What do you want?

[Ken Davison South Wales]

All to many times I see people answering myself or others by stating that the wrong things are being asked for by those representing RSAs without stating exactly what they think should be asked.

 

The other stock reply is the wrong people are representing us.

 

Sooooo down to brass tacks.

 

Give us a list of people who are willing and able to do a better job.

 

Give us a list of what you want asked.

 

No ifs, buts or maybes

 

Names and wants only

[Leon Roskilly]

I wonder how many even know the names of all of 'those representing us'.

 

When one person goes to a meeting, they have usually been briefed by another group of people (ie committee/team whatever), and individuals comprising that group have met together, provided information, debated the subjects to be presented and discussed, and often the different groups have themselves got together beforehand for a 'pre-meeting' to ensure that everything is being covered consistently, and that different organisations are not seen to be conflicting with one another during meetings with others (a recipe for being RSA side-lined if they can't seem to agree on anything between themselves)

 

It's not just a case of turning up at a meeting and spouting off your own views, there's usually days of preparation, research and debate leading to general agreement that are put in, even before setting off, and when the meeting is over, there are report backs to be prepared and de-briefs, questions asked and answered etc

 

All of those individuals taking part in the process are also closely involved in 'representation'.

 

And there's probably a lot more meetings, and people involved in all those meetings, than anyone outside of the process realises.

 

And too often meetings, workshops and conferences that should be attended aren't, because there's simply no one with the knowledge, experience, and skills able to make them, or the cost of hotels and travel is prohibitive (especially so when some events are 2 days - 1 week long).

 

Anyone getting their information from the forums probably get a very distorted view of what goes on and who is involved simply because so few of those involved in all of this has the time or inclination to get involved with internet forums.

 

There's a lot more meetings and representatives out there, than ever gets discussed here.

[Bob Bradford]

A more pertinent question would be;

 

What gets achieved?

[Ken Davison South Wales]

A more pertinent question would be;

 

What gets achieved?

 

Suggest thinking back ten years and comparing to current events, this is the point of this thread, I believe a lot of hard unpaid work has gone into trying to achieve a] A voice for RSAs and b] A better deal. And despite all of the comments like "What has been achieved"

 

I am not being offensive just trying to get some sensible alternatives that some advocate on this forum.

 

I read all the reports sent to me via Leon and NFSA, I also visit DEFRA sites to get further infomation and as I see it progress is being made.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Ken Davison South Wales

[Steve Coppolo]

I wonder how many even know the names of all of 'those representing us'.

 

When one person goes to a meeting, they have usually been briefed by another group of people (ie committee/team whatever), and individuals comprising that group have met together, provided information, debated the subjects to be presented and discussed, and often the different groups have themselves got together beforehand for a 'pre-meeting' to ensure that everything is being covered consistently, and that different organisations are not seen to be conflicting with one another during meetings with others (a recipe for being RSA side-lined if they can't seem to agree on anything between themselves)

 

It's not just a case of turning up at a meeting and spouting off your own views, there's usually days of preparation, research and debate leading to general agreement that are put in, even before setting off, and when the meeting is over, there are report backs to be prepared and de-briefs, questions asked and answered etc

 

All of those individuals taking part in the process are also closely involved in 'representation'.

 

And there's probably a lot more meetings, and people involved in all those meetings, than anyone outside of the process realises.

 

And too often meetings, workshops and conferences that should be attended aren't, because there's simply no one with the knowledge, experience, and skills able to make them, or the cost of hotels and travel is prohibitive (especially so when some events are 2 days - 1 week long).

 

Anyone getting their information from the forums probably get a very distorted view of what goes on and who is involved simply because so few of those involved in all of this has the time or inclination to get involved with internet forums.

 

There's a lot more meetings and representatives out there, than ever gets discussed here.

 

That's a bit misleading again Leon, to say the least.

 

You've painted a picture of an open and honest process that allows the views of others to be taken into account. Are you equally as prepared to tell everyone how the latest round of "representing" was done, regarding the latest developments with the RSA strategy document? Just how many people were involved in the tele conferences you held? How many of the people in the background gave comments and views, and how many of those views went completely ignored? I believe it's all being driven by the same few people who have their own agenda and will ignore whatever anyone else says if it doesn't fit in with their plans. It's that same old "we know best" attitude again. I hope for their sakes that they really do know best, because if they've got it wrong there will be hell to pay.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

That's a bit misleading again Leon, to say the least.

 

You've painted a picture of an open and honest process that allows the views of others to be taken into account.

 

1] Are you equally as prepared to tell everyone how the latest round of "representing" was done, regarding the latest developments with the RSA strategy document?

 

2] Just how many people were involved in the tele conferences you held?

 

3] How many of the people in the background gave comments and views, and how many of those views went completely ignored?

