Angling Trust Forum

[Yido]

Okay Reg, so maybe the last part of my comment on the 'What do I get for my £20' post was a bit sarcastic, but I stand by everything else I've said on here.

 

When you say the AT have spent an entire year 'setting up the organisation' what exactly do you mean? I thought they had a launch 'party' last year to launch the organisation? You don't turn the ignition key before you've put fuel in the boat do you? So why 'launch' and organisation that isn't ready to be launched? I'm sorry Reg, but that argument stinks. There's no excuse for cutting out the sea fishing media, which in turn cuts out most of the sea angling population, from being involved with what's happening to our sport.

 

They were quick to get involved with the coarse side of things - and at the time everyone was saying, for months on end, that the AT thought of sea anglers as second class citizens. It was only when Article 47 reared it's ugly head that the AT actually acknowledged that we sea anglers exist!

 

I do hope that communication gets better between the AT and the sea fishing media this year, but I'm not holding my breath. I understand that the organisation lacks funds and is short on manpower - but in my view they've gone about it all wrong. It doesn't take that long to scribble down 500 words every month and e-mail it to three magazines, now does it? You've probably written over 3000 words in the past week on this forum! Surely someone at the AT could have spared 20 mins to let sea anglers know what was going on?

 

We're fast reaching the point of 'Too little too late' Reg, There has been a hell of a lot of goings on over the past couple of months that neither myself, or my readers would have known anything about if it were'nt for people like Steve Copollo and Elton on this site doing a bit of digging and researching. That info should have been made public knowledge to everyone - not just my readers, as it happened or even better, way before it happened!

 

The AT have not done themselves any favours. And, despite my continued offer of support, things have remained the same for over 12 months.

 

I don't want to find out from a press release from the EA that I can't take eels up to 6-miles out after the event. I want to be told by the AT that the EA is pushing for this motion to go ahead two months beforehand!

They, the AT, have a moral duty to let the media know what's going on - not just 'get on with it behind closed doors' - I can't see any 'Angler' in their right mind wanting to fund such activity!

 

Dave, I agree with you, a Golden opportunity wasted. Further proof that improvements need to be made.

[wurzel]

Ok, I have just received this from Mike Heylin AT Chairman

 

To view the AT Strategy:

 

http://www.

anglingtrust.net/news.asp?itemid=515&itemTitle=Fighting+for+the+Future+of+Your+Fishing&section=29&sectionTitle=Angling+Trust+Latest+News

 

I have checked it, believe me it does work, honest

 

Or if you go the the AT front page and click on the logo next to the lead story, middle of the page. The Strategy is a .pdf at the foot of the page.

 

The AT response to the Reform of the CFP is not up yet, he will email the link as soon he can.

 

Hello Reg

 

 

How much influence has the WWF got on the AT strategy?

I would say more than is healthy .

[Yido]

Reg, I think you'll find there is a lot more nonsense in the stuff you've been plastering all over this and the AT forums. Where on earth do you get your information from?

 

 

 

Yes, that's right, Reg. You expect to suddenly wake up, after years and years of doing bugger all, and get all holier than thou - preaching rubbish to people who DO know what they are talking about. I've pointed you in the right direction, so you can find out a bit more about the subjects you preach about, but you haven't taken any notice. You prefer to keep spouting bull**** and rubbish instead. Why should I remain patient with you, Reg? Lack of answers? I've got all the answers, because I was there when it was all going on. Where were you, Reg Phillips? Sitting on your backside with your thumb up your ar5e and your mind in neutral, no doubt.

 

Oh, and I don't tell lies. I'd look a little bit closer to home if you are looking for some.

 

 

 

So far, Wayne has been wasting his time. As you said earlier, he has a hell of a lot to offer sea angling representation. Sadly, his views and ideals don't fit in with the old party line, so they will never see the light of day. You see, that's how it works, Reg. If you had ever been involved, you'd know that by now. Jumping in at the 11th hour, convinced that you have all the the ansers, doesn't give you a very accurate picture, I'm afraid.

 

You know why I joined the AT. They started a forum and I used it. However, I was spending far too much time going over the same things, to people like you who won't accept the truth. To be honest, the Angling Trust forum is a bit like a daisy chain, Reg.

