Why Should You Join The SAA ???

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by Cranfield:

No doubt I am going to get "flamed" But....

 

Why is it called SPECIALIST Anglers Alliance ?

Doesn,t that make the membership selective by definition ?

If it was called The Anglers Alliance, wouldn,t that make "general/all round" anglers more attracted to join?

 

Just my 2newpence worth.

 

 

I guess the reason for name is buried in political history.

 

The National Federation of Anglers is the group that in the past has striven to be the 'voice of the sport of (coarse) angling'. They were certainly recognised by officialdom as the 'governing body' of coarse angling by officialdom.

 

However, traditionally the NFA has been seen as being too 'match' orientated, and not representative of the interests of 'specialists'.

 

The National Association of Specialist Anglers (NASA) and its 'offshoot', the Specialist Anglers Conservation Group were formed to fill the vacuum, and to look after the intersts of the 'specialist groups'.

 

These have now merged into the Specialist Anglers Alliance, which in turn is part of the National Anglers Alliance (NAA), bringing together all branches of the sport, both sea, coarse and game.

 

So, all anglers are represented by the NAA.

 

Any of the component groups seeking to represent themselves as representative of all anglers (whatever their discipline) might find themselves drawing flames from the other component groups.

 

So, how you seek representation is up to you, whether through individual, or club/group membership of the NFSA, NFA, SAA, or S&TA.

 

Personally, as a lure, mullet, pike, roach, float-fishing, bass, tench ..... angler, (you should listen to the arguments I have with myself!!)I find that the SAA does the best job of representing my interests (well I suppose I do pay a personal (as opposed to individual) membership to the NFSA as well).

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[This message has been edited by Leon Roskilly (edited 10 November 2001).]

[Guest Cranfield]

Thanks Leon, Still a bit confusing isn,t it?

Its a pity all of the various Associations & Alliances don,t get together.

We may have a bit more influence with central Government and the EA if that were the case.

Still, probably too many "politics" involved, I guess.

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by Cranfield:

Thanks Leon, Still a bit confusing isn,t it?

Its a pity all of the various Associations & Alliances don,t get together.

We may have a bit more influence with central Government and the EA if that were the case.

Still, probably too many "politics" involved, I guess.

 

All these bodies come under the banner of the NAA, National Anglers Allience, which is the body that talks on all our behalfs.

 

Dare I say it, but I don't belong to the SAA! But I am affiliated through NACA, PAC & ACANS.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 10 November 2001).]

[Guest Cranfield]

Just my point, Peter.

You belong to three organisations and through affiliation to another one.

 

I get the feeling that if you investigate further , you may find that by osmosis , you belong to more organisations than you are aware of.

 

Also there is a major division of funds here.

Surely the money would be better utilised in one pot, rather than spread around .

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Dear Cranfield

Just a correctional point....

The SACG was not an 'off-shoot'of the NASA, it was its 'political wing'.

Just as you say Cranfield.....politics.

Consider joining my friend.....I am sure that someone from the SAA will come on soon and fill you in on why you should...then you can comment further.

Yours With Respect....

Steve.(Member)

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by Cranfield:

Just my point, Peter.

You belong to three organisations and through affiliation to another one.

 

I get the feeling that if you investigate further , you may find that by osmosis , you belong to more organisations than you are aware of.

 

Also there is a major division of funds here.

Surely the money would be better utilised in one pot, rather than spread around .

 

Hi Cranfield. I have to say that I think you are spot on correct. The SACG was discussed ad nauseum just prior to the the SAA's inaugrel meeting. It got a tad grubby.

 

The NFA used to be the one representaional body for angling. Because some anglers felt it didn't cater for their interests, or political aspirations, as the case might be, alternative bodies developed. A number of these bodies have also split into alternative groups. Whether this was good for angling is a matter of opinion.

 

But for the sake of angling, I feel strongly that we have to support the various bodies that we feel best represent our interests, and through them, their umbrella organisation, the NAA.

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by 'eelfisher':

I am sure that someone from the SAA will come on soon and fill you in on why you should...then you can comment further.

Yours With Respect....

Steve.(Member)

 

Maybe Mike Heylin?

 

Mike's been hiding in a bivvy for the last couple of days, tormenting some eels!!

 

er, actually being tormented by some eels!

 

Had a nice carp though

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Guest Peter Waller]

Originally posted by Cranfield:

Just my point, Peter.

You belong to three organisations and through affiliation to another one.

 

I get the feeling that if you investigate further , you may find that by osmosis , you belong to more organisations than you are aware of.

 

Cranfield, once again, spot on. I belong to a number of clubs, most of which are affiliated to the ACA. Lets be honest, every angler in the land should belong to the ACA.

 

I am an individual member of the ACA, but were I not, then, as you suggest, via osmosis, I am! But lets look at who the ACA are affiliated to. The Countryside Alliance no less.

 

Whilst many anglers feel strongly that we should support the CA, who in turn supports fox hunting with hounds. Because of that, a clear majority of anglers appear to want to distance themselves from the CA.

 

The ACA is about pure rivers, rivers that run through the countryside. So I can't see how they can avoid a link-up. But this is where the duplication of funds and effort rears its head. We have both the CA, generally un-asked, and the NAA, NFA, SAA etc fighting the same battle.

 

Basically the NFA & SAA, for example, should be seen as part of the committee of the NAA, that I have no problem with. Its the blessed CA sticking its oar in that concerns me. Do we have two voices fighting the same battle or does the CA come under the general NAA banner?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Peter Waller (edited 13 November 2001).]

[Guest DCB]

The NAA are the future.

The CA are not.

The CA only want angling to ensure their future ( and jobs for the boys) when hunting with hounds gets banned.

Cynical maybe?

But, the CA's so-called angling representatives haven't got a clue as to the future of our sport.

All they do is offer money - not experience.

If we take their 30 pieces of silver what is the price we will have to pay in the end?

Their promise, as with government, is dross - no substance, only wishfull thinking.

IMO they can't deliver anything because they don't know how.

More importantly, they don't know whatb or why.

David

[Guest DCB]

Footnote.

Why the begging letters to join the ACA?

The ACA want angling to join the CA.

Why?

Could it be that ACA Boss, Jane James, wants her husband Bob James, to have some kind of paid future in their old age because the ACA is dying on it's feet

What have the ACA done recently for angling?

IMO the CA's the kiss of death for our sport and should be resisted at every level.

Lots of Love - ish!

David