Angling Trust Announces Restructuring

[barry luxton]

Ive not heard much at all mate.Been quite busy getting my own forum up and running.

 

 

Ahh good so we can stuff this comment in file 13 then.

 

quote:

 

Prepare yourselves.....Im hearing on the Grapevine a relaunch where it will be 'Compulsory' for ALL ANGLERS to join the AT with a 'COMPULSORY ROD LICENCE' which will include a fee payable directly too the AT for ALL anglers

[Elton]

There's an interesting piece in Boat Fishing Monthly from Steve this month (my issue arrived today), with a comment from Dave Barham.

[glennk]

Ahh good so we can stuff this comment in file 13 then.

 

quote:

 

Prepare yourselves.....Im hearing on the Grapevine a relaunch where it will be 'Compulsory' for ALL ANGLERS to join the AT with a 'COMPULSORY ROD LICENCE' which will include a fee payable directly too the AT for ALL anglers

 

 

Well probably not given the recent quote from Kieth Arthur about the AT running fishing and the introduction of a sea angling liucence. Dont file it, keep the quote handy because the lad may be right.

[glennk]

Deleted

 

Coward

[andy_youngs]

I've just spent more than 4 hours of viewing of footage the Sustainability Committee of the Welsh Assembly sctrutinizing evidence on canoe / angling access to inland waterways.

 

Generally, I found the evidence presented by canoeists to be reasoned and logical.

 

However the evidence presented by the anglers was based on a very narrow interpretation of the law which is currently being disputed, and which smacks of bigotry and intolerance. As a lifelong angler, it made me feel very ashamed.

 

Historically, anglers have been percieved as being fairly easy going, placid people. But all that has changed recently, principally because of an intransigent position being promoted by the Angling Trust.

 

As a result of this policy, one of my local angling clubs has been actively preventing people from canoeing down my local river for the last few years, even during the closed fishing season. They do not own the land, and I've now written to them on two separate occasions to ask them to desist. Whilst they have acknowledged receipt of both pieces of correspondence, they refuse to provide a detailed response or in any way address the issues. They are still patroling the riverbanks adopting a zero tolerance approach to canoeing, and when I try to question this policy I am referred back to the national policy of the Angling Trust and Fish Legal.

 

When I've tried to raise the issue on this forum in the past then attempts have been made to discredit my views on the grounds that I'm trying to wind people up. The presumption seems to be amongst certain anglers that unless you tow the AT line then you're not really a proper angler, but an undesirable who is hell bent on upsetting the status quo.

 

I suggest that the poeple who are promoting these views do not represent the majority of anglers. However somehow a minority seem to have infilltrated the higher levels of our sport and are actively peddling a narrow minded agenda.

 

Is this really what we want from a governing body? Surely the Angling Trust should be trying to diffuse the situation rather than making it worse.

 

The Angling Trust maintains that because the British Canoe Union is reluctant to enter into voluntary agreements their hands are tied, but what's to discuss? The reality is that many canoeists are not even members of British Canoe Union. More to the point, it doesn't take a genius to realise that if you erect a sign on the riverbank saying "this is private land, please respect the wishes of the landowner by not canoeing through here outside of the hours of 10am to 4pm during certain months" then it will probably be largely observed and conflict will be avoided. But if you erect a sign saying "this is private property, keep out" then it will not be observed and conflict will arise.

 

Until the Angling Trust modify their stance then they will not receive my support.

Edited October 17, 2009 by andy_youngs

[Steve Coppolo]

I've just viewed more than 4 hours of video evidence being scrutinised by the Sustainability Committee of the Welsh Assembly about canoe / angling access to inland waterways.

 

Generally, I found the evidence presented by canoeists to be reasoned and logical.

 

However the evidence presented by the anglers was based on a very narrow interpretation of the law which is currently being disputed, and which smacks of bigotry and intolerance. As a lifelong angler, it made me feel very ashamed.

 

Historically, anglers have been percieved as being fairly easy going, placid people. But all that has changed recently, principally because of an intransigent position being promoted by the Angling Trust.

 

As a result of this policy, one of my local angling clubs has been actively preventing people from canoeing down my local river for the last few years, even during the closed fishing season. They do not own the land, and I've now written to them on two separate occasions to ask them to desist. Whilst they have acknowledged receipt of both pieces of correspondence, they refuse to actually provide a detailed response or in any way address the issues. They are still patroling the riverbanks adopting a zero tolerance approach to canoeing, and when I try to question this policy I am referred back to the national policy of the Angling Trust and Fish Legal.

