Jump to content

countryside alliance a good idea?


Guest euan pink

Recommended Posts

Guest waterman1013

Hi Lee

 

I’ll try and answer your questions as far as I know the answers.

 

“Question; Mike, as full members of the NFA, does this give the SAA full voting powers on the NFA executive committee?”

 

As I understand it SAA has the same standing as any other member club of NFA. I known we were after a seat on the National Executive Committee, but I don’t think we got one. Tim would know, as he deals with NFA Matters, but he is away until towards the end of this month.

 

“Question; Yes Mike, I agree that the NAA has the potential to be the "ONE" body representing "ALL" anglers and their interests but seeing as the majority of anglers DO NOT belong to those groups that make up the NAA how is this single representation going to be achieved? Personally, I would like to see the NAA widen its membership to take on board individual members. Seeing as most of the work done for the SAA is carried out by its "individual" members, has anyone in the NAA thought of opening up the NAA to take on a section for individual members?”

 

Lee, like you, I would like to see NAA accepting individual memberships but that is not possible at the moment because the three Governing Bodies are still that, GBs, and the future of NAA is in their hands. If and when NAA becomes the single Governing Body for the sport then it may at that time accept individual anglers into membership or, like many other sport GBs, insist on participants joining through a club, group or syndicate. I don’t know the answer to that one, but I would favour all anglers needing to be individual members of the Governing Body before they could be accepted into club or group membership or be issued with a rod licence. That way everyone who fished would be supporting the sport. I am presuming that in the meantime we get rod licences for sea anglers in place as well as for coarse and game anglers. No one has yet suggested at NAA that we should take on individual members to my knowledge, although the thought is in some people’s minds.

 

With regard to your comments, I have not attempted to answer them all because, for the most part, you seem to have missed my main point, which was if anglers want a say they need to get involved, as you have done with RSSG.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Peter Waller:

With a director of the N.A.A. being elected onto the executive of the C.A. then how can we honestly say that there is not a coming together of the two bodies?

 

Isn't it pretty standard practice in Business that a senior member of the stronger/senior/more powerful organization be given a seat on the board of the lesser organization so as to have some real voice in the conduct of business by the lesser one?

 

Leaving aside the question of "should there have been any alliance whatever", if there was to be, the NAA membership on the CA board and the lack of a CA member on the NAA board seems a normal business practice and would seem to be an acknowlegement by all parties of who is the stronger of the two.

 

Side note: I don't and never have gone in for hunting either foxes or deer with dogs. Seems not sporting somehow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest trent.barbeler

Dear Mike,

 

Your quote;

"I would appreciate your concerns regarding SAA and NAA if I had posted in my offical capacity. I have not once posted on this thread as representing SAA. I have in each instance posted under my name Mike.

 

As I explained in another thread a few weeks ago I post as Mike Heylin SAA, when I am expressing an SAA view".

 

I think that that explaination may not hold any water for many reading your posts Mike. It is all very well saying or playing the "personal opinion" card after the event, but you are "known" as Mike Heylin the SAA secretary. I for one though am very happy to read your comments on angling related issues coming either as an individual OR in your capacity as the SAA secretary.

 

The problem you now have however Mike, is that your "personal" opinions will obviously be reflected in SAA meetings where you sit as SAA secretary. As such, these opinions still remain the same. And also as such, everyone with an ounce of brain knows that only to well.

 

I find your comments on the SAA involvement in NFA to be also rather strange. Are you telling me, that you actually DONT KNOW the SAA standing in the NFA and we will have to wait for Tim Marks to return from his holiday?! Christ Mike, as SAA secretary are you telling me that you actually DONT KNOW?

 

I have another question also Mike;

 

Exactly how much do the SAA pay to be a member of the NAA? And if the SAA pay nothing to be a member of the NAA, does this not mean that the SAA has no power or voting rights within the NAA? And if that is the case, how do specialist anglers have their voices heard within the NAA? Or, more importantly, how do specialist anglers say NO to this affiliation with the CA. You have said that unless anglers join something, they will have no say. But, if anglers or groups joining the SAA have no voice in the NAA, what is exactly the point?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest waterman1013

Lee

 

Tim went on holiday the day after the NFA meeting, as I understand it, and I have not had an update on that meeting as yet. I don't have a problem with that. SAA is a voluntary organisation, as you know, and sometimes it does not run like clockwork.

