Single Species Organisations

[Guest waterman1013]

I have been a member of various single specie groups at various times in my angling career. What I wanted from each was different.

 

With PAC I wanted local meetings and more knowledge of piking, unfortunately my local region didn’t seem very active and I was too involved in other things to contribute.

 

With the Perchfishers I wanted to know more about big (larger then 4lb) perch, but they got involved in arguments about whether they wanted youngsters in the group or not and then there seemed to be a hiatus and my membership lapsed. Steve B left and I have not gone back. And anyway my fishing has moved on.

 

I will probably join the BS now as I want to learn more about barbel and am spending quite a lot of my fishing time after them.

 

I joined my local club to fish and ended up a secretary, so hardly fish their waters now. If you are in office you cannot get a moments peace on the bankside with 300 odd members all thinking they can ask “just one question”. And I go fishing to get away from people. So now I find quite rivers and fish those.

 

I joined SACG because I could see the importance politics would play in the future of angling, and SACG was the only group addressing the question. Now I am secretary to SACG and I enjoy the work, meeting the leaders of the groups and hearing their views on what we should be doing. Yes I think SACG has failed to promote itself to angling and anglers at large, but principally it is a representative group for the single species groups, which is where this thread started. SACG has a few individual members, who in fact do most of the work. The leaders and representatives of the single species groups are generally too busy running those groups to take on a bigger workload, so SACG helps in the negotiations with the EA and Government on behalf of its members, the single species groups.

 

SACG makes no claims for itself, is not, in that sense, an autonomous group, but works to promote the interests of the SPGs, which they tell us about. Yes CS has had a lot of clout within SACG, what do you expect from the biggest group, with the most members. The eels groups are probably amongst the smallest in the country yet they have had equal support from SACG over bylaws governing eel fishing in the close season and other matters. We try to represent all our members if they want help and we try to keep a watching brief on developments in angling and politics which may need our inputs or those of a particular single species group.

 

The four rod limit keep raising its head. Many of you seem to have forgotten how complicated the rules used to be around the country. No one is forcing anyone else to use four rods, it remains a matter of choice for the angler and the water controller.

 

Without the support of the single specie groups the Code of Angling Conduct (see this site) could not have been published, yet here is a document which was supported by every possible third party outside angling as well as most of the single specie groups. This was completed by dedicated anglers, in their own time, and largely at their own expense. Angling is better with it than without it, yet Pete W has a problem, with SACG.

 

He apparently does not see anglers as conservationists, sorry Pete we do!

 

Pete question our right to “claim” to represent specialist anglers, we get that “right” from the fact of our membership being in excess of 10,000 specialist anglers, through our member groups.

 

Pete has “a great deal of sympathy” for NASA, that’s good because SACG and NASA are two side of the same coin and work together to promote angling and angling’s interests. Mostly it is the same people working on both committees, sharing common aims and ideals. Notice I use the word “working”, you can only do that if you join something. If you want to sit outside and have a closed mind, or not even know enough to comment rationally, that’s fine by me. Others can be the judge of who is contributing and who is not.

 

Pete I don’t think you should shut up, because obviously you hold these views honestly, and you make the rest of us think about what we are doing and saying. Constructive criticism should be good for all of us and I take on board the concerns you express about the carp angler’s agenda, I think you are wrong, but it is a valid view and we have obviously failed to tell our tale well enough.

 

NAA has come into being and we should all be grateful. If you knew the problems of getting grown men to sit and talk constructively and to move forward you would be amazed. The patience of Job is needed sometimes. It is there now and we have to support it. By supporting NAA and the constituent parts anglers can have an input to the future. No one in SACG, group or individual is excluded, but to have a say you have to join. If you join and want to attend our meetings then you can, we would be only too pleased. We need more inputs, we need more help, we need to run more campaigns, Angling needs you to help, so what about it?

 

Mike Heylin

[Guest Paul Williams]

Mike, now thats what i call a constructive,balanced thread, i am far more likely to sit up and take notice, i agree that anglers are indeed conseravationists,or at least the majority are, and i personally use four rods at times so i ain't got a problem there, i really do wish you every sucsess in your aims, but you do have a job on your hands, and you won't help your cause with "leaders" who are unable to be shall we say....democratic.

[Guest waterman1013]

Thanks Paul for your support. I just try and keep an open mind and I don't think I am carrying any history, which helps a lot.

 

Pete and I have had private correspondence in the past and I think he has a lot to offer, as have all anglers, if only they would.

 

Mike

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Well my posying to Pete Waller brought some reaction, although some of you misread what I said. So I will paraphrase the last part of my posting regarding the SACG and his dislike of it. "So why not post your veiws so that they can be read and commented on by all. If not then please keep your thoughts to yourself".

 

I was asking Pete to state his case so that we can here his side, but if he chooses not to then don't make sniping remarks. I would welcome the opportunity to enter into debate with Pete or anyone else who has a problem or thoughts on the work the SACG has done for specialist angling. Please bear in mind though the actions of the SACG are those of its members which are made up of nearly all of the single species groups as well as some individual members and other associated groups. When issues concerning specialist angling are taken on board all the member groups are consulted and their members also, in total around 10,000 anglers, you can't get much more democratic than that, can you?

 

And who do you want to make decisions on angling, you or government? Of course you want to be involved in the decision making and this is what the SACG has acheived, a platform from which you can have your say and be part of the decision making process.

