Angling Trust Forum

[Steve Coppolo]

Bob

Most of what you've posted today is so full of holes that it would take an entire day to address every point you've tried to make - and I just haven't got that sort of time on my hands.

 

Can I just make a few things clear, though. You came on here urging everyone to join the AT when it was first launched. You jumped in with both feet without even knowing, or apparently caring, what it was going to shape up like. Surely, you don't expect everyone to follow your example? Even now we all know a bit more about the AT and valid concerns are being expressed, you are still urging eveyone to join. Has it not occured to you that apart from not really agreeing with what the AT are doing, some might be out and out opposed to some of it? Why would anyone want to give more power to a body that they consider to be damaging to their fishing?

 

I'll just highlight what I'm trying to say by using a quote from one of your recent posts;

 

Because the EA can, and does, run roughshod over the majority of anglers, the majority CHOOSE to be unrepresented, so they cannot expect to be consulted individually, other than an on-line questionnaire, nor can their views be expected to be heard properly.

 

Now if any of you think this is unfair, wrong, whatever, what do you think you can do about it?

 

Individual, next to nothing is the honest answer, which is precisely what is happening, and has happened for as long as I can remember, I recall the way angling got shafted with the lead shot poisoning debacle in the 1980s, anglers never had proper representation and the rest is history.

 

I don't know what we, as individuals could have done, (presuming we were even aware of them), but can you tell us what the Angling Trust did about the fish removal byelaws? Did they see them as a threat? If they did, they should have alerted as many anglers as they could. And if they didn't, they should have! Is this what you call 'proper' representaton?

 

Whether individual anglers views count for much is debatable, (it wasn't long ago that 'reps' were telling everyone that individual responses to consultations were more powerful than group responses!), but at least by responding individually we can say what we want, not what the Angling Trust wants. And before you say that the AT wil represent it's members but you have to pay, etc, etc. No one from the AT ever asked me what i thought of the fish removal byelaws when they were being proposed or when the consultation was live. Te nearest we've had is Mark Lloyd asking us what we think of them on the AT forum, now it's too late to do anything about them. I'd still like to know how the AT responded to the consultation.

 

We could go round in circles forever but, it has to be said, the AT hasn't perfomed well enough, over the last year, to attract the level of support that some seem to think it deserves - and there is no sign of things getting any better. I think the AT has become stiffled by its fear of saying the wrong thing and the need to generate cash.

[wurzel]

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!

 

 

 

Deadly serious Ha

I've never claimed to represent any body but myself , I've never stuck me head in the sand and I don't think I whinge, do I? Mostly respond to your winging and inaccurate claims.

Being moored near about 15 angling boats I get to speak to several anglers who interested in what we do and what we are landing come over for a chat, plus those I meet while dangling myself.

Some don't know or care about the politics, those that do mirror Steve’s opinions exactly and are a million miles from yours. I don't think Steve claims to represent any body he just points out the failings and shenanigans of those that claim they do same as others on this forum, it's up to the reps if they take notice or not

Sea Anglers don't want management, licences, bag limits, mpa's, ntz's or the Anglers Trust, I personally think that with the Angling Trust's involvement with the WWF will mean they will not oppose any of the above objectives probably the opposite and will openly endorse some of them, not that it will make any difference because I agree with you DEFRA and Brussels are on a mission of which my family business will be lucky to survive and sea anglers will be very managed.

 

 

Quote

'hybrid' commercial/'sometimes I dangle too' brigade

 

Due to crap weather over the Christmas break I only managed 5 trips dangling between boxing day and new year catching three small pike one reasonable chub and 7 cod to 12lb, I hear you also dangle sometimes.

[Steve Coppolo]

Bob

Most of what you've posted today is so full of holes that it would take an entire day to address every point you've tried to make - and I just haven't got that sort of time on my hands.

 

Can I just make a few things clear, though. You came on here urging everyone to join the AT when it was first launched. You jumped in with both feet without even knowing, or apparently caring, what it was going to shape up like. Surely, you don't expect everyone to follow your example? Even now we all know a bit more about the AT and valid concerns are being expressed, you are still urging eveyone to join. Has it not occured to you that apart from not really agreeing with what the AT are doing, some might be out and out opposed to some of it? Why would anyone want to give more power to a body that they consider to be damaging to their fishing?

