These Forums Are Not Indicative Of Opinion

[mark barrett]

You make some fair and constructive points Budgie, but as I keep saying, the fact is ,Angling Trust have only been around for a matter of weeks, and like it or not, the old ACA are one and the same thing now in the form of Fish Legal, I will be the first one at the front if AT do not deliver believe me, but it is unrealistic to expect radical change in such a short space of time, all the old organisations had over 100 years to deliver and failed us anglers miserably (with the exception of the ACA) there is no doubt in my mind Angling Trust have taken the bad with the good from the various organisations, but I believe these will be weeded out over time, I trust Mark lloyd in this respect, as a shareholder, I will get to vote who stays and who goes, as a non member (shareholder) I will be unable to vote, it is a chicken and egg scenario, but what is the worse that can happen? I lose £20 and they lose a member. loads of members in fact and they will cease to be, if that happens ,then what? they MUST succeed, and I believe they will with Mark Lloyd at the helm, give the bloke some time is all I am saying.

 

Actually Bob the whole reason that i havent joined the AT is BECAUSE of Mark Lloyd. Whilst as a person I like Mark a great deal, as the man to head up the national angling body i think that they have the wrong man.

 

I had cause to "work" with Mark on something three years ago, and at the first point of conflict he quite frankly took it up the arris from those who he was trying to get to change something.

 

Like I say, its nothing personal against Mark as a person, but as a leader that may have to take a battle up and hit it head on, I am certain that he is not the man. the AT needs a strong leader. He is not it.

[Steve Coppolo]

Hi Bob

I've stated several times now that your, "All you've got to lose is £20", argument doesn't stack up. We've got a hell of a lot more than £20 to lose. In the case of sea angling, bad representation has already damaged the sport. The threats we are facing, as well as a few that rank and file sea anglers managed to fend off, (temporarily), have been brought about and, in some cases, actively sought by a few individuals claiming to represent the sea angling population. And, going on theoir stance on current issues, lessons have not been learnt from past mistakes. Now that we've got the AT, doesn't mean things have changed. We've still got the same poor, existing, sea angling representation as we've always had and the potential for more damage to sea angling is as great as ever. Would you support any organisation that you thought could actually damage angling?

 

I'd love to be able to suport the AT. From what I've seen and heard of Mark Lloyd, he does seem to genuinely want to do some good for angling and anglers. It's not his motives that are in question, it's his ability to deliver with what he's got to work with. I don't know about the ACA, but the NFSA and the NFA were hardly forces to be reckoned with and both failed to attract the level of supoort that they should have. You've got to ask why that was, surely?

 

The government expressed a desire for a single angling organisation a long time ago. It will make their lives easier. The AT is also getting a decent wedge of funding from Sport England. Just how effective are they going to be at arguing against the government with the threat of that funding being withdrawn constantly hanging over their heads? I believe that the withdrawal of the NFSA's Sport England funding lead to their demise. Is it right that angling's one and only representative body should rely on government funding? I know that without the support of all anglers, they have no choice, but to gain that suport they will have to take into account the wishes of all anglers, including those that express them through internet forums. They can ignore us at their peril.

[Dick Dastardly]

Good post Steve.

[Alan Stubbs]

Hi Bob

I've stated several times now that your, "All you've got to lose is £20", argument doesn't stack up. We've got a hell of a lot more than £20 to lose. In the case of sea angling, bad representation has already damaged the sport. The threats we are facing, as well as a few that rank and file sea anglers managed to fend off, (temporarily), have been brought about and, in some cases, actively sought by a few individuals claiming to represent the sea angling population. And, going on theoir stance on current issues, lessons have not been learnt from past mistakes. Now that we've got the AT, doesn't mean things have changed. We've still got the same poor, existing, sea angling representation as we've always had and the potential for more damage to sea angling is as great as ever. Would you support any organisation that you thought could actually damage angling?

 

I'd love to be able to suport the AT. From what I've seen and heard of Mark Lloyd, he does seem to genuinely want to do some good for angling and anglers. It's not his motives that are in question, it's his ability to deliver with what he's got to work with. I don't know about the ACA, but the NFSA and the NFA were hardly forces to be reckoned with and both failed to attract the level of supoort that they should have. You've got to ask why that was, surely?

 

The government expressed a desire for a single angling organisation a long time ago. It will make their lives easier. The AT is also getting a decent wedge of funding from Sport England. Just how effective are they going to be at arguing against the government with the threat of that funding being withdrawn constantly hanging over their heads? I believe that the withdrawal of the NFSA's Sport England funding lead to their demise. Is it right that angling's one and only representative body should rely on government funding? I know that without the support of all anglers, they have no choice, but to gain that suport they will have to take into account the wishes of all anglers, including those that express them through internet forums. They can ignore us at their peril.

 

 

Steve, this is one of the most incisive posts I've come across in all the years I've been a member of this site. Thank you!

 

Put as simply as I can, anyone who can dismiss posters on angling websites as 'not representative of opinion' has in that one sentence proven that they can't be trusted to put forward any cogent argument! Certainly, I couldn't support someone apparently incapable of putting forward a genuine concensus of opinion. As my partner has pointed out, she and her daughter both go fishing and they have opinions about angling and conservation. What has the AT done to raise their awareness of it's existence with them? Erm... nothing. Just another way of getting a minority point of view ignored in favour of a similar minority point of view being aired. What happens when that is the case? People start their own opinion-airing group, which is what's happened in the past . Simple, huh?

