I have been reluctant to recognise the ATr as anything but an advisory organisation ever since they formed. I know that 'Fish Legal', (I hate that name, it sounds like one of the 'have you had an accident' type of law firms), have done a decent job of helping out in cases of pollution etc, but I much preferred the old ACA, despite the alleged mis handling. I did consider carrying my long standing subscription to the ACA over to Fish Legal, but at the time, you had to subscribe to the ATr, in order to do so. I see the ATr as a self elected body, with a self devised remit. During it's early days, it was very reluctant to answer any questions regarding it's policies, or aims, other than the ones they wanted to discuss. I had several emails ignored at the time, I assume because they felt that any answers they could give wouldn't enhance the image they were trying to promote. I know I wasn't the only one who had the same treatment. I don't know the current official membership, but unless they have had a massive surge in numbers, then I would guess it's well short of 10% of individual angler numbers, back then it was below 1%. I wonder how many individual member there would be, if membership wasn't a requirement of entry into many big matches. It probably explains why so many of those who see it as a governing body, are in the match fraternity.
It angers me that many are seeing the ATr as being mainly responsible for angling being allowed this week. I know they sent a letter pleading our case, but to now try and claim full credit for something the government were going to allow anyway, seems to me to be presumptive, and self promoting, at the very least.
John.