Keith Arthur And Sea Angling Licences

[Steve Coppolo]

It may be paranoia on my part but, I get the feeling that something is happening in angling. Something that, (despite all the sound bites and scare mongering coming from the 'voices' of angling) isn't being said. Something 'underhand', a little bit scary, and controlling.

It seems that instead of trying to unite anglers of all disciplines, the aim is to widen the divisions that are already there.

 

I'm not a sea angler, (I dabble occasionally), but I can't understand why there is a call for a rod licence. The impact on sea angling, and businesses that rely on the 'holiday trade' will be enormous, and I can only see it reducing the numbers of 'anglers'. (maybe that's the idea?).

 

I can only assume that there is a group of 'celebs/names' (call them what you will), that have fixed ideas about the future of angling, and (through the angling press and certain forums), are telling anglers that their way is the only way forward.

Some anglers buy into the idea, and 'browbeat' others to join in, and we get the 'snowball' effect.

I've always been wary of people who "know what's best for me".

A case of, "Don't worry, we know what's good for you, (Angling?) trust us", maybe?.

 

John.

 

I am convvinced that the game plan is to introduce a levy on the rod licence to support the Angling Trust. As anglers have voted with their feet and stayed away from the AT, it seems to me that the intention, now, is to force us to support it. This kind of strategy almost defies belief and there really shouldn't be any need for it. The RSPB, for instance, enjoys a massive membership, yet didn't need to make financial contributions compulsory, never mind a legal requirement. Maybe it's because they offer something that people actually want to buy?

 

The 'We know what's best for you' attitude has been prevalent in sea angling representation for a long time. Needless to say, they didn't!

[Elton]

On top of that, John, Defra have already told us that they can't give sea anglers anything in exchange for a licence, so you have to wonder why anyone would want it.

[barry luxton]

Quote:

 

More money has been spent by the Angling Trust (excluding Fish Legal) defending the rights of sea anglers than defending the rights of game and coarse anglers combined.

 

end quote.

 

This bit also interests me. What money has been spent and to what advantage to the rsa scene. Bet even AT can't answer that one. Would be interesting if they can. Anyone think of any benifits............ at all.

[gozzer]

On top of that, John, Defra have already told us that they can't give sea anglers anything in exchange for a licence, so you have to wonder why anyone would want it.

 

What has go to happen is the Trust has got to run angling. It has got to be the licensing authority,

 

That's one of the statements that scares me.

If Keith Arthur is just speaking for himself, OK, I've heard a few of his rants, and can accept it as such. But as one of the more vociferous members of AT, it will be taken as a statement of policy from the AT, (it is by me anyway).

 

I have heard that the AT had to be set up as a limited company, for some legal reason. I admit, I know little about company law, but I am inclined not to trust (there's that word again), such an organisation with total control over the future of angling.

 

Speaking from a freshwater anglers point of view. It seems to me that the recent propsed law on banning the removal of coarse fish, so soon after the formation of the AT, is more than just a coincidence. I have emailed the AT about their involvement in it's conception, but had no reply as of yet.

 

John.

[Steve Coppolo]

That's one of the statements that scares me.

If Keith Arthur is just speaking for himself, OK, I've heard a few of his rants, and can accept it as such. But as one of the more vociferous members of AT, it will be taken as a statement of policy from the AT, (it is by me anyway).

 

I have heard that the AT had to be set up as a limited company, for some legal reason. I admit, I know little about company law, but I am inclined not to trust (there's that word again), such an organisation with total control over the future of angling.

 

Speaking from a freshwater anglers point of view. It seems to me that the recent propsed law on banning the removal of coarse fish, so soon after the formation of the AT, is more than just a coincidence. I have emailed the AT about their involvement in it's conception, but had no reply as of yet.

 

John.

 

John

I share your concerns.

 

Regarding your last paragraph, it has been the case with sea angling representaiton, almost without exception, that the actual anglers didn't know anything about what was being proposed on their behalf until they were asked to take part in the consultation. Often, the consultations didn't allow for individual views and opinions, but just a choice of already decided options that we had to choose from. I can see that the consulation on fish removal from fresh water is of the same ilk, with loaded choices/questions that could trap the unwary.

[barry luxton]

THE MANIFESTO

 

The Angling Trust has identified a set of goals which will underpin much of our forward activity-these are:

 

To promote the sport of Recreational Sea Angling across England

 

To develop greater recognition of the value of recreational sea angling to Government and Local economies

 

To develop a structure of strong Divisions giving recreational sea anglers at grassroots a conduit to communicate their views.

