Angling Trust Forum

[Bob Bradford]

Oh, sorry I didn't realise that the AT had suddenly become the paid up party membership voice that everyone must join or get left out in the cold.

 

I thought that the AT supported all anglers not just those that had paid to join such an elitist band.

 

Bob Bradford, you obviously view AN posts. Do you really think it fair that a minority of anglers can pay £20 and then over-rule all other anglers from a self imposed position of power?

 

I don't. Angling is for all that pay the EA licence fee or, as RSAs, just go out and fish.

 

Bloody disgraceful!

 

 

No, I do not think it is fair, I think every angler should join the Angling Trust and have their say.

[Brian Carragher]

Hello Bob

 

Welcome back, hope you've got your tin hat

 

Bobs an unavowed upporter of the AT but not a spokesman for them so go easy on him, we need folk like him on here

 

I'm sure he'll fight his corner well without resorting to insults so I hope we can engage in a proper discussion like the adults we sometimes pretend to be

[Worms]

No, I do not think it is fair, I think every angler should join the Angling Trust and have their say.

Why should only members of the Angling Trust be those that have a legitimate voice? The Angling Trust is not the official voice of anglers. The Angling Trust decided it would be so. Why does the AT exclude the non-paying angler (the vast majority) from the forum? Surely the AT would get a more rounded view of anglers' views if it was opened up to the masses.

 

If the AT (or is it just some members?) consider a unification with the EA regarding licensing why do they not contact all of the licence holders, present their views and let anglers decide?

 

I am all for a unified body to represent anglers' views as long as those views are those expressed by the majority of anglers who wish to express a view or an opinion. Until all licence paying anglers are kept aware of current proposals and decisions being made on their behalf by a tiny minority of unelected persons the AT is open to criticism....especially when they support daft proposals such as the coarse fish taking ban. The AT should be pushing the EA to publicise such things

 

It seems to me that the AT have pushed their way into a position of power with no consultation and even less regard for considering the views of the vast majority of anglers in this country. With that attitude they are doomed to failure and the average angler is doomed to suffer more restrictions.

 

Anglers will join the AT willingly when the AT show that they are willing to join anglers!

[Guest challenge]

Hello Bob

 

Welcome back, hope you've got your tin hat

 

Bobs an unavowed upporter of the AT but not a spokesman for them so go easy on him, we need folk like him on here

 

I'm sure he'll fight his corner well without resorting to insults so I hope we can engage in a proper discussion like the adults we sometimes pretend to be

[Bob Bradford]

Bob's a member on here and at one time was pretty active but he got a bit of a hard time over a couple of issues and dug himself a bit of a hole and left, shame really as he's the sort of angler this forum needs, but I do think he's wrong on the AT

 

At its inception Bob advocated joining as I think his words were "the AT may not be brilliant but its the only show in town" might not be 100% correct but the jists there (Bob if youread this and I'm wrong then please correct me) and his whole family joined and he's been a supportor from day one. Best way of describing it is if the AT is the only show in town, its running with the wrong play. Compulsory membership, levy's on the EA licence, compromising the independance of the old ACA, is that what anglers really want and to cap it all they think that anglers as a whole will swallow an unelected national governing body thats a bit wishy washy over basic angling rights, well i don't buy it and I never gave them the right to speak for me and until they can demonstrate that they are acting in all anglers best interests then I reserve my right not to participate in their game

 

The AT may well be doing OK for former members of the old NFSA but does little at the moment to see the big picture maybe its down to those same parocial views of former bodies being heard again through this new vehicle thats stopping new blood coming through but whatever it is there seems to be a Southern based coarse match fishing slant to most of what they do, if thats wrong then perhaps some members of the AT would like to correct me

 

Hi Brian, I think you summed up my situation on here pretty accurately............except for the leaving bit, and digging a hole for myself! I have never left this forum, I have always read it, I have just not bothered to inform Elton of my new e-mail addy so could not contribute, sometimes it is better to listen and absorb over time ,the views of others, I think it is fair to say , some regular posters ( on every forum) reactive too swiftly to opposing views at times, and things turn ugly or into a witch hunt.

