Single Species Organisations

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

Originally posted by Paul Williams:

no wonder the majority of anglers don't want anything to do with "organizations!!!!!

 

Paul,

 

The 'organisation' that really counts is the newly formed NAA of which the SACG are one of the 7 (equal) voting members.

 

Like it or not, head in the sand or not, angling needs representation at the highest level possible. Government departments find it very difficult to deal with many, seemingly divided, single interest groups. So they don't bother - or at least they didn't start to look like they might until very recently.

 

A few of our fellow anglers spend a great deal of spare (fishing) time trying to help this way. These kind folks deserve a huge vote of thanks from all of us.

 

Personally, I do my best to help, and I really don't do enough. I do however feel that I get 'my say' by getting involved and not by 'pointing fingers'.

 

SACG's performance has been called 'unimpressive'. Why exactly?

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Guest Paul Williams]

Ian, i never intended my last posting to be "against" either Pete or Alan but the way forward is not to try and shut someone up, but then again thats only my opinion!! but lets talk about your opinion, the NAA is the ONLY organisation that counts!! go into the busiest tackle shop you can find tomorrow and ask all the anglers who walk through the door if they have heard of it! i'll bet you don't find many who have!....all my angling life i have heard of this organization and that organization but i ain't yet come across one thats done what it intended, mind you i've known one or two organisations that have been stepping stones for people wanting to make a name for themselves!!!!!! we must learn to listen and not all be to embroiled in what WE have to say, or is that what i am doing?? getting to embroiled!

[Guest BUDGIE]

Before we go any further I would like to make it quit clear that I dont know Paul Williams,don't owe him any money and have never slept with him!But once again find my self in total agreement with his last two posts.Alan it is a natural reaction to defend your "baby" but I am sure that Pete more than apreciates the work that many people like your self put in.He was merely commenting on his own observations.Aint much in any type of angling that goes past me but I never heard much about the SACG untill comming to this site.If a couple of us havn't then I bet not many out there will have!Not being critical just pointing to an obvious problem.If asked what the SACG had done for either angling or myself I would have had to reply "who?" Making policies is fine (I like what I have read on this sites SACG page)but it is no good unless the masses know and wish to comply.If you(SACG) have done fine deeds on our behalf then you owe it to yourselfs to let us know!

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

Originally posted by Paul Williams:

but lets talk about your opinion, the NAA is the ONLY organisation that counts!!

 

Don't even try to go there. I have opinions (plural) and not an 'opinion' and even in a 'Roswell Sun' reporters wildest dreams I didn't say or imply that.

 

Where did the word 'ONLY' come from here? I didn't use it did I?

 

The representative bodies associated with the NAA aren't a bad choice IMHO. Who would you choose?

 

We'll have to see whether this alliance works or not but anything has to be worth a try and it looks like a possible 'runner' to me.

 

Cheers,

 

Ian.

[Guest Keith Truscott]

OH! Dear,

 

This is all getting a bit heated, it is just like visiting one of the specialist Group sites where a lot of anglers have been introduced in to the sport whether it be Barbel,Carp,Predator or whatever by a freind and have read one or two of the various books published and have become instant anglers with very fixed ideas on how everybody should fish, and if you don't agree with there very narrow point of view you are WRONG.

 

This is one of the reasons I stopped posting on these sites as they tend to get very abusive if you don't agree with them, albeit that a lot of them have never served there apprentiship through the sport.

 

I only belong to one society now and that is the Barbel Society and I believe that Steve originally posted this topic to try and avoid the very pitfalls that are taking place to try and create a geniuine society for Barbel Anglers.

 

I also believe that all individual societies start off with the right intentions in mind but in doing this create rules and regulations that tie the indiviual angler to there way of thinking, so if the majority of instant anglers say you can't use Keeepnets because they are bad for the fish then you don't use them, despite what you as an individual may think, or as I have seen posted on one site no responsible angler should use the loop method for ledering or feedering as it is a fish killing method.

 

If as an individual you take the time and trouble to join one of these societies then we must all assume that you are a resposible angler and whatever method you use and providing you do it and feel comfortable that fish welfare is taken care of then to me that is the prime objective, but I do not want to be told how and by what method I am allowed to fish.

