Single Species Organisations

[Guest Graham E]

I have never caught a cat, although pussy in France is a subject I am skilled at.

Good enough reason to come Budgie?

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Thanks for that Budgie, I don't thinkit would take a week to come to an agreement probably ten minutes over a cuppa. Take your point though, the problem that creates problems is when people make remarks without supporting them. Both you and I have disagreed with items posted here in the past, but we always try to give reasons or examples why. Not saying we are always correct by any means, as there are often many sides to a point raised. But without something tangible to look at, examine and be able to ansewer it is very frustrating. Even more so is when you ask someone who makes a statement in the public domain to support it or give reasons, they may be perfectly correct and have good reason to make comment. They should also give the full reasons why or how they arrive at there conclusions. Just like your last posting, it was supported as to how you veiwed a situation, and it gives me the option to reply. As for critisism, both personally and as far a the SACG is concerned this is welcomed, but with supportingfacts please. As far as Pete is concerned I'm sure he means well what tends to let him down is the way he goes about it, the offer is there to help out for I too am appalled at what he reports, but there is no good just moaning about something, it won't go away or be put right, positive action is needed. You are perfectly correct about the many 1,000's that do nothing especially those that make often unjust remarks after the event. All this does is make those that are trying lose interest, then what happens? Yes no one doing nothing, total apathy and that is what angling is suffering from today, apathy in the past. With regards to the abuse of multi rod fishing or come to that any other abuses that you have come accross in angling, what do you do about it. Having read many of your postings and forming my own opinions about you from these, I cant believe you just turn your back on them then just moan in the public forum.

 

I too am very suspiciouse about the so called saviours in angling and have seen many come and go during the past 30 years, the reasons why I guess that when I see something that looks good I get involved in an attempt to make good of it. Thats not to say I don't trust others once they have proved themselves but during my very wide and varied business past it has shown more often than not worthwhile and prudent too keep ones fingers on the pulse.

 

Alan.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

To Steve Pope: What was it you said to me in the e mail a couple of days ago? I just knew you wouldn't be able to let go. Curioisty and cats spring to mind (sorry about the spelling, cant seem to get the bwain going)

 

Anyway Steve now look what you've gone and done again, help I need some support here (yes I know you could twist the knife) but yer donwanna do dat.

 

Think of the big picture don't that make you feel better?

 

Speak soon Alan.

[Guest Paul Williams]

I was'nt going to answer to this thread tonight, i even cancelled a reply earlier! i thought i might offend to many, but what the heck! it started as a discussion about single species groups and progressed further and most (though not all!) of the disscussion belongs in a big girls meeting!!! how the hell can we move forward when all we seem able to do is throw insults at each other? we may as well hire a boxing hall and punch the lights out of each other!! someone said we needed "strong" leadership, well the best "leader" i ever met was also a gentleman and could talk to any one,and i never saw him wound-up, shame he ain't a fisherman!(he was a soldier!) all these abbreviations of this body and that body are doing my head in! when somebody can let us O/Rs know what the hell is going on let us in on it! we may just have something to offer, but at the moment most out there "looking in" are probably laughing at us or worse still turning away in despair!

[Guest barry ford]

Originally posted by 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. [/quote

Alan,

Is that another way of telling me to shut up?????????

 

What would you know about how im involved in angling,is your view based because we have never met.

 

You ask why im unhappy with the SACG I thought I made that quite clear in my posting.

 

But just for you I will repeat them.

 

The four rod rule came into being as a direct result of the SACG's involvement and IMHO that did a disservice to angling, yes you can prattle on about people using 6.8 20 rods before this rule came in, why then did the SACG do noting to stop that practice?

 

Another reason I don't support the SACG is as follows when 86% of the anglers wanted a blanket close season YOU fialed to support us WHY when you cliam to represent the rights of anglers of this country???

 

I have done my work to support angling in the back ground for many local clubs in my area, I have not sought national fame for that I have no ego to feed unlike some.

 

As for not participating what gives you the right to tell me or anyone for that matter that they don't have the right to participate in this forum. Your response is just what I have come to expect, my views are not the same as yours so you would like to shut me up, and that is usealy the way of things when others don't agree

 

As this site is run by Elton and not the SACG he alone has the right to ask me not to participate if he wishes to use that right he is free to e-mail me.

Barry.

PS you will see I made a boob and posted agian as I thought this post had not registered.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by barry ford (edited 03 December 2000).]

[Guest barry ford]

Originally posted by 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. [/quote

Rude, ignorant totaly uniformed me??

