Angling Trust Forum

[Bob Bradford]

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 equals less money to build with.

 

Regards,

 

DB

 

Dave B, your last paragraph is poignant, there is so much ill informed opinion out there, the trouble is, some anglers are seizing upon this "information" to justify not joining the Angling Trust, why they do this is beyond me, after-all, it is their right not to join, so why not leave it at that? instead of spewing out lies and falsehoods at every opportunity? this issue alone frustrates and annoys the hell out of me, the amount of negativity generated by these thoughtless, selfish actions is very,very damaging and unfair to the Trust and to people like Mark Lloyd , anglers have to understand just how stretched the Trust is, in terms of money and time, remember, seven members of staff lost their jobs in this, their very first year....... why? because of lack of funds available to the Trust., this is bound to affect their performance is it not? ......... here we have the classic "chicken and egg" scenario.

I have stated many,many times that paying the £20 membership fee is a leap of faith , just as it was/ is for me , but logic dictates this is the ONLY way the Trust can start to deliver a proper service, anglers should look upon it as an investment with long term returns ,and not a get rich quick scheme, patience is required, a virtue I thought anglers were renowned for!

 

The truth is not palatable for some, but unfortunately the truth is, a lot of informed anglers are the guilty party in this, they just refuse to accept responsibility for it.

 

So I urge each and every one of you to put aside your prejudices and join the Angling Trust, part with your £20, put your full weight of support behind the concept and, as a joined up member, make sure the Trust delivers to the uninformed..........it is the only way, the duty is on you as a caring, informed and concerned angler.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Bob Bradford

[Worms]

Nick,

I'm happy to ask the question for you.

Otherwise join the AT (if you haven't already) and tell us what you think and we'll tell them for you.

Mark

Mark,

The main issue that I have with not joining the AT at the moment is, that the AT have been party to the latest coarse fish (and grayling) proposed legislation.

 

In 40 years of angling this is the single biggest negative event to affect my angling. I also strongly believe that fish stocks could suffer as a result of this proposed legislation. This does not put the AT in a good light from my view. Other anglers' concerns regarding MCZs/NTZs etc in the marine environment are also likely to affect me.

 

I consider myself to be an average "all-round" angler. I have fished from childhood and respected the few rules and regulations that we have had. When a "new" organisation comes on the scene claiming to represent all anglers and then supports minority groups' views with no apparent consideration for the "average" angler, well, forgive me but any thoughts I had on joining the Trust have been put somewhere near the bottom of my list of priorities. I know I am not alone.

 

The Angling Trust has the chance to be what it is advertised as, an organisation that supports all anglers. An organisation that, with the support of many more anglers could have a considerable voice when non-angling organisations/government departments/protest groups etc try and pressure angling or anglers. An organisation that, working in conjunction with the EA and DEFRA could provide and be shown to provide a service not just to anglers but to the non-angling public as regards sensible conservation measures of all our aquatic environments. The new Marine Bill has a lot of anglers worried as regards potential new legislation. The AT could be the body that allays those fears.

 

Until the AT listens to all anglers then I feel that angling in the UK will suffer untold damage. The mark has been set and a huge number of non AT anglers (that are aware of the issues) are very disillusioned. Responses on this and other fora from AT supporters have done nothing to engender support for the AT, quite the opposite in fact.

 

Communication, communication, communication! Not with the people that know but with the people that don't!

 

Regards, Nick.

[Worms]

Dave B, your last paragraph is poignant, there is so much ill informed opinion out there, the trouble is, some anglers are seizing upon this "information" to justify not joining the Angling Trust, why they do this is beyond me, after-all, it is their right not to join, so why not leave it at that? instead of spewing out lies and falsehoods at every opportunity? this issue alone frustrates and annoys the hell out of me, the amount of negativity generated by these thoughtless, selfish actions is very,very damaging and unfair to the Trust and to people like Mark Lloyd , anglers have to understand just how stretched the Trust is, in terms of money and time, remember, seven members of staff lost their jobs in this, their very first year....... why? because of lack of funds available to the Trust., this is bound to affect their performance is it not? ......... here we have the classic "chicken and egg" scenario.

I have stated many,many times that paying the £20 membership fee is a leap of faith , just as it was/ is for me , but logic dictates this is the ONLY way the Trust can start to deliver a proper service, anglers should look upon it as an investment with long term returns ,and not a get rich quick scheme, patience is required, a virtue I thought anglers were renowned for!

 

The truth is not palatable for some, but unfortunately the truth is, a lot of informed anglers are the guilty party in this, they just refuse to accept responsibility for it.

 

So I urge each and every one of you to put aside your prejudices and join the Angling Trust, part with your £20, put your full weight of support behind the concept and, as a joined up member, make sure the Trust delivers to the uninformed..........it is the only way, the duty is on you as a caring, informed and concerned angler.

 

Prejudices? We are talking about common sense here Bob.

