Angling Trust Forum

[Davy Holt]

Hiya Steve,

 

 

Can I just say that is a cracking post and I am really glad we are pretty much on the same side these days as you are putting the arguments over very well, very well indeed.

[Sharkbyte]

If that email is genuine, shortly, someone is going to be made to look very stupid indeed.

 

Again, if genuine, it would represent only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the hatchet jobs, slurs and misinformation routinely punted around (behind the scenes) over the past four / five years.

 

 

 

Barry, it's thanks to a few people, much like yourself, that information occasionally reaches those who's efforts have been subjected to the kangaroo court of charlatans, deadbeats and plastic anglers that have, so far, decided angling's fate.

 

 

 

I look forward to seeing the outcome of this 'issue'. To the best of my recollection, it may well be be the very first time that anglers will be privy to exactly what goes on in angling (particularly RSA), and where the credibility lies.

[Dave B]

Well this is the latest doing the rounds on the internet.

 

quote:

 

Mark Lloyd and I both contacted Dave Barham after his November article – he wrongly claimed the trust had not tried to contact him and that he had offered his services but re biffed. He appeared to backtrack after that. Jim Whippy tells me he is not really interested in “Angling Politics” and just wants to go fishing (fairly typical I guess). He lets Steve C do the talking for him I think.

 

 

 

Coppolo also seemed to thaw out in the summer after we had contacted him and even joined the Trust. He’s a bit of a loose cannon and there’s not a lot anyone can do to stop that – most of what he writes is so twisted that I’ve given up getting upset about it.

 

 

 

Tim

 

Well, well, well gentlemen, this is a rather large can of worms to be opening isn't it? The truth is, I have kept each and every e-mail sent and received between myself and the Angling Trust. They completely dispell this latest load of rubbish being circulated.

 

The truth is I contacted the AT soon after the 'big' launch and offered them a page in Boat Fishing Monthly every month, but had no response. Then, my advertising manager did exactly the same, but again, no response. I agreed with Mark Lloyd to print a 'right to reply' feature, word for word, after someone obviously read one of Steve's articles, which I did. I also said at the time that I would help in any way that I could to promote the AT through the pages of BFM by giving them editorial space if they could get copy to me. But surprise, surprise - I had no more contact. Contrary to popular belief, I am a very busy man and don't have time to 'mother' large organisations that should have the manpower and staff available to prepare 800 words every month.

 

As for the quote supposedly from ex BFM editor Jim Whippy, I can assure you that I am very interested in going fishing - I love it, it's a way of life for me - a religion. But, I am also VERY interested in angling politics, which is why I choose to print Steve's article each month, and have my own say at the end of each one. To show my readers exactly what's going on right under our noses.

 

Yes, I have an opinion - but that opinion has been based on the shoddy, 'we don't care' attitude of the organisation that is supposed to be protecting our sport. I can't do any more than offer free editorial space in the magazine to promote the AT. They point blank have refused to take me up on the offer - unlike the Welsh Federation, the Scottish Federation and the old NFSA did when I was editor of Total Sea Fishing magazine - they all had regular pages that were well written by people within the various organisations.

 

It seems to me (based purely on the fact that I have had very little, if any communication with the AT) that the Angling Trust is really not that interested in sea anglers. If I were offered free editorial space every month - published word for word and not re-written to suit the magazine's political slant (just tidied up where grammar is concerned), I would jump at the chance to reach more potential membership. This has obviously not been the case with the AT, and one has to wonder why?

 

We're all very busy, far busier than we were two or three years ago. Staff cutbacks and tightening of the purse strings has seen to that. Surely the AT have someone that knows what's actually going on within the organisation that could string a few sentences together every month?

 

I'm not bitter about the AT as an idea for an organisation, I'm just concerned that the left hand doesn't even know where the right hand is, let alone what it's doing. And that is not the way to protect our sport.

Any organisation worth its salt should be sending out press releases to all the major magazines and jumping at the chance to reach as many potential members as possible. They should be on these forums, and all the smaller local club forums, doing everything they can to gain support - not 'waiting' for anglers to come to them.

 

As for this supposed e-mail that's 'doing the rounds' within the inner circle. There is no excuse for circulating e-mails in the public domain that are both defamatory and plainly wrong.

 

The offer of a page per month for the AT in Boat Fishing Monthly still stands as it always has done. But I doubt anyone within the realms of deepest, darkest AT land will ever take me up on it!

 

You can't help the helpless.

[barry luxton]

As for this supposed e-mail that's 'doing the rounds' within the inner circle. There is no excuse for circulating e-mails in the public domain that are both defamatory and plainly wrong.

 

Fortunately or not as the case maybe, the email is word for word as the copy i received. I make no apology for posting it. Indeed if there is any information within it that is incorrect that would be for the writer to address, not me. I also don't have a hang up in posting the information for the rsa to read as i can't abide back door politics that quite frankly will affect the rsa, I ain't havin none of that. So who ever and what ever org wants to play games with the rsa who have an excellent 'industry' that ain't broke can look forward to a continuation from the likes of myself. As Bob Bradford pointed out he has asked me what have i achieved singularly for the rsa, well i think i have done my job in this instance. I do like to see a sence of fairplay and not anything that is construed as 'skulldugery' in particular when it concerns the rsa, so game on.