 

To protect the rights of recreational sea anglers where ever they participate

In addition we will:

 

Lobby for a complete revision of the Common Fisheries Policy based on sound science

 

Call for effective enforcement of commercial fishing

 

Commission reliable research into the economic benefits of recreational angling and quantify the impact on fish stocks

 

Fight for representation of anglers’ interests on the new Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities

 

Engage with the new Marine Management Organisation being established by the Marine Bill

 

Continue its campaign for the protection of recreational anglers’ rights to fish without regulation by the EU under Article 47

 

Support charter boat operators and the rest of the sea angling industry

 

Resist a sea angling licence until there is evidence that sea anglers will benefit

 

Expand and develop sea angling competitions and participation in partnership with member clubs

The key is to make sure as many sea anglers as possible join the Trust and we recognise that many of you are disillusioned with previous progress – but we have a tough policy and intend to pursue it with vigour. The more sea angling members we have the more we’ll be listened to by the people who make national and international policies.

 

Already a large number of high profile sea anglers and writers have been joining and supporting the work we do adding to the increasing influence the trust has where it counts. This is because they know working together is the only option.

 

We are also recruiting charter boar skippers, tackle shops and other angling stakeholders with an interest in the continued success of sea angling in the UK.

 

End Quote.

 

According to the above this arthur geezer is not speaking for the AT. So to help the AT they really need to reinforce what they state in the manifesto is what is going to happen in my view. If they just as well pack up shop now.

 

First of all licences and 47, the third draft has just been released and still the eu won't let go. What about it AT are you up for it? I,m sure the rsa are watching.

 

And Elton wrote: Defra have already told us that they can't give sea anglers anything in exchange for a licence, so you have to wonder why anyone would want it.

 

So it appears that it is a merry-go-round and the AT is waisting thier time and others money.

Edited September 13, 2009 by barry luxton

[Elton]

Barry,

 

Where's that manifesto from?

 

In the printed version, sent to members a few weeks back, the first line you've highlighted simply reads:

 

Campaign against sea angling licences

 

There is a huge difference between the two -'resist' and 'campaign against' are miles apart and the inclusion of 'until there is evidence that sea anglers will benefit' is of concern.

[barry luxton]

It is from one of the earlier ones that the AT released this year. I will try to find out when and where.

 

Already i think the AT really need to clarify thier position as it looks they are doing themselves not a lot of good at the mo.

 

Yup, it's on their website under sea angling manifesto, Does this mean that it has been revised, watered down.

Much like the labour party really.

Edited September 13, 2009 by barry luxton

[barry luxton]

Snigger, just knicked this from Glenn's web site, seeing that he knicked this topic from here

 

Stuart Mac is Back. I have been rather preoccupied over the last six or seven weeks with the trauma of AT finances.

First I think I should set the record straight contrary to general belief as a Director of AT I was not being paid. The fat cat salaries that have been criticised are only relevent to the employed staff. The Directors in the main are volunteers and since my appointment I gave a great deal of my time willingly to fight the cause. Which leads me into the main reason for breaking my silence. The statement by Keith Arthur that more was spent on defending sea anglers than coarse or game is not accurate and indeed there was a great deal more publicity given to coarse angling as opposed to sea. He is probably implying that the trip to Brussels to see Borg about ART 47 was the contributing factor. It is worth noting that the suggestion to go and see Borg came from Doc and following on from the suggestion I used some contacts that I had made and succeeded in the visit. As a result of that and all the sea anglers out there we have if my information is correct managed to side step ART47 for the majority of RSA. Unfortunately it is going to catch a few charter boats which are "registered" and as the majority are "licensed" we may have managed to eliminate a great deal of people whose livelyhood were at risk. But don't hold your breath the Data Collection Regulations which came into force last November are going to catch us if we fish for cod, salmon, eels and bass. I was at a meeting with DEFRA on Monday and this was discussed as were bag limits and I could see some challenges ahead. Indeed the Keith Arthur saga and his postulation about rod licences was addressed to me at the initial meeting of the Magnificent Seven by Mr Arthur and John Wilson. So that would have been another hurdle. Mr Arthur quoted 90% of the anglers he knows are in favour of the sea rod licence. But as he does not know Glenn or vice versa then one has to ask 90% of what. I still believe that AT was t /is the vehicle to promote and fight our cause. In the six months that I was the Marine Director we were making progress. The new Chairman was the most supportive of the Directors in my efforts in the interest of sea angling so don't write it off, there is currently no alternative and having been there I know with effort we can make changes.

Edited September 13, 2009 by barry luxton

[glennk]

I think Mr Arthur is in for a bit of a shock. Just like the countries sea anglers fought against DEFRA and thier proposed licence, sea anglers will fight again and if needs be it will be AT and Mr Arthur who get both barrels this time around. NO means NO.

 

Elton, I have sky but dont watch the fishing as they make it very boring, the format is dull. Henry is on one of the leisure chanels. Graham Hill is Herys Bass fishing mate when they do the Ireland visits. Dont tell Henry but I think Graham is the brains of the operation.

 

http://grahamhillirishfishing.blogspot.com...27a917b6876501a