Update on Angling Trust

[Bob Bradford]

The question was asked on the TF site on a thread I started, I did not have the answer and pointed the questioner to the Angling Trust website, if people read the thread in it's entirety this is very clear, the questioner directly e-mailed Mark Lloyd , the answer was then posted for all to see, this was not a "Leak" Mark Lloyd answered as honestly as he could, the figures he quoted are "Projections" based on £1.2 million funds, all members of Angling Trust will be sent the full annual accounts , anyone questioning the integrity of Angling Trust or Mark Lloyd at this stage, is hardly being fair at all, the Trust is not even 2 weeks old, it is not operating on 100% capacity, there is much for them to do, I really do not understand all of the negative comments made on here, please give them a chance to deliver anglers to the promised land, I have joined and figure my £20 will help them to achieve this, what is the point of so much negativity, if it is not for you, then walk away, after all, you will not have invested in it, but please do not try to undermine the efforts of those that are trying their best to help angling and anglers , fully paid up members and non members alike, as a paid up member I will have a say, as a non member my views will not be heard. I am now a shareholder in Angling Trust and the fully paid professionals are answerable to it's members, there may well be the need to weed a few out , but this will take time, be patient and vigilant, and maybe ,just maybe, angling will have an organisation it will be proud of.........but that costs money and if that comes as a shock for some, I have to ask, what planet do you live on?

Edited January 16, 2009 by Bob Bradford

[Sharkbyte]

Hi Bob

 

You seem to be more or less saying, give it some time.

 

Unfortunately, a fair number of sea anglers are now realising that time is something we do not have.

 

 

The threats are here, now........and very real. In my opinion (having followed the evolution of this train wreck, for the past 3 years) they are the direct result of some disastrous 'representations' on behalf of RSA, demonstrating a complete absence of any foresight.

 

there may well be the need to weed a few out , but this will take time, be patient and vigilant, and maybe ,just maybe, angling will have an organisation it will be proud of

 

If true, this is a great shame. I had high hopes that due diligence may have weeded out any non performers before January 1st and we too, could share in your vision of a 'new dawn'. Sea anglers can never be accused of not being patient. They have been subject to optimistic spin and propaganda, for as long as I can remember. Thankfully, vigilance and realism have now cleared the optimistic fog that has shrouded our sport and we now deal in facts, with a long history of betrayals, letdowns, disappointments and direct attacks with which to support them.

 

 

I feel sorry that the dire issues, currently surrounding RSA, may have marred the occasion somewhat, for the freshwater boys. But the sooner full and frank discussion takes place, concerning, just what some people are playing at, why some questions are routinely not answered by people 'in the know' (and for all too see) and just what representation we feel is required, the sooner we can back what the Angling Trust puts before us. I say, 'puts before us', because after careful consideration, and with regret, I, like a number of others, will unlikely be contributing £20 to the Angling Trust.

 

My temptation is explained by an initial motivation to join with the hope of changing things from the inside. Unfortunately, there's no time for that. I believe that the changes, I, and many others, feel are essential, will have a far greater likelihood of being swiftly acted upon, following the withholding of financial support.

 

I do hope that you may understand a little of where I'm coming from. Your quotation, below, gives me hope.

 

I am now a shareholder in Angling Trust and the fully paid professionals are answerable to it's members

 

The key word being 'answerable'. It's not something that I have seen much evidence of, pre AT.

 

 

 

PS. I would hope that any organisation said to be a sport's representative body, maybe using figures relating to total participants, not just members, fully takes into account the views of each and every one of them.

 

 

 

[Bob Bradford]

Hi Sharkbyte, I am sorry you have the advantage over me , I do not know your first name.

 

The point I am trying to make is thus;

 

Anglers stand a much greater chance of being heard if they are members of Angling Trust, as members they have every right to question where their membership money is spent, by not joining, how can non members raise that particular question fairly?

 

Angling Trust is set up to represent all anglers, but anglers have to contribute, otherwise it cannot fulfill it's mandate, in the past, freshwater anglers have suffered at the hands of the NFA, particularly non match anglers, largely because it relied on enthusiastic, well meaning amateurs to operate, history has shown this results in a poor Governing body, they simply could not deliver the level of service demanded of them. Angling Trust is looking to become a slick,professional governing body, with paid ,full time staff pro-actively working for it's members and thus by default, non members. Logic dictates the more resources available to the Trust, the quicker the Trust will be able to deliver it's Mandate, it is a Chicken and egg situation to a degree, and to some extent a leap of faith, but ,and I do understand things are tight for some , yours truly included, but the individual membership fee is just £20 per annum, a look here;

http://www.anglingtrust.net will quickly tell you that is an absolute bargain, with the opportunity to actually get your membership fee back with the innovative "Fish for Free scheme" available, I urge you, not by bullying, but urging, to reconsider, so that as anglers ,even though our angling interests are different, we can stand shoulder to shoulder and fight for what we believe in,

 

Regards Bob, an ordinary member of Angling Trust and proud of it.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Bob Bradford

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Sharkbyte, I am sorry you have the advantage over me , I do not know your first name.

