Jump to content

A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.


Peter Waller

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Once again Lee sums it all up perfectly.

 

What am I to do? I do not like the idea of any animal being chased by either superior numbers or superior intelligence and would not lose any sleep over hunting with packs of dogs being banned.

But I shoot and fish and like it or not the CA have a better public awareness than any of the angling setups.

We saw on the TV all the CA people protesting, will we see the same if angling is threatened?

I seriously doubt it for if anyone were to post on AN regarding a protest march there would be a horde of knockers and doubters all wanting to find a reason for not attending.

So I am hedging my bets and have paid up for the RSSG and the CA.

Den

"When through the woods and forest glades I wanderAnd hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees;When I look down from lofty mountain grandeur,And hear the brook, and feel the breeze;and see the waves crash on the shore,Then sings my soul..................

for all you Spodders. https://youtu.be/XYxsY-FbSic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCB:

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

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

DCB

No worry Mr Bird! You are an experienced angling politician, not afraid to call a spade a b****y shovel when the time is right. Your opinion on this matter would be much appreciated.

 

Since writing the above I have read your second post! I think we can assume that you are not a fan of the CA!

 

Re the accusation of Naivety from Waterman. Mike, one of us is, seriously so. Only time will tell which of us it is. I shall apologise if it turns out to be me!

 

Lee certainly shows a greater understanding & appreciation of the situation than any of us, in my opinion. His astute comments are worth taking on board.

 

A great many people will join the CA after fox hunting goes, for one very good reason. That is that they won't support the CA whilst that body openly supports fox hunting.

 

It is interesting to note that Tony Bird is a salmon & trout man, not a coarse angler. I wonder what his intentions are and where we, coarse anglers, actually stand within his aspirations?

 

The arguemet for an aliance with the CA is a strong and well worded one. But it has failed to convince me that I should change my mind.

 

For all that I think that we have provern the worth of AN, that we can have a debate, with totally and strongly opposing views, without the acrimony that is typical of some forums.

 

Re letters of objection to the NAA, whats the address please?

 

[ 03 April 2002, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And once again, French, Italian, American, German, Dutch, Spanish,Arabian, Swiss, Austrian shooting parties drop out of the clouds in their helicopters to pay £3000 plus per day to attend these shoots."

 

People such as this will also pay great amounts of money to shoot tame lions in Africa, that have been released into an enclosed area specially for the occasion. I don't want to be associated with them either.

English as tuppence, changing yet changeless as canal water, nestling in green nowhere, armoured and effete, bold flag-bearer, lotus-fed Miss Havishambling, opsimath and eremite, feudal, still reactionary, Rawlinson End.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once created, organisations take on a life of their own. Long after the original purpose for which they have been formed has been achieved or lost, the organisation evolves and moves on.

 

All those people bought together, working together, socialising together. The newly politicised, with a taste for power and influence.

 

Lee is right, the death of fox-hunting will not mean the end of the CA, they have a much expanded agenda, encompassing all ‘countryside’ issues. (I’ve just remembered, in my youth, in Australia, I was for a time a member of the Country Party!).

 

Where you may be going astray Lee is in thinking that making fox hunting illegal will be the end of the matter.

 

It won’t, and the government knows that. That is why it is so fearful of bringing in legislation.

 

Believe me the issue will be alive for years to come yet. The legislation will be tattered with enemy holes, legal loopholes will be explored, and the legislation challenged.

 

Supporters have already stated that they are prepared to go to jail, rather than to conform.

 

As I understand it, fox-hunting will probably still be allowed in (upland) areas, where it is the most effective and most humane way of controlling foxes. The antis won’t like that, and the campaigns on both sides will continue.

 

Let’s see fox-hunting is banned tomorrow. Fair enough.

 

So what’s to stop me and my mates, dressing up in red coats and going for a ride in the country?

 

We’ll probably take our dogs along for some fresh air at the same time. We are just going out for a ride, not hunting foxes.

 

'Blast, the dogs have gone after a scent – better call them in. Toot! Toot! After them Lads!'

 

'Er, Officer, Hunting? Not us we were just chasing after our dogs who were following the scent of a fox, trying to get them in, Don’t you know?'

 

Let’s say the legislation is so tight, that that device doesn’t work.

 

'M’lud, Mrs Brown, 86 years old, was just out walking her dog, when it went through the hedge after a rabbit.'

 

'Learned Council you know full well that the law is an ass, she was clearly breaking the law! 20 years on bread and water. Next Case!'

 

OK so riding in company, accompanied by dogs is disallowed. So off I go alone, s’funny lots of other guys I know are out today as well - Blast the dog’s got a scent, now all the others are joining in.

