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

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Phil,

 

Where was it that I said that the SAA was a stillwater orientated group? I think you will find I never have. If you read back in my earlier posts, I was emphatic about the work that the old SACG did in regard to keeping the rivers close season. So given that, how would I be seen to pressume that the new SAA would be stillwater orientated seeing as the same people head up the SAA in a similar way that they did in SACG.

 

I repeat, I HAVE asked certain questions concerning the SAA's rivers group in order so that I may be in a position to help out. So far, I have recieved NO answers from either Duncan or anyone else. As you say, I might get an answer to these questions but they ARE a long time coming.

 

Now obviously, given your record on talking and writing about Endocrine Disrupters and your stated interest in rivers, I shall assume that you yourself are active within the SAA rivers group, perhaps holding a position such as environmental co-ordinator or advisor. So perhaps you would like to answer my questions Phil which are;

 

 How many members do the SAA rivers group have.

 What is the structure of the SAA rivers group.

 How many of the SAA rivers group sit on consultatives.

 Does the SAA rivers group reps sit on NAFAC

 What input has the SAA officers given to Duncan Fairley in order to establish the SAA rivers group

 How many SAA rivers group members sit on RFERAC's

 

Please be aware Phil, my questions are concerning the SAA rivers group and not the whole body of SAA. Seeing as the SAA played up considerably the fact that they HAD a rivers group and still DO have a rivers group, these are questions asked concerning the SAA rivers group. They have been asked for the sole reason to establish, for myself, the SAA rivers group progress so far, and to ascertain where I can help out in building it further. Not unreasonable questions surely?

 

Now please be aware Phil, that I have on record written confirmation that the SAA rivers group has had LITTLE input from the SAA membership. These confirmations have come from officers in the SAA and stated, "we need more commited river anglers involved to help out". I would have thought that this was a viable comment seeing as EVERY organisation struggles to get people involved and is not something that only the SAA suffers from. So from that, I have re-joined to do exactly that. HELP OUT. So to be effective in doing this, I have asked certain viable questions in order to be able to do just that. And I did originally ask these questions privately Phil.

 

The SAA are always making a big point of needing people to help out. Well, here I am Phil.

 

This is not a point scoring exercise. The future of our river systems are to importnt for that. What I want to do is help Duncan out, and in order to do that properly, I need to know just how far the SAA rivers group structure has established itself since it was formed.

 

Now going on to the matter of my resignation as head of SAA rivers group which I thought someone like you would raise eventually Phil;

 

I was asked this question by Chris Burt some while ago in a "looped" email. Were you in that "loop" Phil? If you were, you would already know the answer to the question. But seeing as you may not have been, here is the reason I gave Chris Burt back then;

 

Chris Burts question;

 

1) why did you leave SAA when you had the Rivers Group ready formed to run,

and form the same thing as a separate entity? It was yours, we had a measure

of unity which gives strength, so well done for wanting to rejoin now but I

cannot understand the initial split...!!! It divides loyalties, duplicates

effort etc

 

My answer to Chris;

 

As you will probably remember Chris, I was very keen on heading the SAA rivers group and probably like Duncan now, I had many plans on forming a effective structure to form the rivers group which would go a long way to protecting and preserving the rivers environment. Added to that, I held the passionate view then, as I still do perhaps even stronger now, that not only our rivers environments needed ongoing input from a strong rivers lobby, but our river fishing clubs nationally needed support from those who still passionately believed in fishing within the river systems. In recent years for various reasons, match angling in particular has been going away from river fishing preferring instead, to fish within various Stillwater venues in search of match weights caught in the heyday of previously river based matches. As a result, many fishing clubs have already gone to the wall and many more are on the edge of being unable to carry on. It was my opinion then, as it is now, that a really effective rivers group should gather together grass roots ordinary anglers at their local levels to encourage them to become more involved with their local river fishing clubs but within a national organisation. From that, a national system could be built whereby all river systems anglers attitudes start to change because they come to appreciate that it is their LOCAL fishing that they are preserving and not simply just being members of a national organisation that knows little or nothing of their existence.

