Angling Trust Forum

[Steve Coppolo]

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

 

That is complete nonsense, of course, but I'm not surprised in the slightest. It's par for the course.

 

I have never been contacted by anyone from the Angling Trust. The only contact I have had with them has always been initiated by me. I sent a few emails to Mark Lloyd, I phoned Stuart McPherson once or twice when he was Marine Director, and I've phoned Mike Heylin once. I have never spoken to Tim McPhereson and I've never exchanged any emails with him.

 

My reasons for joining the AT have been well documented and I can assure you it had nothing to with anything said by Macphereson. I have stated it so many times now that I'm sick of repeating myself, but for the recod, I joined the Angling Trust because Stuart McPherson was elected as Marine Director and straight away decided not to support the 3 year Cefas study and data gathering excercise - and because Wayne McCully was elected as my local AT regional representative.

 

Since joining, Stuart McPherson has resigned, the AT's magnificent 7 have expressed support for a sea angling licence and Wayne McCully seems to have been wasting his time by 'Getting invoved and changing it from the inside'. I wrote about a couple of these things back in September, but instead of acting on what were obviously serious issues for sea anglers, certain individuals have chosen instead to embark on another dirty little email campaign to drag my name through the mud.

 

I've seen the series of emails, which was prompted by a piece in the Fishing News, and I'm not surprised by the names attached to them. Perhaps if those indiviuals were to do something more constructive than sending their dirty little emails to each other, they might actually manage to do something that benefits sea anglers? I won't hold my breath.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[Bob Bradford]

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!

 

The point is, if the Angling Trust had a much larger membership, the EA would be forced to consult it, therefore us as anglers, I repeat by anglers choosing not to join the Trust ,they are choosing to be insignificant, they have NO say whatsoever and the Trust has very little real clout, it is not brain surgery is it?

 

I am sure the Trust can and should do more to recruit anglers, I am sure they are far,far from perfect, I am sure I will never agree with all of their policy's, by I am equally sure, cutting my nose off to spoil my face is just plain daft, the end game or big picture if you like,is what overrides everything IMO, right now we have a chance to be represented and heard, kill that chance through lack of financial support and we are well and truly stuffed for ever, we will all just have to sit back and take whatever the EA dish out to us, I do not care how many e-mails or letters Barry Luxton sends either, admirable as they are, it will count for precisely nothing mate.

Edited January 7, 2010 by Bob Bradford

[Worms]

The point is, if the Angling Trust had a much larger membership, the EA would be forced to consult it, therefore us as anglers, I repeat by anglers choosing not to join the Trust ,they are choosing to be insignificant, they have NO say whatsoever and the Trust has very little real clout, it is not brain surgery is it?

 

I agree, if the AT increased their membership they would have even more say. More importantly they would be more representative. The fact that with their 10,000 (est.) membership at the time of the consultation, of which they were a significant voice they supported legislation that would negatively affect anglers when the idea was to conserve fish stocks and prevent illegal fish theft! The anglers choosing not to join the trust are those that have seen them support "anti-angling" legislation. The vast majority of anglers are probably still unaware of the Trust's existence. They are not choosing not to join. It's no good banging on about the few who know about it Bob, all anglers need to know and be kept in the loop. They pay for a licence and the EA have a responsibility to inform all of them about the legislation/consultations etc. The AT should be pushing the EA to do so, not supporting useless legislation that will end up with legal anglers being penalised whilst illegal fish thieves continue unabated........no it's not brain surgery, just common sense.......or is that subject to catch and release as well now?

 

 

 

I am sure the Trust can and should do more to recruit anglers, I am sure they are far,far from perfect, I am sure I will never agree with all of their policy's, by I am equally sure, cutting my nose off to spoil my face is just plain daft, the end game or big picture if you like,is what overrides everything IMO, right now we have a chance to be represented and heard, kill that chance through lack of financial support and we are well and truly stuffed for ever, we will all just have to sit back and take whatever the EA dish out to us, I do not care how many e-mails or letters Barry Buxton sends either, admirable as they are, it will count for precisely nothing mate.

 

It would appear that e-mails are figuring quite highly in importance at the moment. I've received one this morning that could shock a few. The AT have already disassociated themselves from the contents of it I'm glad to say. There's a lot of crap flying about out there that could damage angling VERY, VERY BADLY sent by people that should know better!

[barry luxton]

I do not care how many e-mails or letters Barry Luxton sends either, admirable as they are, it will count for precisely nothing mate.

 

 

I certainly don't beleive it to be the case, this topic has 'livend' up since yesterday, you would have to agree on that. Just to let you know seedy emails are still continuing as i write.

