Specialist Angling Unity

[Guest trent.barbeler]

To All Those Concerned,

Steve From the NAC said just about all there was to say concerning the perception of angling unity within all but one of the course angling single species groups within SACG.

 

The term, "all but one" is a refference to the Barbel Society. Please be patient guy's and gall's I will get to the BS in a moment.

 

Speaking for the Barbel Catchers in my capacity as their SACG rep, I will state hear that the BCC is 100% behind the SACG and is also 100% behind the formation of the SAA. We are also 100% behind the NAA.

 

Added to that we are also 100% behind ALL the other single species groups within SACG and the forthcoming SAA.

 

Now I am fully aware that the phrase "100% behind" could and probably would, pose all sorts of questions for some anglers posting on this thread. In an attempt to try and preclude possible questions whilst hoping to avoid this thread spiralling out of its context I will simply say this. The BCC membership holds certain oppinions on a wide variety of angling subjects. Some are barbel related issues and some are not. We will always reserve our right to comment on barbel related issues. One thing that the BCC will NEVER engage in, is telling other groups/anglers what they should be doing.

 

For us, angling unity is the acceptance of other angling disciplines in all their forms. How will we hope to reach angling unity without embracing this basic fundamental principle? Any moral issues can be addressed later via educating NOT dictating and that includes still-water barbel.

 

The idea of some individuals within SACG running the show is laughable, either before or in the future SAA. Id like to see them try. Most SACG meetings that I attend (every one whilst I have been the BCC rep)always gets a liberal dose of my gob. Try working a flanker over Steve and his colleagues from the eel groups. Those guys are razor sharp. The Pac aint daft either or is Nev Fickling. Barry Rickards, Chris Higgs from the Tenchfishers,Chris Turnbull from NACA, David Bird, former supremo of the NFA and now a rep for the Tackle Trades,Barry Cartwright from NASA,Keith Barker from NASA,Kevin Stevenson from NASA, Mike Heylin and many, many more. Does anyone out there seriously believe any claims that myself and the highly acclaimed guys above are being led about like bleeting sheep by Tim Marks,Chris Burt and Alan Pearce!? Infact,its quite insulting to read such suggestions from certain quarters.

 

Attend the meeting in May and prefferably ALL the meetings after that and the true picture will emerge.

 

Over the last couple of weeks, Steve Pope and myself have spoken on the telephone and via e-mail concerning any future BS involvement in the SAA. I have gone to some length in trying to convince Steve that the BS should be joining the SAA. In return, I listened to the concerns that he and the BS committee have about joining in with the SAA.

 

Whilst I would rather see the BS in the SAA, it will not be the end of the world if they are not.

 

It has already been stated that the SAA is a chance for all of us to start with a clean slate.

 

Steve Pope has gone on record in this thread as saying that he wishes the SAA well if the BS do not participate. The SAA should in my oppinion do likewise.

 

Just because we may travel different paths towards the shinning light should not mean that we cant talk together as caring anglers and human beings.

 

Please, lets put a stop to this nonesense and lets put a stop to it now.

 

Life really IS too short you know.

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Well said that man.....I wish I were that eloquent!!!!!

Catch you on May 13th.

Steve.

[Guest G. Reaper]

I have been reading this thread with interest - the acrimony, the justifications - usual stuff. I've also looked back at things that I've posted about SACG and still feel the truth of what is there. That's all been said, so I'll try to show that I can try to be constructive (sometimes).

 

I'm not going to cast blame but just cover the way things work and the way they're likely to continue to work if nothing changes. Due to the current quarterly meeting structure, SACG / SAA discussion can address only what's on the table and then, sometimes, not fully. Plus three months is a long time between meetings and other meetings, decisions, liaison and dialogue have to go on in between. This fell and will fall to the officers to do. As officers do this over those periods of months between meetings, the attitude of 'going it alone' without reference to the clubs is all too easy to fall into and it won't be too long before frictions re-heat the group again. So, yes, it's true(ish) for the officers to say "But we consult the clubs!" But it's equally true that some clubs see the officers batting off on their own wicket and seeing it become accepted and ingrained.

 

That all seems negative - I don't intend to be from here on in!

 

Where it goes wrong is the interpretation of who 'runs' who! My feeling is that the member clubs should drive the machine - not the machine driving the clubs. The structure, as it stands cannot do this and we get a loop of new, good intentions degenerating over a couple of years. How can it operate properly when it will inevitably fall back to about 4 or 5 species clubs making the effort to attend meetings and the rest nowhere to be seen. How can it operate properly without continual communication between member clubs and the SAA officers - every 3 months is laughable and creates what I said above.

 

At an SACG meeting, I raised another way of doing things but got shot down. This was due, primarily, to the fact that SACG (SAA) would lose its view of control of 'power'. Also, the idea fell victim to the historic, derisory club attendance at SACG meetings - this being seen as an indicator as to how it might work in practice - apathy would kill it. I'm not so sure!

