Specialist Angling Unity

[Guest Alan Pearce]

No one has been proposed for election as yet, In the next week or so Mike Heylin joint NASA / SACG caretaker secretary will be sending out notice to all members of NASA and SACG asking them to send in their nominations for posts to be filled on the new committee. At the formative meeting on May 13 these will be voted on. As far as Peters question regarding anglers overall, then it is up to them to represent themselves via there own elected bodies who are members of the NAA. These include NFA, S&TA, NFSA, SACG (SAA), NAFAC and ATA. If you want your voice heard then align yourself with the body that represents your area of interest within angling.

 

Alan.

 

[This message has been edited by Alan Pearce (edited 17 March 2001).]

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Peter,

With regard to your last posting please allow me to clear up one or two of your points raised.

 

I represent the Barbel Catches Club as their rep at SACG meetings. Indeed, I am one of many such reps attending SACG meetings on behalf of their own clubs members. I am not or ever have been an officer in SACG.

 

To my knowledge I have not considered or have been offered any position within the SAA. Again to my knowledge, no one else within SACG or NASA has been offered positions either.

 

The position of SAA representing their own members is my personal idea and is not SAA policy because as you quite rightly say that will be decided in May. I appologise if I have given anyone the wrong impression.

 

SACG history though is detailed with events where SACG offered its support and help to none members to deal with issues of their concern.

 

Apart from my probable gaff, I have not been aware of anyone from SACG or NASA was giving the impression that they are to be given positions within SAA. I thought that most of the contributions coming from past SACG officials and reps on this thread were mostly a donation of SACG/NASA history assisting in debates.

 

When NASA and latterly the SACG began,an aweful lot of voluntary work was put in to make both organisations work. As a result of those peoples work over the years, contacts and respect from goverment and its agencies has been built to what it is today. Why then Peter, as a non-contributor in all this work yourself, should you want to claim it and use the same for yourself.

 

What are all these changes that SACG has brought about that effect so many anglers outside of SACG?

 

Why are you singling out the SACG and the forthcoming SAA in this way. SACG are only one of many who are actively hoping to change things that might inadvertently effect non-members.

 

The Barbel Society for example are very active within the political arena as non SACG members. Mike Burdon in particular works tirelessly for his members. He sits on various consultatives and attends various meetings in high places where his concerns are heard. Steve Pope and others within the BS do the same. Along the way they hope to change things for the good via altering certain goverment legislation. Are you going to then start slating them when they succeed in their aims because they represent 1500 members and not angling as a whole?

 

It is a similar story with the PAC. The PAC also attend various non-SACG meetings with government agencies where they fight for issues they are concerned with. Will you criticise their victories also by saying that they do not represent the majority.

 

From your posting,it appears that you probably feel that the SAA is to become a powerful voice in the corridors of power. Surely, that is a good thing. Also from your posting you seem concerned about this. I say again, If you want a voice in SAA then join up. Become a member yourself and take part by attending meetings giving your time to supporting the future of specialist angling.

 

Its up to you Peter, no amount of carping will stop the progress of SAA,the NAA or angling unity finally becoming a cherished reality. The SAA will work because of the commitment of its members and a willingness to give our unpaid time.

[Guest Squimp]

Peter,

 

You make some intriguing points about SACG (soon to be SAA) and its (their) mandate to represent specialist angling.

 

As Trent Barbeler has pointed out the 'committee' of SACG contains representatives of many specialist groups. It also contains 'Officers' - who may or may not also be representatives of specialist groups.

 

Past history has shown that those willing to do most of the donkey work within SACG have been concerned individuals, rather than representatives of specialist groups. This may simply be because those group representatives spend their spare time working on group matters and don't have enough time to also take on SACG external representation.

 

These individuals (myself included) are then mandated by the committee to go out and represent SACG (and by inference specialist angling) to bodies such as the Environment Agency and sit on committees such as the Moran Committee.

 

You may be concerned at my statement 'by inference specialist angling'.

 

If (as was the case) every single species group except the Barbel Society is in membership of SACG and has access to quarterly policy forming meetings - then how can SACG be criticised for representing specialist angling?

 

Is there a better way?

 

Angling has a particular problem because of the way it is structured. Individuals can go fishing on day ticket or free fisheries without joining any club/ association or representative body. All they have to do is buy a rod licence. This results in a large body of anglers effectively being 'unrepresentable' - because they don't belong to any membership organisation.

 

In most other sports individual particpation demands membership of a club or association. This makes it easy (relatively) to consult the membership for elections, policy formation etc. It also makes it easy to fund the representative body, but that is another story!

 

The net result of all this, allied to stated statistics that only half of all anglers join any club or association is that many anglers are effectively outside the 'system'.

 

Now look at things from the perspective of the government. There are three governing bodies for angling - one each for coarse, game and sea anglers. Unfortunately these three bodies only represent a minority of all anglers. So does the government talk to these bodies or does it make up its own mind about its policies towards angling in sweet isolation?

 

Luckily for us anglers, the answer is that the government consults with the best representative bodies it can find. Which is why it asked NAFAC and SACG to join with the governing bodies in forming what was the 'Angling Council' and is now the 'National Angling Alliance' (NAA). NAA of course also includes the Angling Trade Association (ATA).

 

It may be that in bald stastictical terms the NAA will represent less than half of all the anglers in England. However it is the best available forum - unless anybody can think of a better way. I certainly cannot.

 

The very same logic applies to specialist angling. The single species groups provide the only possible way of polling individual specialist anglers. If the vast majority of groups sign up to an 'umbrella organisation' such as SACG/SAA, is that not the best we can do?

 

Needless to say the policies of that umbrella body will directly reflect the wishes of the membership.

