Angling Trust Forum

[barry luxton]

Ok Barry and all the other guys/girls out there, I have now crossed over to promote the AT.

 

If you are prepared to discuss the problems with angling sensibly I promise to listen to you. Now is the time to move forward so I will make the first move, I am sorry for the FREEEDOMMM dig.................... my HALO slipped lol, and I accept Barry's apology.

 

The AT has now published their strategy and I strongly recommend that you look at it

 

 

Good evening, Welcome to you, any chance you can use your real name if you wish to discuss the issues, level playing field, why the A T are not condusive to the well being of the rsa scene. At present the rsa have a thriving healthy profitable industry, what can the A T do to improve on that?

 

Me apologise, did i .

 

You certainly won't get stick from me, You will need to step up the game on behalf of the A T if you want to try and convince me that they are going to be worth spending 20 quid on. So far they have failed. I would welcome your take on the issues that i feel the A T have failed so far regarding the rsa.

 

Hiding the issue of the freshwater consultation from the rsa, then deciding to offer unnessersary restrictions on anglers behalfs without consultation, are you going to defend that.

 

Lack of care, no evidence offered for the new restrictions on the rsa at christchurch.

 

The A T washing their hands from the new mcz proposels and recommending the rsa deal with a quango who's only remit is to try to have the majority of the sites turned into ntz's without any evidence of wrong doing by the rsa. Restrictions.

 

And you want the likes of the rsa to joint the A T. What for? Why do you think the rsa need representing? Do you think the ethos of the rsa needs to change from no restrictions to fully controlled, restricted and run by an org who's idea is to be the controlling body? Why do i need to be controlled out at thirty five miles offshore while enjoying my sport. What about log books, licences, bag limits, blady blah. If the rsa are to join the A T, this is what the A T will be dealing with, can the rsa scuse the pun, trust them?

 

 

It's all very well publishing a strategy, after that the need is to stick to it, do you think the A T can, based on what has gone on before?

Much like a government manifesto.

 

Send that Arthur guy over here, that would be good, along with Yates, if he's a member.

 

I make no apology for posting this photo yet again, this is one spot that the mcs want to class as a ntz, do you think there is a need to stop people from enjoying thier sport, why do you think they need to stop the guy in the photo from fishing there, answer that one without giving us any blurb, because that is what these ngo's are going to do. And the A T are powerless to stop them even if they had the desire to do so, which i doubt.

 

Edited February 16, 2010 by barry luxton

[Sharkbyte]

Wayne McCully, where do you stand! The anglers on this forum need to know the truth, now that YOUR organization has a strategy how will you promote it?

 

Hi Reg

 

What do mean, 'where do you stand'? Between various AT forum posts, and my PM to you (also published on the AT forum), I am stunned that you ask. http://anglingtrust.forumotion.net/open-de...-letter-t62.htm

FTR, I am of the opinion that this 'AT policy' we keep hearing about is being undermined by a number of totally incompetent individuals who are neither representative, or posses a valid mandate.

 

Unless certain issues are addressed, sadly, I will not be promoting anything to do with the AT for the foreseeable future. However, I will continue to make every effort to ferociously protect the long term interests of sea anglers, Essex based, or not, within the AT. Newsletters and PR exercises mean precious little to a bloke who stuck his neck out, and as a consequence has been left completely and utterly humiliated.

 

To be honest, and without being rude, I am not inclined to contribute anything further to the online debate at this time. On the 27th February I'll be driving up to Birmingham to make my case, again, to the AT Chairman, CEO, and the rest of the Marine Committee.

 

 

 

 

I only wish that AT meetings were recorded and published, in full, on YouTube......... alongside the promotional clips.

 

 

 

PS. Have you applied for either of the advertised positions on the AT (Conservation Group / Marine Chairman). I will be completely honest and state that I have become increasingly suspicious by your staunch support for the AT, and blind refusal to accept the opinions of others who are in a far better position to make / defend them.

 

PPS. I did try to phone you a couple of times a few weeks ago, after you gave me your number. The missed calls will have 111144 in them.

 

 

[Sharkbyte]

Nice photo, Barry.

 

I see a father and son enjoying their time out together, catching fish, and unwittingly laying down lifelong memories to look back upon in years to come. With any luck, your lad took a few fish home to his Mum, proud as punch and beaming from ear to ear, for her to cook up for the family later that evening.

