Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd fail to deliver again

[andy_youngs]

Didn't want to waste space quoting it all but I think your post #122 is very good.You've put over your points really well.

Why thank you Budgie. I have to say it's a bit disconcerting going from pariah poster to having such praise heaped upon me in the space of just a few days. Happy new year mate

[Bob Shotter]

Yes I agree there Bob. Several reasons why I to fail to see what can be gained,the AT has never listened to US (the people it claims to represent members or not) before so why do we think they would now? and also I think that "pandering" to them by even discussing/attempting to discuss with them just adds a strange kind of credance to them!

 

I as one who doesnt accept that they represent me see no reason why I should discuss anything with them full stop! First they need to convince me they do represent me and are interested in my veiws/wishes rather than just trying to apear to to apease me/get my support/dosh!

 

While not so long ago I would have said you are right Budgie and I for one would not give the Trust the time of day but I now realise that like it or not the Angling Trust are the voice of all anglers. They have achieved that position from a minority who have indeed shelled out a membership fee their numbers swelled by club and federation affiliation. As a result they get invited to all the meetings and they are listened to, that situation has just shifted further by adding Mr Salter to their team. As an ex MP he will have friends in government right across the political divide, people who he can pick up a phone and call, it’s a case of who you know and that puts everyone else at a disadvantage.

 

Just over a year ago I made the move to set up a new org to rival the Angling Trust for the very reasons you describe and from the off folk were saying you won’t get a look in, the fact is we quickly got a few members on board and more important the backing of two big federations. I can tell you that as a result I can talk to DEFRA at any time and get a response from the minister to, he might not be saying what I want to hear but at least he is taking note. CEFAS invited us to join the steering group for Angling 2012 but on the realisation of how strongly we opposed the data collection were where kicked off but that did not shut the door indeed we have remained in dialogue with Mike Armstrong.

 

My point is that it has taught me you can do a great deal from the outside and knowing the Trust will be speaking to government on my behalf whether I like it or not the Angling Trust like CEFAS will know they have to listen to us. The more we or you get on record by communicating the less harm they can do but getting that message out is the hard bit.

 

Sorry to have taken this off topic a bit but it may help Andy and his Union to realise that direct dialogue with the Angling Trust is very important rather than making demands find out what there policy is and use it against them at every opportunity make sure you contact the relevant government departments, this I believe will do your cause more good than trying to get Martin into debate.

[Dick Dastardly]

Bob I just wrote a rather heart felt and personal reply to your post (which I think is good) basically expressing my frustration at the situation and my lack of ability to affect it............but I did my old favourite of hitting the refresh rather than spell check (both close on my tool bar ) and so lost it

 

So what do we do Bob? I dont think we can change AT but simply letting it die will no doubt cause any future angling body to have lost any credibility with the people who AT claim to have their ear? Do you understand my position?

 

Many ask why I bother worrying as its not going to affect "my" fishing in the relatively short time I have left but sad as it sounds "fishing" to me is a lot more important than "my fishing" Its been a major part of my life and I cant bear to think it wont continue as I know it for many others to enjoy for a lot more years.

 

Its this frustration that no doubt fuels a lot of my discontent.

[barry luxton]

............................. direct dialogue with the Angling Trust is very important rather than making demands find out what there policy is and use it against them at every opportunity make sure you contact the relevant government departments, this I believe will do your cause more good............................

 

 

 

Don't do as i do. do as i tell you.

 

Having spent the majority of last year falling out with any angler or skipper who doesn't share your veiw. You now suggest speaking to the trust, to be used against them? The pba won't give you the time of day. Many hundreds of coastguard supporters will now view you as hostile. You speak to Armstrong through the freedom of info act, because you got sacked, failed to agree to dissagree, remember, not the royal we, banned from two fishy web sites because of your hostility. Fallen out with anglers who share a view that they wish to see more and bigger fish, while you support plate sized. A very big mountain to climb, even before acheiving anything of benifit to the angler what so ever.

