Single Species Organisations

[Guest Keith Truscott]

Looking at the posting's here I personally get the impression that Paul's and Graham's last two about summed it up, to my way of thinking Steve originally asked a serious question, to try and get input to improve the way a society is run and what the members generally want from the cross section of anglers that post here.

 

Instead of that he get's the same old moans and groans and in fighting about the current societies, rathter than constructive comments and usefull input.

 

Regular posters have seen the same arguments and criticisms brought up in various other postings here, but that does not answer Steves original question.

 

I am all for debate but shouldn't this be done on a seperate posting IE. if you have a problem with a particular society or if you have ideas on how the NAA should be run post it as a seperate subject so that people can see what it is about and if they have comments to make get involved with it.

 

Keith

[Guest waterman1013]

How you establish a new group or club and how you structure it depends entirely on your objectives in setting it up.

 

If it is simply an angling club there are many patterns of imitation and even a published book on the subject.

 

If it is a new single specie group, normally it would start with a group of like minded individuals, who see benefits in working together. That sort of structure develops over time, unless it is started by someone like Barrie, who can foresee the problems of too much democracy in angling.

 

This is a calm posting from

 

"Dapper" Mike

 

[This message has been edited by waterman1013 (edited 07 December 2000).]

[Guest the hornet]

At last - we are back on Steve Pope's original question!

 

However, let me ask another which may be the reason for his original question?

 

The single species groups seem to be experiencing a decline in their membership - why?

 

Is it due to a reduction in the number of people going fishing, or is it relevant only to the specialist groups?

 

Is this possibly the start of a new trend?

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Hornet, you really have stung yourself this time with the slanderous comments you have made on another thread, now locked, about the SACG and some of its committee members. By return I ask that you publish a retraction and an apology. Like wise the "certain organisation" you refer to deserves an apology from you, for your attempt to cause them un-rest (yes we know who you reffered to).

 

It is the poor attitude and small mindedness of people like you that create problems within the sport, for no other reason than your own twisted pleasure.

 

The next move is up to you, but think carefully before your next post.

 

Alan Pearce SACG Chairman.

[Guest the hornet]

Alan

 

As it seems that you would like to pursue this issue further, I will gladly do so.

 

My comments made on another thread were not slanderous, they are FACT.

 

I have the greatest respect for the organisation to which we are refering and would not say or do anything to damage their excellent reputation.

 

For whatever reasons they refused to join the SACG. However, instead of respecting it's decisions, the SACG was intent on pursuing the issue as far as possible.

 

Hence; my comments that the SACG is unable to accept and respect decisions made by other people or groups. It simply can't accept being told no!

 

C.B sent copies of correspondence to all single species groups within NASA and the SACG stating that they "are a danger to angling unity" - for what purpose? Just because the SACG couldn't get their own way and force them to join the SACG.

 

Hardly what I would call - diplomatic, and definately not working towards unity!

 

As a member of a small group, these letters were received, discussed and even commented on in a newsletter to the detriment of the group mentioned.

 

It strikes me Alan, that your comments are extremely hypocrtical, when it was in fact the SACG that caused all the problems in the first place! Simply because it couldn't get it's own way!

 

Perhaps now you will appreciate my questions (on other threads) about how you will react when groups within the new SAA don't agree with you! Questions that have yet to be answered!

 

I have somehow managed to acquire copies of the correspondence to which I am refering, and will gladly post them on this web-site if I felt it would benefit the group concerned.

 

However, it will not change the situation, and definately will not show the SACG in a good light. But as you have requested proof -i'll have to turn my scanner on!

 

I will also remind you, that it was C.B who stated that the organisation to which we are referring was "a danger to angling unity" and also (stated in the SACG minutes) that they "do not represent the majority of ........anglers".

 

Now, what would you call C.B's comments? Slanderous and libelous does sound about right.

 

How do you expect to create angling unity when members of the SACG committee are making comments like that?

 

I could continue, but it'll take a while to scan everything in. Meanwhile, how about answering my peviously posted questions?

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Hornet, before you put anything into the public domain I really think you should speak to Steve Pope first, for obviouse reasons. Steve and I being chairs of our respective organisations have had many and long conversations over the issue you refer to and have both agreed and disagreed over certain aspects. Suffice to say that what we did agree too was to put this behind us and concentrate our collective energies on more important things and the bigger picture. I am really pleased that the Barbel Society will be involved with the SAA as I believe they have an important role to play in specialist angling. It is no secret that when the BS decided to leave the SACG two years or so ago the committee were sad to see them go and tried to encourage them back, even, not as members but to attend meetings and demonstrate there were no hidden agendas. Steve and I keept in contact and discussed angling issues for I think be both beleived there would be or need to be some unity in the future. Life is all about balance and trying to make the right by all descisions. The road ahead won't always be smooth and I'm sure at times quite bumpy but it up to those who care to do the best job they can with the resources they have.

