• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

A.T. working for the EA.

Thanks Nick and Derek. I agree with you both entirely. Not a perfect world, but AT is our best bet in my view.
 
The EA and Thames water between them have destroyed the best fishing I have had in my lifetime and it's probably only a matter of time before the EA sanctioned Otters destroy what's left to me now.
Anyone know the AT stance on Otters or chalk stream abstraction?
 
Nick.
Politics is (as people who have had dealings with Multi Nationals in the Business world know) is...............

Buying off the potential thorn in the side. Cynical, maybe, factual, certainly.

Of course there needs to be a relationship between the main bodies, it needs however to be an appropriate one.

As I posted elsewhere, a headline you will never now see.

Angling Trust sues Environment Agency for negligence in dealing with Thames Water pollution.


If just a minscule amount of the money being spent on Greenhouse gases/global warming/green energy for an unproven science was forced to be be spent by water companies in stripping out the hormones getting into our riverine environments the future would look brighter for angling.

Who is going to drive that now if not the A.T. representing anglers rather than the E.A.??

Graham
 
I knew this was probably coming a while back Graham, but hoped it wouldn't reach fruition. I will reserve final judgement until I know all the facts, and if that proves to be inconclusive, I will wait to see how things work out. However, at this moment in time, I have similar misgivings to yourself.

Mind you, I can't help feeling that if the AT had got the backing from anglers I always thought it should have got....then perhaps this would never have happened. They needed more income to carry out all their planned projects, and as time passed, it looked very much like that was never going to come from anglers subscriptions.

If this works out fine....I think we got lucky. However if or our worst suspicions are confirmed, then I can't help feeling that perhaps we got what we deserved.

We shall see.

Cheers, Dave
 
Hi Dave, yes I predicted it some time ago. Doesn't mean I'm happy. In fact very sad.

There was some hope but I fear the promise of an independent angling focussed organisation to rattle the EA and water companies has gone. Hope I'm wrong but given this latest change cannot see that happen
 
Rhys Perry said:
Exactly, everyone moans about the state of angling yet we finally get a national organisation to represent us and nobody supports it!

Though I'm getting the impression the same old cynics on here will never be happy whatever happens.
Click to expand...

If you voted Cameron, which I guess a few of you did......this is big society in action. reduce ea budget, i.e. payroll/pension/ training. Responsibility on the whole passed onto wild life trusts for catchment management plans, angling trust for what ever they will do.

It's all on the cheap but at least people doing the work now for half the cost to the government will be more inclined to be genuinely concerned, not in it for pension, promotion or to sit on the fence to keep there jobs.

I hope it's a breath of fresh air to the workings of the government and environment.....I'll wait and see and not condemn just yet

Funny how some of you seem to have clairvoyant capabilities

All the best to them, the old system wasn't working let's see where this goes

Cheers
Jason
 
I agree Dave, the path the AT has chosen to take has also been influenced to a major extent by the total lack of support given to it by anglers. All the things the AT doesn't currently do which most anglers would like them to do, aren't being done because they have very little clout, due to lack of support. Simple. We are the architects of our own demise I'm afraid.
Graham, I spent many years in the corporate world myself and couldn't agree with you more regarding politics, but that's the process I'm afraid.

Nick C
 
I think it's too simplistic to just presume that the AT will suddenly become the EA's lapdog because of this particular contract. It does makes me wonder what people expect from the AT, I'm not a member because I don't agree with many of their policies, but surely this project is exactly what they should be doing?

If they make it work, as I think they probably will, then surely that helps to grow the organisations influence and credibility? And the bottom line is, if the AT can spend licence fee money more efficiently and effectively then the EA then that has to be a good thing right?

