• 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...

Angling Trust

Rhys Perry said:
Erm...

FoI request shows water companies are failing to co-operate over 1,968 sewage outfalls - The Angling Trust
Click to expand...


Isnt that the same Angling Trust that has just accepted £4 million from the EA to do some of the EAs job for them? Knowing what the water companies are doing and being able to do something other than use it as another headline is another thing.

The Angling Trust were well aware of their sponsors awful pollution record before taking money in sponsorship from them and not just once despite being aware through social media that it had cost them members and had been condemned by anglers the first time they did it, no FOI request was needed to find that out just some common sense from them, something they seem to think the average angler doesn't have.
 
Ken Bailey said:
The Angling Trust relies on Funding to enable it to act / lobby for what it believes the members and angling requires. If individuals think the Angling Trust are getting it wrong then those people should become members, pay the paltry fees and join in the debates. As I did.

The RSPB, The RSPCA, All have membership that the AT can only dream of, such funding helps create public awareness and political power.. One wonders do anglers really care, The answer is sadly obvious. At Sandown this year the AT were giving away gift packs donated by angling companies worth far in excess of the joining fee and the people on the stand were still chasing shadows

Today it was announced that the Lynx trust are lobbying to breed and release these cats back into the wild, they use to be inhabitants of the UK up until the 1700`s when they were hunted into extinction

So no problem then all we have to do is wait until all the Barbel, Chub, Carp, Roach etc. are extinct and some body else will pay to clone them and release them back into the mud pools
Click to expand...

It's a catch-22 situation. As Graham says, many don't agree with what the trust does so won't join. Will the trust change with more membership? Will it listen to what the majority want? Or use the funding to pursue it's own agenda anyway? Maybe they should conduct a survey to test opinion on the more sensitive matters like otters and then they can really see what the majority want. In my experience most anglers want to be represented by a body that fights for angling first and foremost and doesn't go down the appeasement route by trying to be all things to all men.
 
Graham Young said:
Isnt that the same Angling Trust that has just accepted £4 million from the EA to do some of the EAs job for them? Knowing what the water companies are doing and being able to do something other than use it as another headline is another thing.

The Angling Trust were well aware of their sponsors awful pollution record before taking money in sponsorship from them and not just once despite being aware through social media that it had cost them members and had been condemned by anglers the first time they did it, no FOI request was needed to find that out just some common sense from them, something they seem to think the average angler doesn't have.
Click to expand...

Once again if more joined then maybe they wouldn't need to go scrounging for money from the water companies, but that aside I don't think alienating them is going to help, working with them to try and change their practices is probably a better idea.

Let's face it most won't join because they're tight and don't see that they get anything personally from joining, I mean how many would buy a license if they didn't have to?
Like Ken says you can join and have a big enough membership like rspb etc to make a difference, or you could carry on making poor excuses for not joining thus giving them virtually no power so nothing gets done, and here's a thing, you don't have to agree with absolutely everything they do! Or you could just carry on griping about things on forums, cause that really makes a difference doesn't it?
 
Most people wouldn't buy a license because the EA does not represent anglings interests very often. As other water users don't need licensing by the EA this is an imbalance. I don't see that as people being tight, though of course that would apply to many. It's a case of AT saying "join us and we'll do what you want" and non members saying "tell us what you're going to do before we join." Obviously they will have more power to do what anglers generally want if they have a larger membership but perhaps need to market themselves better to get the numbers up.
 
Rhys Perry said:
Once again if more joined then maybe they wouldn't need to go scrounging for money from the water companies, but that aside I don't think alienating them is going to help, working with them to try and change their practices is probably a better idea.

Let's face it most won't join because they're tight and don't see that they get anything personally from joining, I mean how many would buy a license if they didn't have to?
Like Ken says you can join and have a big enough membership like rspb etc to make a difference, or you could carry on making poor excuses for not joining thus giving them virtually no power so nothing gets done, and here's a thing, you don't have to agree with absolutely everything they do! Or you could just carry on griping about things on forums, cause that really makes a difference doesn't it?
Click to expand...