Alan I suggest you are the rude one what could you possibly now what I have done to support angling?

 

Your response is just what I expect, I have spent a vast amount of time and money supporting angling but have always stayed in the back ground. I have no ego to feed and have not sought reconition for my efforts I have taken critsism and uaed it consructivly, you seem unable to do that.

 

I made my points as to why I was unhappy with the SACG in my post, the four rod rule IMO was wrong and you supported it you fialed to support 86% of uk anglers that wanted a blanket close season why?

 

Yes my views are different to yours does that give you the rigt to shut me or anyone up I rather think not.

 

I may not be as elequent as some who post on this forum but I care about angling bigtime and you will never stop me from viocing my oppinon thats called democracy would you have anglers live in a dictatorship.

 

I wish the new group the very best and hope that you reach your goals but alas I fear your attitude will always let you and the rest of us down.

A very polite Barry.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

In response to Barry's last posting I would like to add:

1) The SACG did not get involved with the issue of multi rod fishing until it seemed that this might be stopped. Then we were asked by some of the group members to look into it and set up dialog and discussions with the EA. This was due to the fact that group members fishing would be affected if the rod limit was reduced to two. Prior to this the SACG had not recieved any complaints or requests for assistance regarding multi rod fishing, if it had then action would have begun earlier. Don't forget it was the EA who were looking to rationalise regional by-laws into a national frame work.

2) With regards to lifting the closed season on still waters once again the SACG went along with the majority decision of its membersip. We did not see this as being a big issue as so much fishing was already being carried out up and down the country, and during the old closed season many anglers involved with it were travelling to other parts to fish. Don't forget that this was initially carried out on a trial basis and if found to have a detrimental effect on the flora & fauna could have been reversed. I don't know where you get the figure of 86% of anglers being opposed to the lifting of the closed season from because I'm sure that if this many were so concerned and made their veiws known via the NFA, NASA or SACG then there would have probably been a different outcome. I would suggest that now it is more likely 86% of anglers who fish from the 15 March until 15 June. Personaly I know of just two anglers who were opposed to the old closed season and have stuck to their guns over this, however every year during this period they take fishing holidays in Ireland and France. Now is that being two faced or what, but it is there decision the same as it is yours, mine, local angling clubs and fishery owners.

 

3) When it came to lifting the closed season on the rivers here too the SACG followed the recomdation of its membership and opposed it, from a personal point of view you will find that my name is one of the first listed on the petition drawn up by the Barbel Society opposing this.

 

4) Don't you think that some of the work done by the SACG has been of use to the sport, as you make no mention of them in your postings, I assume you are up to date with the current work load through either our update document or from the segment devoted to it on this site. You are correct that I don't have any knowledge of any contributions you have made to further and protect the sport, which is why I asked. Believe me it is not about feeding ego's that some people put in huge amounts of their time and money into angling administration. Some have been doing it for a very long time and would love to hand over the reigns to someone else. If you fancy a go, even in a small way, then please just ask, as you would be very welcome.

 

5) To end, if you look back over this thread I have not, as you stated asked you to 'shut up' but tried to get you to support your views. This may be difficault to do in writing or on a public forum so why not telepone me on 01787 238200 or e mail me at alan@paauk.com

 

Best wishes Alan.

[Guest Paul Williams]

Fellas, if you are going to use the site as a platform i don't think it's on to then revert to a private conversation when the going gets heavy, thrash it out to the benifit of all, it's not doing the washing in public, it's reaching agreement, if all we agree on is to differ then so be it!

 

at least lets talk, at the end of the day it's only by talking that the rest of us get some idea of whats happening, and the idea of this new group needs to be pushed, without any threat of a "behind closed door" policy. I stick by my original statement that most of the anglers out there ain't heard of most of the groups we have discussed and if you are serious then you need every possible opportunity to discuss it and put a case forward. I know we will argue between us but i have a feeling that could make us stronger when a real threat comes up, a little bit like kid brothers, always brawling but standing together when the chips are down!! christ don't i waffle after a glass or two!!!

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Hang on Paul you've changed your mind from your last posting, I thought you were getting irritated or bored by it. I'm game to continue just thought it may be helpfull to Barry. Re your mention of all the groups involved, didn't the earlier posting by Waterman clarify this? if not let me know and I'll try and spell it out.

Anyway I'm off for dinner now but will pick up again tommorow.

 

Alan.

[Guest Graham E]

I would like to invite Alan and Barry to join me for a day's fishing. I BET that when you get together you will enjoy each others company and come together on a number of issues. that's the sort of thing FISHING can achieve.