Angling Trust Forum

[barry luxton]

Here we have an absolute example of the arrogance and contempt the a t guys have while peering down at you, this is within a post regarding the new freshwater bylaws, that now restrict the rsa with regards to the eel conservation cr@p.

 

Thank goodness the rsa don't have to put up with un-nessersary rules and regulation that the freshwater guys have to endure and the A T would be part of, in evolving, administering given half the chance. More power to the real rsa i say.

Freedom to fish or join the A T. Wondering why he hasn't suggested arming the e a guys with truncheons and tear gas.

 

quote, rubbish dirge:

 

I do agree with Radoslaw in that the tackle industry should take more responsibility.

I also believe the EA should take a more positive and responsible role too, imagine a car driver been given a licence to drive a vehicle without never having read the Highway Code. By signing the Rod License it should be assumed and accepted that the holder has at least read and does understand the bye-laws. By signing that they at least are aware of the bye-laws, much heavier sentences could be immposed on those who choose to break/ignore the bye-laws. No one should ever assume they have a right without accepting responsibility. But that is probably beyond the understanding of some within the EA.

Edited April 18, 2010 by barry luxton

[Yido]

Quote:

 

Agreeing with you Reg. It's not the members to fear, it's the hierarchy who are trying to utilise the rsa into some form of political being when nearly all are saying s@d off. To that extent the A T are on a self distruct mission and until the change comes from within, whats the point in joining. They don't consult, they have their own agenda over the rsa and remember the rsa ain't broke, why fix it. Until they start working with the rsa with a set of balls to tell the incumbant waste of space quangos there is no need to provide the rsa with another level of waste of space governence, unessersary rules, un-workable rules, pointless restrictions, all the A T are poviding the government is a platform to be a free quango for them. Again, no thanks. Go back and tell them to go away, get a life and come back and talk sence. All the A T are doing at present for the rsa is to be a mouth piece for the government regarding this panacia of mcz's that will prove to be worthless, pointless restrictions to be of no benifit to anyone or anything for many years to come if at all. This is what the A T are part of Reg.

 

For the second time i agree with you Reg, the government are trying to control the rsa. again, unless the A T can start resisting the crazy idea that it is nessesary, they can still s@d off.

The A T have done diddly squat to demonstrate that they can prevent the 'government from ruining our sport' your words. So from a personal point of view and with the power of the internet, i prefer to do it myself as opposed to the A T giving the government all the wrong signals. Is that not fair enough?

 

End quote

 

 

Fair enough Barry, every view is welcome.

 

You say that the AT have not demonstrated that they can prevent the government from ruining our sport......, Did the AT not refuse to help DEFRA in their study of RSA and our catch rate potential, did they not refuse to give DEFRA amunition to attack our sport.

 

Isn't the AT response to the Reform of the CFP more proof that the AT know how to deal with a goverment who knows nothing about our sport or commercial maximum sustainable yield. Does this response not prove to RSA that they know what we need and that they can deliver if we unite.

 

Did the AT not, along with hundreds of individual RSA's, speak to government via meetings and the internet to say 'NO WAY' to a sea rod licence, AND WIN.

 

Are the AT along with WWF not seeking ways to take our government to court over the illegal use of our rivers to produce Hydro Electric Power, preventing sediment from reaching our seas, preventing Eels, Salmon and Sea Trout from migrating.

 

Are the AT not fighting to make sure that RSA can continue to enjoy our sport inside MCZ's. Attending these meetings does not have to mean that the AT supports all MCZ's, have you considered what RSA would be left with if the AT did not try defend RSA by being part if the discussions. How many RSA's attend these meetings Barry.

 

The AT are attending meetings after meetings to protect RSA, all over the country and in Europe, the vast majority of which is being done without pay, and they are having to do this because we won't, we don't care enough, we just want to go fishing!!!!

 

It is too easy to blame the AT, they are an easy target, but with all honesty Barry, we should be blaming RSA for a lack of will to stand up and fight.

 

If it all goes tits up, everyone will blame the AT for having no backbone, no desire to protect RSA. Those RSA's who do that should look straight into a mirror to find the guilty party. If there are really 1.4 million RSA's out there why did only 0.5%??? of them stand up say no to a sea rod licence.

