Specialist Angling Unity

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Lyn and Peter,

Can I ask, are you both members of NASA?

No, this is not intended to lead off somewhere else it is mearly a case of I dont know but I would like to.

 

In addition, could I respectfully ask all SACG/NASA members in the interests of diplomacy to refrain from using the word WE.

 

On a serious note, Graham,my cheque went in the post this morning. Providing Ned our rural postman stays off the bottle you should have it by Friday morning.

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

I'm looking forward to the SAA having it's own forum ...

 

This really isn't the place for this stuff.

 

Ian.

[Guest phil hackett]

Ian the SACG/NASA didn't start this debate.

 

Steve Pope tossed the grenade in and ran off!!!

Originally posted by Ian Cresswell:

I'm looking forward to the SAA having it's own forum ...

 

This really isn't the place for this stuff.

 

Ian.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by phil hackett (edited 22 March 2001).]

[Guest colin smith]

First, from Chris Turnbull,

I don't know where all this is leading, but whatever the BS might feel about SACG or say about,Tim,Chris or Alan, the BS will end up going nowhere ver quickly if they insist on following their same old negative stance on the new SAA merger. From my involvement in SACG since its conception, it has been obvious that the BS have expected the group to jump to their demands, without bothering to attend or contribute to their meetings and yet if their views and demands are not given absolute priority, they throw a tantrum and. Should any others dare question the BS stance, we can expect a letter threatening legal action.

And now we are being fed some guff about a new rivers group which the BS are arranging with the Grayling Society. With the SAA doing likewise, it now seems we will have 2 rivers groups presumably working in competition with each other. Meanwhile Norfolk Anglers Conservation Association(NACA)who have shared associated membership with BS for 3 years, have to find out about their proposed rivers group through gossip on this website. Odd this, since NACA have 16 years of campaigning experience which would be invaluable to such a group. We have more experience in habitat restoration than BS and GS put together and have stocked more barbel into Norfolk's rivers than have been caught by all of their committee put tohether. Even so, we are not worthy,it seems, to be party to their proposals. Surely this has nothing to do with the fact that NACA happen to be members of SACG. Perhaps SP or someone else in BS would like to offer an explanation or persuade me that i should not recommend to our committee that NACA should part ways with the BS.

 

Now my bit.

"Look, look" said the litle boy,"the emperor has got no clothes On".- Hans Christian Anderson.

Just what are the objectives of SP and his BS associates in this forum. As Secretary of the NACA I have seen a sickening amount of local initiatives flounder, pursuit of effective anglers representation and even access to fisheries sacrificed on the alter of parochial self-interest, internecine arguments and the arrogance of individuals pumped up by self-importance and egotistical personality clashes. Now we see the same happening at a national level. Of corse specialist anglers are a diverse bunch, but the cost of survival of pluralism is consent on the big issues and the ordering of our societies.without which we will have factionalism, division and weakness.

i for one could be doing more important practical things with my time to actually preserve and protect angling and our fisheries than spending it on forums such as this engaing in nit-picking arguments that would disgrace a schoolboy debating society, but this needs resolving.

Specialist angling needs representation at Government and national agency level. It needs the SAA for this, and the personell in place to do the job. It seems to me that SP's problem is with Tim, Chris and Alan andtheir ability to do the job. If the job that SACG, and Tim in particular, did on behalf of the NACA in the Fisheries Review and the Moran Committee, resulting in actual expression of important recommendations, is anything to go, I for one am convinced that hey are the right men for the job. It is time to end this, get behind the SAA, or find yourselves the pariahs of the angling world, marginalised as the rest of us go forward.

[Guest DLF]

So the SAA are forming their own River Group. Since the SAA has yet to be formed and no representatives have yet been elected, just who has been conducting the negotiations to set up this group and who are they claiming to represent? or are certain individuals taking it as read that they will be elected to represent the new group and so decide to start negotiations on "our" behalf.

As another concerned NASA member it does look like I and some of the others on this forum have reason to be concerned, the whole topic of discussion about the SAA on this forum is dominated by the SACG, surely someone from NASA has access to this forum or knows someone who can post on their behalf

I would like to hear something about the SAA from someone from the NASA commitee who could then reassure me and others that the SACG have not taken over, otherwise I will have to think long and hard about my membership renewal.

