• 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

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...

I don't think that will happen Anthony but as the trust were talking to the EA last year about rod licences and multiple rod use don't be surprised when the cost of a licence goes up where the mandate for them to do that came from though I have no idea. shame anglers wont be getting anymore for their money, its the ones at the sharp end of the EA who are struggling to do a good job and those that I have met have cared about angling that I feel for.
 
Lee, to answer my "hidden agenda".....over the years since the angling trust was formed you have been the most vocal "anti" across the forums. It's a given that should an ATR thread start you'll be there telling your story.

Now I have no doubt you are passionate and care deeply about angling but as someone looking from the outside in your posts and knowledge I think damage angling as you continue to create the divide.

We all can say what we want and we can all think what we want......but to say you problem is the way the ATR is run is a red herring......as it's your opinion, at a guess not held by the majority of members and clubs. So your holyier than thou statements that you think we should hold as fact just don't wash.

Agenda....this is my opinion, I think it's the people who run it not and not the way it's run are your thoughts....I know you don't like this but your red herring"get involved and change it" does stand true.

Lee ... It's no dig at you, but as I said mention the angling trust on a forum and your there as soon as anyone as something positive to say

All the best Jason...I will add more later when I have time:)
 
Gathering of Anglers

Dear Jason,

Thanks for the reply to my post. Some more points from me.

Firstly you have not said what my hidden agenda is. Voicing my opinion, just like you voice yours, does not mean I have an agenda hidden or otherwise. Much the same as you don't for voicing your opinion? I would never state that you had a hidden agenda because you support the AT so why would you accuse me of having one because I don't? And you might be surprised to learn I don't always post on topics that are AT related.

You say that my opinions on the AT are a red herring and further state that you think my problem is not how the AT is run but with those who run it. You are absolutely wrong on both counts. You will have read in my last post the high regard in which I held Mike Heylin. I draw your attention to lots of my posts concerning how the AT has been run since its formation and in all that time Mike was at the helm. Not once did I criticise Mike personally on open forums during that time but openly criticised how the AT was being run. I have no problem with personalities, just policy. There's a vast difference Jason one that you might like to consider when you start to accuse me and others who openly do not support the AT without one shred of evidence to back up your accusations.

Now to your point that you say my problem is with the people who run the AT. Enlighten me because apart from Mark Lloyd who heads FL and Martin Salter who I should add I haven't got a clue what he does, I have not the foggiest who runs the AT?? And why should I given that the AT PR is not exactly pin sharp and effective outside of a few areas where they appear to me at least to spend more time preaching to the converted instead of getting any effective message out the the majority of UK angling. By the majority Jason I'm talking about the millions who are not in AT membership. Have you ever given any serious thought to why these millions are not interested in the AT? Whilst at the same time those same millions spend billions of pounds each year collectively on items connected to their sport and the fishing clubs they all belong to? If I were a foot soldier in the AT I would be extremely worried about these types of issues. And even more worried if I saw very little being done to address this situation.

I note in your reply you did not mention anything in defense of the AT climbing into bed with our nations biggest polluter of rivers? I used to be a life member of the ACA. As did many of my friends. I along with other ACA members were wholly against the ACA being dissolved into the AT under the identity of Fish Legal. I felt and still do feel, the work that the ACA did was better placed under the auspices of total neutrality because without neutrality, standards and ethics can become compromised sooner or later and again I draw your attention to the sponsor of River Fest as an example of why I wanted the ACA to remain neutral.


Sadly nothing will change if nothing alters. The AT has the ear of government for now, and of course that is a good thing. Harold Wilson's famous quote made in 1964 is most apt when he said "A week in politics is a long time". What Harold Wilson was referring to was, a lot can change extremely rapidly in the world of domestic politics. What "real" power would the AT have if a government came to power in years to come who didn't favour angling? In order for our sport to become iron clad we need the numbers and support of the majority.

If the Angling Trust is to become the vehicle for the gathering of anglers then it has to change its strategy and its structure.

Regards,

Lee.
 
Just a point that Craig made.