 

At the formation meeting of the SAA, Nev Fickling asked the question, "why do we need a rivers group"? Nev's question knocked me sideways. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect someone of Nev's standing who made much of his reputation from catching fish from our rivers and drains, to be asking such a question. Also, when Nev asked that question, I watched the faces around the room and I could see that many held similar views. Or that was my impression. From that meeting I began to have nagging doubts as to whether the SAA rivers group would have the support so vital for its concept to really take off and grow. I spent a lot of time seriously considering this and took the view that without everyone's input and support, the SAA rivers group would go nowhere. I also took the view that one or two committed people would not be enough to make the rivers group work. So, with regret, I resigned. When I say regret, it was much more than that because with my resignation came the end of a dream.

 

In order to see if my doubts were founded or indeed unfounded, let me ask some questions myself Chris.

 

How far has the concept of the SAA rivers group gone since I resigned? What is its structure and how many rivers group officers do you have on the ground on various rivers or looking after each river catchment area? How many individual members of the rivers group do you have to date? How many of the EA consultatives do the rivers group members sit on? What has been the input from yourself Chris or indeed other senior members of the SAA committee in establishing the river groups structure and if so, how effective has this input been? Duncan is just one man, how many others are in positions within the rivers group?

 

These are not questions intended to bring anyone down, they are just honest questions which may prove that my original reasons for resigning may be proven to have some foundation for myself. Namely, a lack of interest from the majority within SAA. And if this lack of interest is evident, I would be standing in the shoes that Duncan is now.

 

On the other hand, if I am wrong, then my decision to resign was the wrong one.

 

That email to Chris Burt was sent on the 26th of February 2002. I have received no reply from Chris.

 

Viable answer Phil? Tell me exactly what the SAA rivers group structure is and how many within SAA are within that structure, and all here will be able to see if my original concerns were viable.

But this need not be the end of the story because as I constantly repeat, I have re-joined to help out. So if the SAA rivers group is NOT doing well, say so. If the SAA now believe that river orientated issues can be effectively met within the SAA structure as a whole with no need for a seperate rivers group then also, say so. And perhaps then we all can start to build something of real value for river systems anglers TOGETHER instead of this constant point scoring PR exercise that the SAA seems to be bogging itself down in. You either want people to help out, or you dont. You either have a seperate and effectively established SAA rivers group or you dont.

 

Yes, I have been critical in this business of the MOU and the SAA's involvement in it. This IS my right is it not as a SAA member and as such, my link to the wider NAA organisation? But there is a world of difference in criticism and condemnation because I have openly said that the SAA do some valuable work for angling. Just the same as the NAA does. But it would be quite wrong of anyone to imagine that any forthcoming praise coming from me comes openly whilst my criticism remains private affairs as some might like. Sorry, I dont work like that because I will always tell it how I see it and that means privately and publicly as well.

 

But the fact remains that many anglers, myself included, emphatically believe there is a need for a specific rivers lobby working for the interests of river systems anglers. This is underlined by the existence of the RSSG, its growing membership and the interest being shown from species groups and fishing clubs. This interest by the way is not just about the RSSG but in something other existing river organisations are already talking about forming that the RSSG would be a part of. So it is clear, that there IS a growing need for a rivers lobby because anglers out there, say so. And it is their voice, their concerns and their opinions

that is the driving force.

 

Now moving on Phil;

 

Your quote;

 

"As to me joining the RSSG, I’m pleading the barbel amendment on this, and waiting and seeing what happens with this group".

 

Now exactly what, is that statement inferring to Phil? By now, you must surely know that I tell the truth, and the truth is, the RSSG is NOT a barbel fishing organisation as you should know by now seeing as you are an "informed" person.

 

The RSSG is "open to all" and has been since the start of its formation. To confirm this fact, we have members already consisting of, game anglers, sea anglers, pleasure anglers, match anglers, predator anglers (all kinds) specialist anglers (all kinds) conservationists (all kinds fishing and none fishing) How on earth you could either imagine or seemingly promote into imagining that the RSSG is barbel orientatd is beyond me, and beyond the thoughts of the RSSG's present membership. Indeed, the RSSG committee itself is made up of a wide range of different types of anglers. Furthermore, you would know all this if you spent £3 to join the RSSG Phil.