 

I cannot tell you the exact amount of NFA subscriptions because that is a question for the treasurer. I imagine we pay the same as NASA did for full membership. But even if I knew I would not publish that information on a public bulletin board. It is a matter between SAA and NFA.

 

Yes SAA pays its piece for NAA and the same comments apply. That is a matter between SAA and NAA and, as far as I am concerned, remains confidential to the membership and admin systems of both organisations.

 

All six members of NAA have voting rights and to carry the organisation forward we always try to reach a consensus, just like we do in SAA, where there are lots of individual views. In NAA if we cannot reach consensus then generally the item is remitted for consideration.

 

Mike Heylin

Secretary SAA

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Waller
Originally posted by Newt:

Isn't it pretty standard practice in Business that a senior member of the stronger/senior/more powerful organization be given a seat on the board of the lesser organization so as to have some real voice in the conduct of business by the lesser one?

 

Leaving aside the question of "should there have been any alliance whatever", if there was to be, the NAA membership on the CA board and the lack of a CA member on the NAA board seems a normal business practice and would seem to be an acknowlegement by all parties of who is the stronger of the two.

 

Side note: I don't and never have gone in for hunting either foxes or deer with dogs. Seems not sporting somehow.

 

Newt, an impartial opinion is always appreciated, I thank you for that.

 

Unfortunately the CA started off life as a commercial organisation, with US ties; as many of us saw it, an organistation trying to make a fast buck. Things have changed, probably for the better. However, the public perception of the CA, rightly or wrongly, is one that it is trying to drag anglers into their ranks for one purpose, & one purpose only. Namely to create a large body to defend the right to hunt foxes with dogs.

 

Okay, okay, so the CA is trying to bury that truth by claiming it is actually there to look after all matters concerning the UK countryside.

 

Many of us don't believe the CA really has our interests at heart. We believe it wants us for our sheer quantity, no other reason.

 

We have an issue regarding the use of coarse fish as bait in our lake district. The CA is remarkably quiet on this issue!!

 

If anglers join with the CA then we become tarred with the same brush, as supporting fox hunting.

 

The resistance to the CA by grass roots anglers is well known yet those who claim to represent our interests appear to be on a lemming like course, ignoring public opinion, especially the angling public.

 

Would a wise businessman ally his business to one whose image he considered damaging, or alien, to his own?

 

Very clearly the majority of UK anglers want no part of the CA, so why, oh why do our ruling bodies insist on cowtowing to 'em?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Waller
Originally posted by Newt:

Isn't it pretty standard practice in Business that a senior member of the stronger/senior/more powerful organization be given a seat on the board of the lesser organization so as to have some real voice in the conduct of business by the lesser one?

 

Leaving aside the question of "should there have been any alliance whatever", if there was to be, the NAA membership on the CA board and the lack of a CA member on the NAA board seems a normal business practice and would seem to be an acknowlegement by all parties of who is the stronger of the two.

 

Side note: I don't and never have gone in for hunting either foxes or deer with dogs. Seems not sporting somehow.

 

Newt, an impartial opinion is always appreciated, I thank you for that.

 

Unfortunately the CA started off life as a commercial organisation, with US business ties; as many of us saw it, an organistation trying to make a fast buck out of our lack of organisation. Things have changed, probably for the better.

 

However, the public perception of the CA, rightly or wrongly, is one that it is trying to drag anglers into their ranks for one purpose, & one purpose only. Namely to create a large body to defend the right to hunt foxes with dogs.

 

Okay, okay, so the CA is trying to bury that truth by claiming it is actually there to look after all matters concerning the UK countryside. Perhaps it is but the factor that brought the CA into being is the fox hunting issue.

 

Many of us don't believe the CA really has our interests at heart. We believe it wants us for our sheer quantity, no other reason.

 

We have an issue regarding the use of coarse fish as bait in our lake district. The CA is remarkably quiet on this issue!!

 

If anglers join with the CA then we become tarred with the same brush, as supporting fox hunting.

