Jump to content

Angling Trust Forum


Elton

Recommended Posts

Mark, there has been a lot of discussion (as you are probably aware) about the AT serving the members and not the whole angling community.

 

One bone of contention regarding the proposed coarse fish legislation is that a lot of anglers knew nothing about it. Indeed many still know nothing. A mere 800 anglers filling in the consultation out of 1.5 million, 0.053%! I've had a better response than that to a couple of polls that I've put on this forum from an audience of potentially 18,000 members.

 

Would the AT be prepared to represent all anglers by requesting that the EA open the consultation to all anglers and not just specialist groups and the previous consultees?

 

I know it's late in the day but, if you don't ask you don't get.

 

Regards, Nick.

Eating wild caught fish is good for my health, reduces food miles and keeps me fit trying to catch them........it's my choice to do it, not yours to stop me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 566
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Mark, welcome back on to the forum. It's been about 4years since your last post, what you been up to? :D

 

 

On a more serious note, I can't comment much on Steves or Barrys posts, (sea fishing aint my forte). But from reading some of the comments on the AT forum, I, (as well as many others) see a big divide between the things they want from a representative body and the thing we want. If these comments are not in line with AT policy, would it not be in your own interest to say so on the forum? It would clear any chance of those of us with doubts, getting the wrong idea, and might even result in more members for your organisation.

 

John.

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title indeed shows exactly where it came from and also who it was copied, forward to. So there are other recipiants who know of it's existance. If there is any doubt, i'm sure it wouldn't be in thier interest to deny existance. No more on this email unless me arm is twisted up me back. :)

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Hi Mark, I think we have an idea who sent the e-mail round. The problem is that it was sent to a large number of anglers and influential people who may have believed it. I thank you for coming on here and clarifying the situation.

Like I said, the offer to promote the AT in BFM each month is still there when you are ready. If you want to just crash something out each month and e-mail it to me, I'll tidy it up and mail it back for approval before publication.

Even if it's just a few hundred words on anything at all that the AT are doing for sea anglers - it's a start.

 

I know you're a busy chap and you need more funding, but it's a catch 22 situation for you as far as I see. If you don't promote the AT to sea anglers through the myriads of free channels available, then take up on membership is still going to be slow - which equals less money to employ more staff and build a force to be reckoned with.

The longer it takes for membership to grow, and the work that the AT is doing to become public knowledge, the more time there is for bad feeling and wrong opinions to be formed - which again equalls less money to build with.

 

Regards,

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Barry, thank you for posting the e-mail on this forum. Whether or not the original sender is legit doesn't matter really, the important thing is that such an e-mail was sent to so many people in the first place. The last thing we need is a full scale slagging match - what we need is Angling Unity (that name rings a bell...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool, thanks Dave. I'll e-mail you regarding copy dates etc.

I'm aware of the great paradox facing the Trust - people won't join till we change the world, but we can't change the world unless people join. That's why my small team and I, and all the volunteers involved, have been doing all they can over very long hours to keep up with every e-mail, phone call, letter, campaign, press release, newsletter etc. to try and make a difference.

I'm signing off now and may not be back for a while - I just needed to chip in as I'm snowed in at home.

I'll be checking the AT Forum as regularly as possible however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Ive been asking for some time for someone from AT to come and talk to us and now the main man himself has.................call me cynical but I hope its not just because of the panic to quell "Email-gate* that would be the very final straw for me and the co incidence is very strong....

 

However I'm that keen to see a United Angling with a single "representative" body (please note not governing,well at least until the election of people in posts is brought in) that I will once again give the benefit of the doubt and try and discard the suspicion and doubts that the past couple of decades has brought to me.

 

Mark can you please just answer a few of my most burning questions (Ive read most of the AT web site but admitedly not all and anything else Ive come across (not that that's been much)?

 

1. Why the pi$$ poor communication with all of us anglers you claim to/want to represent?

 

2. Do you want to truly represent or is that not practical so you will "govern" instead?

 

3. How can I find out what the AT's views are on and proposals for issues that concern me?

 

4. And conversely are you interested in my (as in just a face less angler as opposed to me personally) views? if so how do you intend to get them?

 

5. How many members have you now in the AT and in your Forum (which I presume is a source of feedback to you on what your present members think? or am I wrong?

 

6. Most importantly how are policies decided ie general vote to members,a comittee or what?

 

Ive a million other more precise and detailed questions but understand that you must be busy so hopefully if you can answer my questions (none of which despite my poor wording are intended as "trick ones") that would then dependant on the answers allow me to decide whether to just forget the AT or enable me to carry on finding out more.

 

Oh I best point out as well as Ive no doubt you've never heard of me that my correct name is Steve Burgess (but even less would know me by that name!) and that BUDGIE is what everyone calls me and not just a user name I "hide behind"!

Edited by BUDGIE

And thats my "non indicative opinion"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 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.

 

 

Hello Mark, i don't really wish to detract from what has gone on tonight as i consider it important that all who reads understands the importance of what has 'gone on' and it is good that all are talking. :)

 

 

However,

 

Your first paragrapth, i understand that the consultation period has now gone. The EA have said that it will reply to any suggestions, whinges of it's proposels but it is now in the process of 'sorting' out the new by-laws, many have missed the boat. As a rsa i am annoyed to say the least that the eel no take is going to be made law out to six mile, without the likes of the rsa having a say. The EA cannot for one minute suggest that their proposels went out to all anglers for example as it did not. The eel situation was hidden within a freshwater consultation. We did not know until it was too late. What happend?

 

Second paragrapth is just as important to comment on. The rsa will have to be very, i repeat very clever when dealing with the mcs proposed mcz's. The mcs are recommending that the majority of the zones are to be ntz's. If the likes of us rsa do not make it abundantly clear in writing, we will be voting for their recommendation that it is to be a NTZ. Look at their very cleverly drafted, tick box, proposels. Their set up does not allow the rsa to ask for a continuation of angling, without going along with their proposel of a ntz. The further problem i have with this is the chosen areas. The majority of their 'jewels' are rocky outcrops, pinnicles, sea caves, etc, etc no trawling in any event and areas of shoreline have been used by the rsa for many, many years. It disturbs me greatly that their proposels again suggests that they should become ntz's. I have written to them by email, however, no responce. I'm afraid that they may have and are sticking to their agenda, that will mean restriction on the rsa. Not good, i hope you would agree.

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.