 

Like I've said so many times, and you've ignored so many times, a voice is only a good thing if it is saying the right thing. If it is saying the wrong thing, it becomes dangerous and damaging.

 

 

 

I don't know if anyone respects me, or not. But I do know that respect is something that is earnt, not demanded. Perhaps you should apply that little bit of truth to the Angling Trust?

 

You mean well, Reg, but you won't correct me on anything I say. You simply don't have the knowledge; and that isn't arrogance, it's the truth. And as you've insisted on 'putting me straight', I'll prove it, too.

 

 

 

Who says the Angling Trust doesn't support these things? There are one or two people on the Angling Trust marine conservation group, (which was supposed to have been disbanded, don't forget), who have been pushing to get the RSA strategy signed off. Hardly what you would expect from an organisation that doesn't support it. Bag limits and sea angling licences feature strongly in the RSA strategy. You have read it, haven't you? Did you understand it? Just in case you didn't, a member of the Angling Trust marine committee wrote a letter to the shadow fisheries minister promoting a sea angling licence. I believe that you've seen it, as it was posted on the Angling Trust forum. Again, hardly what you'd expect from an organisation that doesn't support one.

 

It's alright Mike Heylin saying that isn't Angling Trust policy but, as you know, actions speak louder than words. So, like I said, the Angling Trust manifesto, or strategy, or whatever you want to call it, is just a load of meaningless words.

 

 

 

Not sure what answer to what problem you mean, Reg. Why didn't you write the whole article? I wouldn't have minded. The two sentances you've taken don't do it justice. But, never mind. Let's look at what this 'problem', actually is. First of all, anyone who thinks that commercial fishing is going to be stopped to pander to the wishes of a few misguided RSA 'reps', is stupid. Just the same as anyone who thinks that the government, Defra, Cefas, etc, etc, will ever impose severe restrictions on commercial fishing, that may or may not deliver any benefits to sea angling. And that is regardless of who is calling for them, how unified, or how big their 'voice' is. If anyone is telling you otherwise, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

However, discarding is a problem that both recreational and commercial fishermen agree should be addressed. How do you, or the Angling Trust, propose that should be done? To be honest, the thought of the Angling Trust having any influence over such a things is laughable, but if they had a say, how would they tackle the problem? How would you tackle it? Would quotas feature in your plans at all? In the one area where commercial and recreational fishermen could possibly work together to address a common problem, where would you begin? What would you and the Angling Trust replace the quota system with? Or haven't any of you thought of that?

 

 

 

Reg, the things you mention are a real possibility because of, not despite, RSA representation! You keep saaying how we have to unite and fight against them, and I agree. The trouble is, the Angling Trust aren't the people to do it. The AT harbours champions of the very threats that you speak of. I refer you again to the RSA strategy. But going back further than that, I can remember RSA 'reps' actively promoting a sea angling licence, and bag limits, and MPA's, and even total catch and release. And you talk about honesty? I've heard it with my own ears. I've seen the words come directly out of their mouths. Where was Reg Phillips when they were saying those things?

 

You sound like you've almost accepted these pointless restrictions and management measures. Is that what talking to the Angling Trust does for you?

 

While we're about it, what do you suppose the Angling Trust are thinking by appointing a marine environmental campaigns manager? What on earth is all that about? What do you think that might do for sea angling? Have you read the job descirption? What are the implications? Any alarm bells ringing? There should be.

 

 

 

Please, Reg, spare me the romantic claptrap. Do you really think that by not joining the Angling Trust, anglers are throwing away their sport? Give me strength! I tend to believe, based on events over the last year, that the opposite is true. The Angling Trust know what needs to be done, they just won't, or can't, do it. What you've got, with the Angling Trust, is what you've always had - and you're always going to have. It isn't going to change, from within or otherwise, regardless of of any protests by sea anglers. Again, you come in at the 11th hour and assume that none of this has been done. It has, Reg. To what effect, though? No effect at all, that's what.

 

 

 

I disagree. The fishing in some areas has been better than it has been for the lsat 20 and 30 years. That is fact. And it has nothing to do with anything the Angling Trust has done, either. What these commercial fishermen that you moan about catching if there are no fish? You can't have it all ways, Reg. We aren't losing our sport at all. But we will if some of these proposed restrictions become reality.