 

Compulsory membership to the Angling Trust ? no, that is an error, membership is open to all to choose to join, or not as they see fit.

 

The old ACA , now Fish Legal, actually has more money to spend on fighting polluters because of it's marriage to the Trust, the admin costs are dealt with by the Trust, so in fact, the old ACA has benefitted greatly, so by default, it follows, angling in general.

 

The main players of the Angling Trust have all been elected to their respective posts and are accountable to the Trusts shareholders (members) if you choose not to become a member, you will have no say in future elections when the time comes, I believe it is important for anglers to have an input as to who will be elected in the future, hence one of the reason's I joined, I may not support or agree with some of the current encumbants, but I at least, will be able to influence their future as a (shareholder) member,

How can a non member of the Trust influence this procedure, other than to witness the Trusts demise through lack of support?

If that happens, who will work on anglers behalf? perhaps another bunch of "unelected individuals" could form an angling organisation and beg their fellow anglers for support? I can see no logic in that .

[Worms]

Hi Brian, I think you summed up my situation on here pretty accurately............except for the leaving bit, and digging a hole for myself! I have never left this forum, I have always read it, I have just not bothered to inform Elton of my new e-mail addy so could not contribute, sometimes it is better to listen and absorb over time ,the views of others, I think it is fair to say , some regular posters ( on every forum) reactive too swiftly to opposing views at times, and things turn ugly or into a witch hunt.

 

Compulsory membership to the Angling Trust ? no, that is an error, membership is open to all to choose to join, or not as they see fit.

 

The old ACA , now Fish Legal, actually has more money to spend on fighting polluters because of it's marriage to the Trust, the admin costs are dealt with by the Trust, so in fact, the old ACA has benefitted greatly, so by default, it follows, angling in general.

 

The main players of the Angling Trust have all been elected to their respective posts and are accountable to the Trusts shareholders (members) if you choose not to become a member, you will have no say in future elections when the time comes, I believe it is important for anglers to have an input as to who will be elected in the future, hence one of the reason's I joined, I may not support or agree with some of the current encumbants, but I at least, will be able to influence their future as a (shareholder) member,

How can a non member of the Trust influence this procedure, other than to witness the Trusts demise through lack of support?

If that happens, who will work on anglers behalf? perhaps another bunch of "unelected individuals" could form an angling organisation and beg their fellow anglers for support? I can see no logic in that .

But why do they have power at all? who proposed them as anglers' representatives? Why should anglers spend £20 on supporting a self elected group that haven't shown any support for all anglers so far?

 

The biggest cock up they have made so far is supporting the ban on taking coarse fish and grayling. Whilst the consultation was going on I e-mailed Mark Lloyd about the Trust's views and received no information at all. After the results were publicised the Trust came out and backed them.......glad I didn't waste my £20 when the AT are busy helping to enforce restrictive legislation on anglers....most of whom knew nothing about the proposals.

 

If the Trust want more members they need to contact them and support them, not support anti-angling legislation behind their backs.

[Bob Bradford]

This is a message to Bob, I was going to put it in a PM but you say you've lost your log on details, (I'm sure if you contact Elton he will be able to sort you out).

 

I believe it was me in my post you refer to as 'feeling guilt at leaving Steve to it'. I do feel a twinge of guilt, but not to the extent that I would fork out twenty quid to an organisation that I don't agree with. (I agree with some of the ideas proposed by some fringe political parties, but would not join them on the strength of those few ideas).

In the past you and I have crossed swords a few times, and although we differ in our ideas, I believe we have gained some mutual respect along the way, mainly for speaking our minds. But you seem to object when those of us who are willing to speak our minds, are doing so on the only sites open to us.

