|
Post by Chee Yung on Apr 26, 2005 9:02:04 GMT 8
Hi bros ( n sisters?? ;D), Just received my last copy of Trout Unlimited this week and sadly may have to discontinue as cold water fishery isn’t my cause… just realized that our local waters is the right and urgent cause. I had mentioned before that we should as 'bros of the angle' organize ourselves to have a voice in our beloved waters. Why us and not wakeboarders? Well, we are the only nuts who stare hopefully into ANY BODY OF WATER and NOTICE ANY CHANGES . Longkangs or scenic lakes, anything goes. As such, we are the real guardians of such places because we appreciate them and wish to improve them. So in the coming weeks and months I’ll be putting up a list of water bodies ( not the bikini type Agent X! hehehe)… (I really need your help on this BT ..thanks)… and let you guys choose a spot to call your own. Then, each group can come up with comprehensive plans to protect/improve each spot so that we can feedback to N-Parks/ PUB. I know this will take a long time and commitment that we all struggle to find but ‘ No attempt No gain’ right ? Thanks n Cheers CY
|
|
|
Post by mtshark on Apr 26, 2005 12:25:33 GMT 8
Hi CY, Very good idea! [glow=red,2,300]"As such, we are the real guardians of such places because we appreciate them and wish to improve them."[/glow] Well said. I second to this! ;D I do think that your noble suggestion is a very marvellous one. Meanwhile, the government body is opening up waterways and holding more water activities, this will be a good chance to make known to them that they are a group of people particularly flyfishermen who are very concern about our water ecosystem. If we are able to succeed in collabrating with the N.park in protecting our water ecosystem with responsible angling, flyfishing can be greatly promoted into the next phase. Fellows, let's all support this noble idea and very soon with much hard work, we will have a water hole to call OUR own. Hurray!
|
|
|
Post by RMG on Apr 26, 2005 17:33:31 GMT 8
Yes yes pls do... Last sundays outing left me in a dilema, but Qwek made the decisions for me.... ;D Heading to one of our local watering holes, we saw a leng in the water system and while i was still dazed and confused ( didn't sleep a wink ).... saw Qwek hauling up the leng and signaled me over to to help release the fishes... about 5 earth eaters got trapped. While dragging up the net, i was both elated but also anguished.... elated that there was 0 damage, all that were released survived only 1 swam belly up but managed to get it's coordinates right and swam off. However, anguished as why the rangers weren't there to stop them netters.. i think they do more damage than us anglers.... I'm sure many of us would support this move and i'm sure many would have been like me stuck in a dilema... but am sure glad Qwek had shown me the light... thanks... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 26, 2005 18:45:34 GMT 8
Sad isn't it. You guys be careful when hauling those nets. Netters are known to get violent when their nets are haul up by other people. I had written quite a few feedbacks to NPark and PUB. The latest was a suggestion to use the canoes rented out at MacRitchie for Fly Fishing. The reason I gave was "so that the back cast would not catch any onlookers". I received a reply that they are "considering my feedback". So guys, keep up with the feedbacks to them. We should see a bit of change soon because SFAS is also giving feedbacks to them. Good luck Fly Fishermen.