 

Sea anglers need someone to fight off these proposed restrictions and management measures. At the moment, we haven't got anyone to do it for us, so we are having to try to do it ourselves.

 

How many letters have you written, Reg? How many MP's have you spoken to? How many consultations have you responded to? How many magazines and newspapers have you written to? How many meetings with fisheries managers and scientist have you attended where you've argued against these proposals? Or do you think that writing a cheque out to the Angling Trust is enough of an effort? Leave it all up to someone else, regardless of what sort of job they do? Jesus Christ, you haven't even bothered to find out what is really going on within the Angling Trust and here you are preaching to anyone who will listen what we should be doing!

 

 

 

Yes, you are wrong, Reg. What experts are you talking about? What are they saying, then?

 

All ther people I consider to be experts are saying there are plenty of fish in the sea. There are a few localised problems with some stocks, but in general, things are pretty good.

 

Since when were 30lb cod common? I've been sea fishing since the 70's I can't ever remember them throwing themselves up the beaches. I know where to go if I want to give myself the best chance of catching one, they are out there. But, as always, it's far from a certainty. It never was. Same as 15lb bass. How common were they? Even in the heydays, how many anglers caught a 15lb bass? They are a few around that size caught every year, despite fish stocks being 'depleted'. They are far from common, though. But they never were. We used to see numbers of Spurdogs aroung here, then they disappeared, then the year before last, anglers started to catch them again. What happened there, Reg? They didn't rise from the ashes, that's for sure. My guess is that they went somewhere else and then, for whatever reason, decided to come back. Who knows if they will be there again this year? 4lb sole. How common were they? How many 4lb sole have you caught in your lifetimes fishing?

 

I think you need to have a long hard think about juisy who it is speaking 'rubbish', Reg.

 

I've spent far too much time responding to your post again. I can't keep doing this. I have only bothered this time because I don't believe you are a lost cause. I know you mean well, and you are passionate about your sea fishing. I can respect that. But please don't preach to people about what they should be doing, thinking, supporting, saying, etc, when you only have the few mouthfulls of bull***, that you've been fed, to draw upon. There is a lot of information out there. Years worth, in fact. Far too much for me to go over with you again. Please take up my suggestion and read through some of the posts on this forum over the years. Just search for the relevant topics. And write another cheque out for £20 and join BASS. There is a lot of valuable information on their members forum, too.

 

I want to thank you for your reply Steve, I appreciate the time it has taken you and others to respond. I have been looking in the areas where you have directed me. I have not joined BASS yet, but give us a chance mate, I will get there. The BULL**** that has been fed to me, as you say, the vast majority, has not come from any representative of the AT, it has come from various websites and years of talking to other anglers. In fact, quite the opposite, the ones I have spoken too have said, Reg don't even bother trying to talk to Steve, you will be wasting your time. People have tried time and time again over the years to get the best parts out of Steve, and failed.

 

Does, as you say, I am jumping on at the 11th hour, mean that I am too late! Every angler has the right to stand up at anytime if they feel things have to change for the better. I will take a leaf out of your book and say, I am not preaching anything, i am just putting my point of view across, if people wish to belieive what I am saying then, fine. If people think that the AT is a total waste of time then, fine, its their choice. As far as I am concerned it will be the wrong choice. Is this not how you deflected criticism to anglers on the AT forum, or some words to similar effect.

 

Steve, you are absolutely right when you say I need to research more, I openly admit it, and I am doing so, as and when running a business allows me. I have the disadvantage in this case, that I do not have much time to devote to this but every bit of my spare time is being consumed with trying to find answers. Trying to belittle me on this forum will not work Steve. I expected this would happen when Barry first requested me to answer his questions on the AT forum, as he often looks there. I was prepared for it, but still feel that it is a shame for angling debates, never mind, an angry debate is better than none at all.

