Specialist Angling Unity

[Guest Chris Burt]

I am surprised Steve Pope is not prepared to offer any replies to what has been posted here. As I said earlier “we’ve had numerous postings from yourself seeking dissension, plus all the very emotive postings from Barbel Societies “Hornet” (Barry Norris)” You then promised some replies, but now you refuse to answer to the same audience you yourself sought.

You started the thread, you Steve should answer as you said you would on this site, or is Barry Norris now replying on your behalf?

 

Chris Burt

[Guest the hornet]

Exactly what I expected!

 

Chris Burt still refuses to answer the questions addressed to him.

 

Alan, while I am still Secretary of the BS until the end of the month, you can take it my comments are on behalf of the BS. After that you can take them anyway you want! The decisions and opinions of the BS will not change just because I am stepping down.

 

Last year didn't Chris Burt and Tim Marks resign form the SACG?

 

To answer Pauls question, As I stated in a posting late last year, there are certain people on the SACG Committee that the BS do not feel are suitable to represent the BS at higher levels. It is really as simple as that! Those people are Chris Burt, Tim Marks and Alan Pierce.

 

From past experience they are unable to accept decisions made by the BS Committee, and have an inability to answer questions. This causes us great concern! As it also appears they feel they are "beyond question".

 

Meanwhile, I haven't got time to waste on the SACG, and to become involved in heavy "postings".

 

The River Anglers Alliance & Trust will be launched shortly!

 

the hornet

[Guest Steve Burke]

Originally posted by the hornet:

To answer Pauls question, As I stated in a posting late last year, there are certain people on the SACG Committee that the BS do not feel are suitable to represent the BS at higher levels. It is really as simple as that! Those people are Chris Burt, Tim Marks and Alan Pierce.

 

Hurrah, at last we have the real reason behind the BS's refusal to join the SAA!

For goodness sake why couldn't this have been posted before?

 

Given the lack of confidence in these 3 individuals, why on earth doesn't the BS simply put up its own candidates?

 

 

 

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

Wingham Fisheries

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

[Guest Paul Williams]

Hornet,

THANK YOU !! i wasn't being mischievous i really didn't know the reasons!!

I'll not ask why the BS feels the way it does with regard to these individuals, but what i will say is if the BS want to see a body formed that can represent all of us should they not join and voice their concerns from within??....or is there more to all this?? eg ...old fashioned personality clashes between people who will never agree and therfore can not be seen to support the same thing.....no matter how right the idea may be???????

[Guest RobStubbs]

Well I'm glad I've been on holiday all last week and missed all the bitching. I thought this thread was about angling unity which I think we all (well almost all) want. Lets cut out the questioning of the past which is irrelevant to the issue and just wastes time and effort.

 

How about concentrating on the real issues and being positive ? Lets look forward to the future and make some constructive comments.

 

Rob.

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Dear All

I shall only say a few words on this post but would like to say that I have read all of the three pages of this thread.

 

However,there are many questions asked within the text and not many answered properly, or completely, I might add.

 

I am replying to this post as General Secretary of The National Anguilla Club (I was re-elected to this position yesterday, 18/3/01, at our AGM)I have waited until now, just incase I wasn't re-elected to this position, as I wanted it to be an official statement. I hope this may answer some thoughts as to why I have not yet posted on this thread.

 

I shall just say a few things here...it is for 'others' to say what 'they' think, if they have the 'moral fibre' to do so.

 

I believe that attacking certain individuals on this site is not constructive, nor brave. The place to say your piece is at the meeting on May 13th 2001.

 

I say to Paul, Lyn and any others who have concerns, or desires to know more, about the proposed SAA...that they come along to the meeting and air those thoughts. I know that at this forum the questions cannot be 'covered', 'answered but not answered' or 'twisted' on a face to face scenario.

 

If the questions asked are worded correctly and are constructive then there cannot be any hiding place for the questioned personnel. I might well have a few questions of my own, after reading some of the 'answers' to questions posted on this thread.

 

My only worry at this moment in time is why we cannot get all the single specie groups at one meeting. If the Barbel Society are unable to attend on the 13th May 2001, would moving the meeting date a week later get the desired attendance, because if it would, then I would be only too pleased to re-arrange my schedule to accomadate them at the meeting. I would hope that we would also ask the Grayling Society to attend this meeting as well.

 

If this meeting was just another meeting of Specialist Anglers' then I could understand the non desire to move the date of the meeting. This is however, the most important meeting of its kind for many many years and as such, we should all try to get a date that ALL single species groups can attend.

 

This, I would think, is quite easy to sort out. I suggest that we ask all the General Secretaries of the groups when they are able to attend and select the one which ALL can make.

 

I don't see this as a big problem. If the personnel who are running NASA and SACG really want everyone on board, they would consider this request.

 

I can make any date but 28th May - 4th June 2001. I am on holiday in Cyprus during that week.