 

The person, actually male, who is to be the RSSG's Environmental and Conservation Co-ordintor is well known within the world of angling conservation. Not just in England or Europe, but world wide as well. He has impressive contacts with highly qualified people in their respective fields of expertise around the globe. He has presented documentation in regard to species preservation to the old SACG that has took the recipients breath away with its detailed documentation. He is, without doubt, the very best that any fishing organisation could hope to have in regards to species protection, conservation, or environmental concern. His election to this post and his name will be revealed after the final RSSG formaton meeting shortly when his position will be officially confirmed via democratic election. Those who are coming to this meeting from all over the country are indeed anglers who fish for many species and are NOT only barbel related anglers.

 

I fully understand that everyones time has limits. I have long since forgotten what it is to be in bed before 1.am myself since becoming involved in the RSSG. I run my own business which entails being up at 6.am five days a week. Two young boys means a similar wake up call for family business to begin at weekends with similar commitment to the RSSG in the evenings at weekends. But still I carry on even though at times, my personal imput to RSSG makes me ill.

Indeed, just recently, Steve Pope has suggested that I might have to take a year off fishing to go on the road promoting the RSSG. Such a thought of not going fishing for a whole week never mind a year fills me full of horror but I take his point as he had to do this in order for the Barbel Society to get to where it is today. To few doing to much? We know all about that.

 

River anglers want their own lobby. That is now an undeniable fact. Those wanting that lobby, not just RSSG members, are here, and we are here to stay. What becomes important now is how we, and others already established and working for their own memberships within angling, proceed in partnership.

 

Just one Allsort and one jellybaby? Cheapskate.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

 

[ 14 April 2002, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: trent.barbeler ]

['eelfisher']

Dear ALL

 

I have just returned from yet another eel session blank...and another cold spring morning greeted my weary eyes.

 

I left this thread yesterday afternoon with Lee's post at the bottom and after the whole night, no one comes in to constructively comment on the man's post. Interesting.

 

I thought you had to be a moderator to close a thread (with that lock symbol thingy) not just post a damn good reply....full of truth and commitment......that, or you were all out fishing, which is obviously good news if it is the case.

 

The CA MOU was closed two /three posts too late, but it got closed down.

 

This thread has suddenly become invisible to some out there.

 

Time for another out there to start yet another political thread......the PR in all this is taken by those who manage to stay in the debate and still continue to put ideas forward.....not walking away from the table. (not all the ideas are as sound as the poster thinks but from many ideas comes a building of a better idea and a way forward for all.)

 

I have stuff to do for the eel guys now.....

 

Yours With Respect.....

Steve.

[Peter Waller]

Steve, you raise a valid point, that of a good thread becoming invisable to those to whome it concerns.

 

In principal I agree with Nev Flickling, for once. Why should there be a separate group within the SAA, namely a Rivers Group? Nev is right, of course. If the SAA was doing its job correctly, equally looking after all disciplines and interests within its wide remit, then it would not need a pressure group within its own structure to see that Rivers receive their just attention.

 

But thats not the nature of the beast. And here I agree with Lee. It appears that the Rivers are not receiving the attention from the SAA, or the NAA, that they deserve. So, sorry Nev, reality and ideal don't always walk hand in hand.

 

For many of us Rivers ARE what fishing is all about. We don't want the restrictions of a still water. We prefer the freedom of a river, being able to wander the banks without coming back to where we started from twenty minutes earlier.

 

The only really good thing to have come out of this & the MOU thread is that our political gardians, who thought they had it all their own way, must now surely realise that the vociferous rivers lobby is part of the equation. We can all be friends, we can till work together, but we need to be considered.

 

The questions that have not been answered, the opinions that have not been challenged, perhaps the answer is the very silence itself.

 

[ 14 April 2002, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Alan Roe]

Verily it is probably thought by some and possibly by the many that these political threads

represent tedium 'in extremis', which may account for the tapering off in interest in these subjects.

