Don't Believe What You Read On Internet Forums!

[Elton]

no worries elton and barry.i didnt realise there was a problem withe the facility to post below the articles.

feel free to hold me in contempt,many do !

cheers rab

 

LOL no hard feelings, I hope.

 

Tight lines,

 

Elton

[Steve Coppolo]

A small comment from a non rsa, (well I've dabbled over the years, but freshwater is my preference).

 

My concern is in the "Facts" section of the blog.

I wonder if Mr Lloyd and co actually break down and categorise the impressive numbers of claimed members?

 

How many are members because they actually believe in/care what the ATr is doing?

How many of the 13,000 individual members have only joined to gain access to certain matches?

How many have only joined to take advantage of the bribes (sorry) special offers, available with membership?

How many of the 350,000 to 400,000 affiliate members are only there because membership is a 'bi product' of gaining access to the waters owned by the member club? I wonder how many even know that their club is a member?

 

It's no use just quoting membership numbers, they are just statistics. A better way would be to do away with the conditions or incentives, then see how many true members you have.

 

I think you would be in for a very unpleasant surprise, (or maybe you already know).

 

John.

 

True membership should mean those who have joined as individuals. I believe it is around 13,000, if the AT's estimations are true. A far cry from the hundreds of thousands that Mark Lloyd claims they represent.

[captain cojones]

no worries elton and barry.i didnt realise there was a problem withe the facility to post below the articles.

feel free to hold me in contempt,many do !

cheers rab

 

Welcome to AT Rab.

[barry luxton]

A small comment from a non rsa, (well I've dabbled over the years, but freshwater is my preference).

 

My concern is in the "Facts" section of the blog.

I wonder if Mr Lloyd and co actually break down and categorise the impressive numbers of claimed members?

 

How many are members because they actually believe in/care what the ATr is doing?

How many of the 13,000 individual members have only joined to gain access to certain matches?

How many have only joined to take advantage of the bribes (sorry) special offers, available with membership?

How many of the 350,000 to 400,000 affiliate members are only there because membership is a 'bi product' of gaining access to the waters owned by the member club? I wonder how many even know that their club is a member?

 

It's no use just quoting membership numbers, they are just statistics. A better way would be to do away with the conditions or incentives, then see how many true members you have.

 

I think you would be in for a very unpleasant surprise, (or maybe you already know).

 

John.

 

 

I think the 13,000 figure is now historic and although some have asked, the release of the latest figures would give a more accurate idea of how well or poor the trust has done on recruitment. Again the 13,000 figure, i believe came from when the trust inherited those when the orgs merged in the beginning, time will tell?

 

Thank goodness the little hiccup with Rab joining has been sorted, perhaps we can get back to business as usual. What was we talking about?

 

Rab, we are not worthy.

[Steve Coppolo]

I think the 13,000 figure is now historic and although some have asked, the release of the latest figures would give a more accurate idea of how well or poor the trust has done on recruitment. Again the 13,000 figure, i believe came from when the trust inherited those when the orgs merged in the beginning, time will tell?

 

Thank goodness the little hiccup with Rab joining has been sorted, perhaps we can get back to business as usual. What was we talking about?

 

Rab, we are not worthy.

 

I'm not even sure they take ex members off the list. I know that when I ripped my membership card up, I remained on the members list for a very long time afterwards. I might even still be on it, for all I know.

[flapper]

So do you think that they (AT) are exaggerating the numbers of recreational sea anglers they have on there books? What do you think that these anglers have to gain from joining up and paying there £25? If nothing then do you think they are gullible, or have more money than sense? Or do you thick that they actually (un-like us) believe what the AT is doing is going to be good for there hobby?

Flapper.

[Bob Shotter]

So do you think that they (AT) are exaggerating the numbers of recreational sea anglers they have on there books? What do you think that these anglers have to gain from joining up and paying there £25? If nothing then do you think they are gullible, or have more money than sense? Or do you thick that they actually (un-like us) believe what the AT is doing is going to be good for there hobby?

Flapper.

 

Hi Flapper

 

If you take a look at some of the post on facebook for example then you will see that yes the average AT member does believe in the trust and that they are doing right by them.

 

Expose them to a different view and that will result in what we see here, pages of condemnation.

 

In percentage terms though it is us the sceptics that are the minority and by a large margin and that is explained by the fact that most ‘Don’t do politics but do do fishing.

 

Tight lines Bob

[Steve Coppolo]

I would imagine that the vast majority of sea anglers haven't even heard of the Angling Trust.

[rabg]

LOL no hard feelings, I hope.

 

Tight lines,

 

Elton

none whatsoever elton ! steve makes a good point about actual membership.the oft quoted 13000 is the original figure i beleive,i doubt very much if it would stand up to scrutiny these days.take out the anglers that only join so they can take part in fish o mania (6000 ?)and it becomes a whole different story.

i daresay some at the AT think the naysayers like myself are just anti AT,but the problem for many like myself is the lack of transparency ,if they cant even come clean with actual full paying members and recruitment numbers since the inception of the AT it doesnt look good.add in the underhand way the eel and tope legislation was dealt with ,plus the way it closed its own forum rather than answer pertinent questions from its own members and you have an organisation that cannot be trusted and seems to beleive it is there to dictate to anglers ,rather than listen to what they want.

sea angling is made up of a huge range of disciplines and as such trying to come up with a one size fits all policy is near impossible.it would be far easier to say the only policy is to maintain the historical right to fish in our seas and access to them,something all sea anglers would agree on i think,than continue to promote things they have no control over,more and bigger fish for example,a great headline maker,but in real terms has no substance behind it,the fish will decide that one ,not people.

cheers rab