[gozzer]

Andy, whether you believe it or not. I have had my day ruined by canoes, or at least a major part of it. Of the rivers I mentioned, one in particular had over grown banks and just getting into a position to fish disturbed the swim, to warrant a wait of an hour or so before casting a bait. To have canoes come down and scatter the fish downstream, not only wasted that hour, but it took another (at least) for the swim to settle. Remember on this type of water there is nowhere for the fish to go, and they are herded downstream. On the stretch that I fished the river opened up into a relatively large pool, and I have seen fish driven into the pool in there hundreds. But that's just my experience on that type of water, on others I have noticed very little disturbance from passing canoes. So as I say, there are some waters where they can co-exist, and others where they can't.

I see the word compromise being used, my interpretation of compromise is, both sides giving as well as receiving. I fail to see what canoeists can offer in the present situation. All I have heard from canoeist that I've spoken to, is that they want 'the right to roam'. That is what puts the angers back up. If as you suggest negotiations are held and angling clubs/land owners agree to access, then the canoeists are going to accept that they will be severely regulated, and I don't think that many will accept that. Some waters classed as non-navigable could be used by both, and I think that most anglers would accept some canoes passing through, (just as they do on canals and the bigger rivers), but they would react badly to several flotillas of canoes passing all day. Without some kind of regulation/licencing method, it would be impossible to control. Maybe a licence and a visible registration on all boats would be needed, so that any 'wrong doers, could be tracked and dealt with. It's a very complex situation that I can't see being resolved without a complete turn around of attitude by both the canoeists and anglers, with many anglers still thinking that they have given too much, and canoeist thinking they haven't given enough.

 

John.

[Bob Shotter]

It would appear we are in a not to dissimilar position Budgie my years of active angling are numbered I’m 65 in a couple of weeks’ time and suffering from progressive Rheumatoid Arteritis so like you my main objective is to see that future generations can have the ability to enjoy sea angling and hopefully get as much pleasure from it as I’ve had.

 

I do believe we can make a difference as it happens and given the Trust are in the business of representing anglers, then putting pressure on them is no different than putting political pressure on our government.

 

Barry makes the point that during the past year (9 months actually) I have been falling out with a few players with whom both me and the org membership are at odds. Not least he and I have disagreed to such a point that Barry decided to leave the org and from that point on has been trying to change it.

 

Unlike his pals at the PBA who got criticized by me for speaking to DEFRA and CEFAS on behalf of anglers when that is not and was not their place. The Angling Trust are professional enough to take being criticised while still being prepared to talk to those very critics. Just like government departments and their associates like CEFAS they are duty bound to continue to enter into dialogue with the people they claim to represent. It is so easy to forget that we have certain right in this country which few use to the max.

 

Just to clarify a point for Barry the information being sought under the freedom of information act is in regard to certain email exchanges and information about the data collection from charter boats that even the CEFAS steering group have been denied. That is information that should have long since been in the public domain given the data collection is now starting to get under way and information that neither the Angling Trust or more important your PBA chums have managed to get.

[andy_youngs]

Andy, whether you believe it or not. I have had my day ruined by canoes, or at least a major part of it. Of the rivers I mentioned, one in particular had over grown banks and just getting into a position to fish disturbed the swim, to warrant a wait of an hour or so before casting a bait. To have canoes come down and scatter the fish downstream, not only wasted that hour, but it took another (at least) for the swim to settle. Remember on this type of water there is nowhere for the fish to go, and they are herded downstream. On the stretch that I fished the river opened up into a relatively large pool, and I have seen fish driven into the pool in there hundreds. But that's just my experience on that type of water, on others I have noticed very little disturbance from passing canoes. So as I say, there are some waters where they can co-exist, and others where they can't.

No, not really. You seem to have some pre-conceived notion that angling is more important than canoeing, therefore anglers have a right to use the river and canoeists don't. And the reaction of many canoeists to that is to say sod it, I'm going to canoe the river anyway just for the hell of it, and there's nothing that you, Salter or the Angling Trust can do to stop it. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it's like trying to put a fire out with petrol. Try looking deep into a mirror John. That approach simply results in people throwing stones at each other.

 

I see the word compromise being used, my interpretation of compromise is, both sides giving as well as receiving. I fail to see what canoeists can offer in the present situation. All I have heard from canoeist that I've spoken to, is that they want 'the right to roam'. That is what puts the angers back up. If as you suggest negotiations are held and angling clubs/land owners agree to access, then the canoeists are going to accept that they will be severely regulated, and I don't think that many will accept that. Some waters classed as non-navigable could be used by both, and I think that most anglers would accept some canoes passing through, (just as they do on canals and the bigger rivers), but they would react badly to several flotillas of canoes passing all day. Without some kind of regulation/licencing method, it would be impossible to control. Maybe a licence and a visible registration on all boats would be needed, so that any 'wrong doers, could be tracked and dealt with.

