Single Species Organisations

[Guest the hornet]

waterman

 

Thanks for your posting, you have obviously taken a lot of time to put all the points together, I genuinly appreiate it!

 

I could take issue with many of these points, but will focus only on one or two

that I have mentioned earlier on the B.B.

To do otherwise would only continue to waste everyone's time.

 

Please, do not reply, I appreciate you are busy, and these are quite simply my observations for an average anglers point of view.

 

With regards the proposed abolition of the closed season on rivers, it was left to the B.S to pull a campaign and petition together.

 

The SACG may have stated a simple "no" at one or two meetings and mentioned it briefly in it's newsletter, but hardly what I would call "rallying in support". This would have been an excellent opportunity to take the lead on what, to many, is a very important issue, but the SACG did not!

 

With regads to the Code of Conduct, again as I have stated earlier, it was quite simply to BIG, too many pages, and said a lot more than needed to be said. Plenty of extremety negative content with which the ANTIS would have a field day.

 

Who was the Code aimed at? All the single species groups have their own Codes of Conduct, and as I have stated elsewhere, the SACG's Code was just to BIG. Anglers are apathetic - do you really think they will sit down and read a 50 page code telling them what to do? I doubt it! However, the SACG's intentions were honourable for trying. Keep it simple!

 

I AM ON YOUR SIDE - NEARLY?

 

Tight Lines........

[Guest waterman1013]

Hi Hornet

 

I have more time today hence this reply.

 

Without doubt the BS campaign, on the river close season, was important, but because you do not see what we are doing through SACG don’t for one minute think that what you do see is all we are doing on any single topic.

 

Most of our work is not in the public arena, it is conducted at meetings with Ministers and the Environment Agency, so the public may simply see a statement from us but the presentation of data and facts to Government and the EA is where the real work is done. We tend not to blow our trumpet, and perhaps that is a failing, but we consider the detail to be the important aspect of what we do. If you think we did not take the lead, then that is a reasonable opinion, given the knowledge you have at your disposal. The important thing, surely, is that between BS and SACG the river close season has so far been maintained. None of us may ever know whether the high profile public campaign from BS won the day or the backroom negotiations with the EA by SACG.

 

You may consider the Code too big. I believe that was always the position of BS towards the Code. I do not have all the facts from those days, simply because I had then only recently joined SACG and was still feeling my way in the corridors of angling politics. As I said the Code was directed as much towards fishery owners as towards anglers and I believe, along with the members of SACG, that it has done an important job for angling. It gave us credence with significant national bodies in conservation and wildlife as well as with Government Departments. Building confidence with groups like that is important to the future standing of angling and SACG would see the Code as a significant contributor to where angling has got to today, as well as it being the defining document of specialist angling practice.

 

From your posting you must have been party to the BS response to the Code, or have seen it. The words you use are taken from their submission to SACG immediately prior to publication and after all the other groups represented in SACG had agreed the detail and the final version had been circulated to those groups outside angling for their approval and commendation. If that is the case you will also know that the other angling groups rejected the BS stance on the Code and were happy to continue with it as published.

 

I am pleased to read that you are nearly onside. Hopefully within SAA we can all move forward and forget the history, which seems to me to be the biggest bugbear in angling – all these anglers who remember precisely what was said by whom to who, when and what about. Who upset whom and why. It all pales into insignificance beside the fight to protect and develop our sport.

 

Catch a big barbel this weekend.

 

Mike

[Guest big al]

to mike and hornet,thanks for turning this back into a sensible debate.it seems that you are moving slightly together so an olive branch perhaps.hornet if you now wish to let us know where you live either here or by e mail i will buy the beers .it would be worth it to me to get 2 people who love the sport to meet and have a proper discussion.also i will sign the petion to keep the close season on rivers at the same time.any information given to me hornet will of course be kept confidential if you wish but it is usefull to have this rational sort of debate.cheers big al e mail at the top

[Guest martin@tryangling]

I am one member of the Barbel Society who likes the SACG Code of Conduct, I nicked a whole box of them from Alan Pearce at the NEC in the spring, and have been handing them out to the kids I teach. They do read them as it is all new to them and this alone justifies the publication in my eyes.

 

Martin

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

Originally posted by martin@tryangling:

... and have been handing them out to the kids I teach.

 

Martin I do exactly the same as you. A great free gift that seems appreciated.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Guest the hornet]

Hi Waterman / Mike

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

We've probably both wasted enough time on what I personally felt were important points. Maybe I was splitting hairs? Maybe?

 

Anyway, I will agree that we should now look at ways to move forward.

 

If "Big al" is buying, I'm a sucker for a free beer! However, it'll probably cost quite a bit to hire the armoured car in which to arrive and also for a suit of body armour!

 

Unfortunately, I won't be fishing this weekend, it looks like being difficult to getting to the rivcrs.

 

Have a good weekend! No politics I promise!

[Guest Peter Waller]

Thank goodness, that appears to be the end of it. I'm sorry I ever mentioned the SACG in the first place. SORRY

[Guest BUDGIE]

Hello Steve Pope,I doubt wether you are still expecting a constructive reply to your initial post but here goes.

What I would like from a single species group-

1. To have like minded people as fellow members.Their skill and expertise would not matter as long as they were all as devoted to the sport as each other.

 

2. An elected commitee to run,organise and represent the groups interests and concerns to the rest of society.For no gain other than the benifit of angling in general.

 

Thats it not a lot to ask for eh?

[Guest BUDGIE]

As a add on to my previous post.The people who are best for the higher archiey positions in any organisation are not nessesarlly the best/most experienced anglers

but those best suited to the job ie good organisation,communication and managment skills.Their hard work and skills in these areas are much needed and sadly rarely apreciated.Unfortunately they are often then billed by the Angling Press as "experts" in their field of angling and sadly many then start to believe this of them selves.Elect the correct people as administrators etc and leave the policy making and expert status to the "experts".Nothing gets an anglers back up more than being lectured to by a noddy angler who happens to be a good angling administrator.I wont name names but in the past this has alienated a lot of people from the likes of the PAC and CCG to name but two.

As a top member of any of these groups you get more than enough priveledges to reward your work so why the ego trip?

[Guest waterman1013]

Budgie

 

I could not agree with you more. I am a less than average angler, as bigal and Graham will tell you, but I do think I can contribute with management and comms skills. Unfortunately I see so many others struggling to understand the arguments and concepts.

 

They may be great anglers, but they are put into an invidious position because of their angling skills. That is unfair on them and angling and the members of clubs and groups should recognise that fact.

 

Ideally every organisation would be wealthy enough to pay for professional administrators, so that policy could be decided by anglers and those who can't even hold a rod could get on with the work. But until that happens we have to try to ensure that ambition does not outweigh ability.

 

Mike

 

[This message has been edited by waterman1013 (edited 09 December 2000).]