Angling Trust Forum

[Worms]

This is the one I was thinking of, John: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/general...-reporting.html

 

Settle in for a long read

 

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but it may throw a bit of light on the wider picture, who knows.

Blimey, I've only read the first post and I feel better already

[Steve Coppolo]

Is it this one Andrew?

 

http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/barbel-...our-fish-6.html

 

Greg Whitehead comes in about post 55.

 

John.

 

Some very interesting views expressed on that forum, thanks for posting the link Gozzer. Some of the posters talk a lot of sense, particularly Ray Daywalker Clarke. He obviously knows what he's talking about and isn't swayed by the rumour, myth, hearsay, hysteria and peer pressure surrounding the Otter issue. I like him.

[barry luxton]

Don't you ever leave the sea fishing world Steve all the time i'm doing it that is. If you do that will be the day when we all should pack up and leave it to the think they are doing good, the over expensive admin, the tick box yes i want restricting brigade or it's the other anglers that need restricting camp.

 

Just looking at some postings on the AT web site where your replys are realistic and make sence. One in particular where he considers that the AT should have five years to get established, feet under the table. No disrespects, unfortunatly the threat and the restrictions are happening now right this very minute. Clear and present danger, to the sport that is. Think the rsa can wait that long, i don't

 

Next in the firing line is the mcz's, ntz's as with the recent dissapointments to the rsa i can see this going the same way, with the rsa getting the wrong end of the restrictions, that is a clear and present danger. Personally i would like to see some form of mission statement, ideas, from the AT instead of the reliance on a non-angling ngo's that quite obviously do not have the rsa interests at heart for one minute. A rear guard or side action on this important item will not be of any use whatever. A chance to lead from the front?

Edited January 9, 2010 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

Anglers are about to be royaly shafted over the fish removal byelaws, in particular eels. The Angling Trust should be kicking up a sh*t storm over it, but where are they? If the AT can't even defend anglers against such an obvious pasting, what is the point of it's existance? With even more obvious threat coming our way in the shape of MCZ's, MPA's, licences, bag limits, no take, etc, we are going to be on our own when it comes to defending ourselves against them.

 

I've done all I can to try to wake them up. Now I know it is a lost cause. All marketing and spin. Yet another toothless and ineffectual 'representative' body.

[wurzel]

Some very interesting views expressed on that forum, thanks for posting the link Gozzer. Some of the posters talk a lot of sense, particularly Ray Daywalker Clarke. He obviously knows what he's talking about and isn't swayed by the rumour, myth, hearsay, hysteria and peer pressure surrounding the Otter issue. I like him.

 

 

The daft looking fur ball is a labradoogle and if mine is any thing to go by ain't got the brains to be an otter hound.

[Bob Bradford]

Anglers are about to be royaly shafted over the fish removal byelaws, in particular eels. The Angling Trust should be kicking up a sh*t storm over it, but where are they? If the AT can't even defend anglers against such an obvious pasting, what is the point of it's existance?

 

The question anglers like Barry should be asking is;

 

What is the point of the Angling Trust existing, if anglers refuse to join it?

 

 

It is totally unrealistic to expect the Angling Trust to have the resources to fight tooth and nail for anglers rights with very little or no financial support.

 

Remind me again.................How many sea anglers are members of the Angling Trust?

 

 

No pay, no say.

[Steve Coppolo]

The question anglers like Barry should be asking is;

 

What is the point of the Angling Trust existing, if anglers refuse to join it?

 

 

It is totally unrealistic to expect the Angling Trust to have the resources to fight tooth and nail for anglers rights with very little or no financial support.

 

Remind me again.................How many sea anglers are members of the Angling Trust?

 

 

No pay, no say.

 

Going by the Angling Trusts own figures, 32% of it's members are sea anglers. But what that has to do with fighting for anglers rights, I don't know. I also don't know what financial support has to do with it either, when all of those doing the representating at the moment are doing so free of charge.

 

No pay, no say? If only it were as easy as that. If that were true, the Angling Trust would already be sunk and we wouldn't have to worry about the damage they can do to angling and fish stocks. At the moment, I'd happily pay them £20 to shut the f*ck up.

 

The AT's support for the new eel byelaws demonstrates their complete incompetence and lack of understanding of the subjects they are meddling with. I had a long discussion last night with someone who has seen the new SI and it is very clear that banning anglers, (who have no impact whatsoever), from taking eels has prevented measures that might have actually helped eel stocks. I came off of the phone very depressed and more than a little bit angry. As usual, the soft target has been hit to create the illusion of doing something, while doing nothing - and the Angling Trust have supported it. Well done the Angling Trust, for helping to screw anglers and eels stocks.

[barry luxton]

Do you go to the seaside Bob, or mores to the point a harbour and speak to rsa at all? I Speak with me mates and quite often newbies who are fishing for the first time, a lot. If you ask them a question, don't matter what question. The reply will be, 'never heard of that'.

 

I'm talking about hearing of all these do good ngo's, AT, new rules and regs, proposed new rules and regs. Mcz's, ntz's. Try it and see Bob. I do and i feel like a social leper. They don't know, they don't want to know. They just want to go fishing, like they always have. Ask yourself a question Bob, Why do the rsa need to know. If your honest answer is the rsa are being shafted as Steve puts it and i agree. Then we should be hearing, hands off defra, EA ,government etc, etc. All i hear is either silence or give me the money and all will be well. At the very least as a fellow angler, you should be cuddling them, not trying to rip their ears off 'cause they ain't paid due to for what they are to about to recieve. Look at most harbours and piers in the summer Bob, lots of guys and gals fishing on holiday for the odd mackerel, no mullet or bass now, in a certain harbour as they now belong to someone. Should they be paying their 20 quids, bothering about licences, bag limits etc, etc. The correct answer Bob should be no, don't you think?

 

The AT are under valuing themselves Bob. They advertise that they have more than 13k members. Thats a lot of clout, more than the nffo thats for sure, again all i can hear on behalf of the rsa in the dealing with the ea, defra, blady bla, lost that battle. The AT have made a point that they have four guys interested in things that are to do with the sea Bob, is that a start. Do you actually care about the rsa Bob, answer that one. I think you have with your post above, you look down at them with distain, all because they havn't paid Bob. Any thoughts for the rsa who have paid then Bob.

 

Your in my head again Steve

Edited January 10, 2010 by barry luxton

[Worms]

The question anglers like Barry should be asking is;

 

What is the point of the Angling Trust existing, if anglers refuse to join it?

I couldn't have put it better myself Bob,

 

Absolutely no point at all if they are not prepared to help all anglers.

 

Supporting anti-angling legislation isn't going to help anyone's cause

[Steve Coppolo]

Oh, and forget any ideas that yourt objections will be heard. Although we have until the 20th January to get them in, the new byelaws will come into force on the 15th!