|
|
|
Post by Chee Yung on Apr 26, 2005 19:40:47 GMT 8
You've made my day bros tho my very complete family will fill my nights with feeding cries;Dhahahaha.. Thanks Ed n BT... :oWow.. the thread is suddenly cooler with Bro RMG making a rare appearance ( note every molecule stops at temperature 0Kelv-n ya ) hahaha! Thanks for your poignant account starring Our sage Qwek as the hero .... Hmmmm...despite the dangers of being civic minded when it can be dangerous as rightly warned by BT , I believe voilence will be limited if nets are placed aside and not damaged as a result of the CR . In the spirit of Bro BT, Qwek n RMG's wise actions, my intention is to: 1) Identify waterbodies worth keeping watch ( BT need a list from you ) 2) Form groups of friends who can suggest improvements ie FADs, canoeing, planting/ naturalising landscaping, bankside improvement, hatchery, aerators, safety etc. 3) Provide a suggestion to the relevant gov. bodies that we will carry out the work on certain weekends etc. 4) Maybe a simple licence system for those who are really serious in regulating the waters... For goodness sake, my ole ulu town of Taiping had one long ago 5) In general have FUN!!! and do something about the spots at the same time..ie do a 'project' while having picnic/makan/fishing/casting session etc. So the bottom line is still FUN ya... no serious tite arse holier than thou stuff here ;D..kekekeke BTW... we can involve some guys like the NUS professors too cos some of them like the zoology department can give us some scientific muscle. The aim, clean waterways and shores with a thriving fish population Cheers CY
|
|
|
Post by JimmyAw on May 26, 2005 16:09:48 GMT 8
Indeed SFAS has made her proposals to the respective in charges. Let's hope for the best! Best Regards - Jim
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCaster on May 26, 2005 22:59:59 GMT 8
Indeed SFAS has made her proposals to the respective in charges. Let's hope for the best! Best Regards - Jim That's great! But...... how do we find out what are the proposals that were made? Were they posted anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by JimmyAw on Jun 3, 2005 15:26:40 GMT 8
Hi Jimmy, Nice to see you here! Wow, that's exciting news and good work! If someone is representing the public, I think the public deserve to know what have been proposed, and to whom we proposed? Where did they get the opinions to form the proposal? Knowing these will help to gauge where we stand, and where are we heading. So we all know what to expect and could chip in to help. YH A very good day to you, YH SFAS has the vision to one day represent the public voice of the local angling community. Currently, indeed SFAS has the opportunity of playing the advisory role to different goverment agencies for the healthy sport of Angling. But at this stage, as part of the SFAS working committee, I cannot deem SFAS proposals as totally representing the full public angling community yet. Nevertheless, we will strive towards this vision for the future. The SFAS proposals made are formed from her membership. SFAS will also consider sources of honest feedbacks & practical individual opinions as feedbacked formally to the association. Under careful consideration with all these inputs, the association's working committee drafts & forward these proposals to the individual agencies. As these proposals could likely be use as materials to assist different agencies in their blueprint planning & policy setting. Therefore, the association's proposals have to be kept confidential in working relations to the goverment agencies too. If individuals of the public angling community would like to help & "chip in" into the current works of SFAS. I urge all the excellent individuals that have given their fullest opinions in this section to join SFAS in her membership. Perhaps with all your contributions, the process of SFAS's vision in representing the local angling community will speed up further. Tight lines! - Jim.
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCaster on Jun 4, 2005 7:18:57 GMT 8
As these proposals could likely be use as materials to assist different agencies in their blueprint planning & policy setting. Therefore, the association's proposals have to be kept confidential in working relations to the goverment agencies too. - Jim. Hi Jimmy, I think SFAS had done an outstanding job so far in improving the awareness of sports fishing in Singapore. However, I may have to respectfully disagree with the your statement quoted above. Despite all the sentiments of the Singaporean population, I think our national blueprint planning and policy formulation on subjects related to the general public is still a transperant process. Exceptions may apply to security or national defence issues but for policies on public recreation and sports fishing, public opinions need to be and are taken into consideration by and large. It'll be foolish not to solicit public feedback for such matters. Why the need for such compartmentalization for the concepts of SFAS proposal ? When the government solicit feedback from SFAS, is there an assumption that SFAS is fully representative of our local sports fishing community? I am happy that SFAS had earned the opportunity to be the advising agency to the government on sports fishing issues. But the transperancy of its Vision and Mission should be made public. Not that SFAS needs to explain to the public on its internal constitutional position, but at least we know our mutual stands. As fellow sports fishermen, I am certain we can find enough common goals to promote our interest as long as we remain open. For considerations please. Best Regards.
