Single Species Organisations

[Guest barry ford]

Originally posted by waterman1013:

Pete

 

You are undoubtedly correct in your observations of the practice of the four rod rules.  However in each instance the anglers are breaking another EA bylaw, in that they are not in sufficient control of their tackle.  More funding for EA with consequently more bailiffs and more policing would find these bylaws properly enforced.  By the way SACG did not draft the bylaw, that was done by the EA.  SACG pushed for a national rod limit as opposed to the regional variations which existed previously.

 

Budgie

 

Until the weekend we had NFA, NFSA,S&TA, NASA, NAFAC, SACG, ATA, SACN, ACA, CA, etc all trying to deal with Government and each representing their own members or groups.  In a very short space of time that has become; NAA - the new national negotiating body representing NFA, NFSA, S&TA, SACG, NAFAC and ATA, SAA will be formed from SACG and NASA, so already the list is reducing.

 

NASA started life as the NASG (National Association of Specimen Groups), as you probably remember.  As specimen angling changed more individulas wanted representation snf wanted to join NASG, as a consequence NASG became NASA (National Association of Specialist Anglers).  There was then a debate inside NASA about angling politics; there were those who did not consider angling to be political and those that did.  NASA decided that politics was not for them and SACG was born - now, at last, both groups are together again and will be the stronger for it.

 

Some people are on the committees of various of these groups because there is a hierarchy in the organisations, so to represent the views of the single specie groups, SACG has a reporting function back to NASA, and into both NFA and NAA. We also negotiate with ATA, NAFAC, ACA, ATA etc to try to get a common voice on matters of concern to us, so the same names will keep cropping up on various committees.  I am just thankful that we have anglers in our midst who have both the time and the inclination to do so much for the future of the sport.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Mike

 

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Pete, I agree almost a 100% with what you say is happening up on the broads with multi rod fishing, but remember this was happening before the new by law allowing up to four rods per angler. In fact Chris Turnball was telling me that in the past the idiot anglers were often using, illegally I might add, 6 rods or more. As you have highlighted this problem on broadland then you should take this up with the Broads Authourity, the EA the Norfolk Consultative and Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association. Speak to Chris at NACA I'm sure he will help, he has such a deep passion for Broadland pike. The SACG will also help where possible as would I'm sure PAC. The problems you describe are unique and I have never heard of this occuring anywhere else. By laws are being broken here left right and centre and it is things like this that give angling many problems. So what do you want to do about it? I and the SACG will help, but we do need your input.

 

Alan.

P.S. I'm glad you got this off your chest.

[Guest barry ford]

Originally posted by Paul Williams:

Alan, i'm sorry but that is just the sort of reply that hacks off the majority! you may be right i don't know but he does have the right to air his views! just as you have the right to answer them! but telling him to shut up? no wonder the majority of anglers don't want anything to do with "organizations!!!!!

 

Quite right Paul,

This thread was stated with a hidden agnda I suspect.

 

IMHO as stated by a previous poster single species groups are OK if they keep to themselvs but in reality we all know that will never happen because they always want to rien on other peoples parade.

 

This response will undoubtedly draw abuse as most of these groups seem to be unable to take constructive critisim or any critisim come to that.

 

Some of these clubs/societies are run were the members have a vote on club/society policy some are run where the members have no say and are more like dictatorships, yes they will tell you that the members are consulted but ultimately they still have no say in what really happens.

 

I for one am not happy that the S&TA,SAA and the SACG are on the new body to represent anglers in general. Why firstly the SACG have in affect voted themselvs onto this commitee and they are politicaly motivated with thier own agenda, and in my HO cannot cliam to be conservation minded when they forced the four rod limit on us, and also fialed to support a blanket close season when 86% of anglers wanted just that. The S&TA do you realy think a body that made recomendations that the close season on coarse fish should be lifted are a body that should represent coarse angling needs?

 

Polotics thats the key word all of these groups are out to get as much power as they can and will only look after themselves and thier own interests, sinical but true, if angling unity wrer possible why then has it not happened under the NFA or NASA AS THESE ORGANISATIONS WRE SET UP TO DO JUST THAT????

 

Simple politics and personalities and egos stopped it and that will be what stops this new venture succeding.

Barry Ford.