 

'Honestly officer, I was riding on my own, wiv me dog when it joined an impromptu chase. I went after it by myself, and so did all these other blokes, but I wasn’t with them, if you get my meaning.'

 

Shall I go on?

 

Legislation to ban fox-hunting maybe. The end of fox-hunting? I very much doubt it.

 

Years of mayhem to come yet I expect (and so does the government, hence the reluctance to proceed with legislation).

 

Fox-hunting will be at the top of the CA agenda for a long, long while.

 

To make my own position clear, if I was to asked if I supported persuading people to give up fox-hunting, I'd answer with a definite ‘Yes’ (and said passionately).

 

If I was asked to agree to legislate against the rights of a section of our population, because a majority supported it, and it makes the government popular, then I’d answer ‘No’ (with an equal amount of passion).

 

(OK I know, I know, it’s not that black and white – but that’s my basic position and I’m not that mush interested that I want to debate the rights and wrongs of fox-hunting ad infinitum. There’s far more important matters to attend to).

 

What’s all this to do with fishing? I’ll let you work that out

 

Tight Lines - leon

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Malc

 

"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.

 

If the "general "angling" public" are not in membership of any of the six NAA constituent bodies then they really do not have a say, and should not expect one, in the development of angling policy. We have had this discussion on these boards so often now. Talking here is fine, but to get your voices heard you need to join one of the bodies concerned. I am sure the question will be raised at the next SAA meeting and members will have their chance then to express opinions and perhaps seek to change the position which now exists. They will also get the chance to hear a more detailed explanation of the reasoning behind the decision. That is owed to them by virue of their membership.

 

"How many of the NAA membership were consulted or even notified? I dare the same answer applied!" Incorrect Malc, all the constituent bodies to NAA were involved in taking the decision and like all NAA decisions we try to reach a consensus on such issues.

 

"The bottom line as I see it is that an undemocratic decision has been made here, which is wrong!"

 

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?

 

Just because you or others disagree with the decision does not make it undemocratic. If the members of NAA were unelected and self appointed - that would be undemocratic and would undoubtedly be wrong.

 

Mike

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Leon,

 

Your quote;

 

"Where you may be going astray Lee is in thinking that making fox hunting illegal will be the end of the matter".

 

I feel that you misunderstand me Leon.

 

My whole point was that IF foxhunting IS banned,

it will be the very BIGINNING of the matter in regards to what the original subject of Peters thread was all about and the genuine concerns SOME of us clearly have.

 

Like yourself Leon, I have always considered that an outright ban on foxhunting, for all the hype and talk within the House of Commons, has been mostly political "spin" for a clever administration to use as another "crowbar" to keep backbenchers towing their line when situations arrive where this carrot needs to come out to be dangled.

 

Added to which, their are MASSIVE legal arguments to go through in order for this particular bill to become outright law. This issue will drag on and on until possibly, the Tories come into power next time around then guess what, where do you think this bill will go then? Nearest dustbin I should think. And if anyone doesn't think that

the CA havn't got extremely powerful alies within a possible future Tory government, then think again.

 

To clarify my situation, I have nothing against the CA as an organisation that works for its members because I have no opinion on foxhunting and I am NOT anti-field sports. Nor am I a member of the CA nor will I be. Like I say, I have nothing against the CA as an organisation representing its membership but its not for me. Simple as that really. What I AM against though, is some of the drivel that their so called representatives have been saying about course fishermen. Of course, these comments, sad as they may be, or indeed for orchestrated reasons, deserved a different reprisal in my opinion.

 

I AM against the "memorandum of understanding" between the NAA and the CA because the given reasons for entering into this understanding is for me at any rate, simply not nearly a good enough reason for doing so.

 

We are all grown ups with the power of speech and I would have thought that a simple declaration from the NAA within the national angling media, the daily press media, stating clearly and unequivocally that the CA DOES NOT speak for course anglers would have been enough to tell those interested that the CA is NOT our angling voice.

 

Lets look at some cold facts shall we?

 

David Bird and many others have for some time right up until only yesterday, banged on the NAA drum about anglers joining one of the governing bodies that make up the NAA. We are told, are we not, that the NAA IS the voice of angling. Fair enough. I could go along with that. Seems a reasonable claim to make.

 

Now we have seen the NAA take on Peta and other anti-angling organisations, much to their credit.

I dont remember the NAA wanting to form a "memorandum of understanding" with these organisations becase they said bad and untrue things about course anglers.

 

In my opinion the NAA should have STOOD UP TO the voices coming out of the CA in the proper and appropriate way. You simply cant claim to be the governing body for angling or state that the NAA is the VOICE of angling to only fall into an understanding with something or someone, that tries to misrepresent what you are supposed to stand for. Surely, the thing to do is to make the position of those you represent perfectly clear by stating, " You dont speak for us. We do.