 

Unfortunately, others would only see a couple of urchins, probably responsible for any litter in the area, hauling innocent fish, most likely under mls, out from their dwellings and not treating them with the respect that they deserve. No wonder the seas are 'barren'.....

[Yido]

Good evening, Welcome to you, any chance you can use your real name if you wish to discuss the issues, level playing field, why the A T are not condusive to the well being of the rsa scene. At present the rsa have a thriving healthy profitable industry, what can the A T do to improve on that?

 

Me apologise, did i .

 

You certainly won't get stick from me, You will need to step up the game on behalf of the A T if you want to try and convince me that they are going to be worth spending 20 quid on. So far they have failed. I would welcome your take on the issues that i feel the A T have failed so far regarding the rsa.

 

Hiding the issue of the freshwater consultation from the rsa, then deciding to offer unnessersary restrictions on anglers behalfs without consultation, are you going to defend that.

 

Lack of care, no evidence offered for the new restrictions on the rsa at christchurch.

 

The A T washing their hands from the new mcz proposels and recommending the rsa deal with a quango who's only remit is to try to have the majority of the sites turned into ntz's without any evidence of wrong doing by the rsa. Restrictions.

 

And you want the likes of the rsa to joint the A T. What for? Why do you think the rsa need representing? Do you think the ethos of the rsa needs to change from no restrictions to fully controlled, restricted and run by an org who's idea is to be the controlling body? Why do i need to be controlled out at thirty five miles offshore while enjoying my sport. What about log books, licences, bag limits, blady blah. If the rsa are to join the A T, this is what the A T will be dealing with, can the rsa scuse the pun, trust them?

 

 

It's all very well publishing a strategy, after that the need is to stick to it, do you think the A T can, based on what has gone on before?

Much like a government manifesto.

 

Send that Arthur guy over here, that would be good, along with Yates, if he's a member.

 

I make no apology for posting this photo yet again, this is one spot that the mcs want to class as a ntz, do you think there is a need to stop people from enjoying thier sport, why do you think they need to stop the guy in the photo from fishing there, answer that one without giving us any blurb, because that is what these ngo's are going to do. And the A T are powerless to stop them even if they had the desire to do so, which i doubt.

 

 

 

Hi Barry, for the members of this forum I am Reg Phillips, a sea angler for thirty years. Just an ordinary bloke who loves fishing, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I understand your concerns and in the past some of them matched mine, but I have taken time to ask those questions and try to find out the truth. That is what the whole issue is here Barry, if you want answers then talk to the people who know, Mark Lloyd and Mike Heylin, all you have to do is contact them. That said I will answer those questions as best I can, although I do not claim to now everything as I am still finding answers myself, but here goes:

 

The RSA do not have a thriving healthy profitable industry, many tackle shops have already closed down, and some others are struggling to keep their head above the water, at least that is the case in our area. How do I know this........ I have fished the same area for thirty years, Brighton, Shoreham, Worthing have lost several over the years, the latest Brighton Angler by the Palace pier. I know there are other factors involved but the lack of fish and the closure of several popular venues have been a deciding factor. One of our club members runs his own tackle shop and if what he says is true, it is not as rosy as you might think.

 

The AT strategy for fighting against the EU proposals, Common Fisheries Policy, fight against the dumping of thousands of tonnes of dead fish back into the sea, the Golden Mile, fighting to regain popular fishing venues, when successful will prove to be the turning point in RSA. For it to be successful all anglers need to support the AT. Have a look at the Angling Trust's Official Response to the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy it is a real eye opener. If you cannot find a copy then I can email one to you, once you have read it you will know why sea anglers must join the fight. If the AT wins what is winnable then that chap in the photo will have nothing to worry about, and nor will you.

 

Hiding the issue of the freshwater consultation from the RSA etc:

There is a unified belief that the AT made a mistake on this issue, though it did consult a small number of members, they should of held back to gain a larger view of anglers. That said, the AT has to answer to the members of the Angling Trust, NOT anglers who decide to do nothing, pay nothing and try to destroy the future of those anglers that want to improve our sport. Harsh words I know, but it has to be said. If you are not happy then join and have your say, have a right moan, give it your best shot, what have you got to lose, £20. If your not prepared to lose £20 then it can't bother you that much. What would have been the decision after total and full out consultation, exactly the same answer as it has taken, with the full support of the majority of caring anglers.