I've heard many anglers say they wish that the AT was as well organised and as influential as the RSPB is. Certainly in terms of its ability to influence Govt. policy through lobbying, public education and environmental advocacy. I can see why and it's worth pointing out that RSPB receives in the region of least £4-5 million in Govt. funding (directly and indirectly) but clearly that doesn't stop them from speaking out against Govt. policies. As we speak, the RSPB is currently pursuing a complaint* against the UK Govt. to the European Courts. That's quite a drastic course of action and one that won't have been taken lightly.

Furthermore, is it not grossly insulting to those excellent people at Fish Legal (an organisation which does maintain a degree of independence from the AT), to assume that they will somehow allow themselves to be cowed due to the AT receiving some EA funding?


*https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/further_european_complaint_submission_march_2014_tcm9-365606.pdf
 
Call me picky if you like Joe, but as soon as the lines between two or more organisations start to become blurred I see future conflict of interest.
Regarding the good people at Fish Legal, the last time I looked the website stated...
"The Chairman, Board and Chief Excectutive of Angling Trust are the same people as the Committee of Fish Legal. This arrangement therefore effectively creates a single organisation " ...
Angling Trust Frequently Asked Questions

I just want the AT to retain a high degree of independence so it can continue to hold the likes of the EA and others to account without the worry of potentially losing the odd million squid.
 
Dave Taylor said:
Call me picky if you like Joe, but as soon as the lines between two or more organisations start to become blurred I see future conflict of interest.
Regarding the good people at Fish Legal, the last time I looked the website stated...
"The Chairman, Board and Chief Excectutive of Angling Trust are the same people as the Committee of Fish Legal. This arrangement therefore effectively creates a single organisation " ...
Angling Trust Frequently Asked Questions

I just want the AT to retain a high degree of independence so it can continue to hold the likes of the EA and others to account without the worry of potentially losing the odd million squid.
Click to expand...

Ha Ha, you want all that, but you won,t give them your 60p a week support. :rolleyes:;) Dave, please explain how they can keep paying for these court cases without anglers backing, the very people they are trying to help.
 
Seems I am now Derek, through my licence . I have also personally persuaded two of my clubs to sign up, and also attend regional AT meetings.;)
 

Derek Said
Dave, please explain how they can keep paying for these court cases without anglers backing, the very people they are trying to help

Possibly by allowing anglers to join Fish Legal on its own and not as an add on when joining the AT, unfortunately this is not allowed in England but I believe it is allowed in other parts of the UK. How many anglers that will not join the AT would choose to support Fish Legal I don't know and as its not allowed we will never know. I am one that would though.
 
Derek Funcks; Dave said:
Derek, as I've said, angling needs the likes of the AT / FL to fight their corner against those who have deeper pockets or are funded by the public purse.
I agree that to do this they need our support, but many will say, hang on,..I've had to buy a licience, now I need to pay another fee to an organisation so they can regulate the regulators who I brought a licience from.
Then throw into the mix, that to raise the funding, that organisation elects to raise cash or link themselves to Thames Water or the EA etc. and you get the impression that anglers money is going round in circles.
Now you can argue, with some justification that as long as the AT continue to get results what's the problem?
I just think that some of these associations may have a negative effect on new AT membership, which is a shame.
Click to expand...
 
Sweet Irony.

Many anglers thought the EA was not considering angling enough in their remit. So many complaints from anglers about the riverine Environment aspects being mismanaged by a non caring bunch of desk sitting politicians within the Organisation.

Angling Trust born from this resentment in many cases, supported because of it even though in theory the rod license fee meant to cover all aspects for anglers? .


Now once again, the Environment Agency will be pulling the strings, the professional caring people that are the foot soldiers, no doubt going to be offered the opportunity to be made redundant.

As Graham said above, why not the opportunity to join Fish Legal. I too would join. But it simply was a tactic to get more money.

Reference Dave comments.
Maybe now a levy will be charged on top of the license fee and it will be included? Of course one could argue it's another job that should be in the old EA remit.
 
Good discussion. Good debate.

None of us will change anything. But we'll all think we might have given a £125m lottery win!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top