Specialist Angling Unity

[Guest petejones]

I can cope with Mr Stubbs calling me sad, and maybe I am ! Lethargy is by far the easiest route , but unlike Mr Pearce, I believe everyone has the right to their opinion and a choice as to their course of action. It's precisely because of the intractability of people like yourself Mr Pearce, who won't listen to other people's viewpoints without immediate recourse to abusive and derogatory language,that ordinary anglers switch off and go into their shells.

 

You have, in effect, proved my point very nicely !! Thank you.

[Guest Peter Waller]

Peter Jones is not sad, nor a twit. Lethargic, apparently! I would suggest that Alan, especially, and Rob, re-read his postings, and take heed. There is a lesson, rather a wise one, to be learnt from it. If you can't see it then perhaps you would be better to step off the political ladder.

[Guest RobStubbs]

Peter,

I think everyone has the right to their own opinions and I am more than happy for anyone to post theirs but I will also post mine. If you read my post you will see I never called anyone sad. I actually said it was a sad attitude. I have no problem with people kidding themselves that the world of angling is fine, but I also feel it only fair to try and communicate to people what issues there are - then they can decide for themselves if it warrants worrying about or not.

 

My other point is about those who give up their free time to try and help angling and it's future. I don't think it's fair to make sweeping statements casting aspersions on their motives when they are voluntarily trying to help us all and not make a name for themselves. Most of these people have no connection with angling as a business and even those that do are still doing this in their own time off their own backs and in the main they just get criticised. I guess it's no wonder why there are so few people prepared to 'do their bit'.

 

Rob.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by RobStubbs (edited 05 April 2001).]

[Guest Peter Waller]

Roy, I take on board all that you say and do see your point of view. The point that the other Peter is trying to make, & one I've also tried to put over, is that there are people out there that have all the best intentions in the world. Trouble is that they wish to represent anglers but, quite possibly, anglers don't wish them to represent their interests. Some of us feel strongly that some of our unelected representatives are pushing their, or their group's agenda by claiming a general mandate from the angling community. Perhaps some of my statements have been rather sweeping but, with one exception, I've tried to avoid personalising the issue. Trouble is, generalisation can and does make for poor arguement. When a member of the SACG stood up and spoke on behalf of his membership, he was doing so on behalf of ALL anglers, whether intentionally or not, irrespective of what we, the great unwashed, would have wished. Whatever the SACG supported would ultimately effect the fishing of ALL anglers, whether we wanted it or not. I'll raise the point again, the SACG did not, or so it appears, condemn the four rod rule, in effect, by not opposing it it supported it. So, when a SAA committee member speaks on behalf of his membership, he speaks on behalf of us all, whether we want him to or not. Being dedicated, making a martyr of oneself, being hardworking or whatever, does not mean that that person is right for the job. The quality of postings from some prospective SAA committee members underlines that point of view. That said, I would suggest that is why the BS is standing off until it knows who the SAA committee will consist of. If the forthcoming SAA gets it wrong then oh dear, that is why it must succeed, must get the right people at the top. If not, it will loose its mandate from 'angling'. Whether the SAA likes to admit it or not, it will be seen as the representative of 'specialist' angling, even if only 10% of said anglers are actually members.

[Guest tony jolley]

As I said in my earlier posting on this subject."I would like to see all those postees attend the 1 st meeting" . My reason for that statement was to hopefully encourage all the postees to have their say on the day, because and who knows they may even decide to get involved,

rather then sit on the fence and be ready with the daggers drawn or mummbleing away in the back ground, As that is obviously the easy way to go about things without getting their hands dirty.

I cant understand people who obviously have alot to say but arn`t willing to put them selves out, or forward to do something of use to angling,

Anyone who thinks that their views are important to the future of angling shouldn`t winge at those who try (and maybe get it wrong) when they arn`t preperd to advise the officers of their needs, concerns or plans for the future,

I dont exspect to be happy with all the decisions that may be made, but at least I will know I and the National Anguilla Club will have had our say.

So if any of you want a say in the running of things, get you acts together and do something about it.

 

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

Tony B.T Jolley

[Guest Steve Burke]

Peter, as I understand it the SACG has always been a democratic body, unlike the PAC for instance. The SAA is also going to be democratic.

 

Specialist anglers via NASA and the various single species groups have been and will be able to have a voice. If you don't join an organisation you can't of course have that voice. This is especially important now that the Government is going to listen only to the NAA, of which of course the SAA will be a member.

 

I therefore can't agree with your view that there's no mandate, even though I share some of your concerns.

 

There may be specialist anglers who aren't members of NASA or a single species group who feel unrepresented, but individual membership of SAA will be available. Indeed I'm no longer a member of the Perchfishers nor, at least currently, the PAC, so I'm joining the SAA via Wingham Fisheries.

 

Surely, it's up to any individual anglers or affiliated groups who aren't happy with the officers of a democratic organisation to vote accordingly. Any such people who stay outside aren't of course entitled to a vote and their views will rightly count for little.