 

I am not happy at seeing Barry 'The Hornet' Norris commenting here on the SACG/possible SAA, either as an individual or as outgoing Secretary of the Barbel Society. It smacks of one last shot at the whole thing from a representative stance.

 

Unfortunately, Barry has played too bigger part in creating the huge rift in the situation of SACG/Barbel Society in the recent past. He has not done the situation any good at all in his attacks on individuals on the SACG committee, in the past and now,...in fact his letter writing skills are something akin to the Foot and Mouth plague as of now...not very acceptable and having a severe detrimental effect on the whole issue.

 

If and when the SAA comes into fruition, I would assume that the officers on the committee would be in office for 12 months. If they proved to be less than expected in their ability to do the job right, then they would no doubt be voted off at the following AGM. (If anyone bothered to turn up, that is!)

 

It is my considered opinion that every single specie group has one representative at all SAA meetings. This is absolutely important in my view.

 

I can see no reason why all the groups do not start off as part of the SAA and if they feel that the organisation is not representing their group to their satisfaction, then they should lodge a complaint at the next AGM and, if the situation cannot be recified, they should leave the organisation.

 

Common sense I hear you say...but in the depth of all this wrangling, it does not appear to be shining through.

 

If The National Anguilla Club felt that the SAA was not acting as best it could on our behalf, then we would follow the above proceedure...make no bones about that. None at all, OK.

 

If everyone involved tried what I have suggested and in one years time no single specie groups were active in the organisation....then what has been lost from trying...zilch or one years passing in trying the organisation out.

 

I think it is worth one year of the NAC's patience, in order for us to see how the organisation shapes up and evolves. The big worry that I can see, is that those not quite sure about the SAA are thinking it will be the SACG in another guise. Perhaps it will but possibly better directed and suported by all concerned. Who hasn't made mistakes in angling administration...I am only interested in those who learn from their mistakes. There will be no room for ego's and reputation building in the SAA, those lessons will have hopefully been learned. Hopefully everyone will 'talk to' and 'not at' each other. Somewhere along the lines there has to be an element of trust. If that is niave, then so be it...there still has to be trust for it all to start off.

Whatever anyone thinks, the organisation MUST be given the chance to work. I ask for all those on the borderline to give their full support to the formation of the SAA. That is, to the organisation in general. The players of this organisation will have to live or die by their actions and attitudes towards the members and the member groups.

The players not yet having been elected, by the way. Something that seems to have been overlooked by some.!!!!!

 

I have seen here in print that Alan Pearce, Chris Burt and Tim Marks are seen as people that some do not wish to see either lead the organisation or even be a part of the organisation.

 

How sad to see that in text.

 

I have had my share of rumbles with each one of them in my time as a NASA committee person, an SACG representative member (and that means committee member really, as the SACG is a whole of everything) and as General Secretary of the NAC.

 

Whatever their failings (and I know they know what their individual failings are)they have put themselves forward and been prepared to work on our behalf. They were never going to make everyone happy....it was, and quite possibly is, an impossible task.

 

I say this with respect to the persons named below....but if....

Barry Norris, Steve Pope, Barry Cartwright, Mike Heylin, Kevin Stephenson and myself were to be at the forefront of the SAA, we would not be able to make it happen 100% either.

 

The telling factor is working together and continuing to find ground that suits us all....

 

No one said it would be easy, no one said it was possible for all to be happy but the alternative to the proposed SAA appears to either be nothing or someone else's idea of a similar organisation. One of these is too negative for words and the other is going to have the same problems as the proposed SAA.

 

I believe that the May 13th date was not decided in September 2000. The week previous was the selected date but the NEC angling show is over that weekend and so it was forwarded by one week once this was known. Is this correct Mike? If not, then I apologise for my mistake before I am corrected.

 

I am waiting for the minutes of the last SACG/NASA meeting that took place. I could not attend this meeting, nor the one before that...however, I am concerned with the whole issue and wish to see the whole thing gell together amicably and with trust and unity.

 

The National Anguilla Club will be at the formative meeting on May 13th 2001 and shall have positive imput into the meetings content.

This is my official stance as General Secretary of the NAC.

 

If anyone wishes to correct me on any of the above please feel free to do so...however, please make sure it is done properly or when we meet at the May 13th meeting, we shall cross swords in public. Remember, I am the General Secretary of a member group of the NASA and SACG.

 

I hope to see all my friends on May 13th 2001.

Yours With Respect.........

Steve.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

To anyone who does not know 'eelfisher' Steve is one of the most straight forward and non bias people I have ever met.

 

Steve, from the day of the last meeting when Steve Pope informed us that May 13 clashed with their AGM, we tried to find another date. Mike Heylin and I spoke to various members, but due to other commitments, no joy. In the end it was decided to best serve the members interests. We have asked Steve Pope to attend at least a couple of hours of the formative SAA meeting as we could juggle the agenda on the day. Steve however say's that he could not even leave the the general conference part of their AGM to attend, and in his words not trust anyone else to represent the BS.

 

This I find a great shame as I would have thought the overall aspect of specialist angling more important.

