Angling Trust Forum

[Steve Coppolo]

Hello Bob

Glad you decided to carry on the debate after all. Probably beter here than on the AT website. You will get more views and opinions here.

 

I'm sorry, but your argument about every angler joining and having a say is deeply flawed. That is a bit like saying, if you don't like the BNP, join it and tell them what you don't like about it. First of all, you shouldn't have to, and second, they wouldn't take any notice, anyway! Anglers are already having a say, Bob. They have not joined the AT - and that says it all. What you and other AT stalwarts seem to forget is, the Angling Trust came looking for anglers. Anglers didn't go looking for the Angling Trust. Let's be honest, the AT isn't even trying to defend the sport of angling against unwanted and unnecessary restrictions.

 

I saw your reference to Martial Arts and the way they are regulated, on the AT forum, but didn't respond as you said you were dropping out of that debate. Perhaps I can respond on here? Yes Martial Arts are regulated. But what relevance that has to the sport of angling, I have no idea. We could take your example a bit further, if you like. Driving a car in the UK is also heavily regulated. You need to pass a test, get a licence, pay road tax, pay for compulsory insurance, have your car teasted and certified safe every year, stick to speed limits, stop at red traffic lights, etc, etc, etc. And you get fined, or even banned, if you fail to comply. Is that what you really want for angling? I don't know about you, or how much you like to be controlled, but I go fishing to get away from all that.

[Bob Bradford]

No disrespects Bob, everyone has representation in parliament and in the press, with the advances with the internet it is easy today.

 

 

I had no idea that is how anglers can get proper representation Barry, thanks for that , I can save my £20 membership fee for 2010,

 

Er, just one question, what has been achieved so far?

[Bob Bradford]

Hello Bob

Glad you decided to carry on the debate after all. Probably beter here than on the AT website. You will get more views and opinions here.

 

I'm sorry, but your argument about every angler joining and having a say is deeply flawed. That is a bit like saying, if you don't like the BNP, join it and tell them what you don't like about it. First of all, you shouldn't have to, and second, they wouldn't take any notice, anyway! Anglers are already having a say, Bob. They have not joined the AT - and that says it all. What you and other AT stalwarts seem to forget is, the Angling Trust came looking for anglers. Anglers didn't go looking for the Angling Trust. Let's be honest, the AT isn't even trying to defend the sport of angling against unwanted and unnecessary restrictions.

 

I saw your reference to Martial Arts and the way they are regulated, on the AT forum, but didn't respond as you said you were dropping out of that debate. Perhaps I can respond on here? Yes Martial Arts are regulated. But what relevance that has to the sport of angling, I have no idea. We could take your example a bit further, if you like. Driving a car in the UK is also heavily regulated. You need to pass a test, get a licence, pay road tax, pay for compulsory insurance, have your car teasted and certified safe every year, stick to speed limits, stop at red traffic lights, etc, etc, etc. And you get fined, or even banned, if you fail to comply. Is that what you really want for angling? I don't know about you, or how much you like to be controlled, but I go fishing to get away from all that.

 

I do not like to be controlled as you put it, I do wish to be properly represented though, Barry's suggestion is laughable, perhaps you have a better solution Steve?

 

IN YOUR OPINION, the freshwater proposals are unnecessary and unwanted, my opinion is the reverse, neither opinions are undisputed facts, that is why the Angling Trust have asked for our views, BEFORE commenting to the EA on their members behalf, yet another good reason to be a member of the Angling Trust, the members have asay, Barry and co can only sit and watch it unfold ,then moan about the outcome on here............... again, where is the logic in that?

 

PS, I was only calling time on that particular evening of debate.

[Worms]

Most of the old angling organisations were on their uppers, they faced extinction through lack of support, anglers demanded a first class service but refused to pay for it through memberships............is any of this starting to sound familiar? you know the rest.

 

You talk as if the Angling Trust has unlimited resources, contact every licence holder and consult with them individually? who is going to fund that? you as a non member? how does that work then?

The AT, or at least vocal members seemingly wants to ally itself to the rod licensing cash, the AT also claims to represent all anglers. How so if it can't be bothered to contact them? I certainly don't want a closed shop.

 

If you do not want proper representation to Parliament, the Press and media, thats fine, continue just as you are, that is your right, but what gives you the right in condemning the Angling Trust and the individuals that run it, for TRYING to make a difference?

And who gave the AT the "proper representation to parliament"? Nobody asked the anglers that they say they represent. If they only represent the anglers that pay for them, the minority, and with your attitude that the majority of anglers are a waste of your time then the AT is, on that basis an elite group of snobs or worse.

 

What gives me the right to condemn the AT is that I pay my dues to fish. I don't pay a self elected elitist group claiming to represent all anglers which claims exclusive rights to represent said anglers whilst not supporting them by supporting ridiculous anti angling legislation.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Worms

[Steve Coppolo]

I do not like to be controlled as you put it, I do wish to be properly represented though, Barry's suggestion is laughable, perhaps you have a better solution Steve?

