Angling Trust Forum

[Steve Walker]

Blimey, you ain't kidding

 

Isn't he a piece of work? Someone should tell him that the AT is purporting to represent people other than match anglers.

[Worms]

Isn't he a piece of work? Someone should tell him that the AT is purporting to represent people other than match anglers.

While they're at it thay could mention it to the AT as well

[Steve Coppolo]

A very interesting post Steve, it answered a few questions I've asked in the past

 

I was thinking that while I was writing it, Worms.

[barry luxton]

These people will keep insisting that I explain myself and justify the comments I make. Even though our illustrious 'leaders' consistently fail to do so. So, I have given them a very concise outline of what I think, and why. It did take a long time, because so much has gone on that it was hard deciding what to put in and what to leave out. I've actually been very kind. (If I'd put in some of the finer details, it would have made Dallas look like the Magic Roundabout!)

 

As for positive comments, I think we both know what sort of response it's going to get.

 

I wrote and posted it on the AT forum in response to a couple of AT members calling for it. If you think there might be any interest on this forum, you can copy and paste it if you like, Barry. Or stick a link up. Somehow, though, I think that most of the anglers on this forum already know the score.

 

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

[captain cojones]

Thats a very well written post Steve. i dont comment much, as im not so affected as you lot.

Will they take any of what you have said on board?.....I doubt it, from the outside looking in, they appear to be a load of arrogant bastards. Good luck.

[barry luxton]

I have copied it onto here not because of them and us because i am concerned that although it was directed onto the AT forum it would be unreasonable in my mind if the post was deleted over there for what ever reason, i would hope it isn't though, without the rsa knowing what the full picture is, my last post , a copy quote, should really have followed this one.

 

QUOTE STEVE :

 

Steve Coppolo Today at 12:41 pm

 

 

I make no apology for the very long post. You asked!

 

First of all, I am not holding a gun to anyone’s head. The mistakes I mention have been made within sea angling representation of the past. But, there are examples of them being repeated. There is also evidence of the same attitudes leading to similar mistakes being made within coarse fishing representation. The facts below have accumulated over years and have mostly been in the public domain, had anyone bothered to take any notice at the time. (Where were you then, Bob?) Most of what I say relates to sea angling representation and campaigns, and is based on my experiences.

 

Having now been asked outright to reveal how I think mistakes have been made, by whom, and how they continue to be made, I’ll try to give a concise run down because there is so much to draw on, I could write a book on it. I am prepared to expand on any of the points I make if asked, (within reason); and welcome comments from those who might have been involved in any of the things I mention. By highlighting these mistakes, it is not my intention to destroy anyone or anything, but simply to point out why I think that angling representative bodies have failed to attract support in the past, and why I see the Angling Trust going the same way – unless they change. That is, of course, assuming that it isn’t too late already.

 

RSA representation, prior to the Angling trust, was made up of individuals from the National Federation of Sea Anglers, Bass Anglers Sportsfishing Society, Sea Anglers Conservation Network and National Mullet Club. Several of those who went to meetings to represent sea anglers belonged to more than one organisation and at least one, belonged to all of them. These organisations would often pick and mix individuals to attend meetings, depending what was on the agenda and who could make it. By and large, we had about half a dozen or so individuals representing us.

 

Of the representative bodies, it was BASS who did the lions share of campaigning in the early days. Individual bass anglers started campaigning to protect bass stocks over 20 years ago. They took part in tagging studies and came up with a bass management plan. It was BASS that had all the political clout, achieved through a vast pool of knowledge and experience of their subject. In recent years, it was widely believed that the government wanted to do something positive for sea anglers and the bass management plan was born. Ben Bradshaw, (fisheries minister at the time), said he wanted to start implementing parts of it in Labours Charter for Angling. The first step was to increase the minimum landing size for bass. By now, BASS had, in my opinion, been infiltrated by people who wanted to take advantage of the new found recognition that the society had earned. Some of these people, unlike those who campaigned for bass in the early days, had very little knowledge or experience of bass or bass fishing, but gained an audience with the decision makers by association.

 

There was, at the time the BMP was being pushed, some opposition to it from sea anglers who thought that some of the management measures contained within the BMP could be damaging if applied to other areas of sea angling. This opposition was largely rubbished and the BMP was pushed ahead, against the wishes of a large number of sea anglers who had no interest in bass. There was a consultation on the bass MLS increase which attracted a large number of responses, (I know several individuals who submitted multiple responses!). Despite the opposition, some anglers were reassured and the majority of responses were in favour of an increase.