|
|
|
Post by JimmyAw on Jun 4, 2005 8:30:45 GMT 8
Hi ShadowCaster, ... Exceptions may apply to security or national defence issues but for policies on public recreation and sports fishing, public opinions need to be and are taken into consideration by and large. Jimmy : Even Public recreation & sport policies will involves security issues. If we can reflect further... why not the whole reservoir, why must fishing be limited to certain area? Sportmen may take it as leisure but to the Authorities & even SFAS has take certain sets of overview to proposals. ------------------------------------------------------------------ It'll be foolish not to solicit public feedback for such matters. Jimmy : Yes, we do consider public feedback such as this excellent post. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Why the need for such compartmentalization for the concepts of SFAS proposal ? Jimmy : Join SFAS and I get the full working committee to relate this issue to you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- When the government solicit feedback from SFAS, is there an assumption that SFAS is fully representative of our local sports fishing community? Jimmy : There is more than meets the eye for a National Representation. We are still striving towards the goal of achieving NSA Status but what you have related in this post will definitely put forward to the considerations of SFAS Committee. Tight Lines! - Jim
|
|
|
Post by ShadowCaster on Jun 4, 2005 10:32:21 GMT 8
Hi ShadowCaster, ... Exceptions may apply to security or national defence issues but for policies on public recreation and sports fishing, public opinions need to be and are taken into consideration by and large. Jimmy : Even Public recreation & sport policies will involves security issues. If we can reflect further... why not the whole reservoir, why must fishing be limited to certain area? Sportmen may take it as leisure but to the Authorities & even SFAS has take certain sets of overview to proposals. ------------------------------------------------------------------ It'll be foolish not to solicit public feedback for such matters. Jimmy : Yes, we do consider public feedback such as this excellent post. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Why the need for such compartmentalization for the concepts of SFAS proposal ? Jimmy : Join SFAS and I get the full working committee to relate this issue to you. -------------------------------------------------------------------- When the government solicit feedback from SFAS, is there an assumption that SFAS is fully representative of our local sports fishing community? Jimmy : There is more than meets the eye for a National Representation. We are still striving towards the goal of achieving NSA Status but what you have related in this post will definitely put forward to the considerations of SFAS Committee. Tight Lines! - Jim Hi Jimmy, Thanks for the fast response! Pardon my ignorance but I honestly can't make the direct connection between opening up more parts of the reservoir and National Security. None of the existing reservior parimeter are restricted zones currently and making it available for sports fishing does not open up any additional access rights over and above the current level. If anything, it will probably make illicit activities more difficult as there will be more public eyes at these currently secluded areas. ===================================== Authorities & even SFAS has take certain sets of overview to proposals. ====================================== If these "sets of overview" could be made public, then perhaps the policy could inherantly be more inclusive and it would be a lot easier for the public to buy in the ideas and intent. ====================================== Jimmy : Join SFAS and I get the full working committee to relate this issue to you. ====================================== I am sorry to be blunt but this sounds like something that a secret society or the Communist Party cadre would say : "Can't tell you unless you are one of us." How can one make up his/her mind to join SFAS if he/she does not even know what SFAS is trying to advocate? What are SFAS's positions on various sports fishing regulations and issues? My view is that it is an imperative for an organization that bears the name of SFAS to have some form of inclusiveness towards the local sport fishing community. It does not mean that every opinion needs to be implemented but every voice should count. If SFAS is an organization where only the Ex Co knows the intricate considerations and calls all the shots, I suggest the name of SFAS to be changed to XXXX Sport Fishing Club to reflect that the organization only represents the interest of a specific inetrest group. There is nothing wrong with that. But to give the impression that this Ex Co has the representation of the entire Singaporean Sport Fishing community would be grossly inaccurate. Just my opinion. Best Regards
|
|
|
Post by JimmyAw on Jun 4, 2005 22:01:45 GMT 8
Hi Shadowdancer,
I respect your honest opinions. To each of us has our own set of ideas & opinions.
I shall not comment any further.
Best Regards - Jim.
|
|
|
Post by Qwek on Jun 10, 2005 22:46:12 GMT 8
Hello Jimmy,
Very sad to read your closing comments, what Shadowcaster has commented echoed what many flyfishing kakis and others have in their view and opinion of SFAS.
If the NGOs and other stat-boards are opening up in this era I don't see why your associate is going backward. How can you expect the community to join if you are so tight-lipped.
We hope to see a better tomorrow and a better SFAS.
Just hoping.
Qwek
|
|
|
Post by AnglerAdventurer on Jun 11, 2005 13:49:22 GMT 8
The vision of SFAS is to one day represent the public voice of the local Angling community. SFAS has also worked hand in hand with the relevant authorities (NEA/PUB & Npark) in improving the awareness of Sports Fishing in Singapore by introducing this activity to the current four reservoirs, Kranji, Lower Seletar, Lower Pierce and Macritchie. Now, Pulau Semakau is also opening up for Sports Fishing and SFAS is involved in it too. An outstanding accomplishment so far.