 

Bear in mind also that when organisations make a report that there can be a minority view expressed as well. This happens for instance with parliamentary committees. However, parliament won't hear these minority views if the individuals concerned refuse to join in the first place.

 

Thankfully, it looks as though unity in angling is now going to be achieved whether or not the BS for instance remains outside. If it does so it will be marginalised, and I suspect its members will eventually vote to join the SAA, even if if this is at their next or a future AGM.

 

Better still, I hope that it will join from the start. It's much easier to influence an organisation from within.

 

Either way, a lot has been acheived recently, and I hope that this Forum has in some way helped.

 

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

Wingham Fisheries

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

 

[This message has been edited by Steve Burke (edited 06 April 2001).]

[Guest Peter Waller]

Steve, I have no arguement with your last posting in anyway. I feel, though, that I have not made an important point as clear as I might. Its one that I believe Elton touched upon, that probably only a minority percentage of 'specialist' anglers will have access to a vote with the SAA. I am stating the obvious, but yes, they can join the SAA, but the nature of angling is that many would not do so. Yes, the SAA committee will have been democratically voted into office, by its members. But does a mandate of, for example, 10% of the angling population, give them a clear mandate to set policies that effect the 90% that didn't vote for them? That, in principal, doesn't worry me, a minority body is better than no representative body, provided the people who take on the responsibilities are up to the job. The SAA has to be aware that its responsibilities extend to ALL anglers. I am not convinced that this was the case with the SACG. There are people who are clearly up to that responsibility, I would include yourself in that statement, but equelly, there are some who clearly are not. Only time will tell.

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 06 April 2001).]

[Guest Steady On]

Amongst all the different opinions and attitudes that have been expressed in this thread we seem to have forgotten something.

 

The Environment Agency has made it clear that it will not consult anyone but the NAA about angling matters. That fact makes all the in-fighting totally futile and self-defeating. This is the first time any government body has actually made a serious attempt to communicate with all anglers about angling, and look what they have found, a disorganised muddle of special interest groups, each with their own sacred agendas, largely about minor differences of opinion that really are of no concern to anyone but themselves. The EA cannot deal with all these disparate groups, they must have a representative body to talk to.

 

The EA is not going to be concerning itself with cane rods, or hair rigs, or bite alarms, or boilies, or floppy hats, or bedchairs and bivvies. The EA is the body that will be calling the shots on pollution, access to land, the right to go fishing, commercial exploitation of fisheries, stock levels, habitat conservation - in brief the issues that affect every angler no matter what method he employs to pursue whatever species. We will still be able to carry on calling each other names for using two rods, or one rod, or fixed spool reels or braided line, or whatever fad becomes a subject of scorn or praise. No-one is going to take away the right for us to continue with our little spats. But for the important stuff that could hurt us all, we could be as one.

 

This is an opportunity for every angler, and for every angling club or society, to get a say in legislation that may affect angling. I think it is wonderful that we have this chance at last. (Previously I'd guess that the only anglers who ever got heard were the game anglers, simply because there were members of the House of Lords who had salmon fishing interests.)

 

Any society that does not want to join in with this consultation process is free to stand outside it, there is, of course, no compulsion to join.

 

But how will a club's committee explain to its members that it does not wish to take part in the consultation process with government? The committee must believe that the future of the members' sport is no concern of theirs. Would you pay subscriptions to such a club?

[Guest phonebush]

steady on

From an unbias US view you have finally said something meaningful that makes sense.

Bravo!

Phonebush

[Guest petejones]

Mr Burke, you may be right about specialist angling groups,and you are right about the PAC. Perhaps my current(but wavering) membership of that body is influencing my thinking ! It was not my intention to cast aspersions on the leading lights in angling, merely to state that many of them had a self interest. Good luck, I say, to anyone who makes a living out of angling. This prominence or reputation does not necessarily make them the best voice for angling,but I accept it gives them a strong incentive.

To move on , perhaps I have'nt put my main point well. Doing nothing in the face of hysterical minority outcry can actually be a very positive step. Anglers exert all sorts of influence on influential bodies/people without even trying. We are vital to landowners, farmers,tackle shops, manufacturers, travel agents,the Irish economy,and so on. Despite our best efforts to fall out with each other,people who make money out of us realise our value. They will provide the ultimate protection for anglers - for free !! And I would go back to my original posting- the real politicians think there are 5 million+ voting anglers out there-how many people vote in a general election ? 35/40 million ?

I would make a final point in relation to the perceived link between fox hunting and angling. With respect to those that do fox hunt (I have no views either way), they are seen by the great British public as being of a certain class or type of person. There is, I suspect, little sympathy for them in the public at large ? Anglers however are generally seen in a different light, indeed I think we are regarded as salt of the earth sort of people who probably deserve all the sympathy they can get if they have to take up such a daft pastime as angling !!

Generalisations I know, but that is the way of the world. The ultimate test is the Press/Media-how many newspapers are campaigning to ban angling ? None ? Why not? Because its not an issue.

Anyway, it's just my personal views,I wouldn't really want to fall out with anyone, even if I don't know who they

are !!!