 

The EA, Marine scientists, Natural England, wildlife trusts and other organizations together with the AT agreed on this policy, because the people who have studied the plight of the eel and other vulnerable species informed them of the dangers. Take the eel, we have lost 95% of the silver eels in european waters, with all honesty there was no need for debate, we have to support this or we will lose the eel for ever. Yes anglers do not damage eel stocks blar blar blar, but we must be seen to be doing the right thing so that it cannot be thrown back in our faces.

 

RSA at Christchurch:

 

Sorry Barry I do not know enough about this to answer your question properly, all I can say is that I heard that the area involved is privately owned and 99% of them wanted the Mullet protected as C+R only. Surely the majority rule on this one? C+R for the mullet does not extend outside this area so what is the problem. Maybe you should be asking this question to the NMC. A little sacrifice here and there can go a long way in the eyes of Natural England, Wildllife Trusts and other organizations.

 

MCZ's etc:

 

Who told you they have washed their hands of this subject, just wait and see, reliable AT representative sources have told me completely the opposite. Don't believe me...... you will.

 

What you may not know is that the AT are doing lots of things for RSA, but because you don't get to read this in the angling press as it will not sell magazines, people assume that they are doing nothing. Ask Mark Lloyd and Mike Heylin what is the AT doing for RSA, they will put you in the picture. At the moment the Angling Press are telling you, what they think, you want to hear, they do not want to go out on a limb because they do not want egg on their face, a very poor attitude.

 

Yes I believe that RSA needs governing, if it improves our fish stocks, our right to fish piers, jetties, harbour arms without persecution. Or we can all carry on as normal, do nothing, represent nothing, pay nothing, give nothing back to the sport that we all love so much, and continue to catch the odd fish here and there, ...............................until their all gone. Then take up golf.

 

It is time to give something back to our sport, protect the future, adapt for the better good of our sport. Are you prepared to walk away from your sport when it needs you more than ever, your sport needs your voice, your protection, the AT is asking all responsible anglers throughout the country to stand up and fight for the future of all angling. The question should not be can RSA trust the Angling Trust, the question being asked right now is can the Angling Trust, trust RSA, only time will tell. If you truly believe in securing the future of your sport then do it now.

 

Bag limits, log books, licence etc:

 

These are the things the AT are fighting against, FOR YOU, even though you are not joining. Can they do it.... not if you let RSA down by not supporting us. For Gods sake take a chance for once in your life, ask yourself how much do you care, is it worth £20 a year. If the answer is no then RSA is not worth protecting is it. So it's one less pint in the pub each week, one less ruby murry, do you care or not?

 

AT strategy, can they deliver etc:

 

With the full support of all caring anglers YES without doubt.

 

I have answered your questions as best I can, so heres a few for you.

 

Do you go freshwater fishing, pay a licence, or day licence, pay again at the venue of choice, enjoy the sport of freshwater fishing. Why can't you do the same for RSA?

 

Our freshwater brothers want unity, their problems are the same as ours, just different forms of the same problems. They are asking for your support and in return they will give us their support, are you prepared to throw that away to save £20 now, and take the chances of losing RSA forever?

 

The reason why RSA has no voice is because we are weak, most will not stand up and fight for what is ours, just sit back and attack others that want a better future. The same people that will profit from the success of the AT without paying a thing towards the fight, the same people who are waiting to say I TOLD YOU SO MUPPET! if it all goes wrong, are you prepared to let that happen?

 

This is why outsiders have walked all over RSA for the past 40 years, because we let them. This is why we are losing our rights to fish beaches, piers, jetties and harbour arms, this is why the man in your photo will lose his right to fish there, not ANGLING TRUST POLICY. This is why we have the threats of log books, NTZ's and rod licence, because of a weak RSA.

 

Look in the mirror Barry, what do you see, the future or the past?

 

Yes we have to adapt, yes we will have to sacrifice some minor things, yes, yes, yes. But look at what we could have in a few years, more and better fish, less commercial cativity, improved spawning grounds, new wreck sites, a vastly improved shore sport for all to enjoy, a very bright future. Everyone will benift from the efforts everyone puts in now, so I say give the AT four to five years, if it still goes wrong then at least we can all say NOT GUILTY.

 

Keep hold of that photo Barry he might just come over and shake you hand, or punch you right in the kisser!

[barry luxton]

Nice photo, Barry.