 

The idea was that the decision making executive committee would be the secretaries / chairmen of all member clubs and they would keep in constant contact - phone, mail, fax, email etc and day to day dialogue could be maintained this way. The managing committee - SAA officers etc. would be the 'work-horses' and operate very much the way they do now but on the instructions of a club or clubs. As the membership of the clubs have already, in some way, elected their committees, there would be no problems relating to the SAA executive placement. The officers would be selected either by SAA members volunteering their time and skills and of course could come directly from the clubs. This gives the clubs a 'hands-on' approach, involving them and forcing them into action. It might go a long way in the fight against apathy if the committees are so vitally involved and could serve the clubs well in gaining members as people can see what the club can do for them in the future of angling.

 

There is nothing to stop officers becoming a focal point for information - either coming in or going out, in fact, as well as attending outside discussions, it would be an integral part of their job. To those who say it would slow things down - would it? I would rather see some decision take a week longer because it goes to the executive than some bright spark deciding things without any reference to interested parties. Instead of three monthly up-dates, information would pass on a daily basis, if necessary. In any event, most decisions have to be made in the time-scale of meetings with outside bodies - so an officer spending a week or so getting information, details and guidance is not hurting anyone - in fact it would be beneficial.

 

SAA Meetings could be called as and when required and not necessarily be the complete SAA. For example, predator meetings might not need the attendance of the carp and tench lobby and vice versa. It would be flexible!

 

This idea would not preclude individual SAA members - many have interests and expertise that could be indispensable - they could involve themselves in projects and be a great benefit to both the clubs and SAA.

 

An AGM would be needed for that sort of business but why not an AGM that spans a weekend, make it a jamboree and involve everyone socially as well as formally - that expands unity too! For unity - look outwards, not inwards all the time!

 

Onto the way things could run. As and when a policy or action vote was required, either a meeting could be called or the clubs could sound out their membership and let the SAA secretary know of their feelings. As, perhaps 90% of these decisions would be obviously to everyone's benefit - there should be no problems or even a need for a meeting on these issues. Another 9% could be thrashed out at a meeting. The remaining 1% - probably where a club is in disagreement with the majority should not be handled by making that club a pariah group. The only reasons that I can see a major club being 'at odds' with the majority are -

 

a) the majority decision will erode the disagreeing club's fishing / species welfare acceptability - or

that the disagreeing club has the experience to see that even though the opposing view is in the majority, it is not a wise move - or

c) the disagreeing club just believes something is wrong.

Whichever it is a,b or c - there is a log jam and the potential of a break away. There would be no magic wands but club talking to club about differences has more potential for compromise than a club being viewed as a maverick by a few who cannot, for whatever reason, bend.

 

On another positive note - I accept that you can't let loads of clubs sit on future umbrella groups - the chairs aren't big enough! But it will start to feed in talented people who can. There is nothing wrong in a club representing itself, under the SAA banner, where it's able and if it doesn't upset anyone else. There is every reason to have officers of SAA who will be there to represent the clubs via SAA at meetings with the powers to negotiate but these officers should be delegates - not going in their own right. That's not to say the officers are stifled - their expertise would be needed by the clubs and their advice could be invaluable.

 

In other words - the widest possible base makes up a single umbrella body that feeds its requirements and information through delegated spokespeople and channels. Not 'self' delegated spokespeople and channels claiming a mandate from the widest possible base. Let the beast work properly and do what it claims to do.

 

That's just a brief idea but if apathy rules it is unworkable. However, it is totally practical if people mean what they say about working for unity. To have the SAA running on, unchanged, is a recipe for another bout of division and mud slinging. If we all believe that specialist angling has a future - let the clubs forge that future - it's their duty to do that as much as it's their duty to look after their own.

 

This might appear to fly in the face of Steve Pope's question on a body such as SAA being viable with some clubs being themselves split, especially as I'm advocating those same clubs are to be part of the SAA executive. Think about it - real unity can only come from understanding and understanding is the first step to agreement. If you disagree but can understand then there is a sort of accord. If you can neither agree nor understand then it's a total difference of ideas and these ideas can collect to form new groupings - nothing wrong with that and these new groups can be part of the executive. Look at the history of clubs - some come, some go. If some members of a club feel that club doesn't represent them, then perhaps a new one is born. If it's better, it grows and progress is made - if it's worse, it dies. It's called moving forward. It's called evolution. Unity doesn't mean that everything must be cast in stone, at some point in time, to achieve it. It doesn't mean angling has to stand still like some sepia photograph of a certain day. Arguments will happen and those that don't like it are crying in the wind - real unity takes account of things changing. Unity IS NOT everybody having to collect together and think the same like ants in an ant hill. This is a real world and unity must be real world based - unity must reflect the way that angling is - not try to change angling just to suit the word.

