Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Chesil Beach - Portland


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#11 jaa

jaa

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 15 December 2016 - 05:24 PM

Whats the angling trust doing about this pointless and useless ban i ask, nothing would be an easy answer. i'll have a look to see why anglers should be banned, because it looks good on paper no doubt. The likes of the trust should be hanging thier heads in shame. Unfortunatly they have spent time making friends with the very ngo's who love this type of stuff.

Looking forward to a counter argument, although i don't expect one.

got a link direct to thar area Jim please, i can't open yours

The AT can only represent their members. As only about 100K anglers have bothered to join as individuals (out of 2 million?), there's a limit to what they can achieve by lobbying for a group, 9/10th of whom don't seem to care enough to sign up. 

 

You can join the AT and lobby them as a member (I do if I disagree with them). If another million anglers joined up with a different view, then things can change. Nothing will change while the majority of anglers sit around saying "I don't like what the AT are doing so I'm not joining or supporting them". That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

 

There you go.


><((('> ·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`
 
 
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯  ><((('>

#12 Norm B

Norm B

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire UK
  • Interests:Sea Angling, Conservation and shooting.

Posted 15 December 2016 - 08:58 PM

The AT can only represent their members. As only about 100K anglers have bothered to join as individuals (out of 2 million?), there's a limit to what they can achieve by lobbying for a group, 9/10th of whom don't seem to care enough to sign up. 

 

You can join the AT and lobby them as a member (I do if I disagree with them). If another million anglers joined up with a different view, then things can change. Nothing will change while the majority of anglers sit around saying "I don't like what the AT are doing so I'm not joining or supporting them". That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

There you go.

 

:fishing1:  The AT is not democratic. Members/shareholders cannot vote the committee on or off so you can't change things. The committee elected themselves and set their own pay and expenses. Pay rises should be based on increased membership but it isn't, they just increase the membership fees if they want more money. They got the eel ban imposed for anglers but not for commercials, we now have bass bans and restrictions, what do they actually do apart from run freshwater competitions which make them money. Nothing for sea anglers although we still pay the same membership rates.  All that would happen if another million anglers joined is that the top dogs would award themselves a big pay rise while they would still expect the volunteers to work for nothing.  :fishing1:


Edited by Norm B, 15 December 2016 - 09:02 PM.


#13 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,433 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester
  • Interests:Boat fishing and more boat fishing. Some times i have to go to work so it does interfere with my boat fishing, but not much.

Posted 16 December 2016 - 06:39 AM

Every time TAT have done something for sea anglers, it has resulted in bans and restrictions. You missed out the tope take ban reaffirmation for anglers Norm without consultation btw and what about their success when they held the bait digging convention. Many areas  around the isle of wight where even a guy dressed up as a bait digger is not allowed to tread, yet the bucket and spade guys with their mums and dads can go tread on the eel grass with impunity. How did the angling bream restrictions off the sussex coast pan out. I lost interest on those restrictions?

 

They were part of the eel take ban Norm. The ban arose out of a fresh water consultation where TAT missed the boat. They didn't bother to even respond to the consultation. But the eaa kept the door open for them, haven't known anyone or any org to actually manage that before. I still have f o I information regarding that. Anyway, TAT at the time claimed the eel take ban was discussed within their sea committee, knowing that it got out it wasn't, they changed tack and then claimed it was done by letter. The sea anglers both within the org and those sea anglers outside where left with a take ban that suited this conservation society. That all it is. Nothing to do with representing sea anglers what so ever. 

 

The ceo has also confirmed that when it comes to funding sources from ngo's,  anglers wants and needs are  not to the fore  when it comes to importance.

 

All this and not one paid up sea angling rep on their books ever. How many 25 quid contributions will it take before they get someone decent on their books to actually represent sea anglers. Salter and the ceo where a disaster when they poked their nose in regarding what they have done for the bass anglers industry, yet they are swaggering around spouting off as if it was someone else who created the issue, based on rubbish science.


Edited by barry luxton, 16 December 2016 - 06:50 AM.

 Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.

 
New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.
 
Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.
 
Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.
 
new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.
 
Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because  they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are.. 


#14 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,433 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester
  • Interests:Boat fishing and more boat fishing. Some times i have to go to work so it does interfere with my boat fishing, but not much.

