Single Species Organisations

[Guest waterman1013]

For those of you lurkers, who read all this stuff, and are probably confused by a lot of it. Can I just say that most of the "brothers of the angle" who are posting negative views of angling's representative bodies are seldom if ever seen at meetings where the future of our sport is discussed.

 

The active single species groups in SACG are the Tenchfishers, PAC, the eel groups, the Zander Anglers, The Perchfishers, Barbel Catchers, Carp Society and NASA. All of these groups have routes through which their members can get agenda items raised, either within the individual group or within SACG.

 

I can't remember the last time any issue was brought to the table by anyone, other than regular attendees at SACG meetings, which rather puts all this negativity into some perspective.

 

If all the energy that we put into slagging off the attempts of others was directed towards working within existing structures for the benefit of angling we would all be that much stronger. IMO these gripes about this organisation or that organisation are just that - Gripes. They are as useful as the pointless arguments which ensue between particular individuals, mostly over personality clashes rather than policy differences. I have said before that too many people, with a voice in angling, are carrying too much history, and this colours their view of the present.

 

The simple fact is that we are here now and have to deal with the problems of today and tomorrow. SACG and the single specie groups try to represent anglers, the vast majority of whom belong to no group. Angling by its very nature is an individual sport where "joining" is an anathema to most participants, where most anglers do not even read a weekly angling publication and where increasingly most anglers are not even members of an angling club. Balanced representation is hard at the best of times, with such a large number of non-participants in angling organisations it is made even harder and will therefore always represent the views of those who are involved in that representation. There are no closed doors in angling. If you want a voice, you have to make yourself heard. By joining a single species group or SACG/SAA you can attend the meetings and get your voice heard. That is what Steve Randles is doing, as a result of his involvement on this BB. Six months ago his voice and opinions were unheard, now they are listened to and respected. How about making your voice heard, it isn't difficult, it would benefit angling and it would benefit all the groups involved in angling organisation and politics.

 

If you want change, only you can effect it. If you want action, only you can take it.

If you want the status quo, only you can secure it.

 

So join something worthwhile now and get involved. All the groups need more people to spread the workload, all would welcome you. It ain't hard. It is for the future of angling.

 

Mike Heylin

 

[This message has been edited by waterman1013 (edited 05 December 2000).]

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Thanks Mike, well put.

 

Alan.

[Guest the hornet]

In the last 10 years since the SACG was formed, what EXACTLY has it achieved?

 

As Alan has already stated, the SACG were given the 4 rod limit, so must be excluded.

 

After 10 years of cormorant predation - why has nothing been done?

 

What happened to it's Code of Conduct, that at over 50 pages long, would immediately have put people off reading it?

 

Why did Kate Hoey (the minister for sport) tell the SACG to join the NFA to voice it's opinions?

 

What EXACTLY will be the new SAA's aims and objctives?

 

What will it do, when a number of it's member groups can't agree on a particular issue?

 

e.g - live-baiting? the closed season on rivers? codes of conduct? the re-introduction of the closed season on all waters?

 

I assume that as the SACG and NASA are going to merge and form the SAA, the SACG will cease to exist?

 

Sensible answers on a post card to.......

[Guest the hornet]

Alan, just re-read one of your posts,

 

Originally posted by Alan Pearce:

Don't be like the gun lobby, sitting back and letting others walk all over them.

 

I used to shoot pistols, and the gun lobby did not sit back and let people walk all over them! They marched on London, met with politicians, went on radio stations, and hired to lawyers to defend their corner.

 

Unfortunately massive public opinion was against them, and an election was looming. Despite a number of alternatives being available - legaly held pistols were banned.

 

Apart from the Counrtyside Alliance, (who many anglers don't want to be associated with), most anglers would never march on London, or lobby their M.P's.

 

Due to the horrendous incident at Dunblane, and the actions of a nut-case who should never have been in possession of a firearms certificate and pistols in the first place, over 150,000 pistol shooters had their sport destroyed, despite their best efforts. The cost to the tax payer was over £1 billion.

 

The ban on legally held guns, has not stopped the number of shootings, that are carried out with illegaly held weapons. In fact there are more illegaly held guns in this Country, than there were legally held pistols.

 

Sorry to move away from angling on this, but please don't make inaccurate comparisons, and say that the shooting lobby let people walk all over them!

 

If you intend to represent angling, then you should get your facts straight.

[Guest waterman1013]

Hornet, looks like Alan rattled your cage there!

 

Why should he, or any of us here, know the details of the campaign to preserve pistol shooting? We are anglers and most of us do not (or did not) shoot pistol.

 

Steve Pope, who started this thread, has, in the past, raised the problem of posters, on this board, who remain unidentified to the rest of us. If you check back on the threads you will find that at one time most of those of us using a nom de plume exposed our real identities so that no confusion could arise and so that we could maintain the level of trust in each other we had built up on this site. IMO one of the reasons why this board is so productive and useful.

