These Forums Are Not Indicative Of Opinion

[Bob Bradford]

Smudger,When are you going to learn your opinions on here or any other angling forum do not count for much? who do you think reads this?

 

I have a question for you Smudger and anyone else that is not a member of Angling Trust;

 

How do you communicate your views to the people representing angling?,

 

Here's another one for you,

 

Do you think remaining as a single unrepresented angler is really the best way forward?

 

I am away for a few days now, but I look forward to reading the enlightened replies I will undoubtedly get on here.

[Elton]

Bob,

 

In answer to one of your questions, "who do you think reads this?":

 

"Quite a few thousand anglers every single day of every single week," is the answer.

[Newt]

I think some folks are confusing the number of actively posting members on topics with the much higher number of folks who simply read for info and never post - in fact, never sign up as members of the site.

 

That is probably the basis on which someone decided that opinions on internet forums don't represent the general opinions of anglers. Since folks with strong opinions other than those expressed are likely to sign up and have their say, I suspect that what you read on these topics is probably a pretty representative sampling of what anglers in general are thinking.

[Bob Bradford]

That may well be the case Newt, but how are these "Views" ever delivered to Angling Trust? is it realistic to expect someone from the Trust to read every thread or post to gage anglers opinions? would the Trust not then be accused of wasting time and members money?

 

The States have a very good and healthy angling organisation, heavily supported by anglers, they have political clout and are heard in the White House, how much is achieved via anglers moaning on an unrelated website in comparison?

[Leon Roskilly]

Bob,

 

In answer to one of your questions, "who do you think reads this?":

 

"Quite a few thousand anglers every single day of every single week," is the answer.

 

 

Well (currently) 290 views of this particular thread.

 

(And I suspect that many are the same people who are following this thread making repeat viewings, especially as each new post is flagged).

Edited February 9, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[Elton]

Bob

 

Have a look here. That site was provided free of charge by me nearly 10 years ago.

 

Have a look here. That's on web space provide freely by me, and without condition, ever since they wanted it.

 

Have a look here. That's another one I've done for free from day one (I think I even pay for the domain name).

 

And there are others.

 

So yes, I do think any 'governing body' interested in conservation should consider this site as one source of information. Their predecessors have been quite happy to use it for the past ten years, and quite rightly so. Myself and the members here have always supported angling conservation to the hilt.

 

But that's not the point.

 

The fact that the head of such an angling body dismisses their opinions outright, after being made aware of them by one of their strongest supporters, shows a level of arrogance, or ignorance, I've never witnessed before in angling politics.

[Elton]

Well (currently) 290 views of this particular thread.

 

(And I suspect that many are the same people who are following this thread making repeat viewings, especially as each new post is flagged).

 

Your point being? This is one thread on one website.

 

There are numerous other threads on here (which don't count), various threads on sites like World Sea Fishing (which don't count), even more on various fly-fishing sites (which don't count), people who read the threads through caches that don't increase the incremental count on forums (which don't count) and various other forms of newsreaders which deliver the posts in a similar manner (which don't count).

[gozzer]

Bob,

 

In answer to one of your questions, "who do you think reads this?":

 

"Quite a few thousand anglers every single day of every single week," is the answer.

 

I would suspect that more anglers read the various angling forums, than buy the weekly angling papers.

Certainly more anglers are allowed to express their opinions on forums, than in the papers.

Whether these opinions are indicative of the majority of anglers, I don't know.

The one's who contribute to forums on a regular basis, are (IMO) usually those that actually think about angling, as opposed to just catching. The latter seems to me to be more important to the majority of anglers I meet on the bank.

 

John.

[Elton]

One last thing I'll add, before Leon invariably picks holes in everything and posts a few links, this thread is about angler's opinions counting.

 

The Angling Trust is happy to spout on about 'representing 4 million anglers' in its press releases. Each and every angler seems to count when it suits them, paying member or not, so each opinion should count, however it's voiced.

 

I'm seriously considering not buying a licence this year (well, two actually!). I've really had enough of it all. I'll try to cram in some river fishing before the end of the season and am looking forward to the Barton Court get-together, but the enjoyment and motivation beyond then is seriously in doubt.

[Simon Fell]

If you read some posts on other fishing websites you will Realise Bob Bradford (or Boring Bob) as he is known has already created some passion against him and the angling trust! The thing about debate is there is always 2 sides, otherwise its not a debate. Just cause you dont agree with peoples point of view does not mean its invalid.

 

Are we not all fighhting the same corner, why does the AT feel the need to be-little other fishermens views (even if they are dsplayed on the worthless internet), no matter where they come from, after all they should be appealing to us and encouraging us to join not allienating fishermen?

 

Bloody stupid is what I say. The internet has revolutionised many aspects of life, induding fishing.

 

Simon

Edited February 9, 2009 by Simon Fell