 

I'll just highlight what I'm trying to say by using a quote from one of your recent posts;

 

Because the EA can, and does, run roughshod over the majority of anglers, the majority CHOOSE to be unrepresented, so they cannot expect to be consulted individually, other than an on-line questionnaire, nor can their views be expected to be heard properly.

 

Now if any of you think this is unfair, wrong, whatever, what do you think you can do about it?

 

Individual, next to nothing is the honest answer, which is precisely what is happening, and has happened for as long as I can remember, I recall the way angling got shafted with the lead shot poisoning debacle in the 1980s, anglers never had proper representation and the rest is history.

 

I don't know what we, as individuals could have done, (presuming we were even aware of them), but can you tell us what the Angling Trust did about the fish removal byelaws? Did they see them as a threat? If they did, they should have alerted as many anglers as they could. And if they didn't, they should have! Is this what you call 'proper' representaton?

 

Whether individual anglers views count for much is debatable, (it wasn't long ago that 'reps' were telling everyone that individual responses to consultations were more powerful than group responses!), but at least by responding individually we can say what we want, not what the Angling Trust wants. And before you say that the AT wil represent it's members but you have to pay, etc, etc. No one from the AT ever asked me what i thought of the fish removal byelaws when they were being proposed or when the consultation was live. Te nearest we've had is Mark Lloyd asking us what we think of them on the AT forum, now it's too late to do anything about them. I'd still like to know how the AT responded to the consultation.

 

We could go round in circles forever but, it has to be said, the AT hasn't perfomed well enough, over the last year, to attract the level of support that some seem to think it deserves - and there is no sign of things getting any better. I think the AT has become stiffled by its fear of saying the wrong thing and the need to generate cash.

[lutra]

Now if any of you think this is unfair, wrong, whatever, what do you think you can do about it?

Like you say Bob not a lot, but as the AT doesn't share the same views as me and a good number of other anglers, it wont ever represent me and its mere existence is counter productive to my views ever being heard. So think of me what you like, but I'm not going to send it £20 and wish it a prosperous new year this year.

[Worms]

Worms do not start with the insults, I do not wish for this to turn ugly.....right?

You must have got the wrong poster. I haven't made any insults, let alone called anybody "dinosaurs" or wittered on about whinging or equally insulting remarks.

 

 

 

Look, the EA are agents of the Government, the EA have not consulted (other than an on-line survey, to my knowledge at least) with the majority of anglers, a small minority of anglers, including myself have responded, THESE ARE THE ANGLERS THE EA WILL TREAT AS RELEVANT

I know, I just wrote that in my post.

 

............together with the views of the Angling Trust, of which 4 or 5 members ,including yours truly and Steve Coppollo, have responded to the CEO's request for input on the Angling Trust forum for all to see............that's it, there is no more!!!

So the views and opinions of the minority of anglers will dictate the outcome.

Like I said, by a self elected minority that refuse to give a chance to the majority that they know have been left out in the cold. That's neither fair nor reasonable.

 

Anybody with a sense of decency that realised that the majority of legitimate anglers had been short changed by the EA and the AT would stand up and say so to the EA and the AT...... it seems you have another agenda!

 

Now ask yourself why?

 

Because the EA can, and does, run roughshod over the majority of anglers, the majority CHOOSE to be unrepresented, so they cannot expect to be consulted individually, other than an on-line questionnaire, nor can their views be expected to be heard properly.

So if an all powerful govt. department and a self elected bunch of power mad anglers/journos think they can get away with something then that is the victims' fault for being left out is it? If the EA are the ones running roughshod why are you expecting the trodden on majority to spend £20 on the group who "consulted" on the changes and backed them whilst refusing to reply to anglers what their views were?

 

Now if any of you think this is unfair, wrong, whatever, what do you think you can do about it?

Easy, save £20 and make as much political noise as I can

 

Individual, next to nothing is the honest answer, which is precisely what is happening, and has happened for as long as I can remember, I recall the way angling got shafted with the lead shot poisoning debacle in the 1980s, anglers never had proper representation and the rest is history.

Yes but it didn't stop our fishing did it?

