• 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...

Otter petition.

Joe Winstanley said:
The EA is an organisation that is no longer fit for purpose in my opinion - but that is exactly what the last three Government's have set out to achieve. I don't believe any single Govt agency had its budgets cut to the extent of the EA. Taking into account inflation, its thought to be 57% cut in spend since 2010. It wasn't exactly great before then...

The AT - it won't ever really do anything substantial until enough anglers get behind it and it can become more financially independent imo.
Click to expand...


If the AT hasn't got the members it needs then perhaps they ought to be asking themselves why its not all down to apathy imo.

They have become far to entwined with the EA for my liking and are now to financially reliant on them to part from them, to many PR releases and not enough concentration on giving anglers reasons to join being what we have got is not good enough I am afraid.
 
Graham Young said:
If the AT hasn't got the members it needs then perhaps they ought to be asking themselves why its not all down to apathy imo.

They have become far to entwined with the EA for my liking and are now to financially reliant on them to part from them, to many PR releases and not enough concentration on giving anglers reasons to join being what we have got is not good enough I am afraid.[/

How much, or rather what proportion of the AT’s funding is from the EA Graham?

Whatever the amount, it hasn’t stopped them from taking legal action against the EA, and from criticising them in the press on various issues has it?

What else in your opinion do they need to be doing to win more the support of more anglers? I don't like some of their policies and actions, for instance I thought they embarrassed angling with their bizarre stance on beavers, and I think they could better on many other issues, but I don’t see how they can succeed without the support of more anglers.

Cheers,

Joe
Click to expand...
 
Graham Elliott said:
Sorry Joe. It's all anecdotal.

The RSPB would be very unlikely to align themselves to anglers.

Historic anti angling feeling , and continued discarded line damage would risk membership losses.

Less anglers more potential SSI birdwatching sites.

Bugslife? They punch so hard I doubt if more than 1% of people have ever heard of them.

It's all a nice dream. Realism is whats wanted. So. What alliances are possible for anglers. What ones of value have the AT managed in a few years?

Which of the top 10 by numbers membership charitable wildlife /nature organisations would be interested.

Graham you say what alliances are possible ? When you look back at history . Churchill worked with Stalin to defeat Hitler ? When you look back at the troubles in Northern Ireland , Catholics and the Protestants came together to sign the Good Friday agreement all those years ago .
If we could put angling to one side for the moment . This is about the decline of our rivers and the water that flows through our rivers .
Click to expand...
 

2/3 years ago they agreed to take 4 million to take on work that the EA should be doing.

What can they do to attract more members? I can only speak from a personal point of view,

1 stop taking money from thames water as sponsorship for their riverfest matches. I have never liked hypocrisy.

2 be more open about what has gone on in the past concerning offering certain groups of lapsed members preferential rates to re join while charging new members full price, underhand to say the least, imo instead of doing that they should have been finding out why members had not renewed their membership.

3 stop putting press releases out about working with the police and the EA, it is imo PR for all concerned but the reality is (from experience) that ringing the police about illegal angling will either get an uncomfortable silence on the other end of the phone or a "we are very busy and will attend when officers are free" imo the police are far to understaffed to be able to respond to illegal fishing, its not a priority.

4 allow anglers the choice of joining the trust or fish legal, I have been told its not possible in England but is in other UK countries, I and others that I know were members of the ACA but will not join or re join the trust, I know I can make a contribution but considering what happened with the cut price membership incident I don't trust where my money will go.

5 stop sitting on the fence about otters, get a mandate from its members, see what they want policy to be instead of ignoring them, no way of knowing but I wonder how many members signed the petition?

6 do something positive along with the police and the EA about illegal paddling where there is no PRN, goodness knows how much was wasted on a barristers advice that was no use at all. they have had so many complaints from members of illegal paddling that they have now stopped communicating about them, if there are so many complaints from members why ignore them, imo (again) its not representing members or doing what they say they will do as far as representation.



I know anglers that have absolutely no idea who they are or what they do, most are anglers that fish maybe once a fortnight, shouldn't the trust be getting out there and advertising themselves? when was the last time you saw a poster in a tackle shop about them? no instead they expect anglers to come to them because and I have heard this a lot "they are all we have got" is not a good enough reason.

I have no idea how many if any tackle manufacturers contribute to the trust, surely they have a vested interest in increasing angler numbers, even something about the trust on labels attached to tackle would help promote the trust, the trust do not market themselves enough unless its on their web site or forums with press releases about what they are doing, they must realise that not all anglers know about them and do something positive about that, push themselves more to get known, most think advertising doesn't work but if it didn't firms would not be spending millions on it I don't suggest that the trust can do that but there are cheaper ways.
 
Graham Elliott said:
Bloody Hell Joe.
Have you been reading War and Peace with a large brandy?:eek:
Click to expand...

No Graham I have not been at the Brandy or been reading War and Peace . I am like lots of other people concerned about the state of our rivers and what is being done to them . I truly believe that if we could all put our differences to one side and work together instead of fighting each other . Then just maybe some thing could be done .
 
Joe. I wrote on here re the Kennet some years ago.
Many then said Otters - No problem.
Some now "Ambassadors" even said we just needed to fish differently.