We have to discuss the AT forum on other sites because we can't have our say on that forum. It now seems that some of the AT site members are now proposing that another 'members only section' be opened so that any contentious subjects can be discussed in private, so as not to scare off potential new members. This in itself is an indication of the 'closed shop' mentality of some members on there.

I was also surprised to see that you as a stalwart of the Trust admitted that you considered not renewing you subscription at one time. If someone who has been so pro AT from the start can have doubts, then is it any wonder that those of us who had doubts at the beginning, now take the stance we do.

 

Get in touch with Elton Bob, and come back on here as the AT rep, I at least would welcome you back.

 

John.

 

Hi John, of course I respect your views and certainly do not object to them just because they differ from mine...........that would be pointless right?

 

But! just reading through this thread , it has to be said ,that is precisely what some of you are guilty of, ie; the Angling Trust!

 

I do not want a "Closed Shop" and am doing everything I can as an ordinary member of the Trust to encourage anglers to join ,and therefore join in, I think the reasons for keeping the AT forum members only are pretty obvious, there are a great deal of irresponsible and abusive internet users out there John, and the forum would quickly descend to gutter level, the Angling Trust do not have unlimited resources, so the site is run by an unpaid voluteer.

As for my recent comments regarding any future membership to the Trust, I made those comments not because I felt the Trust was a waste of time, rather, that the majority of anglers are/were a waste of my time, candid that comment may well be, but it is the truth, I am appalled at times, with my fellow anglers ,sad to say, they would rather cut off their nose to spite their face, than apply some logic and embrace the bigger picture........well you did ask!

[Bob Bradford]

But why do they have power at all? who proposed them as anglers' representatives? Why should anglers spend £20 on supporting a self elected group that haven't shown any support for all anglers so far?

 

The biggest cock up they have made so far is supporting the ban on taking coarse fish and grayling. Whilst the consultation was going on I e-mailed Mark Lloyd about the Trust's views and received no information at all. After the results were publicised the Trust came out and backed them.......glad I didn't waste my £20 when the AT are busy helping to enforce restrictive legislation on anglers....most of whom knew nothing about the proposals.

 

If the Trust want more members they need to contact them and support them, not support anti-angling legislation behind their backs.

 

Most of the old angling organisations were on their uppers, they faced extinction through lack of support, anglers demanded a first class service but refused to pay for it through memberships............is any of this starting to sound familiar? you know the rest.

 

You talk as if the Angling Trust has unlimited resources, contact every licence holder and consult with them individually? who is going to fund that? you as a non member? how does that work then?

 

If you do not want proper representation to Parliament, the Press and media, thats fine, continue just as you are, that is your right, but what gives you the right in condemning the Angling Trust and the individuals that run it, for TRYING to make a difference?

Edited January 2, 2010 by Bob Bradford

[barry luxton]

If you do not want proper representation to Parliament, the Press and media, thats fine, continue just as you are, that is your right, but what gives you the right in condemning the Angling Trust and the individuals that run it, for TRYING to make a difference?

 

No disrespects Bob, everyone has representation in parliament and in the press, with the advances with the internet it is easy today. I can not see any advance in the rsa scene with the help of the AT, only restriction, sorry.

 

Rule 47 has not gone away. Doesn't matter how much the AT has shouted the EU hasen't listend. Failed as the EU now has it's hooks in the rsa and it will only get worse, with restrictions to come. The rsa did not break the fish stocks.

 

Mcz's the AT are supporting, promoting the marine conservation society, who want large areas to become ntz,s with no gurrentee of success and targeting the rsa for no reason, no thanks. I'm definatly against that one.

 

The new freshwater restrictions, supported by the AT that includes restrictions on the rsa regarding the EA eel debarcle. Against that one.

 

Christchurch, restriction on the rsa without any proof offered, what do the AT think about that one? Not quite true, it was offered but no one has had sight of it. Surly they should interveane on behalf of the rsa.

[Sportsman]

As an angler in Scotland I have the same interest in the Angling trust as they have in me.

 

No interest whatsoever