Years ago at SAA committee level I made the suggestion about having a levy placed on rod licences whereby any said levy could go towards funding an angling alliance. This suggestion I believe was taken to EA Fisheries at a subsequent regular monthly meeting in Bristol and Craig is quite right, any such move would be illegal simply because the rules accorded to the EA forbid it and furthermore there is no law in place to facilitate it.

Anglers should finance it but in order for that to happen you simply have to win anglers hearts and minds.

Regards,

Lee.
 
Hi all

Could anybody tell me what the top ten threats to angling are?

Do we really know why Barbel numbers have fallen in numerous parts of the country?

How many anglers actually buy a licence each year? I would wager its less than 50 %.


Where will angling be in another 25 years ? or should I say, what state.

Could the EA or AT answer these questions.

I don't think we know, and not trying to sound defeatist but I really think we are flogging a dead horse and losing slowly.

I will join the AT all the same as there does not seem to be another choice.

Paul
 
Lee Fletcher said:
Just a point that Craig made.

Years ago at SAA committee level I made the suggestion about having a levy placed on rod licences whereby any said levy could go towards funding an angling alliance. This suggestion I believe was taken to EA Fisheries at a subsequent regular monthly meeting in Bristol and Craig is quite right, any such move would be illegal simply because the rules accorded to the EA forbid it and furthermore there is no law in place to facilitate it.

Anglers should finance it but in order for that to happen you simply have to win anglers hearts and minds.

Regards,

Lee.
Click to expand...

Thanks Lee. I've been searching to see if there is anything online I could quote, as this was brought up at an AT meeting a while back, but remember it also had something to do with the type of organisation that stopped them being able to make it compulsory to join. The same would go for RSPB etc.
It was suggested that membership would only cost a couple of quid if added to the rod licence, and more could work could be done, and a bigger representation to fight campaigns.
 
Lee Fletcher said:
Dear Jason,

Thanks for the reply to my post. Some more points from me.

Firstly you have not said what my hidden agenda is. Voicing my opinion, just like you voice yours, does not mean I have an agenda hidden or otherwise. Much the same as you don't for voicing your opinion? I would never state that you had a hidden agenda because you support the AT so why would you accuse me of having one because I don't? And you might be surprised to learn I don't always post on topics that are AT related.

You say that my opinions on the AT are a red herring and further state that you think my problem is not how the AT is run but with those who run it. You are absolutely wrong on both counts. You will have read in my last post the high regard in which I held Mike Heylin. I draw your attention to lots of my posts concerning how the AT has been run since its formation and in all that time Mike was at the helm. Not once did I criticise Mike personally on open forums during that time but openly criticised how the AT was being run. I have no problem with personalities, just policy. There's a vast difference Jason one that you might like to consider when you start to accuse me and others who openly do not support the AT without one shred of evidence to back up your accusations.

Now to your point that you say my problem is with the people who run the AT. Enlighten me because apart from Mark Lloyd who heads FL and Martin Salter who I should add I haven't got a clue what he does, I have not the foggiest who runs the AT?? And why should I given that the AT PR is not exactly pin sharp and effective outside of a few areas where they appear to me at least to spend more time preaching to the converted instead of getting any effective message out the the majority of UK angling. By the majority Jason I'm talking about the millions who are not in AT membership. Have you ever given any serious thought to why these millions are not interested in the AT? Whilst at the same time those same millions spend billions of pounds each year collectively on items connected to their sport and the fishing clubs they all belong to? If I were a foot soldier in the AT I would be extremely worried about these types of issues. And even more worried if I saw very little being done to address this situation.

I note in your reply you did not mention anything in defense of the AT climbing into bed with our nations biggest polluter of rivers? I used to be a life member of the ACA. As did many of my friends. I along with other ACA members were wholly against the ACA being dissolved into the AT under the identity of Fish Legal. I felt and still do feel, the work that the ACA did was better placed under the auspices of total neutrality because without neutrality, standards and ethics can become compromised sooner or later and again I draw your attention to the sponsor of River Fest as an example of why I wanted the ACA to remain neutral.


