Angling Trust Forum

[gozzer]

Oh bugger! I invite you back on, and when I find time to post, (after a crap few days) you decide to leave Bob. I hope it's just a temporary thing, I think having someone like you on here provides a bit of balance. You knew you would be in for a 'bit of stick' Bob, but at least you had the guts to step into the 'lions den', and I admire you for that.

 

Oh by the way in reference to Sportsmans post about joining FL, he was right, here's a quote from their website.

 

In England, individuals wanting to support Fish Legal should join Angling Trust. In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, individual supporter members can join Fish Legal direct for just £22 a year.

 

I don't even have the opportunity to support Fish Legal without 55% of my subs going to the Trust. I fear that much of the good work done by the ACA will be lost by joining with the Trust. Many of the successes claimed by the Trust seem to be centred around the work of Fish Legal/ACA, the amalgamation seems to be for the benefit of the Trust, rather than FL.

 

John.

[Dick Dastardly]

So why doesnt some one from the AT come on forums like this and try and explain their ideas to us and win us over? Surely with the amount of hits this site gets each day it would enable them to reach far more potential members? I thought that getting all of the anglers it claims to represent to join would be a priority on their things to do list?

 

Bob you and the other guys on here (Steve,Leon,Norm etc) who are members of the AT and its forum couldnt you ask them either directly or via their own forum why? Or is it a case again of the infamous "non indicative opinion"?

 

Come on Mr Lloyd,Mr Arthur etc show some balls and a bit of drive for the organisation you want us to join and come talk to us...................but I doubt you will as Im really starting to think that you dont really want to know what "all anglers" want but are more interested in telling "all anglers" what YOU want.Please prove me wrong.

 

Can even cut and paste it if you want!

Edited January 3, 2010 by BUDGIE

[Steve Coppolo]

From http://anglingtrust.forumotion.net/open-de...e-laws-t36.htm

 

"The Angling Trust has been involved in the consultation leading up to the issuing of this draft..."

 

"We believe that these new regulations will help fight poaching and mass removal of fish..."

 

Draw your own conclusions.

 

Oh dear. I must have overlooked that mention. I'll give myself a severe talking to for being so sloppy.

An even bigger 'oh dear', however, must go to the Angling Trust for not only believing the hype, but for building their policy upon it. Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.

 

To Charley Farley.

Go back and re-check your facts. The new EA fish removal byelaws prevent sea anglers from taking eels out to 6 nautical miles - and taking of mullet, (a sea fish), has been banned from within Christchurch harbour. What are these if they aren't restrictions on sea anglers? Scotch (sic) mist?.

 

To Bob.

I'm sure, if one existed, the AT will give you a medal for your brave efforts.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Elton
Fixed link

[barry luxton]

Oh dear. I must have overlooked that mention. I'll give myself a severe talking to for being so sloppy.

An even bigger 'oh dear', however, must go to the Angling Trust for not only believing the hype, but for building their policy upon it. Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.

 

To Charley Farley.

Go back and re-check your facts. The new EA fish removal byelaws prevent sea anglers from taking eels out to 6 nautical miles - and taking of mullet, (a sea fish), has been banned from within Christchurch harbour. What are these if they aren't restrictions on sea anglers? Scotch (sic) mist?.

 

Worse don't know if you noticed Steve, is the EA have used the ban on the rsa landing of the common eel stating that it compliments other by-laws, rules and regs etc, blady blah. Rushing through this part, helped along by the AT and the other duped anglers who have been party to these nice new regs, that WILL NOT ACHEIVE ANYTHING apart from resentment. With confirmation that the commercial side of the new rules and regulation of the same has been deferd, suspended, that is the netting of the eel and collection of elvers. In plain speaking terms the rsa, anglers have been restricted, stitched up helped by the very people who are claiming to represent all. While the commercial aspects of this plan has stopped. If the AT are true to their word, they should be spitting nails on behalf of the angler, surly? Anyone who recons i have not read it correct, i will go back and get quotes. O K.

 

Bob implys the few on this forum who are moaning about the situation portrayed as the bad guys. You decide. Who do you think has more of a handle on the situation? I feel comfortable being on the outside fighting for the angling cause than trying to work on the inside supporting an org who clearly do not have the anglers support. Restriction after restriction is not the way forward, what do you recon on that H A.

 

Anyone got any thought's on AT supporting the likes of the marine conservation society? Happy with that? I have asked the mcs to confirm their position regarding the mcz's no reply after they confirmed reciept. Gonna have to chace that one.

 

Again Bob has asked me what have i single handedly acheived for the angler, rsa. I would like to think that on my own and along with other rsa have done a part in restricting the damage caused to the angler by the EU, defra, EA, in the wants, restrictions that these org's think are going to be of benifit, that includes a comprehensive reply to the marine proposal consultation. Holistic, they don't know the meaning of the word, more like back door, behind door politics.

 

The rsa isn't broke, why are they trying to break it. Gawed, i just read this bit yet again........... will help fight poaching and mass removal of fish..." Christchurch mark two.

Edited January 3, 2010 by barry luxton

[wurzel]

That's it from me, I do not desire nor need this systematic Internet bullying by anglers that should know better, I will leave you to your small,tiny piece of internet turf to whinge on, and on, and achieve precisely nothing,

 

 

Regards Bob.