 

As far as fish sizes are concerned, is it not possible for each specie to grow to such a size Steve, I never said that they were jumping out onto the beaches now did I. Their stocks have been depleting for the last 40 years, over fishing has been one of the main reasons in the depletion of fish stocks, do you not agree. There are very few mature sized fish left in the sea, information taken frorm many web sites by the way. Something has to be done and yes you are right again, I have not got an answer to this. But one thing is for sure, if you give total power to the commercial fleets, money will always take precedents over sustainable fish stocks. Have you seen our Government promote the development of the new dock on the Thames, for use by the huge container ships. They throw all this rubbish about MCZ's etc at us and then do this, money will always come before the health of our seas.

 

As you pointed out, I do have a problem with the commercial fishing industry, so has every angler. My views are mixed and as you asked here they are. Our fishermen do a fantastic job for the British public, one or two let the side down but that happens in every business, they have probably the most hazardous job there is. The actual fishermen themselves re: the honest skippers and crews have my full support and always will have, they are the salt of the earth and I respect them. They work long hours in extreme circumstances for a pittance in comparisen to other forms of empolyment. I have talked to some commercial fishermen and asked them how much do they earn, it is not as much as you would expect. Most would not divulge their earnings, perfectly ok with me. One chap said that if the boat does not earn a penny, then nor do we, when we have a good catch, we get good money. On average, the owner of our vessel gets 50%, the skipper 25%, the crew have to divide the remaining 25% between us. Is that fair, do they not risk everything. Something we should consider when going about our everyday jobs. Does this not make the actual fishermen target our fish stocks during the spawning seasons, where they are in large quantities and easier to harvest, to maximize profit, so the real fishermen can earning a half decent wage.

 

My gripe is with the Bigwigs, the owners, the fleet owners and the powers they have to run riot over our Government. My gripe is with the EU giving the majority of the allocated quota to foreign vessels, and the rules they apply, Discards being the worst of all. If Europe wants our fish then let our fishermen catch them so they can earn a better wage, sell them to the our Government and let our Government sell them to Europe. But no here again money talks Steve, you know that. This is my view of fish stocks, you can attack my views at will if you like, but I bet many anglers feel the same. All species in teritorial waters belong to the people of that state or country. The EU believes that they have the right to harvest them to the maximum effect, and once the quotas have been reached they make sure that the same ammount again are thrown back dead into the sea. Stupid rules and regulations that are destroying the stocks everywhere.

 

I get the impression that the fleet owners, the Bigwigs, believe that the sea and everything in it belongs to them, we are in their way, every fish we catch and eat is a fish lost off their profit margins. To them every fish has a price tag tattooed on its head. In every other business in this country money is put back in to ensure that there is future business, public satisfaction that what these companies are doing is not damaging the environment we live in, money is invested to increase resources, and they make ensure that what they provide, be it a service or product cannot last forever. This way the opportunity of future business is increased with the same customer base. You do not see an ever lasting light bulb or a car that lasts longer than ten years do you. All I have seen and heard and read, indicates that the only money being put back in is to increase catch rates, to maximize profit today, more efficient vessels with larger holding capacity, larger nets, less crew, better profit.

 

A Farmer has to breed his stock, feed them, provide them with land and shelter them before he can cash in. The commercial fishing industry does none of this, apart from a few fish farmes scattered here and there. I agree that money should be invested to increase fish farming on a larger scale, out into deeper tidal waters to prevent the popultion problems they have found inshore. Environmentally efficient forms of fishing should be encouraged and a better price paid for fish that are caught that way.

 

I could of saved a lot of time and just say, a agree with everything in the AT response to the reform of the CFP, but I would probably have got a lot of stick for it.

 

The experts I refer to are the marine scientists, a host of marine websites, and the studies that have been taken. As well as other forms of information emailed to me. Your defence that everything is ok is in complete contrast to everything else, so are you still right.

 

Like I say Steve I do not have answers, and by the way, what is wrong with a bit of passion!

 

Last thing Steve, your right again, sometimes I do shoot from the mouth. Wayne has had a rough ride from me, some in my opinion valued cases, some not so. Sorry Wayne I apologise.

[Jaffa]

I want to thank you for your reply Steve, I appreciate the time it has taken you and others to respond. I have been looking in the areas where you have directed me. I have not joined BASS yet, but give us a chance mate, I will get there. The BULL**** that has been fed to me, as you say, the vast majority, has not come from any representative of the AT, it has come from various websites and years of talking to other anglers. In fact, quite the opposite, the ones I have spoken too have said, Reg don't even bother trying to talk to Steve, you will be wasting your time. People have tried time and time again over the years to get the best parts out of Steve, and failed.

