Mark Lloyd

Steve, With regard to eels, measures to control commercial fishing for eels are also proposed in parallel to the ban on recreational angling. The Environment Agency will stop issuing marine eel licences, reduce the number of licences for freshwater commercial eel fishermen and toughen up conditions for those that are allowed. A closed season will also be imposed to further reduce commercial eel fishing. We can only push for these measures if we are seen to be doing our bit, and eel populations are in such a terrible state that it really is unacceptable for them to be killed if they can be returned alive. All best, mark

Hi Steve, I can't comment on e-mails which are rumoured to exist and I must confess I don't really understand what this whole e-mail gate thing is about. I can't control what volunteers write to each other, and I also have no desire, or ability to control what you write. I can assure you that neither I nor my staff have any desire to sort you or anyone else out. Your views, and pictures in your magazine of you peeling your AT sticker off your car window, are voluminously-written and well-read, and I'm sure have persuaded many people not to join us. It's entirely up to you if you want to discourage people from joining. I hope that we'll be able to do enough positive things this year to persuade you and others that you're wrong. If we don't, then you'll be proved right and we'll sink. I just ask that you give us a little slack and try and look for the positives. If you always look for shortcomings, you'll be sure to find them. I am as frustrated as you, I'm just trying to make this thing work for the benefit of us all. I'd love to have the resources to set up a fancy system for nomination of sites for MCZs, but I'm afraid that we don't have the staff time for the web development or the money to do that yet, so I thought we'd encourage anglers to use a well-put together system which was already in place to make their views known. If we all had our say on that site, our views could not be ignored. If you'd like to propose some sites which should be protected, but where angling should be allowed, then I'd be happy to publicise them through our network to encourage anglers to vote for them? Any other constructive suggestions welcome, bearing in mind that we have very little resource. All best wishes, Mark

Dear Budgie, I'll reply using your numbers. 1. Short answer: lack of resources (money & staff). There are millions of anglers and if we were to write to them all we'd be broke after the first letter! We have tried to use our web site (which I know is less than perfect), press releases, newsletters to members (downloadable from the web site), e-updates to members (which we urge people to forward to non-members) to let people know what we are doing. The first year was extremely busy, setting up new membership systems, procedures, adverts, leaflets, bank accounts, winding up the old organisation, putting in place regional structures, meeting potential funders etc. etc. We managed to get the EA to send a copy of our membership leaflet setting out our aims FOC with the rod licence. We obviously plan to improve our performance on this, but we are currently short-staffed in this area so we rely on volunteers to help me do it as well as running the business. We fell about 6,500 members short of expectations last year, so we have £130,000 less funds to improve our communications from pi$$ poor to $h1t hot! 2. We want to represent our membership. We hope that it will get large enough for this to be an adequate mandate. We don't have any interest in "governing", despite being the National Governing Body. We will run national and international competitions, and make the rules for nationals, but there's a lot more to angling, and the Angling Trust than that. Our principal reason for existence is representing our members. We can't represent people who don't pay £20 a year. 3. We have now set up our forum so that if issues arise on which a policy is required, our members can raise them on the forum and then other members can have their say and we will draw up a policy. There are also local consultatives around the country (not complete coverage by any means) and other groupings of anglers which will be represented at our Freshwater Regional Forums. These Forums are still being set up because it has taken time to negotiate with the previous organisations' regional structures, and we haven't had the staff time or money to invest in this. However, it is a priority for 2010. Each Regional Forum will nominate someone to be represented on a national Freshwater Committee which will also draft policies. These policies will be open to all our members to comment on. there are marine regions in place and they will be better advertised next year so that RSAs can attend them and have their say. The Chairmen of the marine regions are represented on our Marine Committee, which makes recommendations about policies. We're feeling our way here, but we're keen to have efficient structures in place so that our members can tell us what they want us to do for them. We will let our members know where and when consultative meetings are being held so that they can attend. 4. I think 3 above answers this. If you're not a member, then I'm afraid I haven't the resources to seek you out and find out what you think! 5. We have nearly 13,500 individual members and 1,271 clubs. membership of the Forum is still small, as we only launched it in January. 6. I think that 3 above answers this. In short, we are only as good as the size of our membership. Our resources at present are so stretched that much of our work isn't anything like as good as I had hoped when we launched in January 2009. I hope that we will get there by persuading anglers to part with £20 and support what is still a new organisation taking shape. I'm certain that we made a grave error by selling the future to people last January and then when people saw that we hadn't become that by June they decided not to join. We should have been clearer that it would take time for us to become an all singing, all dancing organisation to represent all anglers (although I'm not promising to sing or dance). It will also require lots of people to give us a chance and stick with us for a year or two while we go about the process of creating a really important organisation to represent this enormous sport/pursuit/religion that we all love. Rome wasn't built in a day. What I am sure about is that we have a better organisation now than the sum of all the many and various parts which went into forming it. There are lots of people who are keen to see it fail, mainly so that they can be proved right, and if they keep shouting loudly enough about our failures then they will be accurate prophets of doom. But if enough people get behind us, we can prove the sceptics wrong and the future of angling will be secure. I hope that this helps persuade you and others to contribute to this very ambitious project. All best wishes, Mark

I've had the following response to my query about the bye-law consultation: "It is a statutory consultation, open to anyone to object (or support!), either individual or organisations. No restrictions at all. I'd be interested to know where the notion that it is restricted, has come from?" So, anyone is welcome to input.

