Why Should You Join The SAA ???

[Guest Graham E]

Yes we could all keep the "not so nice bits/views" hidden but how will those sitting on the sidelines/lurking be able to make an informed opinion/decision on what Association etc. to join.

 

I may join the SAA, simply because I trust Eelfisher Steve and Mike Heylin from posts/views they have expressed over the past INTERNET year.

[Guest phil hackett]

I may join the SAA, simply because I trust Eelfisher Steve and Mike Heylin from posts/views they have expressed over the past INTERNET year.[/b]

 

Does this mean you don't trust the views of others within the SAA graham?

[Guest 'eelfisher']

Dear Phil

 

I do not think that is what Graham is getting at....He is just saying people need the big picture now and again in order to make decisions.

 

You are a trust worthy chap and a decent chap to boot, don't swerve the line just to cover up others daft rants on these forums.

 

You would be better placed just making sure that others don't hit the keyboards too hard without projected thought.

 

And you know I respect your outlook and admire your passion within SAA, so this is not a 'dig'.

 

Lets get back to where Peter was coming from.....'The Bird' can operate his own 'cloak'.

 

Yours With Respect....

Steve.

[Guest waterman1013]

I have been a member of ACA since the sixties and my angling club are members. I think every angler should join.

 

Our club wrote some years ago now about a problem of a sewage outfall above one of our waters and signs from health checks on fish of excessive number of females in the resident population. The answer from ACA was not satisfactory and the promise of future contact and assistance was never fulfilled. The correspondence probably got lost in a move.

 

I do think that it is very difficult for any man to wear two hats. The ACA and CA are united through the services of one individual who, as has been pointed out here, has in the past spoken out about angling methods to the detriment of other anglers. Bob tried to answer his critics at a NASA annual conference, and failed. The CA, when, as a member, I raised the problem with them, also failed to answer my concerns and I am no longer a member of CA.

 

The ACA must decide its own priorities but having sat in all the formative meetings which led up to the formation of NAA they decided not to be party to the new organisation. They must have their reasons but as yet I have seen nothing from them to members to justify that decision, although I may have missed it. ACA membership seems to fluctuate around 16,000. Incredibly poor for a sport with so many adherents. But then anglers as a group seem to hate joining anything.

 

CA are not members of NAA. NAA is looking to establish an understanding with CA but that will depend on goodwill on the part of both parties. It is unlikely that CA will be invited to join NAA, since they represent so few anglers.

 

David, I know, holds strong views on CA and ACA, having resigned his life membership of the latter some time back. Here he speaks for himself.

 

However rather than look at all the small negatives in national representation of angling we should all be looking to the future. And with NAA operational that future is brighter than it has been for some time past.

 

SAA is an active participant in NAA, along with NFA, NFSA, S&TA, NAFAC and ATA, all representing their members within the new structure. The problem for all of us is money. Too few anglers belong to any organisation and each one struggles by with limited resources. NAA functions at the moment because S&TA are good enough to provide secretarial services and space for meetings. Most of those attending these meetings do so at their own expense. The only way for NAA to function well, with a full time secretariat, is for as many anglers as possible to join one of the constituent bodies and help with the funding of the work.

 

Obviously I want you all to join SAA, but you should look at what each organisation does and join the one closest to your interests. Even if you are a member through another organisation, personal membership is worth so much more to the group concerned.

 

I hope this is not too long. Any views I have expressed are mine and mine alone. My email addy is on the link above so don’t snow the board if you have a problem, mail me.

 

Oh, and by the way. The eel totalled a dead bait rig set for pike and the carp, a linear mirror, was a new PB, only 13.10, not big to some of you, but only the second I had caught intentionally. On a new rod and reel too, so I smiled all weekend.

 

Saturday night we had lemon grass and chilli chicken on soft noodles and bean sprouts, cooked fresh on the bank with fresh ingredients. Join SAA and put some style into your fishing.

 

Mike Heylin

[Guest phil hackett]

Originally posted by 'eelfisher':

Dear Phil

 

I do not think that is what Graham is getting at....He is just saying people need the big picture now and again in order to make decisions.

 

You are a trust worthy chap and a decent chap to boot, don't swerve the line just to cover up others daft rants on these forums.

 

You would be better placed just making sure that others don't hit the keyboards too hard without projected thought.

 

And you know I respect your outlook and admire your passion within SAA, so this is not a 'dig'.

 

Lets get back to where Peter was coming from.....'The Bird' can operate his own 'cloak'.

 

Yours With Respect....

Steve.  

 

Steve

I wrote above “constructive criticism is good, even if the receiver doesn’t want to hear it.” The question I posed to Graham E was in that vein. To the best of my knowledge I don’t know the man, never met him, etc. If it is that he doesn’t trust the views of other SAA people, then I want to know why? For any organisation to be truly representative of its membership it has to be “in touch” with those members/potential members and take on board the constructive criticism made by them. The membership should feel that they have ownership and inclusiveness to that organisation.

Without which, resentment, distrust and outright hostility set in.

I don’t want and I think all others don’t either, the perceived sins of the past to repeat themselves.

 

In regards to DJB I’m not attempting to defend or condemn him, he will have to answer for himself.

[Guest Cranfield]

Well,

After reading that lot......most of which few of us understood, being full of "in" references etc........I am quite pleased that I do not belong to any of the organisations mentioned............In fact, if I did, it would not be for much longer..

 

Nobody came out of that looking good !!

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Hi All,

 

Just to clarify.

 

The ACA is neither Jane or Bob James.

 

It is an organisation set up my the members for the members. All ACA members have a voice which can be used at the proper time.

 

Membership within the ACA means we belong to the organisation itself and not to those employed to run it on the behalf of us.

 

A valid point worth remembering to all concerned.

 

Nice post Mike. You should get out fishing more often.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Guest DCB]

It is well known that I have a deep mistrust of the CA.

I did resign my double life membership of the ACA because of Bob James's stance on live baiting.

There is so much experience on which I base, what are considered by many, my uncompromising and extremist views.

My illconceived expression of that opinion on AN is unforgivable on two counts:

1) The problems it has caused or may cause AN - if I can redress this in any way, tell me.

2) The problems it has caused in depriving angling the unity it needs to survive and prosper. But, it cannot be unity at any price.

I must make it very clear that the opinions I expressed are solely my own and should not be attributed to any organisation to which I belong.

I will stand or fall by the judgement of those I respect.

If apologies are needed I give them freely.

I publicly vented my spleen on sensitive issues and should not have done.

When it comes to defending angling I've always said that I'm either very brave or bloody stupid.

I think the latter might just apply right now.

David Bird

[Guest DCB]

Lee

Allsorts to one side!

The success or failure of ANY organisation is the ultimate responsibilty of its CEO.

The Allsort Man speaketh!

[Guest trent.barbeler]

Hi David,

 

You are still my friend. Especially when you hold all the liquorice ones.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.