Specialist Angling Unity

[Guest waterman1013]

Peter

 

Sorry to go public but that is a cop-out answer.

 

Come on you have strong views, I know, you must have a view of what you want, otherwise your concerns can remain just that and will carry no weight.

 

How can any of us build a better organisation if you and the guys you now quote won't come out and say what you mean or want? Please don't do what so many others in angling want to do, just look back. Surely you have a vision of the future you want to share with the rest of us?

 

Mike

[Guest Bruno Broughton]

Originally posted by Chris Burt:

[bWith 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.[/b]

 

Sorry to pick you up on this Chris, but I have no idea where you got this figure from.

 

I guess it's a re-quote of a mis-quote taken from research commissioned by the EA in 1997. That showed that 11% of respondants thought angling was cruel ('strongly agree'), with 16% who 'agreed slightly'. The question about banning angling was not asked, although only 5% thought angling was 'unacceptible' and another 7% 'slightly' agreed with this.

 

Just thought I'd better correct this before it become part of folklore.

 

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

Bruno

[Guest STEVE POPE]

Hi ALL,

Just returned home, will digest and respond tomorrow.

 

Steve.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Sorry Pete, I have asked a simple question and you avoid giving an answer. Unfortunatly like Steve Pope you look only to cloud the waters. Talking of which, we still await his answers. No doubt he has been off fishing this past couple of days, and his loyal subjects await his return before they will respond.

 

With the greatest of respect to my friends and hard working officers of NASA, why do you admire this organisation and what has it done to further the cause of specialist angling during the past decade?

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by waterman1013:

Peter

Come on you have strong views, I know, you must have a view of what you want, otherwise your concerns can remain just that and will carry no weight.

Please don't do what so many others in angling want to do, just look back. Surely you have a vision of the future you want to share with the rest of us?

Mike

 

Hi Mike. For any one body to be able to claim that it represents Specialist Anglers then it needs a clear mandate from said anglers. I do not consider that the old SACG had that mandate. The SACG came into existance as the claimed political arm of NASA, but, and correct me if I am wrong, did NASA sanction that? If I am correct, and there was enough bumph to suggest that I am, then why do the two bodies need to amalgamate now? The SACG came over as being ruled by the 'carp' agenda, one apparent result of this was the, I think, damaging four rod rule. Not only that but we almost got steam rollered into an abandonment of the rivers close season. As it was, 'carp and commercial interests' gained the relaxation on still waters, which I'm happy with but hands off our rivers! I felt then, as I feel now, that the SACG told me how I should think, what was right for me and my angling. I resented it then, I resent it now. But that is in the past, although a tad of that dogma still rears its ugly head in some of the posting relating to the subject. But hopefully we can learn from it. There does seem to be a situation where the outgoing SACG committee appears to assume that they will be re-instated, as they might be, and, in principal, there is nothing wrong with that, provided they have a clear mandate from the 'specialist' angling fraternity. But are we going to have the same voices calling the same tunes? I harp back to the four rod rule because it is, I think, a prime example of where the SACG went drastically wrong. It used its assumed mandate, it claimed to represent an important group of anglers in order to push through a rule, based on its own agenda, pandering to the carp fraternity, that was and is clearly not required by very many other specialist anglers and anglers in general. In doing this I believe a gulf was created between specialist carp anglers and other single species groups and angling disciplines. For the SAA to succeed it must ask before acting. It must not assume the right to decide. Surely it is there to co-ordinate the member groups, to present a unified policy on behalf of its members. It MUST NOT decide that policy on our behalves. Where conflicts of interests are involved then it must mediate. Where a minority view is held by a member group then it must respect that view and, other groups willing, present that view as SAA policy. What must never ever be allowed to happen again is that one large sector of the sport decides and presents the policies of other and smaller groups. This has happened in the past when the match fishing fraternity so effectively ruled the NFA with little apparent regard to non match anglers. Then along came the Carp Agenda which many of us felt ruled the SACG and now, some anglers appear to think, the Barbel Influence appears to be pushing its weight around rather menacingly.