[Guest Pete Waller]

Barry, we agree wholeheartedly on this one. To the gentleman who pointed out the unique nature of the 4 rod rule abuses. That the four rod rule has problems that are unique to the Broads is that the Broads are a peculiar situation and some of our techniques are unique to this area. However, the eighty yards of bank space taken up by two anglers is also practised on the fens.

[Guest the hornet]

It is interesting to read everyone's comments, following Steve Pope's request to hear what anglers expect from membership of the single species groups.

 

The reason for the question, is probably that anyone involved in running any form of group, society or club has to provide a balance to their activities and the benefits they provide to the members. But as the saying goes - "you can't please all the people all the time".

 

Steve seems to be asking; what exactly do you want and expect from an organisation to feel it was worth joining, and that you receive value for money?

 

In any organisation there will be a wide range of members - with a wide range of expectations, from expecting to be told where the big fish are, to receiving extremely thick magazines without contributing themselves.

 

Anyone running a group or society, only has certain limits or peramaters within which to work, and then make sensible and balanced decisions. At times there may even be a compromise from what they really would like to do.

 

While it is easy for the majority of anglers to site on the sidelines, and in many cases critise those who are actively involved,-"those who do the least usually shout the loudest".

 

While everyone has a right to their own opinion, the people who are quick to critise have probably never tried to change things from within, or offered to help. Quite simply, they "bitch" and "moan" about everything. If they had been involved they would better appreciate the efforts of those who are.

 

Instead of looking for things to moan about, they should look for ways that things can be improved and offer to help. Constructive critise along with the an offer of help, I'm sure would always be warmly received.

 

It must be remembered that it is only a small number of people who either feel passionate enough to get involved, or have some degree of business sense and therefore the ability to actually run a large club, group or society. It must also be remembered that nobody is perfect, we all make mistakes, or quite simple - circumstances change.

 

While there is no doubt that small specimen groups will always provide much greater interaction between members, they are simply not available to the average angler, or someone who simply wants to focus on barbel, pike or carp, etc.

 

In fact there are 3 types of groups; the old style "Coventry Specimen Group" who fished for "specimens" of most fish. Then there are the small "single species groups" such as the Chub Study Group, Barbel Catchers, British Carp Study Group, etc, who have a very small membership, and are simply not accessable to most anglers.

 

This leaves a third type of group or society, that has been created specifically for any angler who wishes to pursue a specific species. The benefits that will be available to members will obviously be totaly different from those provided by one of the small single species groups with select or limited membership.

 

It is interesting to see how things have developed over the last 10 to 15 years, especially with regards NASA and the SACG, and also, that someone had the common sense to amend the name of the new group from the originally proposed SAA (Specialist Anglers Alliance) which would have immediately alienated many anglers who did not consider themselves a "specialist" angler.

 

I hope the new group will providing a sound base from which to move forward, with all issues receiving the same level of focus and attention. However, before the new Alliance is established, both the successes and failures of the SACG and NASA need to be examined, and lessons learnt. The new committee needs to be able to listen to, accept,and respect other peoples decisions, this unfortunatley was the biggest fault with the SACG.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Well talk about rude, ignorant and totally uninformed. Tell us please Barry what have you ever done to improve or even support the sport, if you dislike what the SACG has been doing this past 10 years why has it taken you so long to come out of the woodwork and say so? You tell us why the NFA and NASA hasn't in the past been supporting specialist angling on the political and conservation fronts. Everyone working on behalf of the SACG would pack in tommorow if they thought and it was proven that the angling governing bodies could do the job properly. As it is with the forming of the Specialist Anglers Alliance, SAA and the part it will play on the NAA, supporting, working with and advising the NFA this could and in fact should happen in the future. Believe me pal we would sooner be using our time fishing than being embroiled in angling politics and conservation issues for other anglers , many of whom arn't even prepared to help themselves let alone their fellow anglers. Still now that the SAA is being formed you have the opportunity to get involved, not that you could'nt in the past. And don't just think that paying a tenner a year in subs to the ACA lets you off the hook, as many do, because it doesn't. Whilst the ACA is a fine organisation in trying to sue polluters through the courts, it is re-active in the fact that it helps where it can clear up the mess after it has been created. Today angling must be pro-active to survive and move forwards.

