A New Beginning?

[Bob Roberts]

Graham

If you revisit the article and insert the word 'carp' for 'barbel' you will probably find the article reads exactly the same but without the emotive baggage.

The clean slate rules offered for discussion would equally apply to that Society or any other single species group and had they been used (my opinion) by the Carp Society when it grew exponentially then that Society might have been in a much stronger position than it is today.

For the record I have no desire to set up an alternative Barbel Society, nor do I see myself ever wishing to act in any official capacity within the existing one.

However, while the existing Society seeks to influence the customs and practises of non-members and to give quotes to the media on all issues pertaining to a fish I and countless thousands of non-members frequently set out to catch I feel fully entitled to speak openly about the Society's policies and procedures.

Equally, if the Society wishes to speak on behalf of the wider church then it should listen to the whole congregation and take on board their sentiments.

Consequently issues like this are the property of the whole of angling and not simply the precious few who post behind closed curtains on the official site.

Hope that makes things clear.

Bob

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

Bob, the media view the BS as a Society that represents a large group of Barbel Anglers. It makes sense to them that their views should be taken/considered on issues regarding the Barbel.

Like many other "individuals" you have the same rights to make your viewpoints known.

I just happen to believe that greater influence can be exerted from within, than from outside. Thats probably one of the key points that we differ on.

Anyway, you should be on the Trent, a 12lber out just a few minutes ago.

Graham

 

[Keith Truscott]

Bob,

I have no axe to grind with you, but if you are going to post more like this, then please come up with more original and innovative ideas than you have so far, your wit, writing skills and love of the sport are worth more than you are contributing so far.

As you and most are aware the BS at this moment in time is neither a club or a political body, it currently tries to be all things to all with a foot in both camps. It is also not a democracy but more of a democratic dictatorship. This works for the society as it is, and is the fulfillment of the ideals of its mentor and keeps it within those ideals. How many others can say they have had the foresight, forethought, dedication and commitment to realise a dream and bring it to fruition. For this Steve and those involved with him from the beginning have to be congratulated. I have nothing but admiration for their achievements. The society fulfills and has fulfilled a void for many of its members and the camaraderie, friendships and feeling of being part of something it generates is second to none.

It would appear that the small majority of members that post across the various web sites are quite happy with this situation and defend it with vigor. This is commendable, "but" and it is a "BIG BUT? sometimes it is defended blindly just for the sake of it. No organisation is that good or perfect and sometimes other opinions and reading between the lines of writings like yours and others can be constructive, if only it can be seen, as the saying goes ?There is none so blind as them that don?t want to see?

The society is firmly established and will remain so, if it is happy with its size, standing and feels it fulfills its place within the piscatorial world then it will remain in its current size and form. Those that want more from it will have to look elsewhere or live in hope.

Keith

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

Keith
An excellent post old Friend.

Graham

 

[Fred Bonney]

Couldn't agree more,thanks for your thoughts,Keith.
I look forward to seeing you on the banks again soon.

 

[Steve Spiller]

Keith,

Your second paragraph is why I will be joining the B.S soon, well said!

 

[Dave Burr]

Well said Keith and I agree with you in principle, but I think that Bob has also hit a few points on the head.

Any organisation needs to keep looking at itself and needs to modify its image and aims accordingly. Th B.S. was born out of an agenda and goals that determined its course for the first few years, it then evolved into what it is today. It may be that now is the right time to think about what it will or can become in the future.

Evolution is all very well but foresight and direction takes effort and imagination, maybe there is a case for the B.S. to stop be reactionary and to determine its own future with any necessary changes and a well considered game plan.

I know that this will be seen as an attack on the Society, it is not, I am a long time supporter and will continue to be so, I just can't help feeling that despite all the rhetoric, the Society has not moved forwards for some time.

 

[Bully]

"But any organisation run by committee or allowing its membership to constantly sway its decisions ends up prevaricating and drifting along."

Bit of a sweeping statement Mark. I have worked in many societies/clubs etc and never experienced that at all. If you let it happen then you shouldn't be on a committee.

This is all very simple. A committee is elected, proposals/goals submitted at AGM's and then the committee is given 12 months to deliver against the proposals/goals for that year. Normally the committee would meet regularly and report on progress.

What is the problem here? Frankly this whole subject is getting very tedious and boring..............

If the BS want to run as unelected and the membership are happy, then that is their business.

 

[Mark Wintle]

Stuart,

Perhaps my experience of committees is different to yours...

I agree it is a bit sweeping.

I would comment that getting anyone that's any good on a committee is hard enough without having some sort of performance targets to meet in what is a voluntary and often unpaid post. I could see you having no committe within a couple of years.

I utterly agree with your comment about it all being tedious, and that if the members of the BS are happy then so beit, and if not then it's their problem.

Bob,

I can't see your problem with undemocratic organisations making political statements. They all do it. How they are run internally is the members' problem.

As part of the NMW record fish advisory board (sponsored by FishingMagic) that is just what we are doing; attempting to have influence. We have no elections, chairman, secretary, committee, or rules, just three spokesmen and the willingness to try to make a difference.

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

Dave. A good post. I did not see it as critcism.

I personally do feel the climate is changing. Step change, not revolutionary, nor should it be IMHO.

