Specialist Angling Unity

[Guest Alan Pearce]

If there is one thing the old SACG could be critised for and that is not keeping anglers outside of the group informed as to what it was doing. This was not deliberate as it tried through press statements to the angling press and by attending variouse angling shows to keep everyone informed. Lack of resources made this difficault at times whilst the press would often prefer to carry news of fish captures rather than political and conservation items. Commercially for them that was the right decision as most anglers, unlike us here on this thread, are not interested.

 

Group and individual members were however, all well informed either by their attendance at the quarterly meetings and copies of the minutes for publication in their own magazines or news letters.

 

NASA have a better communication structure via their magazine and annual conference and feedback on the last two joint NASA/SACG news letters has been positive. With the merger of the two organisations external communications look set to be far better in the future. And within the proposed SAA structure there will be far greater emphasis on external communications and afairs, we are looking now for people to be elected to fulfill these important roles.

 

The SAA can only ever be as good for specialist angling as the people who become activly involved and work towards a common goal. I believe that the Barbel Society have a lot to offer the new organisation and this is the very reason why I and others wish for them to take part.

 

However, like all the other members, they must have a will to make it work and a strong desire to secure a bright future for specialist angling. They would also need to be able to work with other groups regardless of the species they fish for and the styles they practice.

 

I along with many others sincerely believe in the SAA and the frame work of the NAA, to which it makes a valuble contribution.

 

Alan.

[Guest Keith Truscott]

Hi Mike and Co.,

 

Just got back in to office so thought I would try again to post a reply, unfortunately Telecomm not that good over here and line keeps dropping which is what happened last night.

 

As stated last night Mike my reply was not directed specifically at you. Like you, Steve's, Alan and all the others that have made points to this post my comments are made out of genuine concern for the proposed new alliances to succeed.

 

I am sure Alan did not mean his comments regarding single species anglers to come over as they did and was a genuine slip of the keyboard. Those of us that are not in at the sharp end of the politics but have an interest, do read the press and the various posting's on the various forums and are aware of the sterling work and dedication that he has put in during his time in office.

 

That's the groveling over, now down to business:

 

Rudd, saw your post regarding hand bags, but so far on this post have not seen any personal attacks or abuse as happens on other Forums, Was under the impression that the discussions taking place were to try and find reasons why and the obstacles that are currently in the way of harmony and unity as it is apparently clear that there is still a large divide in policy between some of the various specimen groups.

 

I would like to think that these could be overcome but are starting to have my doubts. As Steve Burke said and I hope he is right, that this has gone to far down the road for it not to happen. My fear here is that rather than the total unity we were looking for, will end up with another form of the SACG and NASA under the name of the SAA and before you all jump down my throat. I am in no way criticizing the work of these organizations but unless all groups participate and are aligned to the general policy then we have not moved very far forward.

 

I do not intend to go in to the why's and wherefores of the various societies policies that is there choices, made by there committees and agreed by the membership and it would appear that compromise is not going to happen. I personally think this is a shame and that certain people have to stand back and look at what is good for the sport overall rather than personal objectives or single mindedness. As any good politician will tell you sometimes in life you have to accept what you CAN get and strive for more, from within.

 

Perhaps we are striving for too much, to soon and the new NAA should be more like the ACA with all groups represented or affiliated, plus individual and club membership. Whereas the ACA fights to protect our waterways and fish stocks against abuse, then the NAA fights and promotes fishing in general with all branches of the sport represented. This body would fight for the good of angling in general leaving the Specialist groups to follow there own beliefs and policies. After all was it not the EA that changed the Close Season and allowed the 4-rod rule after taking in to consideration the various arguments for and against. As quite rightly pointed out Live Baiting is quite legal and will probably remain so for quite a while. Only public opinion or the anti's will ever get that changed. Whether I agree with it is immaterial, but my biggest fear is that once you start introducing Ban's of any sort then it escalates.

 

Taking the example of the BS stand. It is quite clear that under the present terms and conditions, as I think Alan said they are not prepared to play. Correct me if I am wrong but are any of the other SG being asked to waver any of there policies. Mike already stated quite clearly that if live Baiting were an issue then all the predator groups would walk, as would most of the officers. Is this compromise ???? I only use this as an example of the void that exists.

 

As a member of the Barbel Society I believe in its principals entirely with regard to Barbel and their welfare and continued existence and will do all in my power to uphold these. The placing of Barbel in keep nets is one contentious issue, but rather than getting them banned, which would effect match fishing then we should be looking at a better way of retaining them that dose not cause damage. The live baiting issue does not affect us, so should be left to those that enjoy doing it to justify it. Still water Barbel stocked for commercial reasons only, certainly does and in my opinion the BS stand on this is quite right. I can fully understand on some very hard still waters where in the pursuit of big fish, where you may only get one or two bites a season 4 rods can come in to play.

 

The problem with this is that it tends to become abused and fashionable to fish 4 rods when it is not safe to do so. This would certainly be the case in any river environment and my own personal opinion is that there should be a two-rod rule on all running water.

 

Compromise is about finding a way that placates all parties to a certain degree, you will never get everybody to agree to everything, but you will find an initial acceptable level if there is give and take on both sides.

 

From comments that I have seen posted since I started this it is quite evident that personalities are coming in to this. I always worry when people make statements like yes we get on fine and have discussed this many times, there is no problem between us. When it is quite clear to all and sundry that this is not the case and blame is always being laid at the other persons door as to why this is not happening.

 

When people post on here they do so from what knowledge they have gleaned from the media and lately the various forums. If they are uninformed then it is because of a failure by the various bodies to inform and communicate. It is a cop out to say that we did not tell them because they were not a member. Whether this is an organization or an individual how do you expect to increase your active membership if you don't advertise your wares? How many anglers actually know what the SAA and NAA are about????