 

Would you feel able to do the same? Or do you wish to continue to enjoy the ability to snipe from the bushes and appear to be trying to create divisions, where none existed previously?

 

Maybe I have this wrong, but I sense another agenda being played out here and if that is the case then we should all know whose agenda it is.

 

I will put together a reply to your questions on "what has SACG acheived" but not at this time of night (ten years of representing the single specie groups and specialist anglers demands more than a cursery examination). It has been a long day and I have another tomorrow, but answers you will have.

 

Mike Heylin

[Guest the hornet]

Waterman

 

Thanks for the reply. Alan did not "rattle my cage" as you so eloquently put it, I was simply pointing out that he should not make comparisons with other sports without knowing all the facts!

 

While I look forward to reading your reply as to what the SACG has achieved - a brief summary of points, would be appreciated.

 

I'd simply like to know what the SACG has achieved? And as someone has previously stated on this B.B - don't take it personally!

 

If you hope to represent specialist anglers then you should be glad of an opportunity to enlighten people and answer any questions - without taking offence and assuming there is a hidden agenda!

 

WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY FROM STEVE POPE's ORIGINAL QUESTION, SO PLEASE ALLOW ME TO ASK EVERYONE THE FOLLOWING;

 

1) If you were going to set up a new angling society for, e.g - roach, bream, gudgeon, etc, exactly how would you structure it?

 

2) How would you decide on a Committee and their term in office?

 

3) If you set up a club or society, would it be a democracy or a dictatorship - who has the final say?

 

4) Would you be involved in angling politics, jr's or conservation?

 

5) What would be it's aims and objectives, and how would you achieve them?

 

6) What would be the cost of membership?

 

7) What would you provide for members having taken their hard earned cash?

 

8) Would you lease or buy waters, and if so, would they be controled by a separate holding company, or the main society. Also, when something goes wrong - who takes responsibility - who's name is on the lease?

 

Quite simply, how would you create, run and develop the PERFECT single species society?

[Guest Graham E]

Hornet, you ask some thought provoking questions, seem articulate and have ideas regarding the way forward for angling.

Why don't you add more than just

Live in Britain /Fishing as a hobby / retired

to your profile to let me also add Courage of convictions to my overview?

[Guest barry ford]

Originally posted by the hornet:

Waterman

 

Thanks for the reply. Alan did not "rattle my cage" as you so eloquently put it, I was simply pointing out that he should not make comparisons with other sports without knowing all the facts!

 

While I look forward to reading your reply as to what the SACG has achieved - a brief summary of points, would be appreciated.

 

I'd simply like to know what the SACG has achieved? And as someone has previously stated on this B.B - don't take it personally!

 

If you hope to represent specialist anglers then you should be glad of an opportunity to enlighten people and answer any questions - without taking offence and assuming there is a hidden agenda!

 

WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY FROM STEVE POPE's ORIGINAL QUESTION, SO PLEASE ALLOW ME TO ASK EVERYONE THE FOLLOWING;

 

1) If you were going to set up a new angling society for, e.g - roach, bream, gudgeon, etc, exactly how would you structure it?

 

2) How would you decide on a Committee and their term in office?

 

3) If you set up a club or society, would it be a democracy or a dictatorship - who has the final say?  

 

4) Would you be involved in angling politics, jr's or conservation?

 

5) What would be it's aims and objectives, and how would you achieve them?

 

6) What would be the cost of membership?

 

7) What would you provide for members having taken their hard earned cash?

 

8) Would you lease or buy waters, and if so, would they be controled by a separate holding company, or the main society. Also,  when something goes wrong - who takes responsibility - who's name is on the lease?

 

Quite simply, how would you create, run and develop the PERFECT single species society?

 

 

 

Hornet,

I just had a thought why dont we ask Steve Pope to answer his own question,after all he is the chiarman of such a group.

 

How about it Steve you have sat back and watched the sparks fly, have you just been testing the water?

 

Are you looking for a place on the board of the new group

Barry

[Guest Paul Williams]

I don't know Steve Pope personally, but that has to be the most unfair addition to this thread yet, Steve didn't bring up the new group, it was the rest of us!!!

[Guest Graham E]

I wouldn't dream of answering for Steve but when I was involved with Twyford FC one of the most important things we did was to undertake a Market research questionnaire of our 650 members to try and establish answers to some relevant questions such as

Why did you join ther club

Are you interested in social events

Do you support the Closed season

Which of our waters do you fish.

etc. the responses allowed the Committee to formulate a buisiness plan to give greater value to the members and ensure we represented their values. The result was a club that grew to the maximum membership of 750 when others were falling and also gave us the green light to purchase our own waters by releasing under utilised costly fisheries. I would suggest Steve is not telling us how to do it but seeking advice /views on how to improve a very well run Society.