 

You are obviously concerned about the future, which is great, so why not get involved and work together, forget about any past problems or clashes of personality, don't worry about the guy fishing with four rods and all mod cons on a two hundred acre pit for three fish or the lad dangling worms over the bridge on the local brook, the're quite happy for they have one thing in common, they are both fishing. It is up to the likes of you, I and maybe just a few hundred other people out there who care enough about the sport we share a passion with, to want to protect and enhance it not just for ourselves but future generations to come.

 

Alan

[Guest the hornet]

Alan

 

Well put and I total agree!

 

Ooops! This posting is not fishing talk?

 

Best Regards.......

 

[This message has been edited by the hornet (edited 07 December 2000).]

[Guest barry ford]

Originally posted by waterman1013:

How you establish a new group or club and how you structure it depends entirely on your objectives in setting it up.

 

If it is simply an angling club there are many patterns of imitation and even a published book on the subject.

 

If it is a new single specie group, normally it would start with a group of like minded individuals, who see benefits in working together.  That sort of structure develops over time, unless it is started by someone like Barrie, who can foresee the problems of too much democracy in angling.    

 

This is a calm posting from

 

"Dapper" Mike    

 

[This message has been edited by waterman1013 (edited 07 December 2000).]

Having a pop at me waterman?????

 

Democarcy ah thats were you start a club/society give the membership no say in what goes on, and if someone dissagrees with you well just shut them up,stay on the commitee for ever,never stand for re-election, be full of your own importance, sound familar?

Good job we're not not in an Eastern bloc country I dread to think what may have happened to us that dissagree with the self elected holier than thou brigade.

 

As you are picking on me waterman im off to Canada on Saturday to do some real good for my own club, the one that lets me have a say and where people are prepiared to listen without sulking if I dissagree with them.

Watch out for the fat man in red when he comes down your chimney he may be a communist.

Happy exmas, a well balanced chilled out happy to be alive,

Barry.

[Guest waterman1013]

Barry

 

I presume you are old enough to know the difference between Barry and Barrie. It is in the spelling! No I was not having a pop at you or anyone else. I was trying to make a point about objectives and group memberships. Apparently I failed. Sorry

 

The Barrie to whom I refer is of course Barrie Rickards, a founder of PAC, an organisation others have accused, wrongly in my view, of not being democratic. PAC does not operate an AGM with members voting in a committee. One committee hands over power, every three years, to a new group to form a committee and I understand this is all thrashed out at a Regional Organisers meeting. In one sense this is democratic, in that the activists determine the future, but many see it as not democratic in that there is no system of one member one vote. Sorry I was assuming that everyone would pick up on my spelling of Barrie and understand the point I was making.

I guess at times I am too close to the trees to see the wood.

 

Mike

 

[This message has been edited by waterman1013 (edited 08 December 2000).]

[Guest waterman1013]

Hi Hornet

 

You wanted answers so here are some. I could have spent the spare hours in the two days preparing our response to the Environment Agency consultation draft on Agriculture and the Environment but yours and others needs for SACG to justify ourselves are obviously much more important than ensuring a considered response to a document that may shape agriculture and its impacts on our lakes and rivers for years to come.

 

Sometimes it really p****s me off when we spend more time having these endless discussions with anglers instead of being able to get on and defend our fish, rivers and lakes from the predation of industry, agriculture and government. But I notice you are retired, it’s one of the few facts you give us about yourself (oh, and by the way, this is not a game to some of us, so fun doesn't come into it) so you have plenty of time on your hands and I’ll leave you to respond to the EA document on behalf of anglers around the country. I know you’ll do a great job.

 

Rant over – read on.

 

Amongst other things in the last ten years SACG have;

 

a) Defended the rights of eel anglers to fish our rivers during the river close season against proposals from the EA to stop eel fishing from March 15th to June 16th. The EA saw the correctness of our arguments and withdrew the proposal. We also supported eel anglers in their campaign to fight unlicensed netting of eels and elvers.