However, (correct me if I'm wrong) the current legal freshwater fishing grounds does not permit flyfishing. In my opinion, if SFAS is going to represent the whole of the angling community, then flyfishing should not be left out at the legalized fishing grounds. Using safety as a reason to forbid is a bad excuse. Also, the fish population in the reservoirs is decreasing as there is no proper management in this field. This is one of the reason for the proposal of the White Paper.
If SFAS is adopting (I hope not) the Bush administration's doctrine, "Either you're with us or you're not with us"....... I'm afraid they're drifting in the wrong direction. With this so called " Join me then I tell you" kind of membership, does it mean that only SFAS members get to fish at Pulau Semakau fishing ground when there is a planned trip and only fill in the public as and when there is vacant space? I sincerely hope this is not the case!
With the completion of the Proposal for Singapore Sports Fishery White Paper drafted by one of our FFSF member, I hope SFAS take this in a positive manner. Going against or telling SFAS what to do is not the intention here, but rather, sharing a feasible proposal beneficial to the fishing community.
During the mid 90s, I frequent to this small "Longkang" about five minutes drive from my home to flyfish for Haruan, Kalui, Lampang and Tilapia. A year later, Peacock bass were introduced there and my flyfishing friends and I enjoyed fishing at the Longkang very much. Even after I left for Japan, still find time to come back and flyfish at this small little Longkang......believe me, it was that good! Then, shortly after the 9/11 incident, this Longkang was taken away from us. Reason being, "that's a very sensitive Longkang!" And PUB said, fishing is NOT permitted, period. Go figure? There goes flyfishing in Singapore........ sigh.
I still dream of the day........ where I can flyfish in our reservoir, be at peace with nature and NOT worry about PUB staff or Park rangers coming after me for breaking the Park rules.
This is just my opinion.
Huns.
|
|
|
Post by mtshark on Jun 11, 2005 15:36:53 GMT 8
SFAS - Sport Fishing Association (Singapore)
What does the above truely mean?
(Singapore), the use of the ' ( ' & ' ) ' is pretty sensitive. Many will read that SFAS represents Singapore and of course for singaporeans. Singapore is a democratic society (read this in our National Pledge) and believe me, many of us would really like to know what is going on in SFAS and of course what SFAS are doing for general public and anglers like us. After reading through this thread and the replies from Mr Jimmy Aw, it sure makes me ponder about SFAS's intention.
1) Is SFAS really a representative of Singaporeans or is it an association bearing the name of Singapore with the brackets but only opened to people of the same mind?
2) Is SFAS really representing Singaporeans? Or is it a club for her own interests that happened to be in Singapore?
3) Why close the door and discuss matters?
4) Are the 'matters' so secretive that only members can know? I dont believe that anyone still swears to join a club in Singapore, unless otherwise...
5) Do you wear a security indentification pass when entering your premises?
6) Does the government body grants higher security clearance for SFAS members? What CAT level is that?
7) Does SFAS 'screen' those who want to be a member of SFAS using MINDEF's guidelines or template?
8) Are your beliefs and doctrines of SFAS have the chop 'Restricted', or 'Confidential' or even 'Secret' on it?
9) Why must join SFAS first then we could know the details? We are no longer in the 70's or 80's and we have the rights to know. We know the laws and the laws is for us.
Hmmm.... I am not going to ask anymore questions and Jimmy, I am not expecting you to answer them at all. It is just 'food' for thoughts. I dont expect answers too.
The above questions are not mine alone and many are from friends I know. In today's Singapore, singaporeans wouldnt like to join such a club or association unless they are like-minded and for their own selfish gains only. (I am not pinpointing that SFAS is such a club hor. Dont flame me.) Singaporeans at this time, expect transparency from almost everything that they might get involved. No one wants to jump into a hole that have no means of getting out later... you get what I mean? Even if someone gets to leave but that label might stick on him forever.
Just my thoughts...
All for one, and one for all... flyfishermen, unite!
|
|