SAA, NFA, NAA and the rivers close season..?....

[Danny H]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leon Roskilly:

[QBThe stillwaters are packed. Away from the car park, very few people fish the rivers.

 

Tight Lines - leon[/QB]

---

Which is the very reason that Cancelling the close season on Rivers is not going to be the major catastrophy that the doom merchants keep predicting!!

 

I for one feel that the close season will go it's just a matter of time.

 

I am awaiting at this moment an answer from the E.A about why the fish on Canals( which are covered with towpaths with no escape for fish) are not considered worthy of a close season, are these fish something different??)

 

Us River anglers face floods in winter, Weeds/canoes/ rowers /pleasure boats in the summer, Of course I want to fish the spring, it is the most beautiful time on the river.

 

So much of the river is private /no fishing, that the fish can spawn there in peace, where the hell can they go on a canal??

 

I would like to know what most peoples reason for keeping the close season is.

If it is some harking back to the golden glow of Mr Crabtree, well Times have changed ( unfortunetly) one change is certainly less river anglers, so rules created for different situations are entitled to be updated, like all laws.

 

If people want to protect the fish, well consider this, Every river angler who can't fish the river, is probably adding to the numbers who are hammering the lakes, is that good for Fish??

 

If certain river sections, are percieved to be taking a bit of a pasting, ( Upper Ouse, Broads or where ever), then they( like spawning areas on lakes) can be closed off by their Clubs.

[Peter Sharpe]

I fully support the retention of the closed season on rivers, and I too would like to know exactly who is lobbying for it to be scrapped, and what are their motives. I suspect the tackle trade and other commercial interests to be behind it, rather than any particular group of anglers. The angling press of course, will use any excuse to whip up a bit of fervour in an attempt to sell more papers.

Just one plea though, can everybody contribute to this thread in a way that those outside the various political groups and societies can understand? Sometimes I feel as if it's a private competition to see who can be the first person to create a post composed entirely of acronyms.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Rob,

 

Just to set the record straight;

 

Yes, I was present at the SACG meeting when the subject of the rivers close season came up. Chris Turnbull spoke first and then myself in the remit I was given to do so from the Barbel Catchers AGM as their SACG rep. I would like to add at this stage, at the Barbel Catchers AGM, I was informed by Fred Crouch that prior to myself going to that particular SACG meeting, the SACG had no opinion on the rivers close season either way.

 

Anyway, on that occasion at the SACG meeting, only the second vote in the SACG's history took place. And that vote was to determine whether the SACG went ahead with efforts to preserve the rivers close season on the Barbel Catchers and others behalf.

 

That vote, was NOT. I repeat, was NOT, unanimous as you and Duncan say. Dave Lumb of the PAC voted AGAINST retaining the rivers close season. The reason he gave was that he wanted to fish the Drain Sytems for pike which of course, is Daves democratic right. On another occasion, I had to put Mike Heylin right on this subject as Dave's vote against retaining the rivers close season never made the SACG minutes.

 

The SAA might well have river anglers within its membership or indeed stillwater anglers passionate about the rivers close season but not many of these seem to have come forward to help establish the SAA rivers group.

 

My remarks were not written to offend Rob. They were merely repeated words that came to myself from Tim Marks, Chris Burt and Mike Heylin on the subject of getting more "commited" river anglers within the SAA. The plain fact is Rob, there is not enough people within SAA taking on roles to push forward all the issues that the SAA would like to become involved in. And because of that undeniable fact, the SAA rivers group has no structure and hardly anyone helping out Duncan who is heading it up.

 

Leon,

 

Your quote;

 

At present, it has no political leverage (other than a strong moral and ethical stance, and the enthusiasm of it's members - me included).

 

Could you please tell me these "strong moral and ethical stances the RSSG appears to have.

 

Your quote;

 

Though the RSSG will be able to make a lot of noise on this issue, primarily defence of the close season on rivers, as before, will need to be through the SAA.

 

Please let me clarify Leon;

 

If, and I really do mean IF, the rivers close season comes under threat once again, it will be up to the RSSG membership to decide what we do about it. Seeing as this subject is so important, there would be a ballot of the RSSG membership to determine what course it took either way. I myself and those close to me are definitely in favour of retaining the rivers close season. But that does not mean that the whole organisation of RSSG would be, although its a safe bet that the majority within RSSG are in favour of keeping the rivers close season.

In EVERY case where any issue comes to the fore that effects the RSSG membership, the committee WILL consult with its full membership before embarking on any course of action.

 

The RSSG is not a specialist angling organisation so I very much doubt that it will be joining the SAA. Although we are in talks with other organisations with a view to establishing and furthering our aims and objectives. In actual fact Leon, the SAA is not the be all and end all.

 

To clarify once again, I have re-joined the SAA to help out where I can. I will attend every SAA meeting. I will also speak out, as others do, against anything I am not happy about because I don't hold the view that by being a SAA member, mean's that I must agree with everything for the cause of UNITY.

 

I suppose that means I get no more Allsorts David. But then again, I've still got my two badges!

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[big al]

question to steve pope,if this was to be pushed by NFA then i presume they would take it to NAA,as the barbel society at present have no way to influence NAA,should they consider joining an organisation that can?.

i also am happy to see the close season remain ,if for no other reason than to spend some time with the wife and children cheers big al

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Al,

 

You may recal when the rivers close season was under threat before. The Barbel Society were not in membership of the SACG, the NFA or anything else for that matter.