 

Returning to the idea that I've forwarded - I've retired from club committee work, so what I've said is what I think might work, it's not because I see a ladder. Perhaps this is not the way things should go but it's a starting point for others to build a better system - maybe. Or, if not a starting point, it might be a springboard for a better idea.

 

One final point to remember - this is a unity of all anglers - good, bad and indifferent - well-known and not. Don't let it become yet another platform for the self-interested to further their egos. Surely that's reason enough to broaden the driving committee of SAA to its widest roots possible rather than run the risk of a behind closed doors hijack. I'm not saying that this is happening but experience tells me it would if there was an unaccountable, central, decision making hub. And no, those statements are not a knock back to the SACG, just the understanding of human nature.

 

 

Ray Farrell

[Guest Graham E]

RAY. You are talking Japanese Model here.

I Like it. The key aspect though would be the centralisation of information, communication and PR.

I have always advocaded that this should be done professionally. Are there any plans for paid positions in the now defunct hierachy?

 

Strange as it might seem you DO need some management in a NON management structure.

 

[This message has been edited by Graham E (edited 21 March 2001).]

[Guest RobStubbs]

Ray,

You have been involved in SACG before so you should know that the way you describe the mechanics of the group isn't actually how it works. Committee members don't just meet every three months, have a chat and go their separate ways. Tim, Chris, Alan, Mike etc all communicate and discuss matters outside of meetings and speak with representatives of the single species groups on a frequent basis, especially when matters of relevance to them crop up.

 

Anyway all of the above is not really relevant to the new group. The thing is being formed now and officers, structures etc will be sorted out in the near future (in the usual democratic way). I suggest that all those that have an interest be there at the May meeting and help deffine the future. After all it's open to all NASA/SACG members.

 

Rob.

[Guest Squimp]

Ray,

 

Thanks for your helpful posting. Plenty of good ideas in there.

 

As you rightly point out communication has not been an SACG strongpoint.

 

Quarterly meetings are not ideal and as you rightly point out group reps and officers should speak when necessary and not just on set meeting dates.

 

E-mail seems to make life easier for everybody who is on line. Hopefully SAA can embrace the new technology to its (and specialist angling's) advantage.

 

As I said in my previous post, SAA is an opportunity to learn from the mistakes made the first time around.

 

Tim Marks

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Much of what Ray says makes good sense, and despite what he thinks about his suggestions falling on deaf ears is not correct. I can remember what Ray said about communications, and he was right, in the past 12 months the committee of the SACG went to great lenghts to individually update themselves with modern computer technology, as have many of the group members.

 

This has proven to be of great value and EVERY day there are a great many e mails flying about between all concerned, and are proving invaluble.

 

A proposal for a totally new structure has been discussed at the last two meetings and in between times via e mails. The new proposed structure will be sent out to all member groups and individual members in the next few days for them to consider, comment on, and vote in accordingly at the formative meeting in May.

 

This propsed new structure majors heavily on communications and sub committees very much along the way Ray has suggested in the past and more recently. At the end of the day the members will decide how the SAA will be structured and operate, and who will be elected to perform specific functions.

 

All in all a very exciting time for Specialist Angling.

 

Alan.

[Guest lyn]

Is there no one from NASA here. I am sorry & Alan please don't start making implications again.

 

I am really trying to understand all this (I know I'm a woman before any of you start.)It's this royal 'WE' all the time.

 

Quite honestly reading through it looks as if the SACG is changing it's name to SAA!

 

Now I know (through Bob)for fact that is supposed to be an amalgamation of the two ie; NASA & SACG but it dosn't read that way.

 

Can some just explain, with out causing another debate. No Mike you seem to answer my questions without accusations!

 

Forget the SAA for a moment. Is there any need for a group to join both NASA & the SACG?

 

Yes I know I could ask Bob but I am asking here & I appolgise for my ignorance on this subect but as I said before I 'try' & stay out of 'angling politics'!

 

Thanks in advance Mike.

 

lyn

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Lyn, I don't know why the committee of NASA have not responded here, although members have. Probably because they agree with all that has ben posted by SACG members, the very reason the time has come to amalgmate as one into the SAA. I would never say that all what the SACG has done is 100% correct in the past, but what would have been the alternative?

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by lyn:

"I am really trying to understand all this (I know I'm a woman before any of you start.)It's this royal 'WE' all the time.

lyn"

[/b]

 

Lyn, you have hit the nail firmly on the head. The Royal 'We', this is what is worrying many of us. There are these people speaking on behalf of a body that has yet to come into being, speaking almost as if they are the committee in waiting. There are those who give the impression that they are the SAA. Bearing in mind that it wasn't long ago that the SACG almost went under, presumably no one wanted it as it was, then this forthcoming resurection, under another name, is a matter for concern. It is quite clear, from postings on this site, that there are prospective SAA committee members who, if elected, will disuade non members from joining.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 21 March 2001).]