PAC & ACA Strike New Accord

[Elton]

Full details here:

 

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/News/PAC_ACA.html

[Brian Carragher]

Looks like both sides will now have a better and more harmonious relationship when working together and reading between the lines, it looks as if the new regime in the ACA will focus soley on water quality issues and not make any further comment on fishing methods or techniques

 

The PAC for its part have recognised that pike match's are here to stay and whether they like that fact or not are prepared to work with other bodies who run pike matchs to minimise any risk to pike during such a competition

 

It would seem like a win/win situation to me and one which most pikers have been supporting for a number of years irrespective of any governing bodies current position so the current statement has to be a positive one, welcomed by all

[Peter Waller]

In some respects I have to agree that it is a win win situation, but only in the short term. Yes, there might be a reduction in the moron element of the ACA matches, but it also gives the green light to yet more pike matches. Personally I can't help feeling that there are those in the PAC who have been lead by a personal agenda rather than what, ultimately, will be best for pike, namely the discontinuation of pike matches. The pike is not suited to match fishing, plain and simple. I have resigned from both the ACA and the PAC over this issue.

[Brian Carragher]

Personally I think its bad news that a person like yourself should feel it neccesary to resign from the ACA and PAC when you're a committed pike angler through and through. Shame in a way that you could'nt stay with the PAC and argue your position from within rather than from outside but you obviously have vey strong feelings on this issue and I know you have raised them before.

 

I don't honestly know which side of the line I would come down on as I've never been involved in a pike match nor even seen one operate so from that point I'm unable to express any opinion, I've only ever fished one match and that was enough for me, not my scene so never did it again, however the point that the new committee I think are making is that whilst recognising pike matchs exist and being unable to prevent them happening, it does'nt stop them from highlighting the dangers to pike and campaigning to stop pike matchs whilst recognising some safety elements for pike at the hands of those more interested in money and short term fame than fish welfare

 

Its a bit of a contradiction in terms I agree but given the new working relationship between the ACA and the PAC's new committee I think its a good start

[Peter Waller]

Working from inside does not work with the PAC, unfortunately, it is a quango. But don't let this detract from the good work done by both bodies.

[Leon Roskilly]

Working from inside does not work with the PAC, unfortunately, it is a quango.

 

 

I didn't know that the PAC recieves Government funding.

 

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclo...n/m0007611.html

 

In fact I'm sure that it doesn't!

[Peter Waller]

Quango as in unelected committee. A term used by Dr Barry Rickards, no less, when describing the PAC Committee some years back.

[Leon Roskilly]

Quango as in unelected committee. A term used by Dr Barry Rickards, no less, when describing the PAC Committee some years back.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango

 

Best stick to 'has an unelected committee' to avoid confusion!

 

The committee of the PAC is appointed every three years, by the outgoing committee, usually from a specific region. The committee are able to co-opt others with skills, knowledge etc.

 

Actually, when I was with the PAC I found it easy to have my say, and perhaps influence decisions, it just needed the effort to be made (and maybe tha ability to retain a clear head whilst over-consumning alcohol!)

 

With committee posts on most organisations being filled unnopposed by whoever can be persuaded to stick their hand up to take on an often thankless job, I've admired the ability of the PAC to be able to dump a whole committee and appoint a new one every three years.

 

Still not sure how they manage that, and still usually get some good calibre people, rather than the tired out members of many committees I've observed in other organisations.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[ColinW]

I let my membership lapse due to family commitments about ten years ago but still remember that one of the good things about the PAC was the way the committee would regularly be changed "en masse", sometimes completely changing the outlook of the organisation. This reflected the fact that pike angling to one man can be a completely different game to someone 300 miles away. It's far better than most angling clubs I've been in, where a handful of men tend to run things purely for their own self interest.

[Mark Lloyd]

We at the ACA are very keen to ensure that the impact of the Pike Championships on fish and fisheries is minimised as much as possible. This is why we have changed the format from a final with 500 anglers to two semi finals at different venues with a maximum of 250 anglers at each. This will enable us to fish double pegs, reduce the pressure on the fish and make the competition more about fishing skill than the luck of the draw.

The Pike Championships earn us about £20,000 each year, which is pretty significant revenue for our fight against pollution, fish disease and other impacts on fisheries.

We will continue to consider ways of improving the championships with regard to the welfare of fish and the enjoyment of participants.

Please support the ACA if you're not already a member (www.a-c-a.org or 01568 620447).

Best wishes to all,

Mark

 

ACA Exec. Director