 

Is it ok if i have lunch at the mo, someone else can have a go.

Edited January 7, 2010 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

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.

 

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.

 

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 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

 

Hello Mark

You say that email isn't from a member of staff or volunteer officer at AT, but I believe his name appears on an AT email circulation list alongside members of your committee and conservation group? If non members of staff or volunteer officers at AT are allowed on that email circulation list, could you put me on it as well, please?

 

There are emails linked to the one mentioned that most certainly are from members of staff or volunteer officers at AT. I just find it sad that these people take the attitude that they do over what are obviously valid concerns to the anglers they claim to represent. At the end of the day, I don't make these things happen, I just write about them. I didn't see any complaints when I wrote two very positive articles about good things the AT had done? Perhaps we are only supposed to highlight the good things and keep quiet about anything else? I'm quite disturbed by some of the things I'm seeing and hearing concerning the AT, to be honest. Apart from the dirty little emails linked to the AT that are doing the rounds at the moment, word got back to me a while ago that two of your members of staff or volunteer officers at AT, (one high profile and one marine committee member), had expressed the need to 'sort out' Wayne McCully and myself. I know this might only be a rumour, (and I did laugh when I heard it), but, in my experience, there is rarely smoke without fire. It seems to me that, apart from wanting to control where, when and how we all fish; there is an element within the AT and it's followers that also wants to control what we think, say and write. Since when have people in the UK not been allowed to form their own opinions and express their own views without being subjected to this sort of rubbish? It's ridiculous.

 

With regard to the fish removal byelaws, I'm glad to hear that the AT will use their members views when responding to the consultation, not the views of those who helped with the drafting of the proposed byelaws.

 

The MCS site gives quite an extensive list of sites that they have proposed for MCZ's . The MCS, to the best of my knowledge, will not be makng decisions on where the MCZ's will be sited, any more than the AT will be. Therefore, I see anglers voting for where the MCS would lke these exclusion zones to be sited, (where anglers may, or may not, be allowed), a bit strange. Why doesn't the AT come up with it's own list of proposed sites, (where anglers will definately be allowed), and get anglers to vote on those, instead? I think the likelyhood of anglers being allowed to fish unrestricted in any of the MCS proposed sites, while commercial fishing is banned, is small. I would imagine that the more votes the MCS proposed sites get, the greater chance they have of becoming MCZ's. Therefore, personally, I don't think it is in anglers' best interest to go onto the MCS website to vote for them.

 

I know you are working very hard to make the Angling Trust succeed, but you can only work with what you have. Whether you manage to convince a few sceptics to join up in 2010 will depend on what you do; not what I, or anyone else, says!

[Steve Coppolo]

Oh, and can you ask John Brooks exactly what it is he thinks I'm trying to 'achieve' on the AT forum?

Edited January 7, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[barry luxton]

I'll write you 800 words a month with pleasure Mike providing I can source quotes from yourself, the rest of the board and the chief exec for that purpose. I can't take photos at events or at your offices but I'd endeavour to supply or source any you felt were required.

Give me a brief and some deadlines and I'll make sure you have exactly what you think you need at the same time every calendar month. Feel free to ring and chat about it.

I wasn't 'squabbling' as such, simply saying I didn't get where where sea anglers are coming from. I'm not even sure they know where they're coming from sometimes.

Yes, the C&R versus food debate is a very interesting and important one. Some form of conservation platform is something that unites us all - I'm sure we'd agree on that....

Best regards,

 

Greg Whitehead,

Angling Times News Reporter

Tel: 01733 395103

 

A copy word for word of yet another one of those 'emails' First sight this guy appears to be doing the AT a favour, however sight of yet another email going around from the same guy, my opinion is that he will be doing the AT no good at all, as he don't know or understand where the rsa are coming from. So the suggestion for this guy is to go away and study, then you may be of use. Don't want a unqualified 'rep' or ambassador or whatever he makes himself out to be speaking on my behalf.

Edited January 7, 2010 by barry luxton

[Dick Dastardly]

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"!

 

Just in case it was accidently missed...

[barry luxton]

Wow, i just have to put this one up as again he proves that he don't know what being a rsa is about, least of all write about them. Hope you are reading this Greg, don't bother commenting even if you can as your little narrow brain won't let you. I can see you are one who have been duped into thinking that the fish on the super market slabs are for real, cod you don't know the meaning of it, nor real jellied eels for that matter. Shortly to be made even more valuable because of a few no nothing do gooders. I let you into a little rsa secret. They are not real. Until you understand that little piece of information you will be doing no one any service.