 

Now enter the RSA strategy. Once sea angling had gained the attention of politicians and civil servants, there seemed to be a scramble for their attention. Whilst we were waiting to see the outcome of the MLS decision, the NFSA produced their RSA strategy. This was, basically, a list of things that they wanted for sea angling. It contained mention of restrictions on sea anglers that proved to be very unpopular and several proposals that would have been easier for the government to deliver than those contained within the BMP, like access and toilet blocks. In my opinion, and that of a number of BASS campaigners, the RSA strategy weakened the BMP by providing easier option. Defra held road shows to discuss the RSA strategy with local anglers in several areas. There was widespread opposition to it and the consultation that followed showed that the majority of sea anglers didn’t want the NFSA’s RSA strategy. Despite this, it was still pushed forward. Some of those doing the pushing were sitting on the BASS restoration team.

 

To increase the likelihood of anglers ‘winning’ something, the strategy placed disproportionate importance on species of little or no commercial interest, like flounders, wrasse and mullet. At around this same time, the National Mullet Club came up with a Mullet Management Plan. This was, roughly, along the same lines as the Bass Management Plan, (except it mentioned a bag limit of zero), but, (again), weakened it by providing an easier option. Mullet are not a commercially important species, like bass, and it would be easier to implement restrictions on Mullet fishing than it would have been for bass. If the government really did want to do something for sea angling, they now had three options available to them. Among those promoting the MMP were individuals who also represented BASS and the NFSA. It seemed to me that RSA representation was made up of a few individuals with conflicting interests. The BASS men were interested in bass, the Mullet men were interested in Mullet, the NFSA were interested in competitions, specimen lists and access, and the SACN were interested in setting aside protected areas. RSA representation became incestuous, with the same few individuals supposedly working together, but all the time seeking advantages for their own particular speciality. Sometimes, to the detriment of the others – always, it seemed, to the detriment of ordinary anglers who didn’t specialise.

 

While the decision whether to increase the bass MLS was being delayed and postponed, repeatedly, a fish merchant in Lowestoft threatened to start a Tope fishery. Tope was not, and is not, a targeted Tope fishery. Most, if not all, of the insignificant amount of Tope caught by east coast commercial fishermen are caught as a by catch. They are caught accidentally and are all but worthless to the fishermen. The sea angling representatives allowed their attention be diverted to the proposed fishery and they campaigned to get it stopped. New legislation was passed that prevented Tope from being landed by commercial fishermen and anglers. So, the government had now delivered something to sea angling. They had responded to demands from sea angling representatives to address a problem that didn’t actually exist. The new legislation does not stop commercial fishermen from catching Tope as a by catch, though. In fact, commercial fishermen still have a small by catch allowance. Anglers, however, are now subject to total and compulsory catch and release with absolutely no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that it is necessary or does anything to benefit Tope. Sea angling representatives were out smarted and out manoeuvred by the commercial fishing sector and decision makers, resulting in restrictions on anglers for no benefit.

 

Throughout the bass campaign, it was often said that the aim was to protect the massive 2002 year class of bass, which were coming up to the existing MLS of 36cm. It was felt that this big year class would provide a buffer, if the species were to suffer several poor year classes in the future. The MLS decision, perhaps unsurprisingly, went against BASS, but there was a chance to salvage something by still pushing for the commercial net mesh increase that was to have complimented the increase in MLS. This was something that would have attracted little opposition, and even a degree of support, from the commercial fishing sector. But idea was rubbished by sea angling representatives, (for reasons I still struggle to understand), so the 2002 year class ended up with no protection whatsoever - and has been hammered. The last few winters will have resulted in the poor 0 group mortality that the bass society said we needed to buffer against.

 

Shortly after the decision to leave the bass MLS at 36cm, there was quite a bit of angler amongst RSA’s representatives. There was talk of a protest walk out at an up coming meeting with Defra, in disgust at the decision and their failure to do anything to benefit sea anglers. There was quite a bit of media interest in this and it could have sent quite a strong message to the decision makers. One or two who were going to be taking part, expressed concern that if they walked out the front door, there were one or two RSA representatives who would probably walk straight back in through the back door. The protest failed to materialise, though, when one representative sent out an email saying he wasn’t prepared to take part in the walk out. Unfortunately, the email was copied to Defra, therefore alerting them to the intentions of those who were.

 

Previously, sea anglings’ representatives have supported the idea of a sea angling licence that proved so unpopular with sea anglers, that the fisheries minister scrapped his plans to introduce one. The idea was that the revenue raised would give sea anglers a voice. I tend to think the reality was more like, those claiming to represent sea anglers would have used their numbers to gain some sort of authority so that they could have a voice. I don’t think it would have said what the majority of anglers wanted it to say, though, and from what I can see, nothing’s changed. Other attempts have been made to gain credibility through using our numbers, too. The intention was to highlight how many sea anglers there were and, therefore, how much they were worth to the economy. Estimations varied greatly and some have been exaggerated out of all proportion. All that has succeeded in doing, though, is to bring sea angling into the political spot light and attract questions on how much of an impact those sea anglers are having on fish stocks. It seems to me that the views of sea anglers weren’t as important as their numbers, which have been manipulated and used by a few representatives to attract nothing more than proposed regulations and restrictions, for no benefit.