 

I see a father and son enjoying their time out together, catching fish, and unwittingly laying down lifelong memories to look back upon in years to come. With any luck, your lad took a few fish home to his Mum, proud as punch and beaming from ear to ear, for her to cook up for the family later that evening.

 

Unfortunately, others would only see a couple of urchins, probably responsible for any litter in the area, hauling innocent fish, most likely under mls, out from their dwellings and not treating them with the respect that they deserve. No wonder the seas are 'barren'.....

 

You are exactly right Wayne, thirty years i have been going down there, that's a foto of my boy who has now caught his first pollock, that was returned btw. This is the spot where two lots of our families , not just father and son, but three generations, have been going in recent years, a few mackerel, cooked immeadiatly on the barbie. Taken a few bags of rubbish up out of the quarry myself, walking a mile and a half, some of it extreamly uphill.

 

This is what the do gooders wish to ban, this is what the A T have washed their hands of. How the hell can anyone in their right minds wish to stop something like this. This is why there is resistance and for gawds sake, does anyone expect anything different. Now tell me Reg, what can the A T do to turn this around?

 

The mcs argument for closing this area is sea caves and rock pinnicles, tell me, what damage can this angler and their families do Reg. The rock pinnicles are west of this point Reg, in an area that can only be fished by mountain goats, so that is protected naturally in any event, with a 300' cliff. This is the area that the mcs have said will benifit from overspill of the protected specis for us anglers to enjoy. All of this area is of rock, unfishable apart from rod and line and potting, for the last three generations that i know of. The mcs state that trawlers work nearby. Reg, it is just around the corner from Brixham harbour, thats why Reg. And the mcs with backing from the A T want to put a stop to these dreadfull activities for the good of all. You agree with that Reg? Please don't offer up the win some loose some chestnut in this instance either as you will have wasted time and will be disrespectful to my knowledge of the area, just like the mcs are.

 

It's not a rant Reg, it's fact. Can you offer up a reasoned argument that the A T have got it right? Bring on the 'big' guns like Arthur, can he offer up something to the benifit in this case. I very much doubt it, willing to listen though.

 

How do you argue against this realisticly and honestly. No contest.

 

I have also botherd to use this poster now and again Reg because i care very much for the area, and with the A T's help this is what they want to take away from me and no doubt many thousands of other people in the future, what can the A T do to placate my fear of what they are about to cock up Reg.

Right, i'm now off plundering somewhere near the french coast today, can the A T help me? Back this evening, looking forward to the reply already.

 

Edited February 17, 2010 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

Hello Reg.

 

I appreciate that you mean well, but would urge you to learn a bit more about the subject you are preaching about before coming onto a forum like this, (where most users are pretty clued up), and preaching to us about what the the Angling Trust can do for us.

 

I've just read all of what you've written on this thread and, quite frankly, there is absolutely no substance to any of it. It reads pretty much like the constant stream of bull punted by the people you are seeking to promote, i.e, a wish list or some head in the clouds fantasy. Unfortunately, the reality is a long, long way from the idealistic scenarios that you set. I haven't got the time, or inclination to deal with all the issues you raise, not least because I've alrready covered most of them on the Angling Trust forum, but there are one or two that are crying out to be addressed.

 

You mention the CFP. What is the Angling Trust stance on the CFP? And I don't mean, what are the Angling Trust telling people their stance is. The two are totally different. For your information, the NFSA, along with the EAA, actively campaigned to get angling recognised and included within the CFP. So what has this got to do with the Angling Trust? Well, regardless of what various AT bods may say, the sea angling section of the Angling Trust IS the NFSA. Same people, same ideas, same agendas, different name. And, they are still intent on working alonside the EAA. Between them, they failed to see the dangers caonatined within Article 47 and did their best to reassure people that it would all be O.K. They have since realised that inclusion within the CFP isn't such a good idea after all.

 

On the subject of the Angling Trust sea angling section being the same old, same old, ask the two people who you say are the ones to talk to if we want the 'truth', what happened to the proposal to disband the marine conservation group. It was voted on and carried at the last Marine Committee meeting. The plan was, I am reliably informed, to advertise the vacant positions in all the angling media and on the forums to make sure the AT could draw on as wide a range of knowledge and experience possible. A sensible proposal that would have benefitted sea angling, but one which was ignored and not acted upon. As a result, we've still got the same old NFSA, SACN and BASS faces running the show.