 

Does, as you say, I am jumping on at the 11th hour, mean that I am too late! Every angler has the right to stand up at anytime if they feel things have to change for the better. I will take a leaf out of your book and say, I am not preaching anything, i am just putting my point of view across, if people wish to belieive what I am saying then, fine. If people think that the AT is a total waste of time then, fine, its their choice. As far as I am concerned it will be the wrong choice. Is this not how you deflected criticism to anglers on the AT forum, or some words to similar effect.

 

Steve, you are absolutely right when you say I need to research more, I openly admit it, and I am doing so, as and when running a business allows me. I have the disadvantage in this case, that I do not have much time to devote to this but every bit of my spare time is being consumed with trying to find answers. Trying to belittle me on this forum will not work Steve. I expected this would happen when Barry first requested me to answer his questions on the AT forum, as he often looks there. I was prepared for it, but still feel that it is a shame for angling debates, never mind, an angry debate is better than none at all.

 

As far as fish sizes are concerned, is it not possible for each specie to grow to such a size Steve, I never said that they were jumping out onto the beaches now did I. Their stocks have been depleting for the last 40 years, over fishing has been one of the main reasons in the depletion of fish stocks, do you not agree. There are very few mature sized fish left in the sea, information taken frorm many web sites by the way. Something has to be done and yes you are right again, I have not got an answer to this. But one thing is for sure, if you give total power to the commercial fleets, money will always take precedents over sustainable fish stocks. Have you seen our Government promote the development of the new dock on the Thames, for use by the huge container ships. They throw all this rubbish about MCZ's etc at us and then do this, money will always come before the health of our seas.

 

As you pointed out, I do have a problem with the commercial fishing industry, so has every angler. My views are mixed and as you asked here they are. Our fishermen do a fantastic job for the British public, one or two let the side down but that happens in every business, they have probably the most hazardous job there is. The actual fishermen themselves re: the honest skippers and crews have my full support and always will have, they are the salt of the earth and I respect them. They work long hours in extreme circumstances for a pittance in comparisen to other forms of empolyment. I have talked to some commercial fishermen and asked them how much do they earn, it is not as much as you would expect. Most would not divulge their earnings, perfectly ok with me. One chap said that if the boat does not earn a penny, then nor do we, when we have a good catch, we get good money. On average, the owner of our vessel gets 50%, the skipper 25%, the crew have to divide the remaining 25% between us. Is that fair, do they not risk everything. Something we should consider when going about our everyday jobs. Does this not make the actual fishermen target our fish stocks during the spawning seasons, where they are in large quantities and easier to harvest, to maximize profit, so the real fishermen can earning a half decent wage.

 

My gripe is with the Bigwigs, the owners, the fleet owners and the powers they have to run riot over our Government. My gripe is with the EU giving the majority of the allocated quota to foreign vessels, and the rules they apply, Discards being the worst of all. If Europe wants our fish then let our fishermen catch them so they can earn a better wage, sell them to the our Government and let our Government sell them to Europe. But no here again money talks Steve, you know that. This is my view of fish stocks, you can attack my views at will if you like, but I bet many anglers feel the same. All species in teritorial waters belong to the people of that state or country. The EU believes that they have the right to harvest them to the maximum effect, and once the quotas have been reached they make sure that the same ammount again are thrown back dead into the sea. Stupid rules and regulations that are destroying the stocks everywhere.

 

I get the impression that the fleet owners, the Bigwigs, believe that the sea and everything in it belongs to them, we are in their way, every fish we catch and eat is a fish lost off their profit margins. To them every fish has a price tag tattooed on its head. In every other business in this country money is put back in to ensure that there is future business, public satisfaction that what these companies are doing is not damaging the environment we live in, money is invested to increase resources, and they make ensure that what they provide, be it a service or product cannot last forever. This way the opportunity of future business is increased with the same customer base. You do not see an ever lasting light bulb or a car that lasts longer than ten years do you. All I have seen and heard and read, indicates that the only money being put back in is to increase catch rates, to maximize profit today, more efficient vessels with larger holding capacity, larger nets, less crew, better profit.