 

And by the way, I also agree with Radoslaw, no one should ever assume they have the right without accepting the responsibility, it is the same with everything else in life. Steve, Wayne, you and me have assumed the right and we have all also accepted the responsibility, fair enough?

Edited April 18, 2010 by Yido

[Steve Coppolo]

Fair enough Barry, every view is welcome.

 

You say that the AT have not demonstrated that they can prevent the government from ruining our sport......, Did the AT not refuse to help DEFRA in their study of RSA and our catch rate potential, did they not refuse to give DEFRA amunition to attack our sport.

They did under Stuart McPherson, who has since resigned. I think you will find that the AT are, once again, in favour of supplying data that could be used to damage sea angling. They are even trying encourage anglers to give information to the MCS!!!

 

Isn't the AT response to the Reform of the CFP more proof that the AT know how to deal with a goverment who knows nothing about our sport or commercial maximum sustainable yield. Does this response not prove to RSA that they know what we need and that they can deliver if we unite.

 

I think you'll also find that the majority of the AT Marine Committee didn't even know what Article 47 was, or what it meant, until it was pointed out to them by the committee member on whom they have just done a first class hatchet job and are now trying to get rid of. One of them said at an AT meeting that he 'couldn't care less' about article 47.

 

Did the AT not, along with hundreds of individual RSA's, speak to government via meetings and the internet to say 'NO WAY' to a sea rod licence, AND WIN.

 

No Reg. That was the voice of grass roots anglers. Sea angling reps, some of whom went on to become part of the AT marine conservation group, suggested a sea angling licence in the first place. Grass roots anglers opposed it. The Angling Trust hadn't even been formed when the sea angling licence issue was being fought. For your information, elements within the Angling Trust and a few of those who sit in the back ground anonymously advising them, still haven't dropped the idea and are starting to promote it again. Unbelievable!

 

Are the AT along with WWF not seeking ways to take our government to court over the illegal use of our rivers to produce Hydro Electric Power, preventing sediment from reaching our seas, preventing Eels, Salmon and Sea Trout from migrating.

 

I don't know, Reg, are they? When will it be going to court?

 

Are the AT not fighting to make sure that RSA can continue to enjoy our sport inside MCZ's. Attending these meetings does not have to mean that the AT supports all MCZ's, have you considered what RSA would be left with if the AT did not try defend RSA by being part if the discussions. How many RSA's attend these meetings Barry.

 

No, they aren't. The Angling Trust have tried to impose the will of a small handful of it's officers on the MCZ projects. The dirty tricks they have employed in trying ensure that the reps of their choice are shoehorned into place on stakeholder groups is nothing short of disgraceful. I can only imagine that the reasoning behind such a determined affort is to stifle the views of grass roots sea anglers who might not agree with the Angling Trusts' eco warrior driven agenda.

 

The AT are attending meetings after meetings to protect RSA, all over the country and in Europe, the vast majority of which is being done without pay, and they are having to do this because we won't, we don't care enough, we just want to go fishing!!!!

 

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. I tend to believe that the more meetings the Angling Trust attends on behalf of sea anglers, the more damage they are doing to the sport. Do you know what they talk about at these meetings, Reg? Any idea what the plan is with regard to the Angling Trust and the future of sea angling? The reason people aren't paying is quite simple. They obviously don't want the Angling Trust misrepresenting them. You're right on one count, though. Most sea anglers do just want to go fishing. What's wrong with that? Or are you another one who believes we all need the Angling Trust holding our hand?

 

It is too easy to blame the AT, they are an easy target, but with all honesty Barry, we should be blaming RSA for a lack of will to stand up and fight.

 

No. You can blame the RSA, if you want. They have the will to stand up and fight when they face threats to their sport. The chances of them finding out about such threats, though, are slim. When it comes to freedom of information, the Angling Trust are sadly lacking - even among their own committee members. And let's get this straight, too. The real threat to sea angling is not lack of fish. It's the ability to be able to fish for them and eat them.

 

If it all goes tits up, everyone will blame the AT for having no backbone, no desire to protect RSA. Those RSA's who do that should look straight into a mirror to find the guilty party. If there are really 1.4 million RSA's out there why did only 0.5%??? of them stand up say no to a sea rod licence.