Maybe anglers should be made to display their rod licenses whilst they are fishing, just in case one of them contravenes the rules. That way they can be identified by passing members of the public and reported to the appropriate authorities. But do you really want live like that? What sort of society do you want to live in for goodness sake?

 

It's a very complex situation that I can't see being resolved without a complete turn around of attitude by both the canoeists and anglers, with many anglers still thinking that they have given too much, and canoeist thinking they haven't given enough.

And so the impasse continues...

Edited January 7, 2012 by andy_youngs

[gozzer]

No, not really. You seem to have some pre-conceived notion that angling is more important than canoeing, therefore anglers have a right to use the river and canoeists don't. And the reaction of many canoeists to that is to say sod it, I'm going to canoe the river anyway just for the hell of it, and there's nothing that you, Salter or the Angling Trust can do to stop it. As I pointed out in an earlier post, it's like trying to put a fire out with petrol. Try looking deep into a mirror John. That approach simply results in people throwing stones at each other.

 

I don't have any preconceived ideas about angling being more important than anything Andy, just realistic that angling has for many years had a relationship with landowners etc, (through negotiations), that has given them access to waters. You seem to want them to give up the product of of these years of negotiations, and get nothing in return. There are areas where voluntary access has been given, some have worked, others haven't. You seem to want to live in an ideal world where everyone shares and everything is fair, (wouldn't we all), but it isn't an ideal world, and I think you are being naive in thinking that it could be. As things stand now, the only way canoeists are going to get what they want (legally), is by organising, and negotiating access. People own land, and choose who can enter that land, and what they can do on it. So, unless you are of the opinion that 'all ownership is theft', and people should have the freedom to roam at will, you have to recognise that.

 

Maybe anglers should be made to display their rod licenses whilst they are fishing, just in case one of them contravenes the rules. That way they can be identified by passing members of the public and reported to the appropriate authorities. But do you really want live like that? What sort of society do you want to live in for goodness sake?

 

Anglers do have to have proof of a rod licence on them, and produce it when asked. Canoeists can do damage, and be long gone before anyone can ask to see any licence. So it would be logical to have it displayed on the boat, so it can be seen at a distance, and the culprit reported. It's beginning to look like you want access but no legislation governing it. Freedom to go and do whatever you want, well, nobody has that, not even anglers.

 

 

And so the impasse continues...

 

And so it will Andy, the 'demands' seem to change. I first heard of your problem with the barbel stocking on your local river, (something I'm against, by the way), and the way you were treated, (again something I didn't agree with). Now it seems that you not only want greater access, (something I agree with on certain rivers), but don't like the idea of being regulated. I'm not surprised that you are getting no cooperation, it looks a bit like a case of 'give them an inch, and they want a mile'.

 

John.

[barry luxton]

Quote Gozzer: .......................but don't like the idea of being regulated. I'm not surprised that you are getting no cooperation, it looks a bit like a case of 'give them an inch, and they want a mile'.

 

Exactly right. Same thing is happening with the sustainable, successful, clean sea angling industry. It ain't broke. Yet there are those that wish to see it regulated, controlled, licenced, etc etc for no other reason than control, management for managements sake. Including linking it in with the failed cfp. Yet within that failed administration there are those who now realise that commercial management go back to local control.

 

It is already happening in the uk where an arrogent few are already imposing their secular will on the masses because they are in a position to do so and because they feel that it is what is needed. They will carry this out deviously and without communication, consultation or a care if it is what the angler want, as long as they acheive their objective of control in the name of angling. They care nothing for the angler not even accountability. Give them an inch and they want a mile.

[Phone]

Barry,

 

Just a brief comment. I follow these issues over here with an "arms length interest. It is engaging to me you use terms like "arrogent few" and "on the masses". You sound American. The "needs" of our Gulf coast, West coast and our East coast are so different you make it sound like the UK is equally diversified.

 

Are you being a bit theatrical given the size of the UK?

 

Phone