 

Such threads are often only of great interest to the committed...( or those that need committing! )if we look over the history of this thread and the MoU thread though many words were generated they were in fact only generated by a few determined souls....Or the ususal suspects!!

 

Lets be honest chaps these threads must frighten off a lot of people who might otherwise be willing to give a hand.

 

They are frequently very combatitive as the posters lay into the subjects and each other with great gusto! Anybody with a hide any thinner than the average Rhino is going to look and think "Hells teeth I don't need any of that!!"

 

I know that the bulk of you are a decent enough bunch of chaps with the best interests of angling at heart and that in real life and you are as polite as anybody else.

 

However the bulk of the angling public looking at these debates may not get the same impression!

 

Whilst we do need an arena for healthy debate of the political matters of the day I wonder whether the time is now ripe too ask Elton to provide a political forum....Call it the Debating Chamber or the Beargarden as is our wont!!!

 

That way we can have all the important subjects powerfully debated and leave the coarse angling forum for the lesiurely pursuit of threads soley related to coarse angling...

[tony jolley]

Hi Steve!! (EELFISHER)

Did a short session last night one run on a live bait no eel, no result.)

 

I as an eel angler, like yourself, know that eels dont spawn in fresh water, So why dont I lobby for a change in the rules and byelaws covering the close seasons on rivers, after all I would be fishing for a fish that doesn`t spawn here, The reason being is that I know that "OTHER" anglers would use that byelaw, that could say "you can only fish for eels between march 15 - june 16." to fish for their chosen species whether chub, barbel, pike, or general match fishing,

That was the situation before the current rules in the north west,

I would love to fish my local river (FOR EELS), as I never get the chance dueing the summer, and as the eels tend to start moving earlier in the spring in the rivers I could have something on my catch return,

That would make me a "River angler" and I dont feel I would qualify for that title, I cant read the river yet, ( I know and watched how you read the river on our pike trip last year,).

I will respect the views of the Anglers who know what they are talking about when it comes to rivers and thier closed season, even if it means I cant fish for eels that dont spawn in them,

[tony jolley]

Hi Alan,

I can see your point, But why take the subjects away form the "General" coarse forum, they are after all issues that should concern ALL anglers and they NEED to be seen and read by as many anglers as possible, even if they are read by accident, if you put them on a differant section of the forum they will be over looked, and we will go around and around explaining what has already been said,

These are just my thoughts on your ideas,

 

respect.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Alan,

 

I will reply to your post in due course. I am at the moment tied up with writing up another thread.

One that saddens me greatly.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Leon Roskilly]

Alan,

 

Who can tell which thread will become 'political', or involve an element of politics?

 

True, a lot of people become turned off by boredom when a thread becomes political, unless of course its a subject on which they have strong views, when they then have an opportunity to pile in.

 

On the other hand, some people are transfixed by political debate, watching from the sidelines like those at a road-racing circuit, not admitting even to themselves that it is the prospect of blood which is part of the attraction!!

 

Anglersnet must be a big disappointment to them. The pike forums seem to be the best place to go for that kind of action!!

 

Tony,

 

I thought that it is permissable to fish for eels on rivers in the close season, subject to using hooks over a certain larger size than would be used for roach etc?

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Alan Roe]

Tony I know that the arguement that the posts won't get looked at has been used before.

 

However if the subject is deemed as important enough or interesting enough it will be looked at.

 

Mayhap it is down to the potential posters in those debates to make their posts both interesting and readable.

 

P.R. for pontification....now there's a thought!

 

I am aware that many of our old posters often appear at the foot of the screen as visitors but now post very rarely and I have a horrible feeling that the healthy clash and battle of political debate is detering many.

 

The site needs to meet many needs and it is how do we move that forward and encourage more people to post in the first instance then possibly draw some of them into the more political aspect??

 

Any other ideas gentlemen??

[Alan Roe]

Leon there are a handful of subjects that will definatly spark a political thread those are known and have been done a few times.

 

For the new supprise politcal threads we have the facility to move such a post to another forum.

 

If you are wondering what will spark a political thread whatch out for any seemingly innocent thread started by Steve Pope!!!