 

And by the way, I also agree with Radoslaw, no one should ever assume they have the right without accepting the responsibility, it is the same with everything else in life. Steve, Wayne, you and me have assumed the right and we have all also accepted the responsibility, fair enough?

 

First of all, there aren't 1.4 million sea anglers out there. Nothing like it. But no matter how many there are, they will all be justified in blaming the Angling Trust if it all goes tits up. The Angling Trust is, after all, our national governing body, is it not? The Angling Trust is the voice of angling, so they say. Well, you want to talk about responsibilty, claims like that come with a huge responsibility. If it all goes tits up for sea anglers, the Angling Trust will have failed in their duty, a duty that they took on, to protect sea angling.

 

If you're going to promote the AT to the detriment of sea anglers, Reg, at least be right in what you are saying.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[Yido]

Hi Steve, good to see your in tiptop form as always, straight onto your reply;

 

Where is the evidence to back up your claim that the AT are ONCE AGAIN in favour of supplying data that could be used to damage sea angling. I have not read or heard them say they were in favour since Stuart McPherson was appointed. In fact a point blank refusal to help DEFRA from the very start is solid evidence against this claim don't you think!

 

Steve, do not try to evade the question, do you agree with the AT response to the Reform of the CFP or not? Once everyone has read the AT Response they will be fully aware of how much the AT knew about Article 47 and now Article 55, they will also know the AT's views on Maximum Sustainable Yield and the pathetic Quota system in favour of foriegn fleets.

 

Did Stuart McPherson not say 'NO' to a sea rod licence, I posted my objection to a sea rod licence when our club joined the AT, January 2009 if I remember correctly. Furthermore the AT continue to be against a sea rod licenece until such time as a licence is necessary and proven to be of benefit to RSA, my words, not words taken from the AT. Maybe I have got dates mixed up or maybe there have been two recent attempts to force a sea rod licence on RSA, one thing is for sure, it won't go away.

 

As far as the AT and WWF taking the government to court, I believe that Fish Legal are looking into the matter now, to see where government have to justify its policy. I also believe that there is information about this on the AT web site if you want to have a look. Better still, contact them directly, they are after all your governing body.

 

AT and their involvement in the development of MCZ's.

 

Steve, you are wrong on this one! I have been speaking to Jules Martin of Balanced Seas about restrictions on sea anglers, I am also kept in touch with developments with regards Balanced Seas because I attended local meetings, just like Wayne McCully. I believe that Balanced Seas would of been far happier if the AT were not involved in the first place, in fact their literature states that they do not know if the AT will be allowed to represent RSA in all locations. That said, Jules Martin, who I have personally met now on three ocassions has informed local anglers that RSA will be one of the least effected stakeholders of all sea users. Thanks to input from AT representatives like Wayne and Alan Brothers amongst others, as well as a very few RSA who could be bothered to attend, I think the total RSA attendance was 24 out of the entire region. The last time I met Jules Martin was at an ADB meeting in Hastings, strange how a representative of Balanced Seas wants to help the AT, ADB and young anglers don't you think!

 

Balanced Seas have just appointed a RSA liaison officer a Mr Ben Godsall, today I have just received confirmation that he is willing to talk to all RSA in Sussex to reassure them that we have little to fear. Ben is waiting on us to organise an interclub meeting so he can attend. This would not of been possible without the help of the AT. Yes Steve, there will be some restrictions and yes its going to hurt, that is not down to the AT, it is down to our government and European commitments.

 

The reason why anglers aren't paying is quite simple Steve, they won't until they have too, not a fault of anglers in general, its what most people do when there is another bill to pay and to be honest I haven't got a problem with that. The problem I have is that most anglers do not care about their sport enough to pay attention to what is happening right now. Most anglers will moan and then pay up or pay a hefty fine, but if they took time to find out what is happening right now, they would be able to put a stop to the majority of it before its too late.

 

How can the AT talk to anglers who do not want to listen, you can send them all the information possible and they will throw it in the bin. I agree with you that the real threat to sea angling is the ability to be able to fish for them and eat them. We have to keep a very close eye on DEFRA, the Revised CFP and all developments towards MCZ's.