 

It however cannot know the views of those anglers not in membership.

 

I apologise for being longwinded and hope this makes sense. At least the pargraphs were short!

 

Tim Marks

[Guest STEVE POPE]

My question which I believe was perfectly valid and carried no hidden meaning was a comment or observation on a current situation. Nothing more,nothing less.

 

I thank Mark Leathwood of the P.A.C. for his response and at the same time confirm my respect for all the single species groups.

 

For anyone to suggest otherwise was once again a misinterpretation of my words.

 

I fully appreciate and understand all that is involved in the successful running and organisation of a "large" group.

The chief responsibilities of any serving officer is to the membership and upholding the aims and objectives of their group.

 

It is impossible to please every single member, but through hard work,tact, diplomacy, trust and mutual respect you can get pretty close.

 

A good Angling representative, leader or "politician" knows exactly what to say or do,how to say it, and when to say it; and how to engender trust and respect.

 

They also know when silence is golden.

 

Those are qualities I and the Barbel Society membership would demand from those who would speak and act on our behalf.

There are some out there with these qualities, some who think they have them, and some who patently do not.

 

I am not going to comment on the various offshoots to the original question, suffice to say there have been many interesting and salient points raised.

 

I wish S.A.A. well and sicerely hope it succeeds with its aims and objectives, irrespective of whether the B.S. is a member or not.

 

If anyone wishes to discuss this further, I will be at the N.E.C. for the full three days.

I will not be responding any further on this forum.

 

Steve Pope Chairman, The Barbel Society.

[Guest david platt]

Originally posted by Paul Williams:

Peter,

I barbel fish, i barbel fish with one rod roving and i barbel fish with two rods static......i fish stillwaters with the bivvy up and with three rods....i fish with a float rod and stick and waggler floats......i fish as my mood takes me,it's my hobby when i'm having a session carping do i stop being a real angler? and when i'm stolling the river bank with one rod do i suddenly become a real one?

There is no need for different views to come between a succsesful angling body....just a mature understanding of each others views and dumping of holier than thou attitudes that SOME members of ALL the single species groups have.

 

Well Said Paul,

I agree with every thing you have stated

here in your post

david

[Guest Steve Burke]

Peter's brought up an interesting point which I hope has now been answered to his satisfaction. It certainly has to mine.

 

In the days when I was a member of the Perchfishers (I left because it got political!), I had an indirect voice within the SACG. When I left the Perchfishers I asked to be kept informed about what was happening, and as a result have been on the SACG's mailing list and still receive copies of minutes etc.

 

I've made several representations to the SACG on a number of topics, both before and after I left the Perchfishers. I have to say they've always been listened to and, in the case of trolling on enclosed waters within the Anglian region, acted upon.

 

As many of you will know I've been seriously ill and I'm not yet fit enough to attend meetings or even the AGM. However, I assume that as I'm going to pay an individual subscription to the new SAA that I'll still get a vote at the AGM. Perhaps the appropriate person could confirm this?

 

Most of the organisations within angling are democratic. The only major exception I know of that's not is the PAC. This I believe is what is called a benevolent dictatorship. Whether this stops you joining, as it has a number of pikers, is up to you. BTW, especially in the light of the recent controversy, are there any plans to change this?

 

Basically, if you care about angling and want your voice to be heard, join an organisation that is affiliated to angling's governing body. If you dont through apathy or any other reason, I don't believe you have a right to bleat.

 

P.S. How come we've got back to the subject of sheep again?

 

------------------

Wingham Fisheries

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/fisheries/wingham.htm

 

[This message has been edited by Steve Burke (edited 17 March 2001).]

[Guest Peter Waller]

Thank you Gentlemen. Between us we have all stopped, thought, and presented our cases. Whether we have agreed with each others opinion or not, it has not turned into a slanging match. But at the end of the day, it appears that we all understand each other. I for one will join the SAA, confident that there are those clearly involved that will not allow a clique to form with a view to pursuing self-interest. As has been clearly stated there are one or two individuals who would wish to be policy makers within the SAA whilst it is equelly clear that there are others who MUST, in preference, be up there holding the reins, as the quality of their opinions / postings have proved; these tend to be rather more recent postings. I say this with no wish to give offence but, as I have said previously, we must get this right and a few feathers will be ruffled. As for the Barbel Society, it seems to me strange that it does not want to be there, at the onset, to give support and guidence to a body that, provided it gets things right, will ultimately be an important body in angling.

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Peter,

 

Well said.

I for one look forward to working with you and others who may choose to join the SAA working together for the benefit of specialist angling. Although there is much work to do, I am confident that the SAA will be that much the stronger when committed and caring anglers become involved.

 

Within this thread Peter, you have raised some good points as have others.

 

Hopefully,some of the grass roots guys from within SACG like myself have managed to clarify our hopes for the future within the SAA whilst giving those with possible concerns a reason to expect a brighter future not for just ourselves, but for those who will come long after we are gone.

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

Just a simple thing ...

 

This BB is International and the UK angling politics stuff is confusing our non UK brothers of the angle.

 

Please remember that what you write here can be viewed by the whole world (and that includes those who want fishing banned).

 

Thanks,

 

Ian.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Ian Cresswell (edited 18 March 2001).]

[Guest Alan Pearce]

I am pleased that Peter has decided to join the SAA and I welcome him, his thoughts and views. Whilst Peter and I have had our disagreements, I have always felt and understood his passion for the sport. I am sure he will make a valuable contribution to the future of specialist angling.

 

Since this thread began we have recieved a huge amount of interest regarding membership of the SAA from both clubs and individuals, please keep them coming, email waterman1013@hotmail.com

 

Many thanks

Alan.