Sadly nothing will change if nothing alters. The AT has the ear of government for now, and of course that is a good thing. Harold Wilson's famous quote made in 1964 is most apt when he said "A week in politics is a long time". What Harold Wilson was referring to was, a lot can change extremely rapidly in the world of domestic politics. What "real" power would the AT have if a government came to power in years to come who didn't favour angling? In order for our sport to become iron clad we need the numbers and support of the majority.

If the Angling Trust is to become the vehicle for the gathering of anglers then it has to change its strategy and its structure.

Regards,

Lee.
Click to expand...

Blooming Hel Lee.....thought we were going to try and keep this short:D
 
Nowhere near as short as Jason might like :) this is taken from the Angling Trust newsletter, to me it just shows the staggering hypocrisy operated by the Trust and their lack of understanding of why the majority of anglers refuse to give them any money by joining.

The pity is that the fine and costs will just be passed on to customers when the directors should be the ones in the dock.




Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Water) has been ordered to pay record-breaking £1 million after polluting a canal in Hertfordshire.

This is the highest ever fine for a water company in a prosecution brought by the Environment Agency.

The case was brought by the Environment Agency after Thames Water caused repeated discharges of polluting matter from Tring STW (Sewage Treatment Works) to enter the Wendover Arm of the Grand Union Canal in Hertfordshire between July 2012 and April 2013.

In May Thames Water pleaded guilty before Watford Magistrates Court to two charges under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. On Monday 4 January, at St Albans Crown Court the company was ordered to pay a fine of £1 million, costs of £18,113.08 and a victim surcharge of £120.

Explaining why the fine was so large, HHJ Bright QC stated that:


“The time has now come for the courts to make clear that very large organisations such as [Thames Water] really must bring about the reforms and improvements for which they say they are striving because if they do not the sentences passed upon them for environmental offences will be sufficiently severe to have a significant impact on their finances.â€

Thames Water has a permit to discharge treated effluent from Tring STW into the Wendover Arm of the Grand Union Canal. The conditions of the Environmental Permit set by the Environment Agency aim to prevent any negative impact upon the canal itself and activities such as boating and fishing which take place on or in it.

The court heard that poorly performing inlet screens caused equipment at the works to block, leading to sewage debris and sewage sludge being discharged into the canal. The inlet screens should take out the majority of sewage debris referred to as ‘rag’ from the process, but the screens had repeatedly failed in this case.

Partially treated sewage can contain polluting matter such as suspended solids, high levels of iron and aluminium. Suspended solids have the potential to smother organisms and plant life in rivers and cover the spawning grounds of fish. Aluminium and iron can have toxic impacts on macro-invertebrates. Routine samples of the discharge taken on 31 January 2013 contained high levels of iron and aluminium, and showed a high chemical oxygen demand.

Emily Rowland, Environment Officer for the Environment Agency, said:


“We welcome the court’s decision to penalise Thames Water for serious breaches of its Environmental Permit, which led to pollution of the Grand Union Canal. We take these types of incidents very seriously and will do everything within our powers to safeguard the environment and people affected, and that includes holding to account those whose actions put the environment at risk.â€

The Environment Agency received complaints from the Canal and Rivers Trust and from the general public about pollution in the canal. Officers attended the site on several occasions, they saw sewage debris including panty liners and ear buds in the vicinity of the outfall. On one occasion officers worked with Thames Water, to arrange for aeration to be installed at the outfall into the Grand Union Canal, as a precautionary measure to increase the levels of oxygen in the water.

Thames Water explained to the court that it spent £30,000 on replacing the inlet screens at Tring. It co-operated with the Environment Agency in its investigation. It has taken steps to avoid further such incidents and there has been a significant improvement in its recent environmental performance. There was no financial motivation for or gain from the offences.
 
Graham, Lee.......the notion the angling trust will ever be a major force such as the likes of the RSPB will never happen. I know that as much as I wish I wasn't true.

Reason...angling as changed beyond all recognition In the last couple of decades. Commercials and carp fishing as put paid to traditional club angling and the way juniors such as myself were bought up

Match anglers only join the angling trust to fish the likes of river fest and fishomania.....we need more of the likes of Dave Harrell and younger as embassadores for the match anglers

I'm quite happy that there is an angling trust and they have served my small local club very well. Me I'm not too self interested in what I gain out of the small direct debit.