 

PS, Thank you for re-instating me on your website Elton, I am sorry if you feel I wasted your time and effort.

 

Wimp.

 

You come on here to discuss the merits of the Angling Trust and to perhaps get some of us to re think, you get a few opinions and alternate views and you call it internet bullying, I thought you were being treated with kid gloves. Hell man! even Ha puts up a better fight, you are the only one doing the whinging.

We'll have to keep score on who achieves what, perhaps Elton could put up a score board.

[Sportsman]

Sportsman, go on the Angling Trust website and ask them , I was invited on here to express my opinions, to offer a different perspective and perhaps get some anglers to have a re-think, I am not an agent of the Angling Trust, nor do I represent them in any way, shape or form, someone said this forum could do with some "Fresh Blood" I am beginging to think they meant "Sacreficial Blood", Is it any wonder the same small, handful of posters contribute to this part of the forum? I am not at your beck and call trying to answer questions you can quite easily find out for yourself, but here is one for free, the annual membership to the Angling Trust is £20, and not the £22 you state as fact.

 

 

 

Regards Bob.

 

 

Can I point out that I did not address my original remarks to you, it was you who chose to call me ill informed and ignorant.

I did go onto the AT website, it is where I got my ill-informed information from.

I do not desire you to be at my beck and call, my questions were not directed at you anyway.

Unfortunately you seem to demonstrate the "I know best what is good for you" mentality that is alienating so many anglers and dissuading them from joining the organisation that you support.

You also seem to resent anyone who disagrees with you.

The AT claims to represent ALL anglers but in 3 out of 4 "countries" that make up the UK all anglers are excluded from membership.

And here is some information for nothing. Mebership of the AT may be 20pounds but we are excluded from joining.

Membership of Fish Legal (part of the AT) costs me 22 pounds

Or am I just being ignorant again

Edited January 4, 2010 by Sportsman

[Jaffa]

Ahhh ... you see, there are no famous five (your imagination or just Wilson and Arthur.co.uk?).

 

The guys and girls who want angling to continue and fish extraction to cease are the blokes (and goyles) who partake every weekend; keep the odd fish and enjoy seeing their kids use a crab-line off the local pier.

There are hundreds of thousands of them (yes, I mean that; and in the UK).

 

Now, I'm sorry, but the 'Gov' is not going to put paid to this, because they can't.

 

Kids will fish with bacon rind and bent pins .... it's a cultural thingy which began some while ago.

 

You can't stop that.

 

I hate to buy licences and pay landowners for the privilege, but common-sense rules where basic human rights are concerned and there are no restrictions on sea anglers, are there?

 

The Cappolots are winding you up.

 

This dreadful whining by commercials and Coppalots are grating my nerves.

 

 

Hi Ada,

 

The "Cappolots" are hardly winding me up as my worries about whats coming predates Steves posts and writings by several years

 

You say;

 

I hate to buy licences and pay landowners for the privilege, but common-sense rules where basic human rights are concerned and there are no restrictions on sea anglers, are there?

 

We have BOTH grown up with tremendous freedom to do as we wanted. Agree? From my point of view its hard to imagine anything the legislators can do that can equal that freedom, let alone improve it.

 

We have lived different lives and seen different things but both of us currently want better fishing? Agree? We live in different worlds but I see huge improvements in my wee bit, so understand i will be more than a little upset if opinion from cozy meetings or barfly experts sees my freedoms taken away for no good reason.

 

Chris

[H.A.]

That handful of posters on here represent the views of all sea anglers I've spoken to.

 

Yer havin' a larf, Wurz.

Stick to yer bloody gill nets and trammels.

 

Is Jaffa a 'commercial' too .... or just spouts off?

 

The couple of you + Coppalot are not at all representative (and it's funny that the 'r' word is the one which Stevie wants to condemn); it's actually he who writes 'pseudo-political' stuff for us (boat anglers?) to inwardly digest

 

Well mateys, prepare to meet your makers; Defra will do what Defra and Brussels do and you couple of lads will count for nowt!

 

After all, they have a mission statement till 2020!

 

I've never met such a bunch of losers as the 'hybrid' commercial/'sometimes I dangle too' brigade.

 

Grow up, talk sense and support or contribute to the process of change.

 

Stop the whinging, OK?

 

Get behind people with your ideas; rather than throw sand at the sky!

 

 

[barry luxton]

Angling scene has moved forward H A got any foto's of a box of paxo.

Edited January 4, 2010 by barry luxton

[Bob Bradford]

I am leaving the handful of dinosaurs that exist on here to it, not because I feel intimidated ,threatened or even bested by sound logical argument , nor do I deserve or require a medal , please don't delude yourselves , although it is true, delusion is rife amoung you, you are not scarey in the slightest.

 

The fact is ,you have zero influence , your comments carry no weight or sway, your "fight" is already lost, the penny is yet to drop still!!!! and I can see the futilty of trying to persuade any of you to the contrary, I simply cannot be bothered to even try, ......why do you think the main players of the Angling Trust do not indulge you on here?

 

By choosing to fight as individuals, you have chosen to be irrelevant,

 

 

I wish you all the best with your futile rants and whinges on here.................whatever floats your boat I guess?

 

 

Regards and a happy new year, to each and every one of you.

 

Bob.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Bob Bradford