[Guest waterman1013]

Lyn

 

IMO any single species group wanting SACG to represent them and have the backing of all the other member groups needs to join SACG. If groups do not want that national representation and support then they should consider joining NASA for the "social" side of specialist angling.

 

Although I think most groups are members of SACG and not necessarily of NASA. I may be wrong on that because I do not have the membership records for NASA.

 

Sorry I cannot get involved in the detail here at the moment I am trying to mail 600 odd copies of the draft SAA constitution and all the other paperwork for May 13th, if we are to get proposals back from prospective members for officers etc in time for a further mailing before the meeting.

 

Unfortunately that has to take priority over explanations at this time.

 

I would just say that if all the "suspicious" posters here think there is another agenda being played out then I feel I am wasting my time. The only agenda NASA and SACG are working to is to try and improve the lot of specialist anglers in Britain. Is that so bad?

 

Mike Heylin NASA and SACG member

[Guest Squimp]

Several recent posters have questioned the links between SACG and NASA. The facts are:

 

SACG is officially "the voice of NASA"

 

The NASA letterhead states "incorporating SACG".

 

Two NASA committee members sit on the SACG committee (usually Keith Barker and Barry Cartwright).

 

Two SACG committee members have seats on the NASA committee (Chris Burt and I).

 

Thus both committees know exactly what is going on.

 

NASA and SACG run a joint Newsletter which is circulated to all group and individual members of either organisations.

 

The concept of a merger (not a takeover) has been debated in public for over a year. The membership of both orgainsations has had an opportunity to vote on the issue and accepted the merger plans as publicised by the respective committees.

 

A draft constitution for SAA was put together by Kevin Stephenson from NASA with help from Mike Heylin of SACG. The idea was to pick the best of the two existing constitutions.

 

The DRAFT constitution was circulated before the last meeting (Feb 2001) and debated in depth on that day. All NASA and SACG members were entitled to attend and comment at that meeting.

 

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.

 

As Waterman (Mike Heylin) has stated he is in the process of sending out the paperwork for the May meeting. This will incorporate the final draft of the constitution (amended to take account of the Feb meeting) and nomination forms for committee posts.

 

At the May meeting the draft constitution will be debated (and probably amended further) and elections will be held.

 

As I have stated before - nothing is yet decided. Input on the day will be welcome.

 

The fact that Mike Heylin is handling the paperwork is because he is efficent, organised and online. It is nothing to do with the fact that he is SACG secretary.

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

 

I hope this is clear and viewed as non-sectarian.

 

Tim Marks

[Guest lyn]

Thanks Mike.

 

I really think enough is enough! Someone asked if I was a member of NASA the answer is no.

 

The reason being when I said to Bob (Bob Burchett my brother incase someone hasn't realised that) about joining he said I may as well wait to the SAA had formed & join then.

 

This is why I have been trying to understand/make sense of all of this so I could decide whether to join.

 

So far the main thing I have noticed is a lot of grown men bitching & back biting!

 

You are supposed to be ambassadors for our sport which is under threat from outsiders & here is everyone at each others throats for what?

 

We have kids posting on this site, our future generation of anglers that should be looking up to you guys. Alan please don't throw the fact that Steve started this thread in my face.

 

As I have said enough, you are grown men now lets see you behave like it!

 

There has been, what I consider a lot of constructive comments here so put it to good use. There has also a lot of rubbish/accusations/lies.

 

Please gentlemen STOP lets just all settle down. Most of us will meet at the weekend & it would be nice to think it will be on friendly terms.

 

I realise that there are some problems to be sorted but this is not the place.

 

I am sure you are all man enough to try & sort this out face to face.

 

Now you can put this little outburst down to PMT you can put it down to what you like.

 

I look forward to meeting a lot of you at the weekend.

 

The best thing now as women always get the final say is for one of the moderators to close this thread, once & for all!

 

If one of you would be so kind.

 

lyn

[Guest 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.

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by trent.barbeler:

Lyn and Peter,

Can I ask, are you both members of NASA?

No, this is not intended to lead off somewhere else it is mearly a case of I dont know but I would like to.

As far as I'm concerned, I am not a member. However, if the SAA starts off on what I consider to be the 'right foot, then I shall join. As it is I suppose I shall have a route of contact via the PAC. I would suggest that there are a number of members in waiting.