Update on Angling Trust

[Elton]

Hi Steve, I rang AT last Friday because Elton had PM'd me the same , I telephoned the trust and left a message and my home number, that night (about 6pm) Mark Lloyd himself rang me, I told him several of you have e-mailed the Trust for info, and to date had received nothing in return, Mark assured me this would be dealt with, for what it is worth, I believe it will, he has read the recent comments on this site and was even contemplating posting, but thought it better to reply personally to the e-mails, I hope this helps mate, I must stress to anyone that does not already know, I am an ordinary paid up member of Angling Trust, and in no way do I represent them, I am only trying to help.

 

Bob,

 

Sent my cheque off today (had to be a cheque, to avoid that FishForFree thing)

 

Don't know if you follow the sea fishing threads, but my attention was drawn to this page and, in particular, this comment:

 

"We will stand up for anglers who are banned from fishing a particular venue for any reason"

 

Sounds good to me, and I've spoken to a few sea anglers today who are now seriously considering signing up

 

Tight lines,

 

Elton

[Bob Bradford]

Well done Elton, you are in very good company , all the angling forums I visit have one thing in common, their owners are all individual members and endorse Angling Trust, that must say something!

 

I paid for my 4 year old Grandsons individual membership earlier this week, it cost me £5 and figure it is important to instill the importance to him of being represented properly, even at such a tender age.

 

I do read some of the sea angling threads, but to be honest, I find them very depressing reading, with entrenched views and demanding something for nothing most of the time, I do not envy those charged with the task of sorting their problems out.

[big_cod]

 

 

I do read some of the sea angling threads, but to be honest, I find them very depressing reading, with entrenched views and demanding something for nothing most of the time, I do not envy those charged with the task of sorting their problems out.

 

Sorry bob dont quite know what you mean by something for nothing most anglers dont want anything of anybody they just want to left a lone what they dont want is PAYING SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

 

paul.

[Cranfield]

Sorry bob dont quite know what you mean by something for nothing most anglers dont want anything of anybody they just want to left a lone what they dont want is PAYING SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

 

paul.

 

That sums up most sea anglers viewpoint exactly.

They didn't lobby for Government interference, the Angling Trust, or anything like it.

[Bob Bradford]

Paul (Big Cod) no-one in their right mind would pay for something and expect nothing in return, so sea anglers are no different to everyone else, but, and this applies to all fishermen, professional representation costs money, angling has the chance to be professionally represented in Parliament, to be consulted by government and their views heard properly, this is already the case, but it is all about numbers, the more anglers that join, the more likelihood we will be taken seriously, not on a fishing forum like this, not in the Angling Times or whatever, but in Parliament, it seems to me there is only one course of action an angler can take to realise this truth, and that is to pay for individual membership to Angling Trust, then and only then ,will their voices be heard, yes it involves putting your faith into men in suits, probably some you have never even met, but it is the only show in town that can actually make a difference, if these "suits" do not perform, they will be ousted and replaced by men that will/can do the job properly you as a member (shareholder) can make damn sure of that mate,

 

Bob.

[Elton]

Bob,

 

There are some that see the current "men in suits" as being a worse threat to sea angling than the 'official' anti-angling brigade. They probably don't want to pay their wages.

[Steve Coppolo]

Paul (Big Cod) no-one in their right mind would pay for something and expect nothing in return, so sea anglers are no different to everyone else, but, and this applies to all fishermen, professional representation costs money, angling has the chance to be professionally represented in Parliament, to be consulted by government and their views heard properly, this is already the case, but it is all about numbers, the more anglers that join, the more likelihood we will be taken seriously, not on a fishing forum like this, not in the Angling Times or whatever, but in Parliament, it seems to me there is only one course of action an angler can take to realise this truth, and that is to pay for individual membership to Angling Trust, then and only then ,will their voices be heard, yes it involves putting your faith into men in suits, probably some you have never even met, but it is the only show in town that can actually make a difference, if these "suits" do not perform, they will be ousted and replaced by men that will/can do the job properly you as a member (shareholder) can make damn sure of that mate,

 

Bob.