The ATR is like marmite or should I say Barbel Society.....the history these two organistions have goes back along way with many grudges still held.

That's a small as I can keep it!

Ding ding round 3 chaps

Jason
 
Dear Graham,

The more one thinks about this River Fest debacle the crazier it appears. There you have the AT, self confessed champions for angling with its Fish Legal arm that bangs the drum for conservation whilst openly claiming to be the scalpers of polluters. So why do they form a financial alliance with the biggest polluter of rivers in the UK? Now even the most dyed in the wool Angling Trust supporter must surely admit that this was a massive blunder? Apart from such an alliance going right against the grain of any organisation representing angling its got to be a massive stain on the reputation of the Angling Trust? I wonder just how many anglers refuse to join over that issue?

Dear Jason,

I fully agree with you in that the AT will NEVER be a major force such as the likes of the RSPB. Do you know why? Firstly, and this is very important;

The RSPB has over 1300 employees, 18 000 volunteers and more than 1 million members (including 195,000 youth members), making it the largest wildlife conservation charity in Europe. The RSPB has many local groups and maintains 200 nature reserves. They have a clever membership scheme in that you can be a member for either 4, 5 or 7 pounds a month. So lets say everyone pays 4 pounds per month. That's 48 quid per year if everyone opts for the cheaper rate which of course they all don't. But at the lower rate that's an income of a staggering 48 million per year, year upon year every year. Compare that income to the Angling Trust.

The RSPB has slick PR. The AT has no effective PR aimed at winning the hearts and minds of anglers that I can see.

The RSPB has charitable status. This means they can raise money in a way that the AT cannot.

And this bit is vitally important Jason. Taken from the RSPB website;

"RSPB Council is the governing body of the RSPB. It is responsible for ensuring the Society conducts its affairs in accordance with its Constitution and with the law.

There are a maximum of 18 Council members (trustees) including the Chairman, Treasurer and three country committee chairmen for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are elected by the membership at the AGM and serve for five years."

Open and full democracy. It works for thousands and thousands of organisations. In the case of the RSPB, democracy has stood the test of time since 1889 and has given them one million members, billions in revenue, and an unrivalled voice in the corridors of power right across Europe.

Regards,

Lee.
 
Lee Fletcher said:
Dear Graham,

The more one thinks about this River Fest debacle the crazier it appears. There you have the AT, self confessed champions for angling with its Fish Legal arm that bangs the drum for conservation whilst openly claiming to be the scalpers of polluters. So why do they form a financial alliance with the biggest polluter of rivers in the UK? Now even the most dyed in the wool Angling Trust supporter must surely admit that this was a massive blunder? Apart from such an alliance going right against the grain of any organisation representing angling its got to be a massive stain on the reputation of the Angling Trust? I wonder just how many anglers refuse to join over that issue?

Dear Jason,

I fully agree with you in that the AT will NEVER be a major force such as the likes of the RSPB. Do you know why? Firstly, and this is very important;

The RSPB has over 1300 employees, 18 000 volunteers and more than 1 million members (including 195,000 youth members), making it the largest wildlife conservation charity in Europe. The RSPB has many local groups and maintains 200 nature reserves. They have a clever membership scheme in that you can be a member for either 4, 5 or 7 pounds a month. So lets say everyone pays 4 pounds per month. That's 48 quid per year if everyone opts for the cheaper rate which of course they all don't. But at the lower rate that's an income of a staggering 48 million per year, year upon year every year. Compare that income to the Angling Trust.

The RSPB has slick PR. The AT has no effective PR aimed at winning the hearts and minds of anglers that I can see.

The RSPB has charitable status. This means they can raise money in a way that the AT cannot.

And this bit is vitally important Jason. Taken from the RSPB website;

"RSPB Council is the governing body of the RSPB. It is responsible for ensuring the Society conducts its affairs in accordance with its Constitution and with the law.

There are a maximum of 18 Council members (trustees) including the Chairman, Treasurer and three country committee chairmen for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are elected by the membership at the AGM and serve for five years."