Posted 16 December 2016 - 07:05 AM

jaa, on 15 Dec 2016 - 17:24, said:

The AT can only represent their members. As only about 100K anglers have bothered to join as individuals (out of 2 million?), there's a limit to what they can achieve by lobbying for a group, 9/10th of whom don't seem to care enough to sign up. 

 

You can join the AT and lobby them as a member (I do if I disagree with them). If another million anglers joined up with a different view, then things can change. Nothing will change while the majority of anglers sit around saying "I don't like what the AT are doing so I'm not joining or supporting them". That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

 

There you go.

You are correct when it comes to approximate numbers. TAT will never release exactly the numbers of members, have you asked? Is it fear of how many sea anglers they don't have on their books? You state 100k anglers across the board are you sure, have you got a split for all to see?

 

I note your link takes in a freshwater web site, what sea angling do you get up to?

 

Supporting them you say, what for? They claim  that they represent and govern all anglers, why is it that very many just want to go fishing and TAT won't let them I have to ask.

 

The anglers not signed up, never asked and never wanted a conservation org representing them with their hidden agenda (funding) to use them as a weapon, tool to appease the conservation ngo's with bans and restrictions.

 

TAT really need to be open, honest and transparent to all, it won't happen as they need to protect the governors wants and needs first and foremost.

 

There you have it.  (btw, my signature, it's all true unless you have any facts to counter,)

 

Norm is correct when it comes to the ordinaries voting on and voting off the governors, it's not allowed. so how many 25 quids will it take to overturn that restriction, if ever?


Edited by barry luxton, 16 December 2016 - 07:09 AM.

 Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.

 
New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.
 
Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.
 
Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.
 
new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.
 
Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because  they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are.. 


#15 Norm B

Norm B

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire UK
  • Interests:Sea Angling, Conservation and shooting.

Posted 17 December 2016 - 01:56 PM

Every time TAT have done something for sea anglers, it has resulted in bans and restrictions. You missed out the tope take ban reaffirmation for anglers Norm without consultation btw and what about their success when they held the bait digging convention. Many areas  around the isle of wight where even a guy dressed up as a bait digger is not allowed to tread, yet the bucket and spade guys with their mums and dads can go tread on the eel grass with impunity. How did the angling bream restrictions off the sussex coast pan out. I lost interest on those restrictions?

 

They were part of the eel take ban Norm. The ban arose out of a fresh water consultation where TAT missed the boat. They didn't bother to even respond to the consultation. But the eaa kept the door open for them, haven't known anyone or any org to actually manage that before. I still have f o I information regarding that. Anyway, TAT at the time claimed the eel take ban was discussed within their sea committee, knowing that it got out it wasn't, they changed tack and then claimed it was done by letter. The sea anglers both within the org and those sea anglers outside where left with a take ban that suited this conservation society. That all it is. Nothing to do with representing sea anglers what so ever. 

 

The ceo has also confirmed that when it comes to funding sources from ngo's,  anglers wants and needs are  not to the fore  when it comes to importance.

 

All this and not one paid up sea angling rep on their books ever. How many 25 quid contributions will it take before they get someone decent on their books to actually represent sea anglers. Salter and the ceo where a disaster when they poked their nose in regarding what they have done for the bass anglers industry, yet they are swaggering around spouting off as if it was someone else who created the issue, based on rubbish science.

:clap3: I left out the tope ban because the AT claimed it as a positive, although some of us have worked out it was a staged PR stunt to show the AT in a positive light, fighting the commercials for the RSA's. Such a positive that commercials can still land some tope while RSA's can't even land 1 to claim a record or a specimen award, some positive.  :doh:



#16 barry luxton

barry luxton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,433 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester
  • Interests:Boat fishing and more boat fishing. Some times i have to go to work so it does interfere with my boat fishing, but not much.

Posted 17 December 2016 - 08:12 PM

Norm B, on 17 Dec 2016 - 13:56, said:

:clap3: I left out the tope ban because the AT claimed it as a positive, although some of us have worked out it was a staged PR stunt to show the AT in a positive light, fighting the commercials for the RSA's. Such a positive that commercials can still land some tope while RSA's can't even land 1 to claim a record or a specimen award, some positive.  :doh:

 

 

You know full well as I do that often than not the tope is deep hooked and bleeding from the gills, that fish is going to die when it's sent back, have TAT ever even acknowledged that to happen or is it better to say nothing, just like the common eel. Send them back dead and all is well within their conservation ideal.


 Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.

 
New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.
 
Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.
 
Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.
 
new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.
 
Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because  they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..