 

This "restriction", if that's what it was or is, didn't stop them from doing a hell of a job regarding their contribution towards saving the rivers close season back then.

 

And knowing Mr Pope and those around him, not being "IN" anything won't stop them doing exactly the same next time either.

 

And let's not forget, there are a lot of other groups who are NOT in the SAA either. The Grayling Society for example who are possibly the third biggest single species group with an awesome reputation for being involved in rivers conservation and protection are NOT SAA members. These guys didn't get to where they are by depending on the SAA or anyone else.

 

Its a big wide world out there.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

The point has been made that, as far as the RSSG is concerned, the route for political influence is via the SAA. Nonsense. It is a route, it should be the ideal route, but it is not the only route.

 

Let's look at history. Once we just had the NFA. But others felt a need to start their own club as they felt the NFA didn't meet their needs. So along came what eventually became known as NASA. Perhaps NASA wasn't as politically active as some folk would like, so along came the SACG. Perhaps that was not achieving what people wanted so along came the SAA. Perhaps the SAA isn't achieving what some folk want, so maybe thats why the RSSG has been so enthusiastically received by River Anglers.

 

The SAA is up there, with all the political leverage. But only until, as with the NFA /NASA situation, someone else comes along and says 'hey fellas', we want a share of all this power that you have. You are not talking as we would wish.

 

Whoever is our political master is only that by mandate, not by right.

 

To say the RSSG has no political leverage is nonsense. It may decide that its role is non political. But even then it has leverage, big leverage. It has, as does any other group, the right to challenge for a place within the hierachy, should it so wish. It, like any angling body, has a voice, an opinion, one that can be heard.

 

In an ideal world we will all work alongside each others, but only whilst the paths are parallel.

 

So, where does that leave the question of the close season? My belief is that the NAA, and especially its coarse angling contingeant, totally misjudged the MOU situation. Hopefully the lesson has sunk in. Support will come from on high.

 

There is a very stridant voice out here in the ether. I don't believe the NAA will survive intact with another PR catastrophy.

 

Looked at that way I believe the Close Season will be retained as the good compromise that it is.

 

Hopefully our political masters have realised that they don't just talk on behalf of their members, they talk on behalf of ALL anglers. More so than in any other sport we have a 'quiet majority', a majority that needs to be considered.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

Interesting points made by Peter.

 

It is interesting to note that so many, call for unity when in fact, the same people were responsible for the building of so many different angling organisations. Strange that they once considered a real need for these organisations to represent whoever it was that they thought needed representation to be now, later on, calling for "unity". Its a strange world really isn't it.

 

Peter was quite right of course to question certain peoples thinking or opinions that the RSSG "HAS" to join the SAA or anything else for that matter. Why? And for what reason? For a strong political voice?

 

It states quite clearly in the RSSG aims and objectives, that it will become active in any area's that effect the river systems environment.

 

So given that, does anyone seriously think that the SAA or any other angling organisation hold the outright monopoly on who can speak out or speak too regarding any government agency or government itself? Going by some peoples comments one would assume so. I remember when some of those on the angling political scene were NEVER seen at NASA conferences. So to pressume that only they know how to open doors or remember a few telephone numbers is quite demeaning actually. It is constantly said that we must all get involved in something to protect or preserve our fishing, but when we do, as in the case of RSSG for example, it is further stated that we must join THEM in order to become effectively listened to.

 

RHUBARB!

 

The RSSG is taking its time at getting properly established because we want to get things right. And once we do, we have the guys that are more than capable to represent our membership properly. We actually do know how to ring a door bell and talk the required language once inside.

 

The RSSG is NOT just a political animal in the way that the SAA is. It strongly believes in having a pure fishing and social content for its members to enjoy. Fishing after all, IS the important thing is it not? By becoming active in the rivers environment, we protect and preserve what we cherish so the fishing and surrounding habitats can thrive and continue.

 

And what has all this to do with Steve Popes original thread? Pass the Allsorts David.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest Simone Smith]

Hello, What are the aims and policy of the RSSG and why were you formed please.

[phil hackett]

“Be assured, that if the matter is discussed gain, there will be at least one in SAA, who will fight tooth and nail to keep the current SAA stance.”

 

Duncan that’ll be two of us then!

 

Lee you are attempting to pick a fight where there is one!

 

Lee I also find this bloody comment personally offensive

 

“The SAA might well have river anglers within its membership or indeed stillwater anglers passionate about the rivers close season but not many of these seem to have come forward to help establish the SAA rivers group.”

 

For nearly 10 years I’ve slogged my trips off over Endocrine Disrupters in the RIVER SYSTEMS nationally. Wrote several articles on the subject for various magazines and never once has any of these so called River Groups attempt to contact me about the issue.

 

Frankly, that for these groups is bloody pathetic!

 

Head being firmly placed up rectum over probably the most serious threat facing all the river systems nationally.

 

Clearly they must all be to busy catching the last named big fish before it dies, to be bothered with such issues as sustainable river fish stocks! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[phonebush]

Certainly hope you guys get some fishing in soon, real soon!

Phone