 

A Farmer has to breed his stock, feed them, provide them with land and shelter them before he can cash in. The commercial fishing industry does none of this, apart from a few fish farmes scattered here and there. I agree that money should be invested to increase fish farming on a larger scale, out into deeper tidal waters to prevent the popultion problems they have found inshore. Environmentally efficient forms of fishing should be encouraged and a better price paid for fish that are caught that way.

 

I could of saved a lot of time and just say, a agree with everything in the AT response to the reform of the CFP, but I would probably have got a lot of stick for it.

 

The experts I refer to are the marine scientists, a host of marine websites, and the studies that have been taken. As well as other forms of information emailed to me. Your defence that everything is ok is in complete contrast to everything else, so are you still right.

 

Like I say Steve I do not have answers, and by the way, what is wrong with a bit of passion!

 

Last thing Steve, your right again, sometimes I do shoot from the mouth. Wayne has had a rough ride from me, some in my opinion valued cases, some not so. Sorry Wayne I apologise.

 

Could not give a flying F**k about the personal differences between you and Steve. Would like to hear your view on this "Golden mile" though

[Steve Coppolo]

Reg

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

There's nothing wrong with a bit of passion. And you are obviously passionate about your fishing. It's nice to see.

 

The people who have failed to get the best out of me are the same people who have also consistently failed, (for years), to engage with grass roots sea anglers, so I wouldn't place too much importance on their comments if I were you. Out of interest, they have also been consistently wrong on a whole range of issues surrounding sea angling over the years, as has been proved by history, so I would also question their judgement.

 

For what it's worth, like Dave, I was all up for applying for a position on the new AT advisory panel that was supposed have been formed when the conservation group was disbanded. But seeing as how that has been kicked into the long grass, another opportunity to 'get the best parts out of me' has been wasted. Just as well, really, because the AT has since proved that the best interest of anglers isn't it's number one priority, so there would have been a conflict of interests.

 

You have some strong views on commercial fishing, but they are your views and you are entitled to them. As long as they don't impact on my fishing, I won't comment on them. I'll leave that to one of the people who post on here who have direct experience of the things you mention.

 

Just bear in mind that fisheries management and science are an industry in themselves. A lot of money is earnt from studies, research and management. Compare fisheries manegement and science with the man made global warming equivalent and you won't be far out in your estimations of their credibility. Also remember that the same fisheries science was used to first recommend an increase in bass MLS, then to recommend that it stayed at 36cm.

 

I still say the fishing is pretty good right now, though. I looked through this months copy of BFM today and saw photos of a couple of 30lb cod, a few more 20's, a 16lb bass, a 14lb thornback, a 16lb pollack, and some lovely plaice. That's apart from the quality fish that me and my mates have been catching. The biggest problem the commercial fleet has right now is avoiding the fish they aren't allowed to land.

 

I took your advice and read the Angling Trust strategy. It's very weak with regard to sea angling mate, and not at all realistic.

 

One last thing, Reg. Have you applied for a position on the Angling Trust by any chance?

[Yido]

Honest to God, I worry for you Reg.

 

Whoever it is feeding you all of this rubbish, go back and get them on here.

 

 

Despite my earlier comments, I simply can't sit on hands any longer and allow some of this nonsense to pass unchallenged.

 

 

 

Take this for example.

 

 

 

 

To be clear, I think the Thames dredging operation is disgraceful, especially in the light of some of the species and habitats that, according to the experts, 'need' to be protected from anglers and their activities.

 

However, to claim that the bass and tope fishing will be doomed for the next twenty years is beyond the ridiculous, and quite frankly typical of the armchair experts who spend more time having their prostates examined than out sea fishing.

 

 

Who told you this?

 

Wayne, sorry I have not replied to your posts before, I had lots of things to do.

 

Ok, so I over reacted a bit, just like the 30lb Cods to Steve, but the measage got through. Hopefully the members on this forum will look into the problems that this will create. Picking holes in my every word is not going to help this debate, everyone knows what I was attempting to say. This construction is going to badly effect angling in the Thames and I feel it deserves a separate debate, I do not want to dwell on this now becasue there is something else I want to ask you.