 

The resistance to the CA by grass roots anglers is well known yet those who claim to represent our interests appear to be on a lemming like course, ignoring public opinion, especially the angling public.

 

Would a wise businessman ally his business to one whose image he considered damaging, or alien, to his own?

 

Very clearly the majority of UK anglers want no part of the CA, so why, oh why do our ruling bodies insist on cowtowing to 'em?

 

 

Newt, I am an angler, a hunter, I support, in principal my fellow hunters. But some forms of animal hunting belong in the past. Bear baiting, cock fighting, gorge baiting and now fox hunting with dogs.

 

I am totally opposed to the kill with dogs. I do not want me to be a number on the CA's power base. I do not want to see the CA going to our government, saying it has the mandate of a million hunting anglers, therefore leave fox hunting alone. Without our number fox hunting will probably be outlawed. Then there is the risk that, even with us, fox hunting is banned, then we could be dragged down with them. That final point is my greatest fear.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 16 February 2002).]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 'eelfisher'

Dear Mike

 

One point of actual fact....NASA was never a FULL member of the NFA.

 

Most of the meetings I attended, the general concensus was that they should not re-new the part subscriptions of the NFA for the SACG but, in fairness, Tim and Chris always stood the ground that they (SACG) should at least have access to the NFA so that Tim could attend those conferences. NASA always stumped up the dosh to ensure that Tim, as SACG Rep, could attend them.

 

I know what has gone on in the past...and others know this very well. I do not mention things to create mischief but as a matter of keeping the record correct if possible. If my recollections of issues are not quite correct, then I am sure others will put me straight.

 

If I was to ask the questions that Lee asks re subs and stuff.....as a member of the SAA would I get the answers...if I did and I posted them on here would I get kicked....better for the SAA to post and as you are the SAA Secretary, who better to do such a thing.

 

I have been critical of NASA, SAA and myself at certain times.....I only ever tell the truth though. I have also been very supportive of both the SAA and the old NASA and SACG as well.

 

I am quoted in a letter, recieved this morning, by a Honourary Life Member of the SAA that I am seen to be scared to attend SAA meetings now over a quote that I said in a letter to that person some time ago. He says that I arrange National Anguilla Club meetings on the same day that the SAA hold theirs, so that I do not have to attend and face others. He asks if this is a coincidence and says that he does not think it is and that neither does the SAA and states that the SAA committee are not impressed with the NAC at present.

 

I as General Secretary for the NAC have never received any phone call, letter, e-mail from any member of the SAA, including Mike Heylin as Secretary of SAA, about such thoughts.

 

They know that I am not frightened to attend any meetings with them, and if they think I am then they had best revisit that thought pattern..... and I can state here and now that when I critisiced the NASA committee I was also including myself in that statement, being as I was sitting on that committee. However, that person is known to mis-quote from personal mail and so probably he has things arse about face again with this.

 

I am going to be speaking directly with Mike after this post about this stance the SAA are supposed to have with the NAC. Maybe the NAC will have to reconsider its position within SAA after this matter has been discussed and sorted out....everyone has a choice......thats the beauty of politics.

 

I shall only post on this subject again IF I feel that I have been placed in that position to do so.

 

David.....thanks for the quick address....how do we achieve it please considering the above two pages.

 

Yours With Respect....

Steve.

 

[ 16 February 2002, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: 'eelfisher' ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mike...and everyone,

 

I made a mistake in my post above...this was pointed out to me by Mike whilst we spoke about things.

 

The person involved is not a Vice President of SAA he is infact a Honourary Life Member.(I have edited the above to read correctly due to it looking like it is aimed at someone else..My apologies.)

 

It seems that this person has distorted words in several areas and I wish to point out that Mike and myself have cleared up this potential problem this afternoon.

 

Thanks for reading this and it just goes to show that we are all capable of making a few mistakes as we go along......I was fired up this morning after receiving the e-mail....next time I shall at least read the correct heading before I come in guns blazing.

 

Thanks for the chat Mike.....many NAC things cleared up.

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

 

[ 16 February 2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: 'eelfisher' ]

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

×
×
  • Create New...