Specialist Angling Unity

[Guest Graham E]

Yes Steve, I understand your comment A1.

My rather oblique post was really to stress the importance to get ALL interested parties together at the outset to avoid those side issues surfacing later, and achieve full buy in (God, Mngmnt Cons. have a lot to answer for!)

[Guest Steve Burke]

Originally posted by Graham E:

(God, Mngmnt Cons. have a lot to answer for!)

 

Yes, we make a lot of money telling other people what they already know! No wonder I'm now semi-retired!

 

 

 

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

Wingham Fisheries

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

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by lyn:

To Allan,

You have just called every carp,pike, cat angler etc narrow minded & thoughtless! Well that's a good start to angling unity!

lyn

 

Well said Lyn, I could see this coming and you have worded exactly how I feel about many of Allan's recent comments. I'm afraid our Allan, as well intentioned as he is, and bless him for his efforts, is, in my opinion, doing a pretty good job of alienating himself from many of his fellow anglers by some of his comments.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Big ooops! Just re read that, and no it wasn't the bottle or the baccy, tiredness maybe. What I was aiming to say, but missed, was those that have single aims and ambitions without a care or thought for others.

 

Maybe because my fishing is so wide and ranging I don't find it difficault to see a broad picture. This past year 90% of my fishing time has been spent after barbel and tench, the year before this also included pike and perch. But I care equally about all the other species that I have fished for and will again in the future.

 

During my past 7 years involvement with the SACG, and one of the reasons why I got involved with the group was due to the care, support and consideration shown by specialist anglers towards the sport of others. To see seasoned still water anglers rise to the support of river anglers and vice versa has made me proud to be part of the organisation, and even prouder to be a fisherman.

 

During my time on the SACG committee, in varying positions I was pleased to be able to donate my time and money back into the sport which for 37 years has given me so much enjoyment and satisfaction. It had nothing to do with ego, on the contrary I work better and prefer to be on the back benches. A few months ago when the SACG and NASA looked set to merge I was the first one to suggest that I pass on the Chairmans position to the then NASA secretary, subject to the members agreement. Because I thought him better in that position than me, and of greater benefit to the group and specialist angling.

 

At the SAA formative meeting in May all the committee positions will be up for election by the SACG and NASA members, if I can play a useful role on the new committee then subject to the members approval, I will. However if others would like to contribute then I would be more than pleased to see them put their names forward, and I pledge them my support. (In fact I could do with some more fishing time)

 

It has been inferred here that I am having a go at the Barbel Society and its Chairman Steve Pope and to some degree that is correct. However this is nothing more or less than we have done many times face to face and during our many telephone conversations. Although there are some issues we don't agree on, equally there many where we do, never the less we respect each others points of view. Behind the scenes there have been, over the past few years, some wranglings between the committees of the BS and the SACG and several times the SACG, for the benefit of specialist angling, has held out an olive branch and suggested putting past problems behind us.

 

Unfortunatly each time this has been declined by the BS committee without any good reason other than those that could affect the sport of other single species and specialist groups. And these issues can only be properly discussed and debated, if all the parties were to sit down together and take part.

 

To this effect I would ask, in public, the Barbel Society to join all the other single species and specialist groups in the forming of the SAA. If not to clearly state the reasons why they should decline.

 

As Steve Pope began this thread and is Chairman of the Barbel Society, I would respectfully ask him to reply.

 

Best fishes to all.

 

Alan.

[Guest Peter Waller]