 

Sorry, Bob, but as mentioned earlier in this thread, sea anglers have seen it all before. And it isn't good. First off, we've taken the 'campaign' for better fishing as far as it can go and seen that we aren't going to get it. Some would argue that we now need representation to fend of the raft of restrictions and other interference coming our way - and they may have a point. The trouble is, those we've got 'representing' us at the moment aren't doing it. They are intent on creating even more opportunities and excuses to regulate us to death. I heard this week that the very unpopular RSA strategy that sea anglers rejected wholesale during a public consultation and countrywide meetings with defra, is now being slipped in via the back door by so called sea anglers' representatives. Just one example of why I now refer to them as misrepresentatives.

 

Another example is the impending bass nursery area review that is being pushed for by, literally, one or two misrepresentatives backed by a minority group of anglers. This is going to happen and the result will almost certainly be more restrictions on anglers for no benefit. How so few people, who claim to represent the majority, are allowed to carry on like this, is beyond belief.

The thought of actually paying these people to misrepresent us is enough to make most real sea anglers baulk. As someone else has already mentioned, most sea anglers don't want anything to do with defra, cefas, politicians or rsa misrepresentatives. There's nothing to be gained by it, but plenty to be lost.

[Leon Roskilly]

Not just in Parliament Bob.

 

I'm aware of regulations and byelaws made by various 'authorities' that probably wouldn't stand up if taken to a judicial review, or through the EU courts.

 

The problem has been that those affected just do not have the clout or war-chest to be able to afford to go down that legal challenge path, and well do those 'authorities' know it.

 

The interesting thing is that, if those responsible know that there is a body out there likely to mount such a challenge, they will be far more rigorous in paying themselves for up-front legal advice before even setting off down that road, and to be told, "there's a good chance that if you proceed and a challenge is made, it's going to cost you a lot, and a fair chance that you are going to lose".

 

So, the 'war-chest' doesn't even have to be dug into most of the time.

 

Merely being there will stop a lot of doubtful restrictions ever making it to the books in the first place.

 

And if those authorities do proceed in atttempting unjustified restrictions, then when the 'authority' understands that there will be a legal challenge by a body with the funds available to roll them over, it's surprising how much they will be willing to compromise to avoid going down that path.

 

But that kind of legal 'nuclear deterrent' isn't in reach of a few local anglers making a fuss, or an angling club, or even a regional independent division.

 

It needs a huge number of anglers chipping in on a national level to back an organisation not only with political clout, but also with the demonstrable financial resources to take challenges to the line if need be.

 

The world is changing fast, marine conservation is now the big issue for many campaigning organisations. Soon we will have the Marine Bill with new powers given to the new Marine Management Organisation and the new Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities pushing to see how far those new powers will reach and can be applied. Then there's the EU.........

 

Personally I would be far happier to be represented by a numerically strong and financially well resourced body to fight for my future rights.

 

Rather than simply being left alone to take my chances as the future is shaped around me by others.

Edited February 7, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[Steve Coppolo]

Personally I would be far happier to be represented by a numerically strong and financially well resourced body to fight for my future rights.

 

Rather than simply being left alone to take my chances as the future is shaped around me by others.

 

That's a joke - right?

[Steve Burke]

Another example is the impending bass nursery area review that is being pushed for by, literally, one or two misrepresentatives backed by a minority group of anglers. This is going to happen and the result will almost certainly be more restrictions on anglers for no benefit. How so few people, who claim to represent the majority, are allowed to carry on like this, is beyond belief.

 

I hope that I've misinterpreted this as I can't believe what I'm reading. I'd have thought that bass nursery areas would be good for bass and good for bass anglers. Or is it a case of "not in my back yard"?