I wrote on here some time ago on discharges into the Loddon from Warefield. And the effects regarding asexuality of fish. (With backed up scientific studies)

I took a senior member of the EA to see spawning grounds on the Loddon to highlight the information and action being taken regarding recruitment was incorrect.

But I didn't just write on here.

I contacted the relevant Consultative bodies. I also contacted the Hierachy of the AT.

And what has happened Joe. SFA.

So excuse me for appearing negative.

So let "them - us " start making aliances. If you think thats reality.

Let the polititians spout more hot air, whilst taking consultancy money from the water companies etc.

This old boy has heard it all before.
 
Its a nice idea Joe but not one that I can see happening, maybe if the public knew what was in the water they drink things might change but I have doubts about even that.
 
So that is it then we throw in the towel and accept defeat ? I personally think the fight for some kind control on Otters is one that will never be won . I think we will be having this same conversation in 5/10/15 years time . Sorry to sound so negative guys . Time will tell if I am right or wrong .
On the other hand I think the fight against the water company's is a fight that can be won . If the evidence is there to prove that the water company's are breaking the law . Then it needs to be looked at and all the interested party's should come together and form some kind of alliance to take the water company's to task for what they are doing
I wonder when the Surfers Against Sewerage started I wonder if they would ever have thought they would of had the success they have had in taking on the water company's , Perhaps we should start talking to them and maybe join them to take on the water company's .
https://www.sas.org.uk/about-us/
 
Water companies, the EA and the government are aware of problems that exist in our rivers and have been for quite some time. The EA produced a report as long ago as 2007 entitled "The Unseen Threat To Our Water Quality" it includes the WFD as a tool to tackle diffuse pollution, this is just a single paragraph form the report. I have been unable to put a link up as all I get is error 204

The Water Framework Directive, which is new legislation, has put diffuse pollution
in the spotlight. Diffuse sources must be tackled if we are to achieve the objectives
set. Some of the problems are complex and will take decades to resolve, but many
of the solutions are known and could be put into practice now. Failure to do so will
allow the problems to get worse and increase the future costs.

They ( all of them) have failed miserably to tackle what the EA saw 11 years ago as a serious problem. This single paragraph shows that they recognised the problem, many solutions were known, solutions that could have been implemented at the time of the report nothing has been done and the reasons imo are very simple, money and the unwillingness of government to force water companies to spend that money on solutions that were known about years ago as this would probably lead to higher water bills for the voting public, our rivers are now more polluted than before the WFD became law, how can we as anglers change this? I don't have the answer other than somehow making the public aware of what is in the water they drink (try telling a none angler that their drinking water has been through 3/4/5 people before getting to them and whats in it and watch their faces :) )
 
We may be getting our pollution's mixed up a bit here....diffuse pollution comes mainly from land management and can affect the water companies treatment process's and cost them money. The water companies are mainly guilty of point source pollution through there discharges.

Diffuse pollution is becoming more apparent now with low flows and greater abstraction on the summer months a lot of what enters the water can sit unnoticed in sediment for many years before its effect becomes apparent

https://corporate.thameswater.co.uk...ment/Managing-our-impact/Catchment-management

I think if your trying to lay the blame on anyone regarding declining river ecology it has to be the government first as they control the most influential players in this game starting with defra
 
Discharge from treatment plants still contains diffuse pollution as nothing is done to remove it from the river water they treat.

Not trying to put the blame on anyone other than those involved in water treatment and those that have the powers to force water companies to remove it including the government It is they that are to blame so who should the blame be put onto if not them? I apologise for not putting the government first on the list of blame's. This is from your link

The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) encourages catchment based solutions rather than adding additional expensive treatment at water treatment works.

In the 11 years since the report why have the " known solutions" not been applied? imo money and as I said before higher water bills = lost votes and no government will want that.

The fact remains that following the EA report of 2007 nothing has been done to force the water companies to remove pollutants, diffuse or otherwise, indeed water companies are legally allowed to pump raw sewage into rivers at times of high rainfall/river levels, hardly the actions of anyone that holds the environment and our water quality as a high priority, there are imo 2 priorities, money and votes and its the environment that suffers.
 
Jason nothing in there is much of a surprise, imo Gove should have told those present that legislation to force them to clean up their act and stop profiteering is already being worked on and will be implemented should they not do so, unfortunately he cant because he knows that some of his colleagues in Westminster have their fingers in the pie and would never vote for something that would affect their share of the pie.

As Gove said we as customers cannot go anywhere else, nor can the environment and the creatures that live in it, legislation is one way that water companies will clean up their act, that and holding directors legally responsible for pollution incidents, imo they should be forced to invest a percentage of their huge profits in the environment that may just reduce the amount of abstraction from already low and polluted rivers, there is at the moment no balance between the greed of the water companies and the environment I for one would love to see that balance turned around in favour of the environment, I know it wont happen because at the end of the day it all comes down to the usual thing........... money.

One thing I was pleased about was that Gove had the balls to tell those present that things must change, lets see if he backs this up with action
 
Jason Bean said:
The fact that groves is fully aware they are taking the piss and tells them that but seems to not back his words up with actions
Click to expand...

Yeah I can understand that. I guess though as said above there are all “mates”. At least he did call them out though, maybe that’s the first stage? They’ve been warned if they continue (which they doubtless will) then action will be taken. Public pressure is mounting, particularly against Thames water if nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top