 

Alan.

[Guest Squimp]

Thanks to Rob Stubbs and 'eelfisher for being constructive.

 

I will try and follow their lead, be constructive and provide some answers for Hornet. It is difficlt when you have just been described as an incompetent.

 

You (Hornet)criticise SACG for not having the Grayling Society in membership.

 

Yes, we have disussed with them the possibility of them joining. They have chosen not to do so - which is their perogative. After all they are not a coarse single species group - they are a game fishing organisation. If they joined SACG that would be great, if they choose not to do so - that's fine. The last thing we would do is criticise them in public.

 

We (SACG) have also talked informally with the National Mullet Club, no more, no less. They I think you will agree are a group of sea fishermen. But, one day they might join SACG or SAA. That would be great.

 

I state again the only single species group not in membership of the SACG is the Barbel Society.

 

What saddens us is that the Barbel Society was a member of SACG for several years and it now chooses not to be so. Furthermore, certain committee members appear to try and denigrate the well meant efforts of SACG

at any opportunity.

 

We are criticised for not giving enough information to the Barbel Society.

 

Yet when the Barbel Society left SACG, I as the Secretary at that time made it my business to send them copies of our (SACG) committee minutes. This was an attempt to keep them in 'the loop' as it were and leave the door open with a view to them possibly rejoining. However a year or so later I was officially requested by the Barbel Society to stop sending them our minutes. Now we are criticised for not communicating - we can't win it seems!

 

Hornet then criticises NASA for not circulating minutes to its members. What has that got to do with SACG? You should take that up with the NASA secretary.

 

One of the reasons behind the concept of the SAA is to solve problems like this. One body, rather than two. One secretary, one mailing list, one workload etc etc. It makes sense.

 

We are attacked for not supporting the Barbel Society stance on the river close season issue.

 

I refer you to my earlier posting on this thread - it covered exactly this subject.

 

I say again, SACG was 100% in favour of retention of the river close season. We took our stance to the Moran Committee and managed to convince the doubters there that the close Season should stay.

 

As founder members of the Moran Committee we (SACG) take pride in the fact that the Fisheries Review panel described the evidence submitted by the Moran Committee as 'pivotal'.

 

I defy anybody to go through a copy of the 120 pages of evidence submitted by the Moran Committee and find anything of substance that is not in the interests of specialist coarse angling.

 

We (myself and Chris Burt) are criticised for resigning from SACG last year. Yes we did resign - because we were overworked.

 

At the subsequent open meeting (attended by the Barbel Society) we were persuaded to stay, on the basis that Alan Pearce and Mike Heylin took on the key committee posts of Chairman and Secretary respectively.

 

At no time did Chris or I question the concept or validity of what SACG was and is trying to achieve.

 

The Future:

As has been said before notably by Mike Heylin (SACG secretary) the birth of the Specialist Anglers Alliance (SAA) is an opportunity to create a new body to represent specialist coarse angling. It is also an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past. We (all of us) are starting with a clean slate.

 

The constitution is in draft form and will be voted on by the membership. All the officers and committee posts are up for election - so anybody in membership can stand. None of the existing SACG committee has a divine right to a post on the new body.

 

Specialist angling really does need some form of representation at high level. SACG has been mandated to do that job, because the groups (bar one at present) supported the idea.

 

Undoubtedly specialist angling is considerably better off now than it was 10 years ago when SACG was formed. If you don't believe that, ask the Head of Fisheries at the Environment Agency or any of the other members of the NAA.

 

SAA will provide a direct link to the National Angling Alliance (NAA) which is up and running and likely to really go places.

 

The seminar held by the ATA at Stoneleigh last week stressed one word to guarantee a future for angling. That word was UNITY.

 

All six members of the NAA, as well as high level representatives of the Government (DCMS), the Environment Agency, the Sports Industries Federation, the European Anglers Alliance and EMAP all agreed on a way forward for angling. The way forward is to work together.

 

If the specialist groups give SAA a chance and support it with regular attendance at meetings, bodies to do some of the work and the finance to pay for it - it can work for all of us.

 

On the other hand, we could return to the bad old days of 20 different single species groups all clamouring for a voice. That system was proved not to work - SACG was a step forward - given a chance, SAA can build on that.

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

Thanks Tim but I think it's the "we" and "us" stuff that bothers folks here.

 

Quote:

 

What saddens us is that the Barbel Society was a member of SACG for several years and it now chooses not to be so. Furthermore, certain committee members appear to try and denigrate the well meant efforts of SACG

at any opportunity.

 

We are criticised for not giving enough information to the Barbel Society.

 

What and who are "we" and "us" in this case?

 

Ian.

 

[This message has been edited by Ian Cresswell (edited 20 March 2001).]

[Guest waterman1013]

Ian

 

Come on mate "brain in gear". Tim is speaking as President of SACG. Obviously "we" and "us" refers to the SACG member groups and members.

 

Is it cloudy in Brum today?

 

Mike