Cool, thanks Dave. I'll e-mail you regarding copy dates etc. I'm aware of the great paradox facing the Trust - people won't join till we change the world, but we can't change the world unless people join. That's why my small team and I, and all the volunteers involved, have been doing all they can over very long hours to keep up with every e-mail, phone call, letter, campaign, press release, newsletter etc. to try and make a difference. I'm signing off now and may not be back for a while - I just needed to chip in as I'm snowed in at home. I'll be checking the AT Forum as regularly as possible however.

Oh, this and that... Can you expand a bit, no understand what you saying.

Nick, I'm happy to ask the question for you. Otherwise join the AT (if you haven't already) and tell us what you think and we'll tell them for you. Mark

Dear All, I've had this thread drawn to my attention. This e-mail is not from a current member of staff of volunteer officer at AT. While I'm here, and having read some of this thread, I'm sorry not to have been in touch with Dave following the publication of the piece I wrote a few months back and also for not having the time to get on this, or any of the myriad of other external forums, as much as I would like. I'd love to be able to write a monthly column and perhaps when we have appointed the new Marine Environmental Campaigns Manager, he or she will be able to write a column reporting on what they have been up to each month. We remain, sadly, a small organisation with not enough resources to do everything we would like to do. It is a massive task, which requires a genuinely substantial organisation to deliver. Until we get larger membership numbers, we are always going to disappoint people by not delivering as much as they hope immediately. With regard to Steve's post, he says various things which I would like to clarify for the sake of accuracy. The Agency contacted AT about the new byelaws in the middle of last year and we conveyed to them the wide range of views our members hold on this issue after consulting with the various nascent committees with knowledge in this area. Some would like to ban the taking of any coarse fish, while others see it as an important freedom to be able to take fish home to eat if they want. We also have members who manage trout fisheries by removing pike. We have some who livebait, and others who don't. We therefore told the Agency about this wide range of views, they drafted the byelaws, released the draft around Christmas and now there is a period of consultation open. We have now asked our members what they think about the draft so that we can go back to the Agency with a summary of their views. The AT is encouraging anglers to go onto the MCS site to vote for areas from which they would like commercial fishing and other damaging activities excluded, but specifically we want anglers to vote for angling to continue in these areas. If we don't, we will end up with a network of Marine Protected Areas with no angling allowed. There has been talk of a lot of things since the AT was formed! This is all talk and not something that is likely to become reality because it would require an act of parliament and for the AT to follow Treasury rules of expenditure, which would prevent it lobbying government for example. As a new organisation, our policies are just taking shape. The latest newsletter alerted all our members to our new Forum which allows all our members to let us know what they want us to do for them, to comment on any policy or membership issue. You have made use of it to post your views on many topics, in your own inimitable style. I think it's unfair to say that we don't want to listen. We've made it members-only because we really want the people who have contributed their £20 to have the chance to contribute to our policies and practices. There is lots else in here which I could reply to, but I'm afraid running the AT is far more than a full time job and I don't have time. Best wishes to all and I hope that we manage to convince a few sceptics to join up in 2010! Mark

Some much-needed good news on the River Wandle situation: www.a-c-a.org/whatsnew Thames Water has agreed to core fund a rehabilitation project for the river. Anyone wanting to support the ACA, please visit www.a-c-a.org/joinhere We can't do this without the support of our members. With your support, we could do so much more. Best wishes to all, Mark Mark Lloyd Executive Director, ACA

We at the ACA are very keen to ensure that the impact of the Pike Championships on fish and fisheries is minimised as much as possible. This is why we have changed the format from a final with 500 anglers to two semi finals at different venues with a maximum of 250 anglers at each. This will enable us to fish double pegs, reduce the pressure on the fish and make the competition more about fishing skill than the luck of the draw. The Pike Championships earn us about £20,000 each year, which is pretty significant revenue for our fight against pollution, fish disease and other impacts on fisheries. We will continue to consider ways of improving the championships with regard to the welfare of fish and the enjoyment of participants. Please support the ACA if you're not already a member (www.a-c-a.org or 01568 620447). Best wishes to all, Mark ACA Exec. Director