 

The NFSA also campaigned, along with the European Anglers Alliance, for sea angling to be recognised under the Common Fisheries Policy. This came to fruition recently in the shape of article 47. Despite reassurances by sea angling representatives that everything was alright and some premature claims for victory regarding article 47, sea anglers are now faced with unbelievable regulations and restrictions. The AT is still working with the EAA.

 

The Angling Trust Marine Conservation Group, which is supposed to advise the Marine Committee and, subsequently, the AT board of Directors, is made up of all the old NFSA, BASS, SACN and NMC representatives who have had a hand in all of the above. The idea of a sea angling licence is still being promoted by the Angling Trust. The RSA strategy is still being pushed by some within the Angling Trust. There are people within the Angling Trust who are still pushing for restrictions on anglers, like bag limits and compulsory catch and release, for no good reason and of no benefit to anglers or fish stocks.

 

A way forward was proposed at a Marine Committee meeting last year. It was proposed that the AT Marine Conservation Group be disbanded, due to it not being fit for purpose, and replaced with a new technical advisory group. Positions were to be advertised in the angling media and on angling forums, so that a wide and varied range of anglers could be reached. The idea being that the old, ineffective, and largely unsupported representation of the past could be replaced with something that was more representative of the masses. From what I was told, there was unanimous support for the proposal among the Marine Committee and it was agreed. But the said adverts didn’t materialise. Instead, there was a paragraph in the last AT news letter, asking for volunteers to ‘compliment’ the existing Conservation Group. Apparently, it was never the intention to disband the conservation group and the confusion was all due to a ‘misunderstanding’. The individual said to have ‘misunderstood’, maintains to this day that his version of events is 100% correct, and the documentation following the meeting supports his case.

 

Around the time that the AT was being formed, there were some studies being commissioned that would provide lots of information about sea angling. As history had already proved that benefits to sea angling would be very unlikely, the feeling was that the information would be used to our detriment. (a fisheries challenge fund project that was supposed to have used data gathering to benefit anglers had already failed to produce anything) In fact, there had already been murmurs of heavy regulation for sea anglers, including the licence and bag limits that were strongly opposed by the anglers, but promoted by representatives in the early days. The AT wanted to take part in the study and urged sea anglers to provide all the information required. Stuart McPherson, when he was elected Marine Director, saw the dangers of doing so and decided that the AT would be better off not taking part. Sadly, Stuart resigned.

 

What angling representative bodies have consistently failed to do is gain the support of the ordinary anglers who make up the vast majority of our numbers. That is because they have shown little interest in what those anglers wanted, and have pushed ahead with plans that have been unpopular with them. They have all failed to realise that even if they don’t agree with what the majority of anglers are saying, they need their support. If any representative body wants to truly represent anglers, it is going to have to do what they want, not what a handful of specialists want. And that includes leaving them and their sport alone, if that’s what is required or desired. But that doesn’t seem to be the aim of the AT. They appear to be making exactly the same mistakes as all those who have gone before. Not surprising, really, when you consider that the AT is made up largely of organisations and representatives that have already failed in their own right to attract large scale support of anglers..

 

Some say that to change an organisation for the better, you have to roll up your sleeves and get involved, but that is rubbish. I’ve tried, and so have others. Some of those who have worked their way into positions of influence within angling representative bodies are, in my opinion, as bad as the worse kind of politician when it comes to self interest and survival. They will use any means necessary to prevent alternative views from being expressed or heard. Some of them have been downright treacherous, devious and underhand. They have prevented, and tried to prevent, people from attending meetings because they didn’t have the ‘right’ views, or weren’t enthusiastic about their proposals and plans. They have made attempts to prevent certain people from taking up positions on representative groups because ‘we’ don’t want X, Y or Z on the team and have questioned, or expressed concern to, others about the involvement of anglers who don’t share the same ideals as them. They have bent rules to prevent anglers from having a fair vote on proposed changes. They have distributed emails containing derogatory and false comments about individuals who have dared to express views and opinions different to their own. Not all of the people guilty of such shabby behaviour have positions within the Angling Trust, but these are a few examples of why I think angling representation hasn’t gained the support of ordinary anglers. These people simply haven’t allowed anyone to put forward their views.