 

Keith

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Keith, thank you very much for your extremly good posting and grasp on what could become a complex issue, your input and understanding is very much apreciated. I don't think though an organisation like the ACA can be brought into this debate as their remit only allows them to be re-active and not pro-active ie they help sue the polluter after the damage is done. This organisation has my 100% support and some while ago I campaigned for it to make changes to its remit, but thats another story.

 

Life is all about understanding and compromise, its also about living and working together. If there are problems then they need to be solved, but first they need to be set out and clearly understood.

 

Thanks again Keith.

 

Alan.

 

[This message has been edited by Alan Pearce (edited 15 March 2001).]

[Guest phil hackett]

"Not only that but we almost got steam rollered into an abandonment of the rivers close season."

 

Is this a suggestion that the SACG was responsible for this?

You were at the meeting of the SACG when the issue was discussed were you Pete?

 

Or perhaps you were at the Moran Committee meetings when the SACG rep spoke on the issue were you?

 

Ever attended an SACG meeting Pete?

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by phil hackett:

"Not only that but we almost got steam rollered into an abandonment of the rivers close season."

 

Question, Is this a suggestion that the SACG was responsible for this?

Reply, no, but I don't think they helped.

 

Question, You were at the meeting of the SACG when the issue was discussed were you Pete?

Reply, no, as I said, I come under the heading of misinformed/illinformed bystander. As a matter of interest, what was the position of the SACG regarding the removal of the close season on still waters?

 

Question, Or perhaps you were at the Moran Committee meetings when the SACG rep spoke on the issue were you?

Reply, No, but I do wonder what mandate the SACG had to be there.

 

Ever attended an SACG meeting Pete?

No, but it doesn't stop me forming an opinion.

 

I know what you are saying and yes, the SACG has done some stirling work. It still doesn't answer my question, what right did the SACG have to speak on behalf of other specialist anglers without having consulted with them? But that is past. Now the SAA does appear to be involving other representative bodies so this question won't apply in the future.

[Guest Squimp]

Following the posts from Pete Waller and Phil Hackett regarding SACG and the river close season issue, the facts are:

 

The issue was discussed at an SACG committee meeting. Support for retention of the river close season was 100% in favour.

 

The issue was debated within the Moran Committee (13 different angling and fisheries bodies) and after some deliberation, the Review panel's proposal to remove the river close season was rejected.

 

Subsequent to this, both SACG and the Moran Committee made written submissions to the Fisheries Review supporting retention of the river close season.

 

I trust this is clear.

 

Tim Marks (SACG President)

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Peter,

SACG has always represented the interests of specialist anglers WITHIN its own membership.

What that means in simple terms is that members of SACG had their voices heard in all and any appropriate places of consequense to their concerns. If any specialist anglers or groups who were non-members of SACG thought that SACG were representing their interests then they are mistaken.

 

Also, being a member within SACG involved input and a willingness to attend meetings where all of its members worked together not only for their own interests but for the interests of the other members/groups. It is that sort of commitment that has brought us thus so far.

 

The SACG and NASA will merge into the SAA in May of this year. That very same commitment from within these two groups will ensure that the SAA will be a great success.

 

The SAA membership will all be working together for each others interests. Non members possibly like yourself Peter, should no assume that SAA will be representing your/their interests if they are non-members of the SAA.

 

You have had a lot to say on this A/N posting Peter. Perhaps you would like to be seen to be doing a lot as well. Come on Peter, join us all in the SAA and make a difference not just talk one.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Originally posted by STEVE POPE:

Hi ALL,

Just returned home, will digest and respond tomorrow.

 

Steve.

 

 

Yes.

[Guest Peter Waller]

The last couple of postings on this issue have, to a degree, clarified the situation. In principal I would wish to support the SAA. My concern is that, as a body, it has yet to win the support of the angling community. It is in a tenuous position in that it appears that its committee have yet to be elected, since, in effect it doesn't yet exist. But, as postings on this site suggest, there are those who appear to be confident of their place within the the SAA hyerachy and appear to be already deciding its policies. What really worries me now is that it has been stated, even prior to the launch date, that the SAA is there to act only for its members; as Elton has suggested, this might possibly be 5% of anglers. I ask again, what right does the SAA have to set policies and negotiate at government level, in effect to push its point of view, if it only acts on behalf of such a tiny minority of anglers. This is not going to help unity in angling if the SAA does not have a mandate based on a far wider remit. What do the 95% of anglers do if they disagree with the SAA? My view is that the SAA should act as a melting pot for the various member groups. Its officers should NOT dictate policy. The forthcoming committee should surely consist of representatives from the member clubs and groups. None of us, surely, want a Chairman who sets the agenda. Recent postings suggest that there are those who almost demand the mandate to rule, death to those who have the nerve to question the almighty. Anglers are a funny bunch, they don't like being told how to do things. I would suggest that the SAA is not there to rule, but there to serve, unfortunately this is not the impression I get from various postings from some SACG committee members. Perhaps time will prove me wrong, it often does! Atleast, in politices, we can elect a government into power, and, better still, elect them out again. If we, as anglers, have the right people at the top then the SAA will be a wonderful thing for angling. If we get it wrong then 'unity' is one step further away.

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 16 March 2001).]

[Guest Graham E]

Reference the above post.

I understand the concern

I would like to see an Overall body such as the potential SAA. I have concerns if some of the people claiming/suggesting to represent the body on this thread are representative though as I feel they have as much political nouse as a Haddock(sorry Haddock)

Pleae advise who of those posters is up for election.

Thanks Graham