There is, I think, a body of anglers, such as myself and perhaps the Barbel Society, who are a touch concerned that the SAA will be the SACG by another name. So whats wrong with that? Much of this was covered some months ago but basically its down to a degree of mistrust, nagging doubts. Many of us are not happy with the outcome of SACG influence in the past, the four rod rule, which is still a bowl of contention, being a prime example. The SACG set itself up as speaking on behalf of specialist anglers without asking us. To many of us it appeared that the SACG foistered itself onto specialist anglers and NASA itself. Granted the intentions were sincere and well meant. The SACG has also had its ups and downs. Its not so long ago that it nearly went anal fin upwards. So, yes, there is an underlying worry based on past performance. I have a deep suspicion that more than a few people are concerned that, in some matters, the SAA and some of the committee hopefuls have taken things for granted and jumped the gun somewhat. Granted there is a wide spread wish that all the problems of the past are all behind us now and that we can all move forward together, as either members of, or affiliated to the SAA, but not the SACG. Our angling is precious, the new SAA will have to earn trust, it can't be taken for granted. Choice of the committee, at this time, is critical. I can think of atleast three pike anglers, perhaps me being one of 'em, that if they were elected would cause a mass uproar! I have no doubt that some other species champions would cause the same furour!

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 14 March 2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 14 March 2001).]

[Guest Paul Williams]

I would still genuinly like to know why the BS don't want to be part of the new body, can anyone tell me or do you avoid direct answers?

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Peter if you got involved with the SAA (Which I hope you do in time) what would you do that is different from what the SACG and NASA have done in the past?

[Guest Chris Burt]

To Steve Pope

 

You pose some very interesting questions in you original statement on this thread so I will add a few points.

 

Re your “annoyance” that SACG/NASA could not move the meeting of May 13th, a date which we set last September. Just so other readers will know why it could not be moved, the earlier weekend is a Bank Holiday so from experience we know people cannot attend then, and the following one of the 20th both Tim Marks and myself, and too many groups, are not

available. Why keep referring to this Steve? (Why not send a representative? After all BS is only on the A5 at Leicester and SAA will be on the A46 above Syston.)

 

My main point though would be, to quote Keith Barker of NASA, “why all this navel

gazing?” Unity is about just that Steve, trying hard with far too little resource to combat the threats we as anglers all face from outside the sport, such as PETA, lack of quality water, erosion of fishing rights etc etc. Starting yet another thread here seeking to discredit now our biggest members, Carp Society and PAC, does nothing to further the cause of angling, and again takes time from those of us who are involved in trying to help specialist angling. As I said to you in my letter of June 1999 in our open invitation to the Barbel Society to rejoin SACG………………..

 

“I fear too that fragmentation of anglings’ representatives does more to hinder our case than anything the antis can currently achieve!……

This need for unity is especially relevant in the current climate where anglers are inching slowly towards a common body……

With the serious funding PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is now certain to give to the UK anti-angling movement, we will face a further increase in the 30% of the general public who would already like to see fishing banned.

Specialist angling is a small but vital part of that defence, we should be working together not separately!

A place is available on our main committee if you would like to take up this offer. If the time is not yet right for this then please treat this letter as an open invitation for the future.”

 

That offer of course was never accepted, and since then we’ve had numerous postings from yourself seeking dissension, plus all the very emotive postings from Barbel Societies “Hornet” (Barry Norris). Why not just try for “Unity” instead Steve?

 

Chris Burt

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Steve,

Was the intention of your posting this thread to cause so many people to loose the plot! I thought that your question was about your concerns for the coming SAA with relevance to the PAC and CS possibly not being involved due to internal disputes. As I remember I answered some of your concerns and the PAC gave you their personal response through their secretary.

 

As you know, I have gone some way personally in trying to convince you to join the SAA and its Rivers Group but all that as I can see is irrelevant to your question posed.

 

Of course being a crafty old barbeler myself, I can well imagine that some could be accusing you of performing some old tricks.

 

Some interesting questions have arrisen though dont you think Steve. You and I already know the answer to some of them. How about it Steve? Fancy going through the lot and giving them some answers?

Now that WILL be interesting.

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by Alan Pearce:

Peter if you got involved with the SAA (Which I hope you do in time) what would you do that is different from what the SACG and NASA have done in the past?

 

I am not so worried about NASA, infact I rather admire it. As for SACG, this has all been discussed before, almost ad nauseum, and really I have nothing either to add or subtract from previous postings on the matter. I will say, Allan, that I have had some very supportive E.mails from high profile anglers that share my misgivings. I would like to think that the SAA will have a genuine mandate and come into existance because anglers want it, not as the SACG did, because a small body of well meaning people saw it as their duty.