I would like to think that each single species member group, however big or small, will have one elected representative, with one vote, on the SAA committee. Where an angler is of a multi species inerest then one presumes NASA will represent such talented folk. However, one person may not represent a number of different groups. Should there be two or more groups representing the same species then those groups should elect one member to represent their shared interests. This would prevent a group splitting up in order to gain extra committee members thus effectively gaining a decision making advantage. The Chairman being elected from and by that committee. Should the Barbel Society, for example, not wish to be a member, then clearly it would have no input in the decision making process, but that would be the choice of the Barbel Society. But, and I have only used the Barbel Society as a hypothetical example, should a number of other specialist groups also not wish to be members of the SAA then the SAA should not claim to represent them as a means of bolstering its credibility, as I think happened with the SACG.

Clearly the potential of the SAA is that it will be elected and will have the right to be the representative 'voice' of many thousands of specialist anglers. It would be nice to have a full-time professional administrator, infact I feel strongly that that has to be the way forward. These are my views, I am not talking for other folk, thats up to them.

[Guest Graham E]

Alan, I see you are still in "Harmony" mode?

 

Regards loyal servants etc. There was a specific question put to SP. I would not attempt to answer for him. I have made my independant views known to people I have met, trust and hope have a key role in the SAA setup.

[Guest Gaffer]

I can't help but feel that everyone is being wound up!

 

Talk about light the blue touch paper!!...very sad!

 

Angling unity will self destruct in....5.....4.....3.....

[Guest Alan Pearce]

You are wrong Gaffer it won't self destruct because all the single species coarse angling groups with the exception of the barbel society, so far, have already agreed to unity and working together as the representative organisation for specialist angling. Along with many other groups, clubs and individuals.

 

The sport overall has pledged itself to unity with the formation of the NAA, so tell me why a few people should say that it won't work.

 

Peter, with respect you are so mis-informed about what has been happening this past decade and you do very little justice to all the groups and individuals who have been working very hard together, for the benefit of specialist angling in all its forms.

 

Alan.

[Guest Elton]

Originally posted by Alan Pearce:

The sport overall has pledged itself to unity with the formation of the NAA, so tell me why a few people should say that it won't work.

 

Alan.

 

Alan,

 

As an outsider, I think if you got every single group together, you'd still only be 5% of the way there. It's the various memberships that will need joining together, not just the Chairmen, but the grass roots anglers.

 

In the two years that I've had this site I have seen constant criticism of anglers by other anglers. Those too narrow minded to let others get their enjoyment the way they see fit and enjoy the sport in their own way.

 

I'm not saying that you shouldn't try, Alan, but just that the overall battle looks like a long and messy one from where I'm sitting

 

Tight lines,

 

Elton

 

 

 

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

Anglers' Net

Keeping It Virtual...

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by Alan Pearce

 

Peter, with respect you are so mis-informed about what has been happening this past decade and you do very little justice to all the groups and individuals who have been working very hard together, for the benefit of specialist angling in all its forms.

Alan.[/b]

Well Allen, I was asked! Misinformed, quite probably but, based on my perspective as an uninformed bystander I stand by what I have said, until someone puts me right. I would suggest that a weakness of the old SACG is that it didn't keep other parties as informed as it might. But I will make a point to you Allen, you do appear to suffer from acute tunnel vision and a view that what you and others have done is beyond criticsism. All I want of the the new SAA is that they represent the Specialist Angler, that they work for angling as a whole, and there I suspect we agree. But perhaps we will differ when I say that it must be the componant parts of the SAA that decides policy, the officers of the SAA should be there to see that those policies are enacted upon. What I don't want to see is where one man or one group is in a position that they, or he, sets the agenda and formulates policy, effectively deciding for other people and acting on self interest. This has happened in the past. There are well known anglers from various specialist groups out there, even now, that seem intent on ruling the roost. If we get it right this time with the SAA, even if we have to ruffle a few feathers in doing so, we can then cut the infighting and just go fishing.