 

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that plans that have already proved to be unpopular with the countrys sea anglers, plans that were pushed by the old NFSA, are still being pushed by the Angling Trust. The RSA strategy, for instance. Everyone knows how unpopular that was, yet the Angling Trust are still trying to push it through. Why should any sea angler support an organisation that is acting directly against their wishes? There isn't an answer, Reg. You, or any of the people you are trying to defend, can spout more Angling Trust bullS*** and spin if you like, but actions speak louder than words. So far, all I've seen coming from the AT's direction is words - and even they change almost from day to day!

 

As for Dave being made to eat his words, I almost choked on my cornflakes when I read that! Dave has bent over backwards to accomodate the Angling Trust. We have both given them every opportunity to deliver something and to act on the promises they keep making. Unfortunately, the AT has made us both look foolish several times now, by dropping clanger after clanger. You can only give people so many chances, Reg. Empty words and rhetoric count for nothing. All I keep reading from the likes of yourself is, "We've all got to get behind the Angling Trust or we are doomed". and, "The Angling Trust is the only game in town, so we should all get behind it". It's total rubbish. The angling media have a duty to keep the anglers informed of what's really going on. Not to spin them the latest round of propaganda and bull****. In my opinion, Dave and myself are fullfilling our obligation.

 

The AT has been going for over a year now and, in my opinion, they have done more damage to angling, than good. And that is worse than doing nothing! The words of Mark Lloyd and Mike Heylin mean nothing if the people on the committees just push ahead with their own agendas, regardless. They've got all manner of AT loyal mouthpieces spouting off and damaging the image of angling, and all the AT can say about it is, "Well, that's not AT policy". It's pathetic. They need to get a grip.

 

If I were you, Reg, (as you've now joined this forum), I would go away and spend a few days, or weeks, researching the subjects that that you mention, which are important to sea anglers. This forum is a very good source of info. Use the search facility. Also, if you don't mind forking out another £20, join BASS and use the search faclity on their forum to read all about the RSA strategy and other equally important topics. Then, come back and tell us what the Angling Trust are doing for sea anglers. (While you're at it, search the coarse forum, too, and then do the same with regard to coarse angling).

 

We are all adults, we all know what the Angling Trust is, where it is, and who it is. We also know what it is doing and what it is not doing. I don't need people telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing, or what I should and shouldn't be supporting. I make my mind up based on the evidence presented in front of me, not empty words and false promises. I would imagine that most AnglersNet members are the same. Come back with something good that the AT are doing, or have done, and I'm sure you'll get a different reaction.

 

Regards

Steve

 

 

P.S. It's good that you care enough to want to make a diference, but if you carry on going about it like this, the AT are going to make you look very foolish.

 

P.P.S. To suggest that people aren't joining because it costs £20, is an insult. I give far more than £20 to charity every year. As things stand, I wouldn't give the Angling Trust 10p.

[Jaffa]

the Golden Mile

 

A great line for the advert makers but a stupid idea. If the AT are pushing for this then that alone is enough to convince me they are really all about pushing the agendas of green NGO's and are utterly remote from everyday peeps.

 

Why is the AT pushing for a "golden mile" and who suggested they do so?

Edited February 17, 2010 by Jaffa

[Steve Coppolo]

A great line for the advert makers but a stupid idea. If the AT are pushing for this then that alone is enough to convince me they are really all about pushing the agendas of green NGO's and are utterly remote from everyday peeps.

 

Why is the AT pushing for a "golden mile" and who suggested they do so?

 

 

I agree. It's just another example of the AT jumping on any band wagon that they think will be popular with Anglers, without actually looking into what it would, or could, mean or what it would achieve. (What it wouldn't achieve would be more apprpriate) As you say, the 'Golden Mile' is a good sound byte, but that's about it.

 

As for who suggested pushing for it, I think we all know who's behind that. The thing I'm not sure about, though, is whether the Angling Trust are taking advice from the lunatics, or have just let them take over the asylum?

[Jaffa]

Hi Barry, for the members of this forum I am Reg Phillips, a sea angler for thirty years. Just an ordinary bloke who loves fishing, nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

The RSA do not have a thriving healthy profitable industry, many tackle shops have already closed down, and some others are struggling to keep their head above the water, at least that is the case in our area

 

Is the purpose of the RSA to represent "grassroots anglers" or the needs of the "RSA industry"? There is a clear difference between the two, so which is it?