 

4] I believe it's all being driven by the same few people who have their own agenda and will ignore whatever anyone else says if it doesn't fit in with their plans. It's that same old "we know best" attitude again.

 

I hope for their sakes that they really do know best, because if they've got it wrong there will be hell to pay.

 

This mate is what I was on about.

 

Item 1] A full list of names was made availiable for the meeting and a copy of the red lined document returned.

 

Item 2] A list of names was again published

 

Item 3] I have over the years attended thousands of meetings during the course of my work, I would say that in all of them some points raised were set aside as not being applicable to the agenda, a very common practice when dealing with a large amount of input.

 

Item 4] Sorry but I have to say that is pure speculation as it is not backup with facts.

 

Sorry to trash your reply mate, no offence meant.

[Leon Roskilly]

That's a bit misleading again Leon, to say the least.

 

You've painted a picture of an open and honest process that allows the views of others to be taken into account. Are you equally as prepared to tell everyone how the latest round of "representing" was done, regarding the latest developments with the RSA strategy document? Just how many people were involved in the tele conferences you held? How many of the people in the background gave comments and views, and how many of those views went completely ignored? I believe it's all being driven by the same few people who have their own agenda and will ignore whatever anyone else says if it doesn't fit in with their plans. It's that same old "we know best" attitude again. I hope for their sakes that they really do know best, because if they've got it wrong there will be hell to pay.

 

 

The four people from RSA who attended the meeting, and were asked to check over and comment on the output of the meeting, were involved in the teleconferencing.

 

I can't speak for the other organisations, but the draft was circulated to the SACN Executive Group and input invited for discussion with the other organisations involved in the teleconferencing.

 

And as I have seen input from others from those organisations not involved in the teleconferencing, I assume that there was a similar widening of the internal consultations within those organisations too.

 

Remember that this wasn't a full blown consultation, just a quick check over of the output of the meeting, and the timescales simply didn't allow for a massive consultation exercise with all of the membership, and nor would that have been appropriate (that's why the organisations have Executive Groups, Conservation Groups and Restoration Teams, to get to grips with the nitty gritty of the issues and to act accordingly, sometimes delegating work to individuals largely acting under instruction).

 

(The reply that you sent back to John Leballuer when you were consulted as a member of the BASS Restoration Team wasn't seen by me until after the deadline for responses towards the joint response, which by then had been agreed and submitted.

 

Most of the points you raised had in fact been already discussed in depth).

 

Because the joint response deadline had been a day before the DEFRA deadline, the organisations reserved the right to submit their individual responses seperately, if there were areas of disagreement (there weren't), or new information or thoughts not included in the joint response but of importance to put forward at this stage (as far as I'm aware there weren't, certainly not from SACN).

 

We were also aware that any such individual organisational responses would have lessened the power of a combined response, and that they should have been avoided unless essential.

 

Rather any input recieved after the joint response had been submitted should be considered for input by the respective organisation into their response to the general consultation document that will come out of all of this.

 

What needs to be remembered is that a consultation document is being drafted by a large number of stakeholder interests, each with a relatively small number of people involved.

 

Once that process is finished, it will go out for general counsultation when a vast number of others will have the possibility of inputting their own thoughts, views and suggestions.

 

It is simply unfeasable that that vast number of people who will have input into the consultation should also be involved in formulating the intial consultation document.

 

That is why we have Committees, Executive Groups, Conservation Group Members and Restoration Teams, mandated by their membership to deal with the nitty gritty, sometimes appointing individuals to act as spokesman or negotiator on certain issues or at certain meetings.

 

If that is interpreted as ' I believe it's all being driven by the same few people who have their own agenda and will ignore whatever anyone else says if it doesn't fit in with their plans', then I don't know shat to say!

[Steve Coppolo]

I temporarily removed this post while I read through Leons reply above, but I still think what I wrote is valid, and that Ken's reply deserves to be answered, so I've posted it back up with a few extra comments at the bottom which relate to Leons last post.

 

This mate is what I was on about.

 

Item 1]A full list of names was made availiable for the meeting and a copy of the red lined document returned.

 

Item 2] A list of names was again published

 

Item 3] I have over the years attended thousands of meetings during the course of my work, I would say that in all of them some points raised were set aside as not being applicable to the agenda, a very common practice when dealing with a large amount of input.

 

Item 4] Sorry but I have to say that is pure speculation as it is not backup with facts.

 

Sorry to trash your reply mate, no offence meant.

 

No offence taken Ken, and you haven't trashed my reply because you haven't understood it.