 

Or am I daft?

 

Because the reasons being given for entering into this "memorandum of understanding" with the CA doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me.

 

And to state that the reason for this "understanding" is to "keep an eye" on what the CA may, or may not be saying about course angling, or any angling for that matter is frankly, barmy.

 

Or, like me, does anyone else out there feel that their intellegence has taken a clout?

 

Because although I might be daft, I know for certain that those high up in the NAA are definitely NOT daft.

 

NOW. Am I getting warmer?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mike,

 

Your 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 infact 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.

 

Now you have come in and compared fishing organisations to domestic political parties and their politicians remit to represent their constituants within Parliament. Now if you think that this is the case with officers representing the SAA you are clearly outside your remit as I can see. Angling organisations are NOT domestic political parties. The SAA has committee meetings. These are NOT government cabinet meetings. They are made up of representatives of single species groups that form the SAA committee along with its elected Officers. These meetings are intended for decisions to me made and directions to be taken are they not? Together with an opportunity for SAA officers to reveal the various area's that they are working in?

 

You say, rightly, that decisions are arrived at, mostly, by concensus within the SAA. I know this to be true because I have witnessed this form of agreement myself within the SACG. I feel that I am right that up to that time, only two votes were ever cast at SACG meetings prior to my resignation.

 

Well, as you know Mike, I have rejoined the SAA. And also as you know, there are certain aspects of the SAA that I admire and certain aspects that I do not.

 

"Concensus" agreements is definitely one thing I DONT like. Why? Because true, utter and unequivical consensus can only be achieved by taking a VOTE on important issues. And it is only by actually voting on a issue, that any action can be agreed upon which becomes the official way forward for the SAA to take which is truely ratified by its elected voting representatives and individual membership attending meetings. Unless this takes place, concensus agreements mean that they are NOT official and officers can run around doing what they please only being answerable after the event.

 

Now I know that some might come in saying, "voting takes so long and slows down meetings". Rhubarb!

 

Voting under the direction of a sharp chairman is actually a lot quicker way of reaching agreement over issues. Each have their say and the chairman moves for a vote by simple show of hands. Majority carries.

 

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.

 

You might feel you have been elected to make major decisions for angling without the need to consult those who have elected you Mike. Personally, I feel you are wrong and you should have taken a vote within SAA over this issue because it is so important if not majorly contentuous to a great number of anglers.

 

I know you are a good man Mike. You work hard for angling and mean well. But I do feel that on this occasion, you and others have sewn dark seeds of discontent for many. And as such, you all have to reap the whirlwind that is possibly coming.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

waterman1013:

If all those at the table are elected by their memberships how can any decision they take be undemocratic?

 

Just because you or others disagree with the decision does not make it undemocratic. If the members of NAA were unelected and self appointed - that would be undemocratic and would undoubtedly be wrong.

 

Mike

Mike, I'll echo Lees comment further on, you are a good man, with all the right intentions.

 

All the people round the table were elected by their memberships. Is that so? I don't doubt your sincerity on this one, I just suggest that it a matter of perspective though.

 

Now, my understanding of the political structure within coarse angling is that we have a pyramid structure, with the NFA & the NAA effectively at the head of that ediface.

 

I belong to the PAC, which I believe is affiliated to the SAA. I am not privvy to committee matters but nevertheless, I have heard nothing from that quarter.

 

What should not be forgotton by any of the represenative clubs on the NAA is that they not only represent their members but, whether they like it or not, anglers in general.

 

Since both matters are of some importance to coarse anglers I would have expected, as part of the democratic process, for opinions to have been sought from constituant bodies. Were they?

 

Self election, well, we have been down this path before, re the old SACG! Fortunately we are now nearer perfection than we were on this matter.

 

The SAA has been formed to be the voice of 'specialist anglers'. Whatever it says effects all anglers, and that should always be considered. Yes, the SAA can justly claim to have a mandate to speak on 'our' behalf, but surely, it also has a responsibility to ask before it jumps on major matters.

 

Before you ask, no I am not a member of the SAA, the quantity of the subs is not encouraging! But that doesn't alter the situation, the SAA is talking on OUR behalf because we are all anglers.

 

I have to agree, what has happened goes against the grain of democracy. Both the SAA & the NFA must be patently aware of the general feeling from us anglers re the CA. Yet, despite that, it appears they have gone against that general opinion. We are now seen as being 'linked'.

 

What are the voting rights of the SAA and NFA at NAA level? Are we, as anglers, able to stand up to the others around the table if we so wish?

 

[ 04 April 2002, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

Link to comment
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...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.