 

We as a sport need socities to represent us and we need things like the ACA to protect our fisheries and our criticisms are based on our own individual theories. As has been posted on here many times we can not please all of the people all of the time so the representative bodies do what they think is best and we all have the choice to vote by paying subscription or not.

 

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, we all belong to the biggest and most popular sport there is and apart from the instant anglers we should be united in what we want to achieve, so allthough we might not agree privately with some of the policies that societies lay down I honestly believe that most have the interests of the anglers and the particular species they represent at heart.

a very jet lagged

Keith

[Guest Pete Waller]

I just knew that when I 'sniped' at the SACG that I would get the reaction that I did. Okay, so my feelings on the matter have been summoned. Specialist anglers CONSERVATION group, stressing CONSERVATION. Rather a contradiction of terms to my way of thinking. How on earth can a body that promoted the four rod rule, which I believe the SACG supported, claim to be a conservation group? And then, ofcourse, there is the matter of the close season on still waters. At that time I would ask what right did the SACG have to claim to represent the 'specialist' angler? Who voted them to represent OUR interests. I have a great deal of sympathy for NASA, I don't always agree with what they represent but atleast they were voted in. The remarks re the changing face of angling that cropped up with the infamous 'crap yob' comments keep hovering just below the skyline on this one. Now, here I could be wrong, but I can't help feeling that the carp anglers agenda has been forced upon the rest of us via the the SACG. Now we have the SACG which appears to have thrust itself onto other specialist groups. Now, if I've got it all wrong then I apologise. Allan Pearce's reply to myself, telling me to shut up, is typical and not helpful. Rather in the style of those that have created problems within the PAC and elsewhere in angling. In other words, there is only one opinion that can possibly be right . . . . Thankfully we now have the NAA which should, hopefully prevent one self interest group, from ruling the roost. Now, that should clear the air! But I bet it doesn't. Allan, I have aired my thoughts and opinions. I admit my research is less than skin deep. I really would like you to prove me totally wrong. Preventing other anglers from having, or expressing an alternative opinion is not, I think, the way forward. So, dear fellow angler, feel free to express your opinion; certainly, if I don't like it, I won't tell you to shut up. Thank you for asking me to express my feelings and opinion.

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

BANG! ... there's a shot in the foot ... BANG! oops other foot now ... no working feet = on knees.

 

Is that attitude really helpful to the future of angling?

 

Give the NAA a chance please.

 

Ian.

[Guest Paul Williams]

Alan, i am willing to give anything a chance,( i agree you you never said the "only"...i should have used the word "the"!) but any body should listen to the world it intends to represent! and i stick by my origanal thread that trying to shut people up ain't the road to go down if you want any body to be taken seriously, inviting people to talk and disscuss their ideas is IMHO a better way.

[Guest RobStubbs]

I thought for a minute I was in a thread discussing single species groups but everyone seems to have forgotten that. The SACG is not a single species group, rather an umbrella organisation. It's membership consists of most of the single species groups and it is the fact that they choose to affiliate to the SACG that the group can say it represents them. I'm not entering into debate about the four rod rule, suffice it to say that all clubs/waters can now choose the number of rods allowed - I'm a carp angler and I don't fish any waters that allow 4 rods - common sense rules.

 

Back to the real topic. IMO the reason a number of the single species groups fail us is that have become too big. I am particularly talking about the CS because I don't know too much about the other groups. The CS doesn't represent it's members and doesn't listen to them. It has high ambitions but in a lot of cases they are not realistic and if all the members were questioned I doubt many would agree with objectives.

 

Rob.

[Guest Paul Williams]

One more thing then i've had my say.....it's about time that the "you are bringing angling down to it's Knees" card was put away! we ain't going anywhere without disscussion, along with it there will be plenty of disagreement, i would like to think that we are all adult enough to handle it. I don't give a damn what the anti's think but i do care about my right to fish, only through talking can we hope to protect that right...so no i don't think we are shooting angling in the foot! talk, debate, and yes even argue! but don't fall out! i have the most constructive debates with "friends" .....well Steve Pope you certainly started something again!!!!!!