ACA letter to members.

Probably worth starting a new thread!

Link to the letter!

At last, something with substance that should suit all anglers.

Suits me, I've got no problem with creating one unified body. OK so we've tried it in the past? Just because it's a difficult nut to crack doesn't mean we should stop trying.

As this is more appropriate to this thread,I've transfered it over for Lee Fletcher

Dear Fred, and All,

So have you read it then Fred on the ACA website? For all others go and have a look because it just got posted up today! Oops, another gaff seeing as the ACA membership haven't all received this in the post?

My first reactions Fred? Waffle. The type of which I've been reading about for years. No mention about structure, how the thing will work, how it will be presented to "angling", who will be heading up this "thingmy", in fact, nothing but a list of maybe's and what we might do's. But absolutely nothing about how the thing will work!!?? And I can tell you all now, I have emails on record where I suggested a lot of the stuff to political angling now contained in this document years ago!!

I especially like the bit where it says it will "offer an attractive membership package to individual anglers and provide the best services to its member clubs, fisheries andriparian owners"Which in itself doesn't make sense because it appears to want individual members but doesn't say it wants member clubs just says it will provided the best services. So are they talking about the existing ACA, NAFAC, NFA, SAA club members? Can't read anywhere about offering group club membership which I take to mean clubs and groups etc must join one of the FACT constituent orgs to be a part? Also surprise surprise also doesn't mention if "individual members" will have any actual say in how the supposedly new org will be run? It then goes on to say, "The proposed new organisation is best placed to demand better funding from government to ensure proper governance". Hah! That old potato! Now I "HAVE" heard that codswallop many times before at political meetings and guess what? It never happened for all the bluster before and it isn't going to happen now! So it seems like there's an offer for individual members but they are still going for the "government" rabbit out the hat funding route! These blokes just won't learn will they? This government might well hand FACT a few quid, but when they get slung out or policy changes it will get snatched straight back! So thats any paid professionals out of work and us back to square one on the funding front! Added to which the whole document is shot full of holes and you have a great announcement! If this is a copy of what the ACA want to send out to the members they are wasting a lot of stamps. In my opinion, this is all all about FACT keeping overal control and is "NOT" a path that the ACA should be taking.

Regards,

Lee.

I'll wait for my letter, and the enclosure.

<u>BUT</u>

"the only change that you would see, apart from an improvement in services and support, would be that from 2009 your membership subscription would be paid to the new unified body."

Do I get a vote in the unified body?

Dear Fred,

You are already a member of ACA? So did "you" get a vote on the proposal to move ACA into this new unified body? Because it can only "BE" a new body if all the FACT constituent orgs dissolve and that decision "can't" be made without member ratification.

So my view is the present FACT orgs will stay as they are and individual membership within the new proposed FACT type org will be "restrictive" in the probability you won't have voting rights at all? If so, these guys are just whistling in the wind again because grass roots anglers, who aren't daft, WON'T JOIN. NFA hold all the cards with their own club members because you can't field a national squad for the national championships from within any club if you aren't an NFA club member. So the NFA will be staying as they are. So will all the other org's and is why there is no similar announcement on their websites. The ACA in my opinion are the "leading goose" on all this to gauge opinion? And my opinion is the announcement is shot full of holes and it contains nothing on how everything concerning it will work? As for your letter Fred, I can't see it reading any different to whats on the ACA website. If you receive it at all because its plain crazy announcing this before the members have received it in writing? I liked the bit about where the 2009 subsciptions will be getting paid. A done deal if ever I read one! Problem is, are there going to be any subscriptions in 2009 to hand over!? These guys are increadible.

The ACA have asked for members opinions over this. They will certainly be getting mine. And that is a 100% thumbs down for this venture and a 100% thumbs up for the ACA to continue as an independent fighter of pollution because thats their remit and is why I joined as a life member. I certainly didn't joinso ACA could wander off into political side shows.

Regards,

Lee.

Lee,I will get a vote at the AGM,I don't see it as a done deal.

The letter may not be different, it's the enclosure that may, or may not,tell me something else.!

Of course if you're right Lee, we need to start a fightingfund/forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

If for nothing else,then certainly to get the message across!

The very name Anglers conservation society will ring bells outside angling and shows just what a representing body should do.........conserve the very thing it represents with profesionlism.......why shouldn't they get "political"?

One body, one message.

I'm totally for it.

Dear Fred,

Have you ever been allowed to vote at an ACA AGM?

Dear Paul,

Is that what this new body will be called, Anglers Conservation Society?

Regards,

Lee.

Paul, there's no mention of a name for this new body and I'll bet a lot of money that when one is agreed it won't mention conservation.

I think the ACA are being naive in that they see this as a way of solving a chronic underfunding problem. What will happen is that the petty beaurocrats will take over and money will be frittered away on grandiose schemes that will come to nothing. The ACA need to remain independent and need the support of individuals as well as clubs (and new national organisations?).