 

The "duty" surely is on the "caring, informed and concerned angler" not to support badly thought out, panic led legislation that affects anglers and, could affect fish stocks. The laws are already in place to punish those that cause the problems. The manpower is not in place to enforce them. The proposed new legislation will not affect fish thieves one iota but it will affect legitimate anglers. This is not the ramblings of a "dinosaur", Adrian Taylor from the EA has already acknowledged this!

 

Eating freshwater coarse fish might not affect you Bob but it does affect others. The badly thought out age classes for grayling could affect grayling stocks. The result? Anglers and fish stocks could be negatively affected whilst fish thieves carry on unaffected. Annoying eh? Certainly not the best start for an angling body. All it needs is some communication and a show of good faith.

 

With respect Bob, just for a moment forget your prejudices and personal interests and try and view these proposals from the point of the many individuals who just like to fish for relaxation, fun and the occasional meal. This new legislation is a disaster!

[Mark Lloyd]

I've had the following response to my query about the bye-law consultation:

"It is a statutory consultation, open to anyone to object (or support!), either individual or organisations. No restrictions at all. I'd be interested to know where the notion that it is restricted, has come from?"

So, anyone is welcome to input.

[Worms]

I've had the following response to my query about the bye-law consultation:

"It is a statutory consultation, open to anyone to object (or support!), either individual or organisations. No restrictions at all. I'd be interested to know where the notion that it is restricted, has come from?"

So, anyone is welcome to input.

A strange response from them!

 

Extending the deadline and informing all rod licence holders directly would be a major coup though! Come on Mark, you can get them to do it!

[barry luxton]

Unless someone can correct me and i am reading the below wrong, the consultaion period has passed and right at this minute the EA are listening to objections, correct so far. They also state that they are introducing new bylaws come what may, correct?

 

I recon that whatever has been decided is already done and dusted. The EA have confirmed that they have been in contact with 'anglers' and already have had feedback to suit their needs. So again due to they way that this consultation was put out, any concerns from the rsa point of view is now lost BTW i like the bit where they state: This gives everyone an opportunity to support or object to them. That is an untrue statement.

.

 

 

Proposed new fisheries byelaws - Have your say

Have your say on our proposed new fisheries byelaws.

 

We are introducing new fisheries byelaws. These comprise –

 

a) restricting coarse fish, shad and eel removal by rod and line;

removing the coarse fish close season from certain stillwater fisheries;

c) removing the brown trout close season from enclosed stillwater fisheries;

 

We must also repeal existing byelaws that allows anglers to use the gaff and tailer as accessories to angling.

 

We are currently advertising the byelaws as we are obliged to by law. This gives everyone an opportunity to support or object to them.

 

You can view the byelaws and the reasons why we are introducing them –

 

coarse fish removal (PDF, 75KB);

coarse fish close season (PDF, 61KB);

brown trout close season (PDF, 50KB);

consequential byelaw amendments (PDF, 39KB)

 

Earlier this year we consulted on these byelaws.

 

Objections and Support

If you would like to object or offer your support to these byelaws, please write to –

 

Alexander Kinninmonth

Department for Environment, Food and

Rural Affairs

Marine and Freshwater Biodiversity Division

Area 2d,

Nobel House, 17 Smith Square

London

SW1P 3JR

 

alexander.kinninmonth@defra.gsi.gov.uk

or Graham Rees

Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru/Welsh Assembly Government

Yr Uned Bysgodfeydd/Fisheries Unit

Rhodfa Padarn

Llanbadarn Fawr

Aberystwyth

Ceredigion SY23 3UR

 

fisheries@wales.gsi.gov.uk

 

 

Objections must be received on or before Wednesday 20 January 2009.

 

Please send a copy to Mat Crocker, Head of Fisheries, Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD or by e-mail to Fisheries.

 

If you are objecting to a specific byelaw, please make this clear in your correspondence.

 

What happens now?

We are allowing five weeks for people to object or offer support to these byelaws.

 

We will reply to every objection, responding to the issues raised and inviting the objection to be withdrawn.

 

We will then apply to Defra and the Welsh Assembly Government to confirm the byelaws, complete with any suggested modifications and outstanding objections. Ministers can then decide whether to confirm the measures, with or without any changes.

 

Who to contact

If you have any queries, please e-mail Paul Lidigett

[Bob Bradford]

This is what I received in full via e-mail.

 

Dear sir or madam,

 

 

 

We are advertising new fisheries byelaws on 16 December 2009.

 

 

 

Earlier this year we invited you to contribute to a debate on proposed byelaws covering –

 

 

 

- coarse fish, eel and shad removal by rod and line;

 

- close seasons for brown trout and salmon in stillwaters;

 

- net fishing for eel and elver.

 

 

 

We received replies from over 1000 people and organisations, for which we are extremely grateful. We have collated and published a summary of the responses on our website at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homea...ing/112102.aspx.

 

 

 

The comments and views we received during this informal consultation helped us develop our proposals further. We are now advertising the final byelaws, as we are obliged to do in law, giving anyone an opportunity to object or offer support to them.

 

 

 

What byelaws are included?