 

I also agree that there are not 1.4 million sea anglers out there, but no matter how many there are, if we are to blame the AT if it all goes tits up we first have to tell them what we want. If anglers do not talk to the AT how will they know what we want in localised areas, where are the main threats with MCZ's and angling, how many of us fish there, why do we want them to defend these sites on behalf of anglers. Are we to presume that the AT knows every inch of our coastline, come on Steve, we have a voice, its about time we used it. I have talked to many sea anglers about MCZ's, they moan and moan about the threats to their angling, but when I ask them what have they done about it, or who have they spoken to about it, they say: Haa......... I can't be bothered, whats the point, I'm going down the pub or footballs on tonight!!

 

 

If you're going to promote the rights of RSA to the detriment of anglers who support the AT, Steve, at least be right in what you are saying.

[barry luxton]

Tell me Reg, what is your opinion regarding these mcz,s

 

Do me a favour and link the responce to the cfp on here as it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

Do you agree that the A T had on their web site that they suggested that the rsa deal with a quango called the mcs. As the A T was not geared up for the mcz's project, like another needle in a haystack, i can no longer find it. Is it still on their site, or have they removed it because it was a load of cobblers. If that is the case, has the A T made reference to it.

 

quote Reg: there will be some restrictions and yes its going to hurt, that is not down to the AT, it is down to our government and European commitments.

 

 

If thats the case Reg, what are the A T doing about it, rolling over?

 

What restrictions are we looking at Reg? You appear to be ahead of the field on that one? Do you know something that the rsa don't. Please tell us so we can do something about it then.

[Steve Coppolo]

I'm wasting my time with you, Reg. There's none so blind as those that don't want to see.

[Yido]

Tell me Reg, what is your opinion regarding these mcz,s

 

Do me a favour and link the responce to the cfp on here as it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

Do you agree that the A T had on their web site that they suggested that the rsa deal with a quango called the mcs. As the A T was not geared up for the mcz's project, like another needle in a haystack, i can no longer find it. Is it still on their site, or have they removed it because it was a load of cobblers. If that is the case, has the A T made reference to it.

 

quote Reg: there will be some restrictions and yes its going to hurt, that is not down to the AT, it is down to our government and European commitments.

 

 

If thats the case Reg, what are the A T doing about it, rolling over?

 

What restrictions are we looking at Reg? You appear to be ahead of the field on that one? Do you know something that the rsa don't. Please tell us so we can do something about it then.

 

 

Barry, if you look back in through these posts you should be able to find the link, I posted it a few eeks ago. If its gone somehow I will do it again. I will answer your post later today, work comes first, sorry

[barry luxton]

Barry, if you look back in through these posts you should be able to find the link, I posted it a few eeks ago. If its gone somehow I will do it again. I will answer your post later today, work comes first, sorry

 

 

You poor chap Reg, feeling sorry for ya With me it's fishing first, then sometimes work gets in the way, not too much though.

Edited April 20, 2010 by barry luxton

[Yido]

Tell me Reg, what is your opinion regarding these mcz,s

 

Do me a favour and link the responce to the cfp on here as it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

Do you agree that the A T had on their web site that they suggested that the rsa deal with a quango called the mcs. As the A T was not geared up for the mcz's project, like another needle in a haystack, i can no longer find it. Is it still on their site, or have they removed it because it was a load of cobblers. If that is the case, has the A T made reference to it.

 

quote Reg: there will be some restrictions and yes its going to hurt, that is not down to the AT, it is down to our government and European commitments.

 

 

If thats the case Reg, what are the A T doing about it, rolling over?

 

What restrictions are we looking at Reg? You appear to be ahead of the field on that one? Do you know something that the rsa don't. Please tell us so we can do something about it then.

 

Barry the link is as follows:

 

 

anglingtrust.net/page.asp?section=494&sectionTitle=Consultation+Responses

 

remember to put http://www. before this, for some reason I can't put the full address on here in one line.

 

Yes I believe the AT website did ask anglers to nominate marine conservation zones in their local areas, they have also asked anglers to attend meetings and explain how important these areas are to angling and why we need areas of our coastline protected from over fishing by commercial fleets. I have never looked myself but I have been told this before by other anglers. The thing is Barry, the more anglers moan and shout to these organisations, the more they will listen. If we dont moan and shout then they will think we do not care and we are an easy touch. I do not believe for one minute that Balanced Seas had any intension to appoint a angling liaison officer in their region, I believe that it was only down to a lot of moaning from anglers and the AT that they then took this step.