 

The point I am trying to make is thus;

 

Anglers stand a much greater chance of being heard if they are members of Angling Trust, as members they have every right to question where their membership money is spent, by not joining, how can non members raise that particular question fairly?

 

Angling Trust is set up to represent all anglers, but anglers have to contribute, otherwise it cannot fulfill it's mandate, in the past, freshwater anglers have suffered at the hands of the NFA, particularly non match anglers, largely because it relied on enthusiastic, well meaning amateurs to operate, history has shown this results in a poor Governing body, they simply could not deliver the level of service demanded of them. Angling Trust is looking to become a slick,professional governing body, with paid ,full time staff pro-actively working for it's members and thus by default, non members. Logic dictates the more resources available to the Trust, the quicker the Trust will be able to deliver it's Mandate, it is a Chicken and egg situation to a degree, and to some extent a leap of faith, but ,and I do understand things are tight for some , yours truly included, but the individual membership fee is just £20 per annum, a look here;

http://www.anglingtrust.net will quickly tell you that is an absolute bargain, with the opportunity to actually get your membership fee back with the innovative "Fish for Free scheme" available, I urge you, not by bullying, but urging, to reconsider, so that as anglers ,even though our angling interests are different, we can stand shoulder to shoulder and fight for what we believe in,

 

Regards Bob, an ordinary member of Angling Trust and proud of it.

 

Hi Bob

With respect, sea anglers have been around the block a few times in recent years with regards to fisheries management and representation. The mistrust and suspicion you see coming from sea anglers is there for very good reason. When you consider that sea angling's representative of the AT actually supports the study that Cefas are doing into sea anglers' catches, which will probably be used to impose unnecessary restriction upon them, including those contained within article 47, you can see why some of it is directed at the AT.

 

The cost of joining doesn't come into it. I wouldn't pay someone 10p, let alone £20, to kick me in the b***ocks!

[Bob Bradford]

Hi Steve, how you doing? I do not know anywhere near enough about the history of sea anglers to comment with any great authority, despite living right on the Norfolk coast! but I do know what I would do, I would be contacting the Angling Trust and asking them what their plans are, if I suspected data collected would be used against sea anglers I would ask why, and to what end, there is no doubt the sea anglers issue is very complex, with a heady mix of rod and line anglers ,small commercial anglers and the larger commercial anglers all wanting different things, for different reasons, compared to that little lot, freshwater anglers problems are simple! I think for me to comment further I need to study the issues facing sea anglers in greater detail.

Good luck mate in whatever you decide.

[H.A.]

Poor old Steve's had it rough these past years, Bob.

 

But he should be congratulated on being consistently a 'carpet-puller' rather than a 'carpetbagger'.

 

[barry luxton]

I really need help in deciding if to join or not, i was nearly persuded specially with the big guns sky sports thingy with Keith Arthur promoting AT. Then he went and released the anglers net article this week at the same time, appearing to back sea licences and bag limits for the rsa.

 

Quote: it is beyond doubt in the near future british sea anglers will need to be...licensed once that occurs bag limits will be imposed....

 

Explanation is now required as far as i'm concerned.

Edited January 17, 2009 by barry luxton

[Elton]

There's a bit about Article 47 here:

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=...a.323.10#g325.4

 

I was also surprised to find mention here:

 

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/01/eu-superstate-se...ers-fight-back/

 

[Elton]

Bit more here:

 

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/pu...post?id=3232375

[Bob Bradford]

A decent enough debate Elton, but I have yet to read, hear or be told of a compelling, factual reason NOT to join Angling Trust, I believe that is because that particular argument does not exist, fine if an angler chooses it is not for him, but it is hard to back that choice up with sound ,logical reasons for not doing so,........other than "I do not wish to".

 

What seems to be a common factor when reading the various forums is a reluctance to contact http://www.anglingtrust.net directly and seek the facts , instead seeking the facts elsewhere and by default, picking up on other peoples opinions and views, thus clouding the issue somewhat.