The ACA
- Thread starter GrahamM
- Start date
N
Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)
Guest
I'd echo that Graham.It seems that under MarK Lloyd they are becoming much more proactive in their work.
Let us know how this one pans out,Mark.
Let us know how this one pans out,Mark.
A
Andy "the Dog" Nellist (SAA) (ACA)
Guest
Excellent to see the ACA really taking on issues with all guns blazing.
They also seem to be getting far better at letting anglers know what they are up to.
Just what angling needs from its organisations - guts, action and efficient communication.
They also seem to be getting far better at letting anglers know what they are up to.
Just what angling needs from its organisations - guts, action and efficient communication.
Steve Handley
Active member
A more positive and powerful ACA can only be a good thing for angling and our waterways.
It's disappointing that the membership only stands at 9000. It's time people who enjoy this wonderful sport of ours, put something back and join up.
?20 is a small price to pay to protect our waterways and environment.
One day you just might need them!
It's disappointing that the membership only stands at 9000. It's time people who enjoy this wonderful sport of ours, put something back and join up.
?20 is a small price to pay to protect our waterways and environment.
One day you just might need them!
Gav Barbus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,190
- Reaction score
- 1
I shall be joining in the new year,9000 anglers is pitiful when you think about .But they seem to have a bit of clout which is encouraging when it comes to getting press and members and the job done.Anglers need to get off their butt and defend our waterways because nobody else will.
I have to agree with Nigel that under Mark Lloyd the ACA certainly seem to have moved well in front of all of the other angling bodies.
Personally, I'd love to see the ACA take on the mantle of the one and only united body for ALL Individual Anglers in the UK.
But, just think what could be accomplished if each member recruited just one new member in the New Year?
I think that my New Year's resolution will be to try to sound out all the members of both my syndicate and the Roach Club to see if I can't summon up 5 new members!
Edited because I seemingly can't spell "angling" after the best part of a bottle of Cote du Rhone
Personally, I'd love to see the ACA take on the mantle of the one and only united body for ALL Individual Anglers in the UK.
But, just think what could be accomplished if each member recruited just one new member in the New Year?
I think that my New Year's resolution will be to try to sound out all the members of both my syndicate and the Roach Club to see if I can't summon up 5 new members!
Edited because I seemingly can't spell "angling" after the best part of a bottle of Cote du Rhone
Having been a member for the last twenty years through the many changes I most sincerely hope that we can now continue to maintain this very positive move forward. I have long since maintained that the ACA is angling's premire organisation in the eyes of the public long may this continue.
What never fails to suprise me is the fact that anglers will not put their hands in their pockets for the mere twenty quid a year for membership especially when it is the finest insurance for their waters they can ever have.
Sadly it is a very poor reflection on the values of the vast majority of our bretheren of the angle.
What never fails to suprise me is the fact that anglers will not put their hands in their pockets for the mere twenty quid a year for membership especially when it is the finest insurance for their waters they can ever have.
Sadly it is a very poor reflection on the values of the vast majority of our bretheren of the angle.
R
Robert Woods 1
Guest
Graham,
Have you got the membership details. Will Join after Christmas.
Have you got the membership details. Will Join after Christmas.
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
It might be a good idea for those who aren't members to ask for a year's membership as a Christmas present from their loved ones!!!
And if they don't get it, then buy a year's membership for themselves with the money they would have spent on their loved one's present and explain to them the good work that their sacrifice will now achieve .....
then don tin hat and hide in corner......
And if they don't get it, then buy a year's membership for themselves with the money they would have spent on their loved one's present and explain to them the good work that their sacrifice will now achieve .....
then don tin hat and hide in corner......
W
Wolfman Woody
Guest
R
Robert Woods 1
Guest
Thanks Woody.
P
Phil Hackett The ostrich pie hater
Guest
Shame the ACA are doing jack shit about endocrines in the water environment and seeing who they can take to court for polluting 99% of the nations rivers.
F
Fred Bonney
Guest
I thought they were primarily lawyers,give them the factual information and perhaps they can do something!
I think we might be in danger of being a little disingenuous on this topic of endocrines in the water environment.
With the new executive management in place then surely, (and according to all accepted business principles) the experienced man will start off by chosing his battles very carefully, and winning them.
There is little or no point, (other than a career-limiting move) in picking the monster battle first, and then loosing it!
With the new executive management in place then surely, (and according to all accepted business principles) the experienced man will start off by chosing his battles very carefully, and winning them.
There is little or no point, (other than a career-limiting move) in picking the monster battle first, and then loosing it!
captain carrott
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,698
- Reaction score
- 4
are the laws in place which set limits on permissible emission levels of endocrine disruptors.
if not then there's jack shit they can do about it.
you can't possibly prosecute someone for some thing which isn't illegal.
if not then there's jack shit they can do about it.
you can't possibly prosecute someone for some thing which isn't illegal.
stuart clough
New member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
The issue of endocrine disrupters is a tricky one. The research has shown 100% of males with some signs of feminisation in some cases, but no-one, to my knowledge has yet established a link between endocrine disrupters and an effect at the population level, even in the 100% affected populations. It is possible that there is still sufficient production, even in compromised populations, to maintain a healthy (in terms of numbers) population.