 

When I've tried to raise the issue on this forum in the past then attempts have been made to discredit my views on the grounds that I'm trying to wind people up. The presumption seems to be amongst certain anglers that unless you tow the AT line then you're not really a proper angler, but an undesirable who is hell bent on upsetting the status quo.

 

I suggest that the poeple who are promoting these views do not represent the majority of anglers. However somehow a minority seem to have infilltrated the higher levels of our sport and are actively peddling a narrow minded agenda.

 

Is this really what we want from a governing body? Surely the Angling Trust should be trying to diffuse the situation rather than making it worse.

 

The Angling Trust maintains that because the British Canoe Union is reluctant to enter into voluntary agreements their hands are tied, but what's to discuss? The reality is that many canoeists are not even members of British Canoe Union. More to the point, it doesn't take a genius to realise that if you erect a sign on the riverbank saying "this is private land, please respect the wishes of the landowner by not canoeing through here outside of the hours of 10am to 4pm during certain months" then it will probably be largely observed and conflict will be avoided. But if you erect a sign saying "this is private property, keep out" then it will not be observed and conflict will arise.

 

Until the Angling Trust modify their stance then they will not receive my support.

 

Well said, Andy. I can see anglers becoming universally disliked if this sort of thing is allowed to continue. You would think, with the number of enemies we've already got in the way of antis and environmentalists, that anglers would be looking for allies right now, not creating more enemies.

[andy_youngs]

Well said, Andy. I can see anglers becoming universally disliked if this sort of thing is allowed to continue. You would think, with the number of enemies we've already got in the way of antis and environmentalists, that anglers would be looking for allies right now, not creating more enemies.

 

Thanks for your comment Steve. It would be nice to hear from the Angling Trust on this issue.

 

To be fair to them, I have not written directly to them about this (yet). But I think it's something that that has got to be dealt with, preferably sooner rather than later.

Edited October 17, 2009 by andy_youngs

[Steve Coppolo]

Thanks for your comment Steve. It would be nice to hear from the Angling Trust on this issue.

 

To be fair to them, I have not written directly to them about this (yet). But I think it's something that that has got to be dealt with, preferably sooner rather than later.

 

Writing to them is the best thing to do. It will be interesting to see what their response is. Sometimes, I don't think they think of the implications of what they suggest, before speaking. Maybe having a few anglers spelling it out to them might make the stop and think for a bit?

 

Some of the things being said on behalf of coarse anglers will definately upset groups who are more powerful than angling. For example, apart from wanting to ban canoeists, there have been calls to cull cormorants, prevent otters from being able to enter rivers, and and get cyclists banned from canal toe paths.

 

How to win friends and influence people, eh?

[andy_youngs]

Writing to them is the best thing to do. It will be interesting to see what their response is. Sometimes, I don't think they think of the implications of what they suggest, before speaking. Maybe having a few anglers spelling it out to them might make the stop and think for a bit?

 

Some of the things being said on behalf of coarse anglers will definately upset groups who are more powerful than angling. For example, apart from wanting to ban canoeists, there have been calls to cull cormorants, prevent otters from being able to enter rivers, and and get cyclists banned from canal toe paths.

 

How to win friends and influence people, eh?

 

To date, my letters have been directed mainly at the Environment Agency and Natural England. Because the river is an SAC site which receives considerable public funding, the EA have agreed to chair a meeting between myself and the angling club to talk it through, so I'm going get that process out of the way before I start writing to the Angling Trust. In any event, hopefully this thread will not entirely escape their attention. That's one of the great things about the internet - it makes communication so much easier.

 

Interesting to note that John Wilson sits on the advisory panel of the Angling Trust. He actually used to be president of the angling club in question until they forced him to resign a few years ago over some minor administrative matter. At the time, it was all very acrimonious.

 

Some poeples capacity for scoring own goals is quite remarkable.

[andy_youngs]

Some of the things being said on behalf of coarse anglers will definately upset groups who are more powerful than angling. For example, apart from wanting to ban canoeists, there have been calls to cull cormorants, prevent otters from being able to enter rivers, and and get cyclists banned from canal toe paths.

I think the restrictions on cormorant control should perhaps be relaxed. They're a pest species on inland waters and I would like to see them thinned out, at least in my part of the world. Otter populations on the other hand should only be managed on a sustainable basis. I think everyone would like to see them whilst out and about on the river, but if they're numbers become a problem on ceratain stretches then measures should be put in place to to trap them and harvest the pelts. It's a fact that each pelt is worth over a £100 on ebay. If it's got to be done then it makes sense to do it commercially. More so than just killing the creature and throwing it's body in a ditch. Cyclists on canal toe paths ... carry on and ignore those selfish anglers ...