Open and full democracy. It works for thousands and thousands of organisations. In the case of the RSPB, democracy has stood the test of time since 1889 and has given them one million members, billions in revenue, and an unrivalled voice in the corridors of power right across Europe.

Regards,

Lee.
Click to expand...

Lee that's what my post was about, your repeating my thoughts...get with it :D
 
Reading the quote in Graham Young's post, taken from the AT newsletter, was highly amusing. The last paragraph in particular was hilarious, where they claimed....'There was no financial motivation for or gain from the offences'.....Can they not see that that claim was made a nonsense of by a statement just prior to that, to wit.....'Thames Water explained to the court that it spent £30,000 on replacing the inlet screens at Tring'.

So, after a long series of complaints which concluded in their being taken to court, they spent £30,000 on a new screen, which one assumes must have been the 'Steps they had taken' to prevent further events. If that was all that needed doing to solve the problem, then one must also assume that saving the £30,000 cost that this operation incurred WAS the 'Financial motivation' which prevented them from carrying out that simple task before it was forced upon them.

Even Thames Waters excuses are pretty pathetic when you analyze them :rolleyes:

Cheers, Dave.
 
Just thought this may be of interest to non AT members.

Angling Trust Members News

Monday 18 January 2016 Angling Trust Logo

Update to SACC supporters from Angling Trust & Fish Legal regarding the legal position about canoe access

Last year, Fish Legal, working closely with the Angling Trust, challenged the Canoe Governing Bodies (British Canoe Union/British Canoeing, Canoe England and Canoe Wales) to get them to change the information that they were publishing suggesting that the law regarding rights of access to rivers is unclear in England and Wales. This included reference to the academic works of Rev Dr Douglas Caffyn. We felt that this information was contributing to a widespread increase in unlawful canoeing. We have spent many months of work and several thousands of pounds on this legal case and we are making slow but significant progress. This included commissioning an eminent QC to advise on the legal position and review the works of Rev Dr Caffyn. The QC’s Advice is very clear. The summary of the Advice is set out below and we aim to publish the full document (which runs to 19 pages) in the coming weeks after further discussion with the Canoeing Governing Bodies.

Thank you very much for your support of the Sustainable Access Campaign Cymru, which has made a contribution to the costs of commissioning this Advice.

Advice Summary
1. There is no general Public Right of Navigation (PRN) on English and Welsh non-tidal rivers for canoeists.
2. A PRN can only be established by long use of vessels on the relevant stretch of river, fulfilling all of the criteria below.
3. That use must have been regular and habitual, and must have made the river of substantial practical value as a channel of communication or transport.
4. The time for which that use must be established is “time immemorial.â€
5. The law is entirely clear on the above issues.
6. The law is, however, not absolutely clear on how long is required to establish “time immemorialâ€, but it is likely that between 60 to 80 years of use needs to be established by those who assert a PRN.
7. Additionally, the use must also not have been under protest from the riparian owners, or by permission from them. On the contrary, use cannot be established unless it is shown that the owners have acquiesced with the passage of canoeists or other vessels throughout the period of use.
8. A PRN, if established, does not entitle paddlers to walk on the soil of the river bed or indeed go onto the river banks, again unless long usage of either has been established as against the owners.
9. In the absence of a PRN established by use, and assuming there is no agreed access, express dedication, or a statutory PRN, canoeists will be trespassing when they paddle in non-tidal waters.

Sign up for FREE fortnightly e-newsletters from the Angling Trust and Fish Legal to get news from the world of fishing, top tips and special offers at Join our Mailing List - The Angling Trust

Not a member yet? Please join the Angling Trust & Fish Legal for just £25 a year at Join our Mailing List - The Angling Trust
 
Dave, I don't know whether you look in on fishing magic but there was an excellent thread about canoes and PRN last year. FM have some very knowledgeable guys who are mainly ATR members.

One guy in particular known as "Windy" who is more than qualified in the legal system took on the best the paddlers had to offer......needless to say he got the better of them.

For me it's issues such as these that I join the ATR, if anyone would like me to put links up for this let me know......very important one this

jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top