destroy than to build, for one person tear down in moments what it has taken years of effort by others to build, in trying to reach and tear down a weed, to unknowingly tread down a host of beautiful plants.

 

Yes, there will be compromises that will need to be made in the future, some of those will be difficult to swallow, not only for coarse anglers, but for all that join and work together; but that has always been the way of the world.

 

Angling is no different.

 

What we don't need is people who are inclined to throw the toys out as soon as something comes along which doesn't go their way.

 

What we do need are able negotiators, that have the people skills to sell the case for coarse anglers, to navigate complex issues and reach the best possible solution. People who can build trust and confidence, not only in their own camps, but perhaps more importantly, with the people with whom we need to work with.

 

In the end, it's the only real way forward.

 

Tight Lines - leon


RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the NAA was formed was to give EVERY angler the opportunity to have their say and help shape the future of the sport. As I said earlier those that really care should stop bleating and get involved, join one of the parties that make up the NAA, the NFA, S&TA, NFSA, NAFAC or SAA, that is your way forward. And if you are unhappy with the representative group, then make your veiws known. Follow Lee's example, the group that represents his fishing style, within the NAA is the SAA, so he has re-joined them so that his voice can be heard and representations on behalf of his members made. Now we all know Lee doesn't agree with some of the work done by the SAA, but he realizes that this is the route forward and only by being part of it can he ever have the chance to guide it and make changes if needed.

 

Like wise Pete Waller has a route to the NAA via NAFAC, but until he makes his veiws known to them directly as a member, then nothing will be done. All anglershave a route that they can take, if they really want and care. The largest representative group for the COARSE angler is the NFA and many anglers out there, via their angling clubs are already members, and should use this structure to make their voices heard.

 

Each of the representative parties making up the NAA have equal rights. The S&TA is NOT all powerfull but it does have a business structure, manning and central offices that serve well the needs of the NAA. Contrary to what has been said here the S&TA is not strong financially, most of its income is utilised on its paid employees and offices to represent the needs of its membership. The NFA could have been selected to run the NAA secretariet but it was found that the S&TA was better positioned, structured and connected to serve the needs of ALL the other angling bodies.

 

At some point in the not too distant future it ishoped that the NAA will be able raise enough finance to be able to 'go it alone'. I have suggested and proposed for some years now that a levy should be applied to fishing licences to fund this and something along these lines may still happen.

 

In the meantime, however, until angling can prove itself and make unity work, no one in their right mind will take it seriously enough to fund it.

 

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.

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...