Single Species Organisations

[Guest Pete Waller]

I think I might just be sorry that I started this side track from the original posting. To say that it has almost got out of hand is putting it mildly. But, nevertheless I have read it all. We are not going to agree over the issue of multi rod use. It became legal long before the NAA was even thought of. One thing is clear, a number of us don't like the way that the SACG, even with all the best intentions in the world, promoted itself into a position as our spokesperson at government level. Other than the apparent lack of support of the PAC in the PAC's fight to retain livebaiting, not that I personally wish to livebait, I am reasonably happy with present SACG policies. I also object to being told to keep my opinions to myself by someone who appears to be rather full of his own importance. Which takes us back to 'what is wrong with SOME of the single species organisations?' Namely that they are sometimes run by little people with inflated egos and opinions of themselves and a total intolerance of alternative opinions, holders of such unwelcome opinions are normally told, in so many words, to shut up. We need the NAA, and hopefully the SACG will gain the respect of all those that it claims to represent.

[Guest BUDGIE]

Pete,I think that summed it all up.Graham E, a very good point.Maybe this is where the future of angling does lay? A mixture of anglers from different areas of the sport but who have developed a mutual respect for each other getting out together and talking?This will always be the down side of single species/interest groups.BUT this is where groups of anglers like AN and the proposed ANAC could lead the way.As even the most extreme of us have found by contributing here we all have one major thing in common- our love of and devotion to the sport.

[Guest Paul Williams]

Actually Alan i'd like to spell something out to you, the main reason i got "fed" up of this thread was your attitude to the guy's who were taking the trouble to write,Alan i am rapidly losing any interest in the new body and i suspect i won't be on my own, still you obviously think you are doing so much for angling and who am i to argue????

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Paul I'm actually trying to open up the debate and asking those with questions or problems to put them forward to hopefully find some ansewers. As you have seen I have openly given my contact details so that Barry or anyone can speak to me directly if they would find that easier. I do not disrespect anyone for there views but to make snap remarks without supporting them or giving the opportunity of a proper considered reply is very difficault. Pete Waller has come across a problem with multi rod abuse in Broadland, I have offered my help and that of the SACG as well as other points of usefull contact. Has he done anything about this, or is he going to?

 

Why do you think I have spent so much time on this thread, not for the fun of it I can assure you, all I wish to do is help out where and if I can.

 

If people just want to talk the talk then fine, but if they are as passionate about angling as they say, then how about walking the walk.

 

Trying to be constructive - Alan.

 

P.S. Barry, Pete and Paul I thought about sending you all an e-mail to try an open a dialog re matters discussed on this thread but your addresses arn't published in your profiles.

 

[This message has been edited by Alan Pearce (edited 04 December 2000).]

[Guest Danny H]

Originally posted by Keith Truscott:

The last thing we need in this day and age of inner city 'Anoraks' (sorry Elton private joke)that have never seen a field or experienced the feeling of being at one with nature apart from the smell of P!!!!s in a twelve story lift is seperatism

 

Sorry Keith coming from the inner city I can tell you the tree huggers tend to come from small towns, and tend to be middle class people having a little rebellion against what daddy stands for.

All the people I grew up with, who came from said towers, loved their canel fishing, and on the whole loved what little greenery they got to see.

[Guest big al]

well well an intresting debate but why do so many people get so angry so quickly.alan you must learn if you are going to be part of any body that stands for anything that it will receive criticism.this is not directed personnally at you but at the body.

 

barry im intrested in your figure of 86% support for the old close season ,when we surveyed our members some 300 they voted 52%to get rid of it,at the first agm they propsed a motion to change to the 1st june and then 2 years later suspend the close season.this was against the wish of the committe,

 

now my main point on the conservation site leon has posted a piece about fish stocks in the sea and a way to influnce mps .this is something we can get behind it is posative so please put the toys back in the pram and do somthing constructive so far only 3 of us have bothered all the best big al

[Guest barry ford]

Originally posted by Alan Pearce:

Paul I'm actually trying to open up the debate and asking those with questions or problems to put them forward to hopefully find some ansewers. As you have seen I have openly given my contact details so that Barry or anyone can speak to me directly if they would find that easier. I do not disrespect anyone for there views but to make snap remarks without supporting them or giving the opportunity of a proper considered reply is very difficault. Pete Waller has come across a problem with multi rod abuse in Broadland, I have offered my help and that of the SACG as well as other points of usefull contact. Has he done anything about this, or is he going to?

 

Why do you think I have spent so much time on this thread, not for the fun of it I can assure you, all I wish to do is help out where and if I can.

 

If people just want to talk the talk then fine, but if they are as passionate about angling as they say, then how about walking the walk.

 

Trying to be constructive - Alan.

 

P.S. Barry, Pete and Paul I thought about sending you all an e-mail to try an open a dialog re matters discussed on this thread but your addresses arn't published in your profiles.

 

[This message has been edited by Alan Pearce (edited 04 December 2000).]

Alan, Iv'e walked the walk talked the talk.

Maybe not the same way you have,my contribution has been made where I felt it could do most good and where it would make a real difference, which is exactly why I will be in Canada over the exmas holiday and this wil cost me in the region of £2,000 of my hard earned.

 

I fear will we have to dissagree on several things this is nothing personal far from it, and if my busy work load allows I may take the offer of a days fishing with you but not till next season.

 

You really must not take critisim of the SACG personaly, yes I have been unhappy with what it has done, but that could all change with the new group I really do wish this new body the best of luck.

 

Big Al,

The 86% came from a survey done by Angling Times.

Barry

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Thanks Barry, enjoy Canada and yes lets have a days fishing in the New Year.

 

Alan.

[Guest RobStubbs]

I'm getting a bit confused with who's writing what and about which organisation and slagging off who, so let me chuck in tuppence worth.

 

The SACG never 'promoted itself' to represent anglers or get a place on the top table (NAA). The SACG was invited to join the new organisation because of it's track record. Now like it or not the SACG has achieved a high profile (well relatively at least) because of the work it has done and the respect for this work. Some of you obviously don't like the idea of the SACG being there but being as they are the only umbrella organisation representing specialist anglers politically who else would you have there ?

 

I can see where Alan is coming from as a lot of people are just chucking negative comeents about whereas why not try to be constructive ? No organisation can hope to be all things to all people but it can hardly change for the better if people can't say what they would like to see it do. Now don't forget the SACG is comprised of a very small number of 'active' people who do what they do for the love of angling and do so voluntarily in their own time. Most (all) organisations cry out for help and the SACG is no different, if you want to do something positive then how about becoming actively involved in one of the organistions ?

 

Rob.

[Guest Pete Waller]

I have watched the SACG from its birth and, I'm sorry, I can not for the life of me see how anyone can deny that it hasn't promoted itself, and claimed greater representation and support than it deserved from 'specialist anglers, most of which have had no say whatsoever in its policies, especially in its earlier days. To put in bluntly, for better or worse, the SACG steamrollered itself into a position of power! Now it's there and it is trying to create unity between single species groups, so I suppose the best thing to do is accept the positive side of their coup. As for the matter of four rod abuse on the Broads, I brought the matter up with the PAC a number of years ago only to be shot down in flames by my good friend Nev Flickling who, as a fanatical . . . . sod it, off on that blessed tangent again. I have also brought it up with the Broads Authority who were about as interested in the issue as I am in the history of doggie's wotsits. If Allan or anyone else wishes to contact me try :

peter.r.waller@btinternet or phone 01502568671 most evenings.