There are far more winable battles to be fought, and the ACA needs to focus on these.
There are far more winable battles to be fought, and the ACA needs to focus on these.
P
Phil Hackett The ostrich pie hater
Guest
Fred they've had the info mate and done jack with it!
Stuart all things are possible, but the probability on the worst effect rivers is there isn?t, and the problems are being mask by constant stocking by the EA.
The longer the ACA, EA, DFRA and the powers that be ignore it, by sticking their heads up their arses in the hope it?ll go away, the worse it will get not only for fish, aquatic mammals, but for mankind too!
Stuart all things are possible, but the probability on the worst effect rivers is there isn?t, and the problems are being mask by constant stocking by the EA.
The longer the ACA, EA, DFRA and the powers that be ignore it, by sticking their heads up their arses in the hope it?ll go away, the worse it will get not only for fish, aquatic mammals, but for mankind too!
Mark Lloyd 3
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2006
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
Phil,
Re: endocrine disruptors.
We haven't taken any cases on endocrine disruptors because quanitifiable damage is so hard to prove for us to take a case in nuisance. Instead, we have raised the issue as part of the Blueprint for Water (www.blueprintforwater.org.uk) which was launched this November and is being put on the desks of officials and Ministers.
Under the heading "Stop pollutants contaminating our water" you will find that we have demanded that "By 2012, the Government must introduce a package of measures to address the damaging effects of endocrine disruptors on fish."
The reason this timescale is so long is that it will need to be fed into the Asset Management Planning process and further research will be required to find ways of controlling the problem. We have tried to make the Blueprint achievable, but will also be chasing the government to find out what steps it is taking to meet the targets we set out.
We would of course be able to do much more if more people paid us ?20 a year. Are you a member?
Merry Christmas to everyone on this post and many thanks for your support. I look forward to seeing those membership applications in the post when we get back from the Christmas break!
Re: endocrine disruptors.
We haven't taken any cases on endocrine disruptors because quanitifiable damage is so hard to prove for us to take a case in nuisance. Instead, we have raised the issue as part of the Blueprint for Water (www.blueprintforwater.org.uk) which was launched this November and is being put on the desks of officials and Ministers.
Under the heading "Stop pollutants contaminating our water" you will find that we have demanded that "By 2012, the Government must introduce a package of measures to address the damaging effects of endocrine disruptors on fish."
The reason this timescale is so long is that it will need to be fed into the Asset Management Planning process and further research will be required to find ways of controlling the problem. We have tried to make the Blueprint achievable, but will also be chasing the government to find out what steps it is taking to meet the targets we set out.
We would of course be able to do much more if more people paid us ?20 a year. Are you a member?
Merry Christmas to everyone on this post and many thanks for your support. I look forward to seeing those membership applications in the post when we get back from the Christmas break!
P
Phil Hackett The ostrich pie hater
Guest
Mark, at last someone at the ACA has had the ?balls? to do something about the gravest threat to fish stocks nationally, aquatic mammalia and mankind. It?s only taken 8 years since I notified your predecessor about the then Consultation being held by the EA Endocrine Disrupting Substances in the Environment: ?what should be done??
The then Executive officers despite a wealth of evidence from Brunel University and US research, ignored the whole issue and failed miserably to make a submission to that Consultation. In case you?re wondering how I know the ACA didn?t make a submission? The EA issued a follow up report ?Review of comments on the EA?s Consultation EDS in the Environment What can be done?? In that report a full list of those making comments appears, and the ACA is absent!
That Mark, up and until your comment above for this November, has remained the same!
That?s in case you missed it the first time, is a total of 8 years without comment on probably the gravest threat to sustainable fish stock in E & W.
You asked am I member? The answer is NO, I was, but on a point of principled disgust, I steadfastly refused to renew my membership and that remains the case and will do for sometime to come! The money instead went/goes to the World Wildlife Fund who has been actively hounding this Govt over the issue.
The ACA has 8 years of lost ground to make up on this matter, and whilst it clearly has now made a start, only time will tell whether it's thrown off the shackles of ambivalence to the matter.
The then Executive officers despite a wealth of evidence from Brunel University and US research, ignored the whole issue and failed miserably to make a submission to that Consultation. In case you?re wondering how I know the ACA didn?t make a submission? The EA issued a follow up report ?Review of comments on the EA?s Consultation EDS in the Environment What can be done?? In that report a full list of those making comments appears, and the ACA is absent!
That Mark, up and until your comment above for this November, has remained the same!
That?s in case you missed it the first time, is a total of 8 years without comment on probably the gravest threat to sustainable fish stock in E & W.
You asked am I member? The answer is NO, I was, but on a point of principled disgust, I steadfastly refused to renew my membership and that remains the case and will do for sometime to come! The money instead went/goes to the World Wildlife Fund who has been actively hounding this Govt over the issue.
The ACA has 8 years of lost ground to make up on this matter, and whilst it clearly has now made a start, only time will tell whether it's thrown off the shackles of ambivalence to the matter.