Graham

 

[Wolfman Woody]

I don't want to get too deep into this as it again sounds like another "us and them" Barbel Society bash.

First of all, comments like "better to fight from within.." don't wear. In many cases you get told you're not really welcome as a member if you disagree or want to change anything. You're simply branded a troublemaker, as I was and I voted with my feet.

But, everything has to change, nothing remains static and anything that tries to uphold the status quo eventually dies out. That's a rule of nature and of business. It pay once in a while to stand aside from the body you love and have moulded and listen openly to what others (outsiders) have to say. Use your ears first, then your brain, and your mouth after!

The society has a right to comment on affairs concernign barbel, but it has to recognise that it is only one small voice, 1400 members. Come on now, there must be close on 100,000 angler chasing barbel at soem stage or other otherwise it would not be profitable for all the rod companies to produce all the barbel rods they do. So, last point, the Barbel Society (if that's who is the target here) has to reach out a hell of a lot more and change perhaps in order to recruit more of those anglers as members.




That's it, no rant, just advice. I'm off now .........

 

[paul williams 2]

Good rant Woody..the fight from within thing is rubbish most of the time.......anyone who disagrees usually gets shot down before they can make a differance.

That was not aimed specifically at the BS, more of a sweeping statement!

 

[EC]

?Imagine there is no Barbel Society? says the sub-title in the thread.

So what if there is a Barbel Society, what difference does it make?

If what is out there at the moment isn't good enough, or doesn't meet my needs I only need to gather some good men and women, meet in a pub, and start something myself totally independently!

 

[Lee Fletcher 1]

Dear Eddie C,

If I were to meet some women in a pub, I would definitely try and start something independently with at least one of them, preferably back at her place. Only when the pub shut of course. I wouldn't want to foresake valuable drinking time on a mere woman.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Ric Elwin]

Fair post Lee, but surely the loss of a little VTD is justified. Provided, of course, that she's not a minger.

 

[Simon K]

I'm afraid Bob's idealism has got the better of him, again. I can't help but agree with M. Wintle's initial post. Democracy in these types of clubs/societies often leads to complacency, can leave it open to "unfriendly takeover", and eventually, dissolution thanks to complete apathy. Or it becomes something far removed from the original intention. Which is counter-productive and schismatic. Seen it happen time and again in other leisure-activity areas.

Better to have a single-minded vision than an annual election for these things (they're based around a very narrow area of interest by definition, anyhow), if it's not what people want, they simply don't join.

There's a world of difference between a committee prevaricating through 12 months of meetings, votes, adjournments and amendments to pass a motion (maybe) and one (or two) people saying "Yes, good idea, it's in".

Or "No."

If there's one thing the "great unwashed" love, it's leaving it to someone else to make the decision. Preferrably without having to think about it too much. Or being asked to. It means Things Get Done.

Why do you think so many people (not me!) fell in behind Thatcher?!!!!!!!

Sorry, Bob, but if you're going to write articles based on petty semantic points in a minority fishing society's rulebook, I think you need to take a breather.

A well-earned one, I'm sure.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

I couldn't disagree with you more, Simon K.

What breeds apathy in a club/society is dictatorship or worse, asking people to take an active part and then putting them and their ideas down all the time. If you want to move on you have to encourage EVERYONE to take an active roll in the society. There was never a more truism than "You only get out of it what you're prepared to put in."

Why do you think there was this "management v. unions" at one time.

As for "unfriendly takeover", no such thing can happen if you have a set of good strong constitutional rules to prevent it. If you don't have such rules then you are weak from the start and that is another thing that needs to be addressed by change.

In every corporation, society, club where people are given every encouragement to play a part things happen for the good. It is only in those organisations where anyone who is seen to threaten the status quo is treated as enemy no 1, that the whole house of cards eventually falls in.

"If you not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" - A buzzword, but I think you see the point.

 

[Tony Rocca]

Well I agree with you Simon K, dead right.

I spent the best part of 10 years on the committee of the Joint Council of Wildfowling clubs on the Humber. Democratically run and an absolute nightmare, never got owt done, though we tried and tried and tried.

On the other hand I have been involved in a few non democratic shooting organisations that have achieved a lot, moved forward, with one man at the helm.

 

[Simon K]

One all!

Woody, I take your points, but I am a Society Committee (some would say Junta!) Member and thus am speaking from my own experience, thus far. I've seen both of my parents in identical situations over the years and am incorporating their experiences into my view, too.

I think your observations can be true, too, but I would say in the minority of cases.

Unfriendly takeover.........best current case in point = RSPCA Ruling Council.

"Management v. Unions" at one time?
You're obviously not a Londoner presently struggling with Rail/Tube Strikes then!

Your Dictatorship breeds apathy comment is only true where dictators DO put others down purely for the sake of it, but how long would a group last if this were the case?
Even then, this can be of a positive nature, if others input is either counter-productive to the workings/aims of the group, or is negative without any balancing constructive alternative(s) put forward simultaneously.

 

[Lee Fletcher 1]

Dear Tony,

"On the other hand I have been involved in a few non democratic shooting organisations that have achieved a lot, moved forward, with one man at the helm."

Was that because he had the only box of cartridges as all the other Yorkies were to tight to buy any?

Regards,

Lee.