 

The points of view expressed on this site are representative of a broad spectrumof, I hesitate to say it, opinion occasionally reactionary but in the main pretty reasonable - and ALWAYS thought through. Usually, peoples' reasons for holding their views are explained in their posts. To have these views dismissed as 'not representative of opinion' when these 'official' opinions are seemingly arrived at without consultation is not ever going to earn my support, either morally or financially.

 

 

The word 'specious' means showy and glitzy on the surface, but underneath this veneer the reality is not up to much. It seems, based upon this man's words - personally or representatively, the AT is best summed up at present, as specious.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Alan Stubbs

[smudger]

I would like to offer my sincere apologies to Bob Bradford

and for the unwarranted written attack on him and his character, and will remove the offending post.

Sorry Bob my anger got the better of me but i felt that you were somewhat preaching a "must sign up" to all on Anglers Net

[Newt]

Well said smudger.

[gozzer]

As some of you might know I have had little to do with angling 'politics' for many years now (unlike in the past). Preferring to fish alone, I have had limited direct contact with my fellow anglers. The opinions of many of those that I have met, have differed from my own to such a degree, that in the past I have had 'heated debates' on the waterside, (a thing that I try my best to avoid now, it spoils the fishing).

Until circumstances 'forced' me onto the Internet, and I found AnglersNet, I was blissfully unaware of many of the angling issues outside my local area. In fact it would be safe to say that I would still be unaware of the existence of The Angling Trust, were I not to have ventured onto the web.

With all this in mind, last night I decided to Google 'The Angling Trust'. I went through their web site and a few sites linked to the search. I have to say I was disappointed with what I found. Here are a couple of the things that bothered me.

 

Apart from the name of Mark Lloyd, I struggled to find another name directly connected to the project. I would have thought that a list of names, with their position within the Trust, and a CV of past experience, would have been helpful to the ordinary angler making an informed decision on whether to join or not.

 

I found reading through the list of 'promises', like reading the manifesto of a political party, (in fact I wouldn't have been surprised to see Tony Blair's smiling face jump out at some stage). I read these 'promises' and looked for explanations of how these aims were going to be achieved. I failed to find any.

 

I was a little dismayed to see the enticement of 'special offers' being used to induce membership, especially the use of 'club points' or 'loyalty points' like my local supermarket.

 

My Internet skills are lacking in some areas, so if I have done the Trust an injustice, and the list of officials or methods of achieving their goals are freely available, then I apologise. And I ask if someone more skilled would please point a self confessed 'numpty' in the right direction.

 

One final thing struck me (and I apologise if it's been asked, and answered in previous posts).

 

It concerns the individual members of the organisations that joined together to form the Trust.

Were these members asked/balloted as to their views on their organisations intentions prior to joining the Trust?

 

Maybe Bob or Leon would answer that question.

 

John.

Edited February 10, 2009 by gozzer

[Leon Roskilly]

It concerns the individual members of the organisations that joined together to form the Trust.

Were these members asked/balloted as to their views on their organisations intentions prior to joining the Trust?

 

Maybe Bob or Leon would answer that question.

 

Yes, they could legally only dissolve their own organisation and transfer their assets to the Angling Trust with a vote by members who attended or returned postal ballots to either an Annual General Meeting, or an Extrordinary General Meeting.

 

I can't speak for all organisations, but the ones that I was a member of kept members informed of intentions and news leading up to the merger, with a ballot on whether or not to go down that particular road prior to the eventual vote that lead to dissolution and merger.

 

There was an intital website (now gone) which served to inform everyone of progress and intentions leading up to the merger.

[gozzer]

Yes, they could legally only dissolve their own organisation and transfer their assets to the Angling Trust with a vote by members who attended or returned postal ballots to either an Annual General Meeting, or an Extrordinary General Meeting.

 

I can't speak for all organisations, but the ones that I was a member of kept members informed of intentions and news leading up to the merger, with a ballot on whether or not to go down that particular road prior to the eventual vote that lead to dissolution and merger.

 

There was an intital website (now gone) which served to inform everyone of progress and intentions leading up to the merger.

 

Thanks Leon.

 

If the number of members who voted for the Trust was a high percentage, then I would think that the aim of 100,000 Trust members by 2011, would be reached well before that date.

 

John.

[dutch1862]

On paper the AT sounds like a good idea. It'd be nice to see it operate as a democratic organisation with the board/policy makers elected by the members, although quite how practical this would be for the AT and its objectives I'm not sure. As the AT matures it'll be interesting to see how the average angler can participate other than being a member; there is doubtless a lot of passion and goodwill that could be tapped into and this may help build some bridges.

 

The subject of funding is an interesting one. If it achieves its aim of an initial 20,000 members then £400k whilst a lot of money to the average person isn't that much when you no doubt have salaries and other operating costs to take into account. So I can understand why Government funding has been sought, but I can also understand why that might raise some concerns.

 

One thing is for sure, this has led to some very interesting debates/points. I have no reason not to assume positive intent on the part of the AT. But actions speak louder than words and I am sure that as the AT moves out of infancy that we'll get a better feel for what it can achieve. For the sake of our sport I hope that the kind of actions that are needed for all aspects of fishing can be taken as quickly as possible.