I doubt that the RSPB would alienate members and prospective members by accepting money from an organisation such as the BASC which is akin to what the trust have done by accepting money from the worst polluter in the country.
Did they really need to hold such a big match if it meant accepting money from a polluter? did they consider not doing it again a second time after the uproar about it in social media from the first time? I would suggest that it would have been better not to have "scrounged money" from water companies in the first place when the Fish Legal arm of the organisation spends large amounts of time and money fighting polluters, there is to me a massive conflict of interest in what they did.


Comparing the trust to the RSPB is a red herring as the 2 groups are very different with very different targets as members, angling is much more diverse than birding, having said that the RSPB actively seek out members, when was the last time that you saw the trust doing that? they expect anglers to join because they are all we have, sorry Rhys but that would appear to be far to little for the majority of anglers being all we have is not good enough. I wonder how many members they have that are forced to be a member if they want to fish in some matches? I don't see anyone with a pair of binoculars being forced to join the RSPB.

I don't believe that most wont join because they are "tight" I believe that most anglers are more discerning than the trust ever believed that they were this is easily shown by the massive over expectations of member numbers from its onset.

The EA must be laughing after the trust took money from them to do work that should be done by the EA, if they fail its now very easy for the EA to say "nothing to do with us gov" all down to the trust they had the money.

Why is it that those anglers that support the trust will not accept that most anglers that don't join have valid reasons for not joining? every time the trust is discussed out come the "their tight" or "they just make excuses" its time that they and the trust understood that all anglers have the right to decide for themselves and no amount of insults will make them join, I would say it would have an opposite effect.

Instead of offering secret deals of reduced membership costs to groups with lapsed membership perhaps they should be looking at why those memberships lapsed but they wont do that will they? time they realised that anglers are individuals with thoughts of their own who will not join because they are all we have, not good enough and if membership numbers (the real ones) are to be believed it never will be.

As for griping on forums, do you think that threads like this are not read by the trust ? is any notice taken who knows? one things for sure unless they start to take notice of none members reasons for not joining they will never be more than they are now.
 
Alex Gowney said:
Most people wouldn't buy a license because the EA does not represent anglings interests very often. As other water users don't need licensing by the EA this is an imbalance. I don't see that as people being tight, though of course that would apply to many. It's a case of AT saying "join us and we'll do what you want" and non members saying "tell us what you're going to do before we join." Obviously they will have more power to do what anglers generally want if they have a larger membership but perhaps need to market themselves better to get the numbers up.[/QUOTE]

Agree absolutely with that comment.
Click to expand...
 
Loads of ******** as usual to divert what is needed,support the angling trust and angling will benefit......be a bitter old man like many and angling stay where it is.

We all have a choice...mine is with the angling trust
 
Jason Bean said:
Loads of ******** as usual to divert what is needed,support the angling trust and angling will benefit......be a bitter old man like many and angling stay where it is.

We all have a choice...mine is with the angling trust
Click to expand...


Yes thats the type of thing that will get anglers joining in droves, not.
 
And what ever lee fletcher puts up I would not give a toss, he has an agenda that he does not back down from......we have a meeting soon at the UTFC with Martin Lloyd attending....that's an invite and I will buy you a beer. Come on let's have a chat? :D.....see you there ?:rolleyes:
 
Graham.
When you have individual seniors of the AT that also do paid consultancy work for the Water companies you shouldn't be too surprised re the Match Organisation.
 
Jason, as you say, we all have a choice. You have made yours, others have made theirs. That doesn't mean comments that don't mirror your own opinion are a load of **** or whatever you meant to say. Many on here have commented that they'd like more information on the direction the AT is heading, or a change of focus even, before joining. In other words, they need convincing that "angling will benefit". Not everyone is as easily convinced as you and others seem to be, but as you say, that is your choice. You may be right, you may be wrong.
 
