Specialist Angling Unity

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by Alan Pearce:

Why close this thread when its just getting interesting? I also think one or two more single species groups may be posting their thoughts, according anyway, to a copy email recieved this evening.

 

Peter W, you again made mention of the near collapse of the SACG, more information please, as I must have fallen asleep at one of the past 20 meetings and missed this. I think as you have said before, you had been getting some wrong information. What is your source?

 

Alan.

It was in Angling Times, of that I am sure. I accept that I stand to be corrected.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Why not get involved at the begining Peter and help ensure it meets with your approval. If everyone took your view then nothing would ever get done, and then you would have something to moan about.

 

Do you believe everything you read in the popular angling press? Perhaps you should re read it again.

 

Alan.

 

[This message has been edited by Alan Pearce (edited 22 March 2001).]

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Dear Lyn, Peter and everyone else.....

Last word from me on this posting, OK.

I am, and have stated in my second to last posting, that I am on the NASA committee...I should add that I am also covering, sharing, the same position with Bob on the NASA committee.

I would have thought it obvious by now that both the NASA committee and the SACG committee think that a merger should occur, in the best interests of both groups and hopefully both memberships.

I should just say here that the memberships are the ones with serious doubts on the merger of the two groups, not the committee members.

I have always said what I think at both NASA and SACG meetings.

For the record, only NASA has committee meetings really.

The SACG has meetings. These meetings are attended by the elected committee positions and the membership (Those who turn up!!)

I consider myself on the SACG committee along with all other attending members....anyone who thinks I am not is either daft or not in tune with me. Simply by virtue of me attending the only meetings they hold, means that I must be 'a part' of the committee set-up.

Certainly this will be so on the proposed SAA committee/organisation.

I am not going to speak for any other NASA member/committee person. I can only see things my way and would not presume to suggest what they think or why they have not posted here.

Please consider this Lyn. If you are not a member of either group as yet, then Bob is probably right to say wait until the SAA is formed and the committee elected and then decide if you want to join it.

Notice I said join it and not us.

I am going to the meeting on May 13th 2001 and shall decide on the day, via my election voting choices, on how I want the first committee of the SAA to be set-up. If they do not do a good job for all of the specialist anglers who join them then I shall be the loudest voice at the following AGM next year....I would assume that others will also do the same.

If those who say they have learned are elected by majority vote....and have not learned from the past....they will not be sitting in the seat the following year, or if they are, they shall be carrying a lighter membership into 2002.

It is called democracy.

I just wish that all who have posted could have done so without their SACG or NASA titles on....however, this couldn't have happened.

Maybe Bob has some doubts....I have some as well but I am sensible to know that the merger should happen.

SACG has lost some respectability out in the land of anglers....that is not a secret. It is bloody obvious from some of the postings here and via 'the grapevine'.

NASA only has its social side left unfortunately....and the really caring NASA membership (excuse my sarcasm) didn't support that part very well in recent times.

I was the conference organiser for the NASA, along with Kevin Huish, and the membership didn't rally around our efforts to hold successful conferences. The truth is this...the conferences were a success but the attendance wasn't...it was pathetic.

Last year Alan Icaza organised a free NASA conference....and that was less attended than previous years by the NASA members.

Yes SACG is 'the voice of the NASA'....it is also 'the political wing of the NASA' as well...The title changed due to sponsors not wanting to be alined with the wording 'political'. It was a sensible adjustment at the time. There was no split in the two groups..just a change in the direction of how the NASA evolved.

The SACG and NASA are one body with two heads.

For the sake of a battle between is it NASA or SACG...A new name was thought to be the best idea.

I actually voted against the proposed new name....the only one to do so...simply because I couldn't come up with a better name. The name means nothing really other than to catch the ear out there.

However, the personell of the new group/organisation does.

Quite simply...if you're not a member of either group as yet you will not have a say in the election of officers.....taken that this is so, how can you sit out there moaning about what might happen.....?

I think that those posting now just want to muddy waters....that is a shame because they appear to care deep down but are not involved.

If you are a member of a single specie group that is affiliated to NASA or SACG then come along on May 13th 2001 and have your say.

I am going...and then if things go against how I vote then I shall at least have the platform to whinge, moan and criticise later if nessesary.

I sincerely hope that I don't have the opportunity to do so.

Wishing you all the best in which ever direction you choose to take.....

Steve.

[Guest DLF]

Ok. can we now have an answer to my question, if the SAA are negotiating to set up a river group who is doing the negotiating, for whom and why since the SAA has yet to officially come into being answers please Colin/Chris or someone - or are you chosing to ignore questions because I am new poster?

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

Originally posted by Squimp:

<snip>

 

A skeleton committee of Keith Barker (NASA), Mike Heylin (SACG)and Kevin Stephenson (NASA) was appointed at the Feb meeting to manage things up till May 2001.

...

 

In contrast, Keith Barker cannot comment here because he does not have access to a computer.

</snip>

 

Surely then that makes this an inappropriate place to hold such an in depth discussion.

[Guest Paul Williams]

There are alway's the rest of us who may just be reading this tread!!!

You don't have to read it, but personally i think it is doing no harm and questions do need asking.

[Guest waterman1013]

Ian

 

Sorry, again, but I think if you read carefully, all most of us have attempted to do is to answer valid questions from postings under a thread which was not started by anyone directly involved in the setting up of SAA.

 

It is only right that non-members should have the opportunity to hear what is going on and be given a chance to understand where various members of "angling's leadership" is coming from.

 

Are members and non-members alike to be denied this chance simply because Keith has no access to a computer? I think not.

 

Mike

 

Off to NEC, see you there?

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by DLF:

Ok. can we now have an answer to my question, if the SAA are negotiating to set up a river group who is doing the negotiating, for whom and why since the SAA has yet to officially come into being answers please Colin/Chris or someone - or are you chosing to ignore questions because I am new poster?

 

Hi DLF. Apparently I am good at misreading things but I thought it was Hornet who mentioned something about it re the Barbel Society. Hornets postings tend to be a trite aggresive so I haven't bothered to check.

[Guest DLF]

Hi Pete, yes the Hornet did originally state that a river group was being set up, since the Barbel Society have made their intentions clear over the issue of the SAA, I am sure that it is up to them if they wish to be involved with an umbrella group more to their liking, my point was regarding comments made on behalf of Chris Turnbull which stated that the SAA was also setting up a rivers group, so I questioned who and with what authority were they neogotiating with since the SAA comitee has yet to be elected. I thought it was a straight forward question, but non of those concerned will give an answer.It is this kind of reluctance to share information that is making me have my doubts about continued membership.

[Guest Squimp]

DLF,

 

SAA and a rivers group.

 

I am not sure what you are concerned about?

 

At the last meeting (open to all SACG and NASA members) the concept of a rivers group was seen by many as very important - hence its inclusion in the draft structure.

 

Note the word 'draft'. There is nothing sinister going on here - just an attempt to generate a foundation on which to build a new body.

 

The draft structure includes a variety of different topics within which it is proposed that the SAA will get involved. One of these is the 'rivers group'.

 

If the members decide to go a different route and don't want a 'rivers group', it won't happen. Simple as that.

 

If/when a 'rivers group' within SAA does happen, what it chooses to get involved in is once again up to the membership and the representatives elected to manage the group.

 

As an example:

Several years ago the plan was to spawn local groups in different parts of the country, based around the 'NACA' concept.

 

The plan was floated to the angling governing bodies for financial support. At that time, money was not available - so it was shelved.

 

The NAA may provide a basis on which such a plan can be properly funded in the future.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Tim Marks