[Dave B]

Shame on you Dave. How do you think subscribers to your magazine, who are also AT members feel about you desending down to this level. As you know already, I as well as Chris Holloway, an AT representative, have already made you eat your words, making you publicly state the following in the February edition of BFM:

 

Well Reg, I'm all in for the Angling Trust if they can help 'save' our sport, but as our political correspondent Steve Copollo pointed out last month, the AT manifesto as it stands could do more damage to our sport than good. It's very early days yet as far as the organization goes, and after weighing up I agree that it's better to have an organization that is a little misguided than no organization at all- so YES I AM ACTIVELY PROMOTING the AT as a GOOD thing. If they are willing to talk to real anglers and get their input on what real anglers want, need or foresee happening to the sport, then I can see the AT becoming a force to be reckoned with.

 

Do you read your own script Dave!

 

As a subscriber for many years, I expect the editor to be both professional and respectful to its subscribers........... you are not.

 

In the January editition of BFM you said that you want to be envolved on an advisory capacity if at all possible, back then I supported you and would of welcomed your input, now,....... NOT A CHANCE. A person in a privileged position such as yours cannot make childish remarks, no matter how light hearted they were intended to be.

 

So I am a crazed loonie and I am determined to do my best to destroy your sport........... no need Dave, your doing a better job than me!!

 

 

"As a subscriber for many years, I expect the editor to be both professional and respectful to its subscribers........... you are not. "

As a sea angler for many years, and a sea fishing magazine editor for many years, I expect the top brass of my supposed 'national governing body for all anglers' to be both professional and respectful to it's members and potential members - THEY ARE NOT!

 

Reg, I stand by what I said - I AM all in favour of an organisation if they can help 'save' our sport - but I'm afraid that the AT has already demonstrated the exact opposite.

It seems that you haven't quite read my quote correctly either - "If they are willing to talk to real anglers and get their input on what real anglers want, need or foresee happening to the sport, then I can see the AT becoming a force to be reckoned with."

Exactly when has this happened? Oh, that's right, it hasn't!

 

I have bent over backwards to accommodate the AT, but the offer has been publicly turned down - on more than one occasion. How can any organisation hope to change things for the better by working behind closed doors and not letting anyone (grass roots anglers, journalists and yes, magazine editors) know what's going on?

At the time I wrote that quote above, I was led into thinking that the AT was actually going to get off their arse and start sending through promotional material for me to print in the magazine - but yet again they have failed, dismally.

 

I did say I would like to be involved in an advisory capacity, but yet again, in not 'in' with the in crowd - so that's a non-starter too. Apparently, 34 years of sea fishing experience and 16 years working at the forefront of sea fishing magazine publishing doesn't qualify me to have a clue about the UK sea fishing industry or how your regular sea angler views the sport!

In fact, the AT has done as much as it possibly can do to alienate myself and my readers from their organisation. Total lack of contact and total lack of commitment on their part has certainly worked to sway my opinion of them.

 

Unfortunately for you, and the AT, I am in a privileged position - to make my readers aware of the shortcomings of the organisation as far as I am concerned. And yet again - THE OFFER STILL STANDS IF THE AT WANT TO SEND THROUGH NEWS AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL I WILL PRINT IT.

It's not my job to shoot down anyone, as an editor I have to follow the unwritten rule of a fair platform for everyone to get up and talk from.

Let's face it - one article in the press in one year is not really good PR is it? If I were sitting on the board of the AT I would have ensured, from day one, that the very first thing to be done was to inform and build relationships with editors of magazines, and online magazines, to help get the ball rolling and drive the momentum to grow membership - not sit back and wait for members to come to us!

 

The whole thing is a joke Reg, and unfortunately you've been brainwashed into the whole scam. Both Steve C and myself have given the AT numerous opportunities to help promote the organisation, and to give them a voice to the sea fishing public, but that has been turned down or ignored far too many times for my liking - How, exactly, do think I should feel about the situation? My sea fishing rights are being swept from under my nose and there's not a damned thing I can do about it, because joining the AT would be adding more fuel to the fire as it stands at this present moment in time.

 

If the AT had kept in close contact with me, from the off, and had taken up my very generous offer of a full page per month in the magazine to help promote and inform, then my opinion of them may very well have been different to that which it is now!

I guess I've just got tired, and quite frankly bored of the whole cat and mouse game of trying to find out what the hell this very secretive organisation is all about!

Edited February 17, 2010 by Dave B