Dear Graham,

Jasons ridiculous comments about agendas pretty much highlights why people won't join. As a founding member of SAA and SACG member before that I can't recall Jason working for angling politics or give up a lot of his Sundays to attend meetings?

Why wont I join AT? Dead simple with absolutely no hidden agenda. It is NOT answerable to its grass roots membership in the same vein that the vast majority of our nations fishing clubs are. And because of that, it does what it likes and I offer up their partnership with Thames Water as a perfect example of that. Does anyone actually think that the "OLD" ACA would have climbed into bed with the biggest polluter of rivers for financial ends??? Of course not. So why has the AT and why did Fish Legal allow it? Didn't anyone inside the AT ivory towers think that such a union was a catastrophic blunder?

For your information Jason I worked with Mike Heylin for some time way before there was such a thing as AT, FACT or NAA. Also, although we had our disagreements, Mike had the ideas and drive to push forward to unite UK angling within the same church. Have you any idea Jason who it was that was responsible for keeping UK angling apart for years? I have no doubt that it was Mike who managed to finally bring that giant to the negotiation table not once, but many times. I also wouldnt be surprised if it wasn't Mike that masterminded the final formation of the AT BUT!! At a price. I have no doubt that if left to Mike the AT would be totally transparent and run according to a full democratic process. After all, Mike DID used to be a local activist for the Labour party so knows the benefits to be gained from open democracy.

So to recap. The reason I wont join is because I dont like the way it is run. And as for that old potato people constantly offer up "why not join and bring about change from within?" There is absolutely no chance of anyone doing that. Its stitched up. What do you think happened to the old NFA Jason? Went up in a puff of smoke after giving the AT all of its funds?

I'm not going to get into another War and Peace debate over an issue I have long since given my opinion over. But I'll tell you this Jason, if by some miracle the leadership of the AT should radically change direction towards operating under the auspices of full and open democracy whilst stopping chasing the tail of charitable status, that would be a start. Then if by another miracle it announced it was going to embark upon a proper concerted PR campaign aimed at getting individual anglers to join so it could be sustainably funded by the members FOR the members then I'd join.

So theres my answer not only why I wont join but what I'd like to see happen before I'd join. Now that I've been open with you Jason, you might perhaps like to state publicly what my "hidden" agenda is??

Good sensible posts as always from you Graham.

Regards,

Lee.
 
This must be the only angling site that can be overwhelming anti angling help.....:confused: rivers trusts can't trust them, environment agency anti-fishing and angling trust well they will never gain trust.....will they?

Only on BFW
 
Jason I and I would imagine most anglers would love to be represented by an organisation that had a bit of clout, this one isn't the one for me or it would seem the majority of anglers. No organisation is going to be able to please all of their members but there are lines that should never be crossed that I am afraid have been.

Common sense should tell anyone involved within the trust that taking sponsorship from the largest polluter in the country was not a thing that would ender them to members or none members, it was amongst other things one of my reasons for not renewing my membership.

The trust in my opinion have not been open with either the membership that paid full price to join them or to prospective members who would also have paid full price when they invited ex members in certain groups preferential deals on price if the renewed, (I still have the e mail but was denied permission by the sender to post it previously so will not now)

For me the damage has been done and I doubt very much if they would ever be able to persuade me to rejoin, that's if they ever do start to persuade anglers that they should join instead of just sitting back and using headlines such as the one about water companies to gain attention, let me ask you if I may, what if anything do you think will happen with the information on water companies, will anything change?
 
If they are already 'sleeping with the enemy' as has been intimated above and as the EA have offloaded much of their angling-related obligations onto the AT, how long before the EA add £5 to the licence fee for everybody and do away with a subscription fee? This 'additional' charge being passed on to the AT to enable them to deliver their promises.
 
Anthony Pearson said:
If they are already 'sleeping with the enemy' as has been intimated above and as the EA have offloaded much of their angling-related obligations onto the AT, how long before the EA add £5 to the licence fee for everybody and do away with a subscription fee? This 'additional' charge being passed on to the AT to enable them to deliver their promises.
Click to expand...

They can't by law
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top