 

I would like to think that’s all in the past now and that the AT are ready to listen to, and act on, what anglers want; but I don’t think that’s the case. The fish removal byelaws that have just been announced by the EA seem to be very unpopular with a large percentage of those anglers who are aware of them. The AT seems to have been involved in the process, as mentioned in Mark Lloyd’s post on this forum, “The Angling Trust has been involved in the consultation leading up to the issuing of this draft, and we would be grateful if our members could let us know what they think of the new proposed rules.” It looks like this is another example of a few people imposing their will on the masses, for no good reason and for no benefit to anglers. Surely, the time to ask what anglers thought about the proposed restrictions would have been before or during the consultation, not after when it’s too late to do anything about them? A lot of anglers have been alienated by these pointless restrictions - and the AT appearing to have a hand in it, hasn’t exactly endeared it to the angling population in general. I think the fall out, once the majority of the country’s anglers find out what has happened, will be something to behold.

 

The AT is also encouraging anglers to go onto the Marine Conservation Society website, to vote for which areas they want to be excluded from. This is like asking Turkeys to vote for when they would like Christmas.

There has also been talk of, what would effectively be, compulsory membership of AT through rod licences. Either a levy or by the AT becoming the licencing body. The EA isn’t perfect, but at least it is independent. Or, at least, it is supposed to be. I believe that the EA was ‘swayed’ by the views of the few, in the case of the fish removal byelaws, because even they say that anglers are not having a detrimental effect on fish stocks, including eels.

The AT claims to represent all anglers. They don’t, of course, but whether a single body is willing or able to represent all anglers, or not, they should at least be willing and able to represent their members. As a member, I have not had one single email or letter asking me what I think about any of the AT’s policies. I, along with other people I know, have made several suggestions to those in positions of power within the AT, on how they might improve things and gain the support of ordinary anglers. All have been ignored, but the AT have happily carried on upsetting large numbers of those anglers on the strength of suggestions and proposals made by the a few ‘faces’.

 

What I’ve written here is a very concise outline of why I think angling representation has failed and what I think needs to happen if it has any hope of succeeding for the good of angling. I have deliberately avoided making things too personal and I have left out individual and detailed examples of the seedy goings on. I don’t think this is the time or place to go down that route. To be honest, I don’t think that the AT is doing anything good for anglers right now. There is still too much of the previous angling representation mindset involved in the AT and, because of that, I don’t give a monkey’s whether it succeeds or fails right now. My solution would be to ditch the crusades and make the AT an organisation that defends anglers against threats to restrict and over regulate their activities. I would also ditch those who have consistently put their own agendas before those of the average angler and start again with fresh, new blood. I would avoid accepting funding from organisations that have ideals that conflict with those of anglers. If the AT fails to attract the number of anglers/members it needs to be effective, it is because it has failed to address their concerns – or it simply isn’t needed. Whatever the reality is, those tasked with making the AT work must be willing to accept it.

Edited January 6, 2010 by barry luxton

[Elton]

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

 

Have you got a source for that, Barry? I've spoken to Steve, who is now at work until tomorrow, and he says the comments about him are not only crap, but complete lies. He will respond tomorrow, no doubt.

 

The comment about Dave Barham is also a load of crap. I know that for a fact and I'm sure he'll be pleased to know who said it.

 

The comments you've posted there are so far off the mark, I wonder if someone has sent them to you as a laugh?

[Dick Dastardly]

Well Ive just read Steve Coppolo's post on the AT forum. Great post! Not only the political back ground that you quote but also your opening statements.

 

If time or requirement dictated very much the same could be wrote from the freshwater anglers point of view as well

 

While Mr Nicholls views should be taken as his own and not the official AT line I'm supprised that an AT official hasn't pointed this out and clarified/corrected their official position on some of the things he has said.Why I wonder?

 

Incidentally seems that we aren't the only "minority group of Internet "experts" whose opinion is non indicative" with doubts about the AT either-

 

Damn! sorry Ive deleted the link I had and cant remember the site details but it was concerning the "Must be an AT member to fish Fishomania" lark.Will post it when/if I find it again

[barry luxton]

Have you got a source for that, Barry? I've spoken to Steve, who is now at work until tomorrow, and he says the comments about him are not only crap, but complete lies. He will respond tomorrow, no doubt.

 

The comment about Dave Barham is also a load of crap. I know that for a fact and I'm sure he'll be pleased to know who said it.

 

The comments you've posted there are so far off the mark, I wonder if someone has sent them to you as a laugh?

 

 

Elton, i am sending you my email address, through AN if you let me have yours by return i will forward you a complete copy for you to decide if it's genuine or not. I have no reason to doubt it, but on the internet, you never know.

[Elton]

Hi Barry,

 

Just send anything to elton@anglersnet.co.uk

 

Tight lines,

 

Elton