 

I was talking about the latest round of discussions that went on so that RSA could decide how to respond to the latest draft strategy document, not the last meeting with DEFRA on the 15th Feb. Bearing in mind that this version is going to be the last one and will go out for public consultation, (ie, whatever is in this version will be what's implemented, because we now know through experience that the consultation stage will be a farce.) The tele conferences that were held were for the few to decide what changes, if any, needed to be made before they send the draft back to DEFRA. It was a very important stage in the process and one where they should have taken on board comments and views from people they really ought to be listening to. It's not up to me to mention names, but suffice to say that there were quite a few valid concerns raised went ignored. Is it normal practice for almost all points raised by those that are supposed to be involved to be ignored by the few who have decided to represent everyone elses views? Don't forget it's DEFRA who will make the decisions, RSA just has to tell them what anglers want and then wait and see what we're given, (or what's taken away)

 

And point four above, sorry to say Ken but you have based your opinion on what you know, which isn't the full story. That's why I posted what I did about Leons last post being a bit misleading. The process as he describes it sounds fair enough, but it doesn't always happen like that. I still believe that the future of RSA has already been decided and the work going on now is to fool the rest of us into accepting it.

 

The four people from RSA who attended the meeting, and were asked to check over and comment on the output of the meeting, were involved in the teleconferencing.

 

I can't speak for the other organisations, but the draft was circulated to the SACN Executive Group and input invited for discussion with the other organisations involved in the teleconferencing.

 

And as I have seen input from others from those organisations not involved in the teleconferencing, I assume that there was a similar widening of the internal consultations within those organisations too.

 

Remember that this wasn't a full blown consultation, just a quick check over of the output of the meeting, and the timescales simply didn't allow for a massive consultation exercise with all of the membership, and nor would that have been appropriate (that's why the organisations have Executive Groups, Conservation Groups and Restoration Teams, to get to grips with the nitty gritty of the issues and to act accordingly, sometimes delegating work to individuals largely acting under instruction).

 

(The reply that you sent back to John Leballuer when you were consulted as a member of the BASS Restoration Team wasn't seen by me until after the deadline for responses towards the joint response, which by then had been agreed and submitted.

 

Most of the points you raised had in fact been already discussed in depth).

 

Because the joint response deadline had been a day before the DEFRA deadline, the organisations reserved the right to submit their individual responses seperately, if there were areas of disagreement (there weren't), or new information or thoughts not included in the joint response but of importance to put forward at this stage (as far as I'm aware there weren't, certainly not from SACN).

 

We were also aware that any such individual organisational responses would have lessened the power of a combined response, and that they should have been avoided unless essential.

 

Rather any input recieved after the joint response had been submitted should be considered for input by the respective organisation into their response to the general consultation document that will come out of all of this.

 

What needs to be remembered is that a consultation document is being drafted by a large number of stakeholder interests, each with a relatively small number of people involved.

 

Once that process is finished, it will go out for general counsultation when a vast number of others will have the possibility of inputting their own thoughts, views and suggestions.

 

It is simply unfeasable that that vast number of people who will have input into the consultation should also be involved in formulating the intial consultation document.

 

That is why we have Committees, Executive Groups, Conservation Group Members and Restoration Teams, mandated by their membership to deal with the nitty gritty, sometimes appointing individuals to act as spokesman or negotiator on certain issues or at certain meetings.

 

If that is interpreted as ' I believe it's all being driven by the same few people who have their own agenda and will ignore whatever anyone else says if it doesn't fit in with their plans', then I don't know shat to say!

 

If what you are saying is correct, I didn't receive a copy of the draft to comment on, until after the deadline had passed! And I know others who were consulted received it at about the same time I did! I first saw the revised draft on Wednesday afternoon, and I worked until gone 11.30pm that night putting together a response so I could send it back that night. I now find out that the deadline had already passed while I was working on my response, and that others, who's comments and views were no doubt more valuable than my own, were in the same boat! Bloody priceless!

Edited March 10, 2007 by Steve Coppolo

[Steve Coppolo]

.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Steve Coppolo

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hi Steve,

 

I was referring to the amendments made to the Feb 15th document.

 

As I read it the amendments were purely the way it was worded, ie the minutes of the last meeting Feb 15th.

 

All that was amended was the wording apart from the endorsing the fact that a license was not acceptable without benefits being implemented.

 

Again until we have had the consultation based on this strategy document and seen the completed results, comparing it to previous experiences ( I guess you mean the bass mls for example ) it would be wrong to draw a conclusion.

 

I am far more optimistic this time than I was with the BMP, it covers a much broader spectrum and therefore has a lot more weight. I supported the BMP but at the time I did state I had my reservations. I thought the concept was excellent but because it was a narrow envelope when it came to RSA support and for the first time came into direct conflict with commercial activities, the outcome would be a political compromise.

 

This one is totally different the whole aspect of RSA is being brought into focus, manufacturers, retail outlets and charters all have an interest, it does not matter if you fish for flounders, bass, cod or skate to mention a few all anglers will be effected and the political implications if cocked up by DEFRA or our much loved politicians will be far reaching, not just the loss of a few hundred bass rod sales.

 

Out of interest: What items do you disagree with and what do you think has been missed from this document?