 

IN YOUR OPINION, the freshwater proposals are unnecessary and unwanted, my opinion is the reverse, neither opinions are undisputed facts, that is why the Angling Trust have asked for our views, BEFORE commenting to the EA on their members behalf, yet another good reason to be a member of the Angling Trust, the members have asay, Barry and co can only sit and watch it unfold ,then moan about the outcome on here............... again, where is the logic in that?

 

PS, I was only calling time on that particular evening of debate.

 

Not just my opinion, Bob. Have you seen the poll results on the coarse forum? Even the EA say, in a round about way, that these restrictions are unnecessary. It makes me wonder who was behind them because it doesn't appear, to me, to have been the EA's idea.

 

The Angling Trust, despite its claims, does not represent all anglers. Therefore, it shouldn't be the only voice that the EA, or anyoen else, listens to. It might cost you £20 to tell the AT what you think so they can then, in theory at least, tell the EA what it's members think, but anglers who haven't joined should still have an equal say with the decision makers. The problem is, most anglers haven't got a clue what is being decided behind their backs. Even those who take an interest wouldn't know if it wasn't for the forums. There isn't a mention of these restrictions on the AT website and I don't remember seeing any mention of them when the EA sent me my rod licence renewal notice.

[barry luxton]

Barry's suggestion is laughable, perhaps you have a better solution Steve?

 

Barry and co can only sit and watch it unfold ,then moan about the outcome on here............... again, where is the logic in that?

 

Did i make a joke?

 

I do more than that Bob i can assure you. Do you not speak to mp's or political parties then? It's easy by email, sometimes you even get a reply.

 

Quote: Er, just one question, what has been achieved so far? end quote.

 

Don't know what you mean, by the AT?

Edited January 2, 2010 by barry luxton

[Bob Bradford]

Worms, the Angling Trust have asked for anglers opinions, so too have the EA ,on the proposed new legislation, to date about four (4) AT members have responded on their site, and about 1000 anglers have responded on the EA site, the fundamental problem is quite obvious, anglers blame the Angling Trust and before them all the old angling organisations, but the fault lies squarely with the angling fraternity, it all boils down to taking responsibilty, this forum is the same as all the others in that respect, it is far easier to post on here and whinge and whine thinking it makes a difference.............do you think the Government, the EA who act on behalf of the government take any notice? anglers are irrelevant, because they choose to be irrelevant.

 

Barry, I asked what has been achieved by your singular, solitary approach to all of angling's issues, what great victory's have you won for angling by taking this approach?

 

Steve, what other angling organisation, other than ECHO, is recognised by Government, so by default the EA? how will the majority of anglers be heard if not through the representitive angling body? No mention of the proposals on the AT website? funny that Steve, as you are one of the four members to have responded to Mark lloyd's post on the subject!!!

 

 

Gozzer (John) where is that brickwall of yours mate, I am in desperate need of it

Edited January 2, 2010 by Bob Bradford

[barry luxton]

Barry, I asked what has been achieved by your singular, solitary approach to all of angling's issues, what great victory's have you won for angling by taking this approach?

 

 

 

I'm going to claim as much as the AT for example regarding article 47. And i only sent one email or two. Without paying 20 quid.

[Steve Coppolo]

Steve, what other angling organisation, other than ECHO, is recognised by Government, so by default the EA? how will the majority of anglers be heard if not through the representitive angling body? No mention of the proposals on the AT website? funny that Steve, as you are one of the four members to have responded to Mark lloyd's post on the subject!!!

 

There is no mention of the fish removal byelaws on the AT website. Mark Lloyd has gone on the forum to ask members' views. That's fair enough, but what are the views of the AT board? Do they support the new byelaws, or do they oppose them? Do they think they were necessary, or not? And why? How did they respond the the initial consultation? You know, the one that was full of loaded questions that made it very difficult for anglers to oppose the proposed restrictions. The AT have behaved like the proverbial candle in the wind over this issue. So, whether they are recognised by government, or not, the AT appear to be failing to address the issues and threats faced by anglers. So what possible reason could there be for anglers to join? It seems that, with such a lack of direction from within the AT, anglers using their collective lone voices is the only way they are going to get heard.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Steve Coppolo

[Jaffa]

As an angler in Scotland I have the same interest in the Angling trust as they have in me.

 

No interest whatsoever

 

I'll second that.

 

I don't have a clue who this "famous five" are, no nothing much about the history of "Angling representation" and why i'm supposed to care. All i see (however wrong a view that may be) is a small group of very green mates helping ram through proposals for restrictions on freedoms i have always enjoyed, and all for no clear purpose or end.

 

Chris