Defended, on numerous occasions and at the highest level, the right of anglers to use live fish as baits

c) Actively worked with the EA on their review of fishery bylaws over the last five years.

d) United most single specie groups under one banner for political purposes and saved them all from duplication of effort

e) Has been a key player in the formation of the NAA and the development of unity across all angling

f) Founder member and worked on the Moran Committee for angling inputs to the Freshwater and Fisheries review group

g) Have established European wide contacts with other specialist groups

h) Worked with NASA to develop communications links within specialist angling

i) Defended the close season on rivers

j) Defended the right to use live fish as baits with the PAC and other predator groups

k) Developed and published the Code of Conduct, see this site, obtaining backing from the EA, most single specie groups and other bodies, distributed it widely to anglers and clubs

l) Worked closely with the RSPB, BTO and Swan Rescue

m) Worked with the Wildlife Trust to help develop sensible and acceptable plans for angling

n) Defended the right of anglers when local fishing has been threatened by local government.

o) Have members sitting on Environment Agency committees, for example Fishery Consultatives and RFerACs

p) Have campaigned against illegal fish movements and imports

q) Have a project to define and outlaw tether rigs under way

r) Have campaigned for a total ban on live fish imports

s) Operate on ongoing monitoring service of CAA (Pisces) and PETA and other threats to angling

t) Rewrote and published “the Angling Activists Handbook”, a guide to combating anti-angling propaganda and activity

u) Represent specialist angling on the ACA Council

v) Presently promoting the development of local conservation initiatives between anglers and other conservation groups based on the success of the Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association (NACA)

w) Highlighted the problem of otter predation on still waters to anglers and the wildlife trusts. Achieved recognition of the problem of re-introduced otters in unsuitable locations by the Wildlife Trust and got support from them for funding applications for founds to protect fisheries.

 

All these amongst others.

 

You misquote Alan on the four rods situation. He said “members of SACG (which included most of the single specie groups at that time) said it was a sensible thing to do, SACG conveyed this to the EA who at the end of the day made the final decision.” So it was not handed to SACG on a plate. It took a lot of negotiation, over several years, to reach the agreement against pressure from the different EA regions to maintain their own status, which at that time was very varied on permissible rod numbers.

 

With regard to your question on cormorants I suggest you direct that question to MAFF. They spent your tax money to produce, over two years, a report which produced no solutions and only left more question than it answered. They have recently commissioned yet another report. SACG is working with the other angling representative bodies, via the Moran Committee and the NAA, to bring pressure to bear on the cormorant issue.

 

The code, a stated previously, was published and widely circulated. It has been accepted by many clubs as their “bible” to fishery rules, stocks are now low and a reprint is being considered, perhaps with updates, if funding can be raised from the EA and other bodies. There is a potential for the Code to be produced as an NAA document. It could then be much more widely distributed.

When we wrote the original we had to decide whether to produce a short snappy general guide or an authoritative code that was addressed as much to water owners as anglers themselves. We chose the latter option and it took 2 years of intense negotiation to agree the wording.

 

Kate Hoey was following government policy and that of Sport England in seeking to negotiate with one national angling Governing Body (now NAA). SACG, even before this government was elected and before KH was appointed a Minister, had worked with her and was equally keen to see the development of a national governing body for angling. We did not consider it a slight on our work or ability to be asked to get closer to NFA. It is something we had tried in the past, and failed to achieve. Kate putting on the pressure opened the door again by putting the government position quite plainly to the NFA, NFSA and S&TA at a meeting originally organised with her by SACG, to which we had invited the angling Governing Bodies and other interested parties.

 

The aims and objectives of SAA are covered in the draft constitution, which is yet to be ratified by the membership. However the draft states as follows;

 

1. Aims & Objectives

1.1 To defend all the angling rights and interests of its members, member groups and specialist anglers.

1.2 To represent all our members within the National Angling Alliance, to other bodies and organisations, in particular with regard to environmental and political matters of concern to angling.

1.3 To campaign on behalf of members for a cleaner aquatic environment.

1.4 To continue to provide a unified body for the benefit of all members, member groups and specialist anglers.

1.5 To collect and record factual information on notable fish captures through a voluntary reporting scheme.

1.6 To provide 2 representatives to sit on the National Coarse Fish Record Committee.

 

This document will be put to members for acceptance or modification at the inaugural meeting in 2001

 

The single specie groups have always reached a concordat on the difficult areas of angling policy. Those who do not use a particular technique or method have generally left it to those that do to decide on policy in that area, although all are involved in any debate. I think the groups often find common cause with others through this mechanism, and it has worked successfully in the past.

 

As an example of consensus – we (the members in committee) all agreed to oppose the abolition of the river close season and so that became SACG policy. Previously we had debated the issue of the stillwater close season in committee and given the variety of views on the subject (some for, some against) SACG decided to make no public statement on the subject and did not contribute to the Environment Agency consultation on the subject.

 

Yes, SACG and NASA will merge into the SAA and then both NASA and SACG will wind themselves up and transfer all funds to the new body.

 

I believe this to be a sensible answer to your questions. You see it took considerably more than a post card!

 

Your views and comments would be gratefully received.

 

Mike

 

PS

 

Of course you can call me Mike, what should I call you? Didn’t you know heat rises and dissipates. Lively debate makes the world go round, it is just that your timing is crap. Oh b****r, there goes that typo again (See other posts in other topics if this does not mean anything to you )

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by waterman1013 (edited 08 December 2000).]