 

As far as the AT intensions with MCZ's, and I can only refer to Balanced Seas area because I am not in the know!

They are trying to appoint an AT representative in this region to represent anglers, but remember the literature provided by Balanced Seas stated that they may not be welcome. This is an issue that the AT will have to press hard if we are to have a say in the future.

 

As far as my opinion on MCZ's they are a major step forward in the protection of our habitat and protection of all species, if, and only if these sites do not have a devastating effect on RSA. I do not trust Balanced Seas one bit and I have told our members and the local anglers who I have spoken too, to make absolutely sure that they are aware of the ramifications of ignoring Balanced Seas and letting them dictate to us. I believe that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for RSA to protect our future, but if we are not careful and we do nothing and say nothing then it could turn out to be the final nail in our coffin. We are losing GRASS ROOT venues all over the country because we do nothing and let government and private organisations walk all over us, when are anglers going to realise that doing nothing now is the worst thing we can do. I am not talking about joining the AT, I am talking about standing together and telling them our sport is important to this country we want our sport, our fish stocks and our fishing venues protected.

 

That said, there are some promising signs that Balanced Seas have heard us and are now prepared to listen to anglers. The appointment of a angling liaison officer could be seen as a way to appease anglers, but I hope that is it a way to communicate with anglers, to understand our needs and adopt an approach that will not hinder our sport too severely. Jules Martin has told me that there are only going to be one or two NTZ's around the entire country where all forms of fishing will probably be banned, and reviewed again every six years.

 

I think that in reality there may be a few sites in our area where there may well be some form of closed season during spawning periods of endangered species, there will very probably be areas where boat anglers cannot anchor, so drift fishing only will be adopted but I think that is about as bad as it will get Barry. Other locations around our coast, I simply do not know.

 

The latest Balanced Seas information sent recently indicates that the minimum MCZ's will be approximately 5 km's wide, the maximum between 10 and 12 km's wide so they will cover a large area in any case. All zones will have to have several different habitats re: rock outcrops, sand banks, mussel beds, gravel beds etc, and they will have to hold species that are in decline or may be endangered due to over fishing. I will try to find the info and post the site on here for you guys to have a look at. These areas are for protection against damaging commercial fishing, NOT ANGLING. Some forms of commercial fishing may still be allowed, and angling may well be allowed in all areas. Remember, there is not a single site nominated yet, that won't happen until 2011 and proposed to the governemt in 2012.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Yido

[Sharkbyte]

Hi Reg

 

Unfortunately, I am prevented from entering the debate over much of what you have been saying, so I will have to restrict my comments / questions to just a few lines.

 

 

They are trying to appoint an AT representative in this region to represent anglers, but remember the literature provided by Balanced Seas stated that they may not be welcome. This is an issue that the AT will have to press hard if we are to have a say in the future.

 

Could you be clearer?

 

Regional Sub Group, Local Sub Group? Names?

 

 

Jules Martin has told me that there are only going to be one or two NTZ's around the entire country where all forms of fishing will probably be banned, and reviewed again every six years.

 

I am glad to see that someone has addressed the inevitability of future review, but you appear to believe that this is an entirely good thing. What if a tin pot study, during the first phase, is engineered to demonstrate that further restrictions upon RSA are required in order to further protect a site.

 

We are at the top of a very slippery slope, Reg, and just like the yanks, people are not looking far enough into the future. Pay packets and pensions will need to be justified long, long, after 2012!

 

A team of scientists and administrators telling the Minister that everything is hunky-dory will likely be out of a cushy job by the end of the following month.

 

It just doesn't happen.

 

 

I think that in reality there may be a few sites in our area where there may well be some form of closed season during spawning periods of endangered species, there will very probably be areas where boat anglers cannot anchor, so drift fishing only will be adopted but I think that is about as bad as it will get Barry. Other locations around our coast, I simply do not know.

 

In other words, absolutely dreadful for anyone who owns / regularly fishes from a boat, and of nil importance for those that fish from the shore.......or don't fish at all.

 

It's very apparent how this unsanctioned concession of 'no anchoring' has snowballed into the number one threat to boat angling today!

 

 

 

Love to say more, Reg.....but, well, you know the rest I am quite sure.