 

 

 

Since the earlier consultation, we have decided to postpone our eel and elver net fishing proposals until 2011 (the urgent need to introduce net fishing close seasons for 2010 will be provided through another route). However, we are proceeding with proposals to –

 

 

 

- regulate coarse fish, eel and shad removal by rod and line;

 

- dispense with the brown trout close season on stillwater fisheries.

 

 

 

In addition, we are taking the opportunity to remove the coarse fishing close season from a 5 stillwater Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England, where angling is perceived not to affect the conservation value of the site, and from 22 enclosed stillwater fisheries which fall within, but are not part of the Norfolk Broads.

 

 

 

When the Marine and Coastal Access Act was made law in November 2009, it prohibited the use of the tailer and gaff as accessories to angling. We need to repeal existing byelaws that have allowed their use.

 

 

 

By advertising, we are giving anyone the opportunity offer support or object to the proposals. We have placed a statutory notice in the London Gazette and on-line adverts on the websites of the Times, Telegraph, Mirror, Western Mail and Daily Post and on several angling media websites. We have issued a press release to the angling and national media; written to the principal angling and fisheries representatives; and, via this e-mail, we are notifying the 850+ people who responded by e-mail to the informal consultation.

 

 

 

How can I respond?

 

 

 

A copy of each byelaw is attached, together with a short explanation. You can also obtain the byelaws from www.environment-agency.gov.uk/fish/byelaws, by phoning 08708 506 506* or from any Environment Agency office, where they may be inspected during office hours.

 

 

 

If you wish to object or offer support to the new byelaws, please write to Alexander Kinninmonth at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine and Freshwater Biodiversity Division, Area 2D, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR (alexander.kinninmonth@defra.gsi.gov.uk) or to Graham Rees at the Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru/Welsh Assembly Government, Yr Uned Bysgodfeydd/Fisheries Unit, Rhodfa Padarn, Llanbadarn Fawr, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3UR (fisheries@wales.gsi.gov.uk).

 

 

 

The closing date for objections is Wednesday 20 January 2010.

 

 

 

At the same time, please send a copy to Mat Crocker, Head of Fisheries, Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4UD or by e-mail to fisheries@environment-agency.gov.uk.

 

 

 

At the end of the consultation period, copies of the responses may be made public. The information contained may also be published in a summary of responses. If you do not consent to this, you must clearly request that your response be treated confidentially. You should also be aware that there may be circumstances in which the Environment Agency will be required to communicate information to third parties on request, in order to comply with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations.

 

 

 

What happens next?

 

 

 

We will reply to anyone objecting to the byelaws, responding to the issues they raise and inviting them to withdraw their objection. After 20 January, we will formally apply to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers for confirmation of the byelaws, enclosing any outstanding objections and suggested modifications.

 

 

 

I hope you find this helpful.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully

[Dick Dastardly]

Bob I presume they had your Email address because you brought your rod licence on line?

[Bob Bradford]

No Budgie, they e-mailed me because I was one of the few anglers to take part in their survey, I did this as an Un-elected, conscientious and concerned angler, the survey was brought to my attention by a member of another angling forum, he is also a member of the Angling Trust, and has already been criticized on here for having a view contrary to some !

 

It stands to reason the Angling Trust can only be viewed by the EA on it's membership numbers, so they will look at the 14,000 membership , plus any individual comments made by people like me , so therefore duplicated in many of the 800 responses received to them...........and plough on regardless! the first thing they will do is state only a small % of anglers responded to the proposals, so by default , the majority are for them......this is precisely why it is imperative that the majority of anglers join the Angling Trust.

 

This is what I mean by the majority of anglers choosing to be insignificant, not to me, not to the Angling Trust but to the Government and therefore the EA Government dept, this is what I keep banging my bloody head against mate.

[Worms]

No Budgie, they e-mailed me because I was one of the few anglers to take part in their survey, I did this as an Un-elected, conscientious and concerned angler, the survey was brought to my attention by a member of another angling forum, he is also a member of the Angling Trust, and has already been criticized on here for having a view contrary to some !

 

It stands to reason the Angling Trust can only be viewed by the EA on it's membership numbers, so they will look at the 14,000 membership , plus any individual comments made by people like me , so therefore duplicated in many of the 800 responses received to them...........and plough on regardless! the first thing they will do is state only a small % of anglers responded to the proposals, so by default , the majority are for them......this is precisely why it is imperative that the majority of anglers join the Angling Trust.

 

This is what I mean by the majority of anglers choosing to be insignificant, not to me, not to the Angling Trust but to the Government and therefore the EA Government dept, this is what I keep banging my bloody head against mate.

Bob, you freely admit the very point I've been trying to make. The EA didn't consult you initially about the consultation. You were told about it by a mate.....

 

I was informed the same way. I completed the consultation as a conscientious angler. I also was informed by the EA of the results because I was one of the tiny minority that replied.

 

The majority of anglers don't choose to be insignificant, nobody told them to consult!. Stop banging your head for a minute and just consider that!