 

Proud to copy this bit of mis-information.

 

And as for the much repeated claim that anglers have a right to fish for food, I for one am bored senseless by it.

It will always be cheaper to go to the supermarket to buy cod than trying to catch it yourself, especially in terms of effort and probably in monetary terms as well.

Every single recreational angler in this country is first and foremost fishing for pleasure and for sport, anyone who claims that is not the main reason they go fishing is either delusional or a liar. If an angler gets to take their catch home for the table then its a bonus.

Stop trying to defend our right to fish by claiming it's a right to catch food because it's not. It's our right to go out into the countryside, enjoy our surroundings and stick hooks in fish, whether we kill them or return them is merely splitting hairs in the greater scheme of things. At least those practising catch and release can make a strong conservation case, not so those killing most of what they catch!

 

 

Greg Whitehead,

Angling Times News Reporter

Tel: 01733 395103

 

-----Original Message-----

 

Sorry Budgie, welcome back.

Edited January 7, 2010 by barry luxton

[Mark Lloyd]

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?

 

Dear Budgie, I'll reply using your numbers.

1. Short answer: lack of resources (money & staff). There are millions of anglers and if we were to write to them all we'd be broke after the first letter! We have tried to use our web site (which I know is less than perfect), press releases, newsletters to members (downloadable from the web site), e-updates to members (which we urge people to forward to non-members) to let people know what we are doing. The first year was extremely busy, setting up new membership systems, procedures, adverts, leaflets, bank accounts, winding up the old organisation, putting in place regional structures, meeting potential funders etc. etc. We managed to get the EA to send a copy of our membership leaflet setting out our aims FOC with the rod licence. We obviously plan to improve our performance on this, but we are currently short-staffed in this area so we rely on volunteers to help me do it as well as running the business. We fell about 6,500 members short of expectations last year, so we have £130,000 less funds to improve our communications from pi$$ poor to $h1t hot!

 

2. We want to represent our membership. We hope that it will get large enough for this to be an adequate mandate. We don't have any interest in "governing", despite being the National Governing Body. We will run national and international competitions, and make the rules for nationals, but there's a lot more to angling, and the Angling Trust than that. Our principal reason for existence is representing our members. We can't represent people who don't pay £20 a year.

 

3. We have now set up our forum so that if issues arise on which a policy is required, our members can raise them on the forum and then other members can have their say and we will draw up a policy. There are also local consultatives around the country (not complete coverage by any means) and other groupings of anglers which will be represented at our Freshwater Regional Forums. These Forums are still being set up because it has taken time to negotiate with the previous organisations' regional structures, and we haven't had the staff time or money to invest in this. However, it is a priority for 2010. Each Regional Forum will nominate someone to be represented on a national Freshwater Committee which will also draft policies. These policies will be open to all our members to comment on. there are marine regions in place and they will be better advertised next year so that RSAs can attend them and have their say. The Chairmen of the marine regions are represented on our Marine Committee, which makes recommendations about policies.

We're feeling our way here, but we're keen to have efficient structures in place so that our members can tell us what they want us to do for them. We will let our members know where and when consultative meetings are being held so that they can attend.

 

4. I think 3 above answers this. If you're not a member, then I'm afraid I haven't the resources to seek you out and find out what you think!

 

5. We have nearly 13,500 individual members and 1,271 clubs. membership of the Forum is still small, as we only launched it in January.

 

6. I think that 3 above answers this.

 

In short, we are only as good as the size of our membership. Our resources at present are so stretched that much of our work isn't anything like as good as I had hoped when we launched in January 2009. I hope that we will get there by persuading anglers to part with £20 and support what is still a new organisation taking shape. I'm certain that we made a grave error by selling the future to people last January and then when people saw that we hadn't become that by June they decided not to join. We should have been clearer that it would take time for us to become an all singing, all dancing organisation to represent all anglers (although I'm not promising to sing or dance). It will also require lots of people to give us a chance and stick with us for a year or two while we go about the process of creating a really important organisation to represent this enormous sport/pursuit/religion that we all love. Rome wasn't built in a day.

What I am sure about is that we have a better organisation now than the sum of all the many and various parts which went into forming it. There are lots of people who are keen to see it fail, mainly so that they can be proved right, and if they keep shouting loudly enough about our failures then they will be accurate prophets of doom. But if enough people get behind us, we can prove the sceptics wrong and the future of angling will be secure.

I hope that this helps persuade you and others to contribute to this very ambitious project.

All best wishes,

Mark