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Lee..T.bone

I don't know what the new body will be called, i am voicing my own opinion of what i think it should be!

I disagree with you, I believe the ACA is the foundation to build upon.

Dear Paul,

I see now. Anything would be better than FACT as its dreadful but then again, I'll bet a gold clock it took yonks for those around the table to even agree on that!? Not a mickey take just that I've been there before trying to sort out a name that suits all. And logo's are an absolute nightmare!! Mind you, the SAA have a good un.

I feel that Mark is in for a rocket from the ACA membership over all this and I'm also confident it won't be going through in its present form. Whilst the basic idea has merit, the draft itself is shot full of holes and I'm not in the least bit surprised that the lawyers are looking at it because from the draft, which admittedly isn't much, can't begin to work if the various orgs don't either change their constitutions or dissolve completely. The creation of new companies to fascilitate all this as suggested by Mark simply won't work and is far too complicated. Plus it is extremely costly to set up and run.

Nope. Not impressed at all.

Regards,

Lee.

Lee,

I'm not a lawyer, i'm a trucker, but what i am is an angler, i have very little spare time and the little i have i have to try and shuffle between my family and fishing.

I've been around a while, seen the way things have gone since the NASG days, admittingly from a distance.

Its a right bl**dy mess! at least in the uniting anglers vision, it's time for a wind of change.....no a hurricane of change to rip through angling and let those who want to start afresh do so.

Lets see what the ACA lawyers have to say and the rest of us stop pretending to know.

And yes, i think including the term "conservation" into the name of any new body would be a very good selling point..........the publics ears cock when they hear it.

I have said it before but i will say it again, the ACA is in prime position to not only carry on the fight against pollution but also to push forward the image of angling.

Someone tell me a body in a better position to put our image to the public?

There is something everyone seems to forget. Some of those orgs joining this new body are skint.

So how is the funding going to work, i cant see them all throwing their funds into one big pot, and i think i am right in saying that for that to happen, all members of these groups would have to vote for that to happen.

I think the ACA should stay well away from this and carry on doing the great job they have done for years, and if its members get to have a say and a vote,VOTE NO.

Lee,can't say I've ever thought about a vote as a member of ACA.

I do think however, that if my membership fee was to go to a body, that gave me no personal representation, then my vote will be with my feet.

As it stands, I do not seek to be represented personally within the ACA, my membership is purely for the workI trustthem to do.

Ray....ALL of angling is skint.............if the ACA stays away from a single body representing angling then our days are numbered too.

Are you saying Paul, that the ACA shouldjoin in to fund those bodiesthat are skint?

I cannot believe the negative comments on this proposal.

AllI can hearis the sound of Lee's fiddle playing whilst the smell of smoke gets stronger.

For heavens sake it is a proposaland there is clearly an incredible amount of groundwork still to be done.The overiding objective cannot be doubted and MUST be supported.Whats the alternative? Oh of course, the mythical single member organisation just over the horizon.Get real. I see no option but to go with this and influence its direction where possible.The prize is worth it surely?

It's the easiest thing in the world to criticise and we all do it sometimes. 'You're a 5hit ref' a parentonce said that to me whilstI was reffing a Yr 9 11-aside match. I walked over,offered him the whistle and said these exact words'Here you go gob5hyte, you do it and I'll stand on the touchline and mouth off like a nobhead.' He didn't take the whistle nor did he give me any 5hit for the rest of the match.He could do no better you see, although to give him his due, he criticised me for my performance during the actual match, not due to bull5hit heresayin the changing rooms beforehand.

Now call me naive but Ibelieve those at the ACA know how to run the ACA better than anyone who contributes here, andif those at the ACA feel thattotake on the bigger challenges they need to increase the scale of theiroperations by "an order of magnitude" then, and this is purely a wild guess, Ithink they feel that they need to grow somewhat and attract more resources in orderto fully achieve their goals.

So getting to the point, and in two words, stop playing Nostradamus, and acting like a bunch of gossiping old tarts! There is a proposal on the table, and a rationale behind it,if you can think of something better then lets hear it.

I'll wait!

T Bone,

"Who will guard the Gurads" indeed, if not the fee paying subscribing members?

Nigel,

I will happily take 'second chair' to Lee with my own fiddle on this issue, not that I agree with the analogy mind you.

Okay, I've read and re-read the statement and have to say it contains nothing 'new' and tersely stated I am very disappointed in the ACA!

It appears that we will all be paying (or not) into one body and then those subscriptions will be divided up amongst the constituent bodies, as they will have to continue their own work(?)

It could be construed that several of the existing bodies are being seen to court the ACA for their public image, their moral high ground and their attraction to many angelrs who simply want to 'contribute' but not necessarily seek to join one of the other organisations.
Cynical? Maybe.

As to 'voting' I know of a number of anglers from both of my syndicates, and two local clubs, who will be voting, not with their hands but with their feet.