 

The SACG has worked very hard to help bring about unity in angling firstly at national level with all the sports governing bodies starting to work together for the common good. then on a more 'local' level with the coming together of NASA and itself, SAA (Specialist Anglers Alliance) which in turn will have input into the NFA (coarse fishings governing body) and in turn the National Angling Alliance. This has been done for you the angler so that you can have your say and play a part in the big picture. But for God's sake if you don't want to get involved, don't knock it. We are all trying our very best at our own costs. And if you think you can do better, great, come and have a go PLEASE! new blood is always welcome and there is plenty to do.

 

Finally from me, if anyone would like to discuss, debate or whatever the work of the SACG then let us arrange a forum at a suitable location where you can make your points known and we can offer some explainations. Alternativly come along to an SACG meeting and see for yourself. Ian Cresswell, Steve Randalls and their partners did and guess what they came back for some more, so I reckon we must be doing something right.

 

The balls in your court.

Alan.

[Guest Pete Waller]

Thanks to everyone who has constructively replied to my comments on the SACG. I suppose my real gripe is that a small number of well meaning anglers appeared to set themselves up as speaking for other 'specialist' anglers. In effect forcing themselves into a position of political power. In effect claiming to represent such as myself and putting forward views on my / our behalf that were, patently, not the views of a large proportion of those that they claimed to represent. Things are now changing and I stand by my comment that thankfully we now have the NAA and that, hopefully, minority or self interest agendas being forced through will be a thing of the past. Our strength, as anglers on the NAA, can only be a strong one if the body claiming to represent us is clearly a democratic voice of all those that it claims to represent.

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

Hi all,

 

Given the broad make up of the NAA I think it's highly unlikely that trivia and personal agendas will come into play. If that does happen then we'll see the whole thing collapse.

 

We'll have to see how it goes but I still view the thing as a very positive move forward for angling. The NAA is about addressing wider and larger issues than single umbrella bodies could cope with by themselves.

 

Synchronised swimming currently gets more Government sports funding than angling. Says it all huh? Just one of the things that needs to be addressed by this larger umbrella body.

 

As for SACG things ... Alan mentioned that Steve, myself and our wives have recently offered help to SACG. Jenni (my wife) & I are merely motivated by the desire to help out. No personal political machinations are involved at all. We wouldn't help if we thought that we were supporting such behaviour either.

 

The campaigns that SACG run vary from what could be described as 'broad spectrum' (e.g. otter predation) to 'special interest' (countering livebaiting bans). Either way the individual specialist groups have full involvement in the decision making process.

 

The formation of the SAA (SACG+NASA) presents an ideal opportunity for new people to get involved. So why not give it a go?

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Guest Paul Williams]

Alan + all, i have read the replys and i feel happier to make a contribution now but i would still like to ask a question or two, Alan when you say you have the backing of most of the single species groups and therefore 10000 members, is this true or do you just have the backing of each indiviual groups leaders? i ask this only because one of the words i hear bandied about is "dictatorship" not i hasten to add aimed at your group but a couple or so of the single species groups. I am not trying to throw a spanner in the works just to clear the air, if i am thinking these thoughts so are others, a friend and myself recently launched a specimen group and whilst i cannot speak for all it's members i would like to discuss the SACG with them,hopefully they may feel the group can contribute, but basically i want to now if a few are making policies for the many? can you enlighten me?

[Guest fishboy]

When I joined the perchfishers I hoped to up my pb. Instead I stopped catching big perch. It has taken three years for the curse to ware off. Caught a good one last week (2lb 4oz).

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Hi Paul,

 

A good question you raise regarding contact with member groups and their members. The way it works is that each group is asked to send their delegates to the SACG meetings ther are no restrictions on numbers and individual members can also attend as can any other interested parties. Every one takes an active part in the agenda of the day and can raise any other business as well. Every one in attendance can then report back to their respective group members by there own news letters or bulletins. To help them with this all members are supplied with the minutes of the meeting to assist them with this. Often member groups will publish the complete minutes in there own publication along with their own comments. Groups can then feedback to the SACG either at the next quarterly meeting or in between times, whatever suits best. There are no hard and fast rules it is up to the members to decide. Any members who do not attend are still copied on the minutes so they are not left out, also if there is an issue that specifically concerns them they are contacted and the issue discussed. Sometimes if a member group is not in attendance and something comes up applicable to them and there members matters would be put on hold until they have the opportunity to respond. Contrary to what was said earlier the SACG is very democratic and the commitee is elected by the members at the AGM each year. We try to take a pro active as well as reactive stance where possible and are very fast to react to any given situation. I think it would be fair to say that we don't tolerate fools and while many are sitting around on there bums we get on with it, some thing that has been recognise, but not always liked by the angling governing bodies.

 

I'm pleased we have caught your attention and would like the opportunity to give more details, like wise you would be welcome to attend our next meeting in Feb.

 

I was interested in what was posted earlier about communication, without things like this being raised we never no. Promise to try harder in the future but also ask that you also help yourself. Elton kindly gives us plenty of space on this site to inform and we update this info at least four times a year. When the SAA is born I will see if this can be updated more often as well as get better press coverage.

 

Alan.

[Guest Paul Williams]

Alan, thanks for that reply, i ppromise over the weekend to prepare a disscussion for our little group concerning the SASG, it's done me a favour actually! we have to take it in turns "launching" a debate or chat at our meetings and it's up to me next meeting!..............Fishboy, sometimes we join things for what we can take, but we reap what we sow!!! i just made that up all by myself!!!