 

 

The Angling Trust is angling's only chance of proper representation, and anglers must focus on the big picture, put aside their prejudices and get behind the concept by becoming a member, then once they are a shareholder or member, take the responsibility to shape it into a representitive organisation they can all be proud of, by choosing not to join, you only serve to strengthen the EA and weaken the Trust, and anything the EA choose to implement upon us without proper consultation, angling does have a voice in the shape of the fledgling Angling Trust, but it is a whisper because the membership uptake is so low, if you want it to roar , it becomes a numbers game, if you want a slick, combative and responsive organisation you will have to pay for it.

 

I am saying the majority of anglers are seen as irrelevant, because they choose to be irrelevant, that is not the fault of the Angling Trust, the fault lies squarely with anglers........... like it or not.

 

Sorry I forgot, the stupid average angler! The poor bastards don't stand a chance do they? Why couldn't they be born psychic or, better still be important enough to be informed by the EA or the AT about the consultation. It's their own faults you mark my words! (that was a sarcastic remark)

 

It is a leap of faith to believe in, and support the Angling Trust...........but what are the alternatives? if in 5 years or £100 of your hard earned money (5x £20) it is an abject failure, then we were duped and all hope is lost, kill the Trust at birth and we will never know.

Unfortunately you believe in something that has already let angling down and you still insist that it is the fault of anglers who know nothing about it because they are too sensible to waste their money on the Angling Times, don't belong to specimen clubs or match fish every weekend. As soon as you and the AT acknowledge that then that is when some people might listen to your repetitive elitist (or just ignorant) remarks!

[gozzer]

The lack of information regarding the coarse fish catch and release legislation, was to me, a turning point in my thoughts on the AT. When I first read about it I contacted the AT to find out their views on it, I got no reply. Others also emailed them and I only know of one person who got a reply, and that was very non commital. If I had seen some kind of interest or willingness to interact with the 'ordinary' angler, (member or not), then I would have taken it as a sign that they were truely trying to represent anglers. As it was they seemed not to care what we "dilusional diosaurs" thought, which fits in well with your earlier post Bob, and some that I have read on the AT forum.

You were right saying that we are "irrelevant", to both the EA, and the AT it seems.

 

John.

[barry luxton]

You Going for renewal Steve or shall we have a whip round for the 20 quid to have some insider info.

 

 

 

Serious, thanks for the support Wurzel, i will remember that.

Edited January 4, 2010 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

You Going for renewal Steve or shall we have a whip round for the 20 quid to have some insider info.

 

I very much doubt it, Barry. There is no insider info!

[H.A.]

Argue amongst yourselves .

 

It makes no odds.

 

There are a dozen or so folks concerned enough here to insult each other; so that's a step on apathy, at least.

 

The 'ostrich thing' sums most anglers nicely.

 

You won't actually get involved in the real politics (and who can blame Mr Average Angler for that?).

 

So, I'm afraid whatever Steve or Bob want, matters for nothing.

 

You will get more regulations (and licensing) and you'll still be flapping in the wind; bickering and completely ineffective.

 

It'll be alright on the night though, eh?

 

[Bob Bradford]

Argue amongst yourselves .

 

It makes no odds.

 

There are a dozen or so folks concerned enough here to insult each other; so that's a step on apathy, at least.

 

The 'ostrich thing' sums most anglers nicely.

 

You won't actually get involved in the real politics (and who can blame Mr Average Angler for that?).

 

So, I'm afraid whatever Steve or Bob want, matters for nothing.

 

You will get more regulations (and licensing) and you'll still be flapping in the wind; bickering and completely ineffective.

 

It'll be alright on the night though, eh?

 

 

That sums my thoughts up perfectly, you will get what you deserve, unfortunately the rest of us will have to suffer, history shows angling is a complete walkover for any organisation with a bit of clout or power.

 

How do I feel about this? well I think it is fair to say, I am not in the least surprised by some of the attitudes shown here.

One day the rod licence fees will go up by a substancial margin............who you gonna call?

One day your local river will be polluted and all fish life destroyed.........who you gonna call?

One day your local council will put signs up saying "boat moorings ,no fishing".......who you gonna call?

One day sea angling will be banned from piers and breakwaters "because of the mess anglers make".......who you gonna call?

One day ad nausea

 

One day the penny will drop for you........but it will be too late.