Edited January 6, 2010 by barry luxton

[Brian Carragher]

Just logged on to catch up and I've a bit of reading to do before I make comment but I have read the last page or so, don't think Dave B is having a dig at yourself barry but at the AT for producing the original E Mail

[Dick Dastardly]

Dave some one else who struggles to understand why the AT doesn't want to communicate with "us" the very anglers it claims to represent and whose money/vote they demand!

[Elton]

Just logged on to catch up and I've a bit of reading to do before I make comment but I have read the last page or so, don't think Dave B is having a dig at yourself barry but at the AT for producing the original E Mail

 

I think that's correct, although the source of the email would need to be confirmed.

[Brian Carragher]

Thats true, I made an assumption on the scource and I could be wrong

[Brian Carragher]

Last time I looked in Mark Lloyd was posting so I was interested in reading his response, maybe its gone or its in the holding area for those members who have'nt made their 15 posts yet, hope it appears later

[Mark Lloyd]

Dear All,

I've had this thread drawn to my attention.

This e-mail is not from a current member of staff of volunteer officer at AT.

While I'm here, and having read some of this thread, I'm sorry not to have been in touch with Dave following the publication of the piece I wrote a few months back and also for not having the time to get on this, or any of the myriad of other external forums, as much as I would like. I'd love to be able to write a monthly column and perhaps when we have appointed the new Marine Environmental Campaigns Manager, he or she will be able to write a column reporting on what they have been up to each month.

We remain, sadly, a small organisation with not enough resources to do everything we would like to do. It is a massive task, which requires a genuinely substantial organisation to deliver. Until we get larger membership numbers, we are always going to disappoint people by not delivering as much as they hope immediately.

With regard to Steve's post, he says various things which I would like to clarify for the sake of accuracy.

I would like to think that’s all in the past now and that the AT are ready to listen to, and act on, what anglers want; but I don’t think that’s the case. The fish removal byelaws that have just been announced by the EA seem to be very unpopular with a large percentage of those anglers who are aware of them. The AT seems to have been involved in the process, as mentioned in Mark Lloyd’s post on this forum, “The Angling Trust has been involved in the consultation leading up to the issuing of this draft, and we would be grateful if our members could let us know what they think of the new proposed rules.” It looks like this is another example of a few people imposing their will on the masses, for no good reason and for no benefit to anglers. Surely, the time to ask what anglers thought about the proposed restrictions would have been before or during the consultation, not after when it’s too late to do anything about them? A lot of anglers have been alienated by these pointless restrictions - and the AT appearing to have a hand in it, hasn’t exactly endeared it to the angling population in general. I think the fall out, once the majority of the country’s anglers find out what has happened, will be something to behold

The Agency contacted AT about the new byelaws in the middle of last year and we conveyed to them the wide range of views our members hold on this issue after consulting with the various nascent committees with knowledge in this area. Some would like to ban the taking of any coarse fish, while others see it as an important freedom to be able to take fish home to eat if they want. We also have members who manage trout fisheries by removing pike. We have some who livebait, and others who don't. We therefore told the Agency about this wide range of views, they drafted the byelaws, released the draft around Christmas and now there is a period of consultation open. We have now asked our members what they think about the draft so that we can go back to the Agency with a summary of their views.

 

The AT is also encouraging anglers to go onto the Marine Conservation Society website, to vote for which areas they want to be excluded from. This is like asking Turkeys to vote for when they would like Christmas.

The AT is encouraging anglers to go onto the MCS site to vote for areas from which they would like commercial fishing and other damaging activities excluded, but specifically we want anglers to vote for angling to continue in these areas. If we don't, we will end up with a network of Marine Protected Areas with no angling allowed.

 

There has also been talk of, what would effectively be, compulsory membership of AT through rod licences. Either a levy or by the AT becoming the licencing body.

There has been talk of a lot of things since the AT was formed! This is all talk and not something that is likely to become reality because it would require an act of parliament and for the AT to follow Treasury rules of expenditure, which would prevent it lobbying government for example.

 

As a member, I have not had one single email or letter asking me what I think about any of the AT’s policies. I, along with other people I know, have made several suggestions to those in positions of power within the AT, on how they might improve things and gain the support of ordinary anglers. All have been ignored

As a new organisation, our policies are just taking shape. The latest newsletter alerted all our members to our new Forum which allows all our members to let us know what they want us to do for them, to comment on any policy or membership issue. You have made use of it to post your views on many topics, in your own inimitable style. I think it's unfair to say that we don't want to listen. We've made it members-only because we really want the people who have contributed their £20 to have the chance to contribute to our policies and practices.

 

There is lots else in here which I could reply to, but I'm afraid running the AT is far more than a full time job and I don't have time.

 

Best wishes to all and I hope that we manage to convince a few sceptics to join up in 2010!

Mark