 

Barry brought up that old chestnut again about the 4 rod limit, saying it was introduced by the SACG. Wrong, members of the SACG said that it was the sensible thing to do, the SACG conveyed this to the EA who at the end of the day made the final decision. Many anglers in other parts of the country were not happy with this because up until this was introduced they could fish with six or more rods, as there by laws allowed. Some anglers also think that only one rod should be used whilst some others beleive two is ample. Who is right and who is wrong and who are we to dictate to others how they should fish. Rather like banning boilees or bloodworm on fisheries, at the end of the day it should be the water owners, controlling clubs or syndicates who decide and that is exactly what has happened with the number of rods issue. The managers make the decision, the EA just states that you may not use more than four. If anyone has a problem with this then it is up to them to take it up with the water managers on their own local level. Do anglers want to run thier own sport or let someone, probably a non angler at government level make these decisions for them.

 

Finnally I would say to Barry if you have specific problems with the SACG or any other group or individual then please state them here so that they have the rightfull option to reply, and if needs be let the other participants on this forum sit in judgement. If however you feel that you can't participate in a proper and professional manner then perhaps you should consider not participating at all, the choice is yours.

 

Alan.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Thanks to the hornet for his / her sensible posting. Not sure what you meant in your final few words about the SACG perhaps you could enlighten us. Because if we are doing something wrong then we arn't aware of it and your views are welcome. In response to Pete Waller, you know that when fishing more than one rod the by-laws state that the two outermost rods should not be more than nine feet apart. So if you are finding anglers fishing with rods strung out all over the place, what should you do. It does not matter if it is two or four rods the distance between them still applies, added to this is the by-law which states that the anglers rods must be under his/her immediate control.

 

I too have fished the fenland drains for more years than I care to remember, know all the games done em myself. Years ago when I had only two rods still strung them out with loud alarms attatched so the number of rods sometimes being used today is not relevent. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. I'll ask again though do you want to try and sort out the problems you are coming across, because I'm willing to help.

 

Alan.

[Guest BUDGIE]

Just two things really,Alan I have always found your posts interesting and informed(even the ones that I have not agreed with) due to this I think it is a great shame the way that you have replied to these posts. It has done you or the SACG no favours.Pete (and I should imagine some of the many others who have questioned the SACG)are very experienced anglers who are merely stating their observations that have come from this.People like this are just as concerned about Angling as any one else.Much better to try and get people like this on side as opposed to alienating them. Previous posts have also said that this type of response puts them off too.

As I have previously said people like your self put a lot of hard work in to Angling.Despite what you may feel when people critisise you/your work this is still appreciated.The fact that some people have taken the time to voice their critisism's should be a sign of their concern.The real problem in angling are the thousands who just can not be bothered.Please try to put a brave face on any critisism and use it constructively.And above all (hard though I aprecciate it is)try not to snap back in your organisations defence and remember that some of your detractors hold the same goals as you important.Just that their method of achieving them is different.

 

My second point is the constant negative remarks about four rods.Let me initially say that I have also seen the same stupid antics as Pete butI have said it time and time again IMHO there is nothing wrong with using multi rod tactics in a suitable situation and with the proper attention.As previously said you don't have to use four rods all the time (I certainly don't!)but there are some situations where it is a very usefull tactic to catch a fish (not catch 4x more either!)Let the fishery manager decide if it is acceptable on individual waters and the individual angler in each different situation.As I often note a lot of people who detract from a specific tactic have often never been in the correct situation that dictates its use. They are therefore IMO not really in a position to comment.

I for one always wish new angling bodies the utmost sucsess and will watch with interest. I must admit that I agree with many others here that in the past I have always felt let down by the latest saviour of angling. Maybe if you understand the points I have tried to put over this time I won't.Please keep on trying Alan.

[Guest BUDGIE]

On the subject of who has won the week in France I will wait a bit longer before deciding who has really answered my question and helped me understand.It may be more constructive to have two of you over.Preferably from the two extreme ends of the argument.After a week in the boat together I bet all the differences would be ironed out,a good plan of action developed and a firm friendship/mutual respect established!Cause after all we are all anglers and wish the best for our sport.

[Guest STEVE POPE]

There were no hidden agendas on this posting I can assure you, and I did not anticipate a discussion on the SACG, interesting as it has been.

I just wanted to get everyones views as to why the larger single species organisations are attracting criticism, and was hoping for some indepth, informed and constructive comment.

Thats all.

 

Steve.