 

But first let me say, I apprieciate the effort you have made in the past and present, I understand what you are trying to achieve, there is no hiding the facts, the old NFSA did not help anglers. What I do not agree with, is your approach and saying that you do not promote the AT, the governing body you belong to.

 

You said before that Alan Brothers asked you to stand up and be counted. I asked you if you were happy for me to talk to Alan, as you did not reply I took that as no, so I have left it at that because I do not want to rock the boat. Now, I know Alan, I respect him and all that he repressents, we have talked about a few things, but never you. Alan is helping me in other matters and has already given me sound, solid advice on how to do things and who to seek for advice. So if Alan believes in you, thats good enough for me, but in all honesty I do have doubts with the way you do things, which is why I react to you views.

 

Are things improving, yes or no.

 

I will not be able to reply for a while Wayne, as work commitments come first. I have spent too much time as Steve said 'Preaching the Gospel', I say providing another side to a debate, but I will keep looking on this forum.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Yido

[Yido]

Reg

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

There's nothing wrong with a bit of passion. And you are obviously passionate about your fishing. It's nice to see.

 

The people who have failed to get the best out of me are the same people who have also consistently failed, (for years), to engage with grass roots sea anglers, so I wouldn't place too much importance on their comments if I were you. Out of interest, they have also been consistently wrong on a whole range of issues surrounding sea angling over the years, as has been proved by history, so I would also question their judgement.

 

For what it's worth, like Dave, I was all up for applying for a position on the new AT advisory panel that was supposed have been formed when the conservation group was disbanded. But seeing as how that has been kicked into the long grass, another opportunity to 'get the best parts out of me' has been wasted. Just as well, really, because the AT has since proved that the best interest of anglers isn't it's number one priority, so there would have been a conflict of interests.

 

You have some strong views on commercial fishing, but they are your views and you are entitled to them. As long as they don't impact on my fishing, I won't comment on them. I'll leave that to one of the people who post on here who have direct experience of the things you mention.

 

Just bear in mind that fisheries management and science are an industry in themselves. A lot of money is earnt from studies, research and management. Compare fisheries manegement and science with the man made global warming equivalent and you won't be far out in your estimations of their credibility. Also remember that the same fisheries science was used to first recommend an increase in bass MLS, then to recommend that it stayed at 36cm.

 

I still say the fishing is pretty good right now, though. I looked through this months copy of BFM today and saw photos of a couple of 30lb cod, a few more 20's, a 16lb bass, a 14lb thornback, a 16lb pollack, and some lovely plaice. That's apart from the quality fish that me and my mates have been catching. The biggest problem the commercial fleet has right now is avoiding the fish they aren't allowed to land.

 

I took your advice and read the Angling Trust strategy. It's very weak with regard to sea angling mate, and not at all realistic.

 

One last thing, Reg. Have you applied for a position on the Angling Trust by any chance?

 

Steve,

 

I have now come to the conclusion that I do not know enough to represent anglers at that level, I've just started to find out how hard it is to make the correct decisions. All I have is passion for my sport, for my fellow angler and for the ideals of Unity amongst anglers. Is that enough, no it is not, I have a lot to learn right now. The last thing I need is to take this massive task on, the thought of harming our sport and saying the wrong things at the wrong times to the wrong people, to be honest, frightens me. There are far more important people out there who could and are doing a better job than me. Look at how easy it was for you to pick holes in my words, passion is not enough.

 

I will do what I can to help anglers, if they ask me, but I am just an angler Steve.

[Yido]

Hello Reg

 

 

How much influence has the WWF got on the AT strategy?

I would say more than is healthy .

 

I look at it another way, we have a better chance of getting improvements to our sport, with the WWF and Natural England supporting us than we do without.

[seafoods]

I look at it another way, we have a better chance of getting improvements to our sport, with the WWF and Natural England supporting us than we do without.

 

Both very dangerous bedfellows IMHO, best kept at arms length.

[barry luxton]

I look at it another way, we have a better chance of getting improvements to our sport, with the WWF and Natural England supporting us than we do without.

 

Hi Reg, can you show us how and why they can improve our sport. What sort of agenda do they have for the rsa.