• 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...

The Angling Trust.

A neutral question/point - what's the general feeling if say £1.00 was added to the price of the annual rod licence, and this money went to the angling trust, would the people who are against joining the trust still buy a licence and fish? Also, as has previously been mentioned, many clubs are now members of the trust/fish legal, and through joining said clubs, the trust is being supported by your club fees regardless of your personal opinion.

Darren.
 
Graham Young said:
Despite your feeble attempt i refuse to get into something from another thread on this one no matter how hard you try your bait isn't good enough.

In no way have i said that trust members have no morals indeed whether to join the trust or not is entirely their prerogative, so please don't make any more rather childish attempts to put words into my mouth.

If you and others believe that the trust supports anglers and angling that's up to you i have different views and by the look of how many anglers haven't joined so do the majority but i wouldn't blame anyone for joining if that's what they thought was the correct thing to do.

I don't make excuses for my not joining the trust they are reasons but plenty of members in the past have called mine and others reasons excuses, it seems most anglers have excuses when it comes to not joining the trust and as i said one of the reasons is members such as you that think they are completely entitled to belittle anglers that don't join, even you must be able to realise that most anglers have not joined they will never join and members such as yourself do the trust no favours at all with your "you should join" rhetoric.


"Those that don't pay will still benefit from those that do " ?? name one thing that the trust has done that has benefitted me as an angler........ if you can.


Just so that you are aware i will list my top 3 reasons for not joining.

1) the continued hypocrisy of taking money from possibly the worst polluter in the country.

2) the cheating of new members being charged full price to join while at the same time offering lapsed members a lower rate in an attempt to get them to rejoin, not something an organisation with the word trust in its title should be doing.

3) the continued holier than thou attitude by members towards none members, it does the trust no good at all and i know anglers that have not joined because of it.
Click to expand...

You keep on about holier than thou attitude, and now I am belittling those that are non-members. I can assure you I am not of that persuasion, I admire feistyness in a chap, not willing to conform, but frankly your stance is without merit and I think you already know that, but you do go on!!!

I am not going to itemise all the things AT do for the good of Angling, I have the membership book, I know what they do, I can send you mine, or you can have your own if you join Besides if you have issues...JOIN, I am sure your concerns would be heard, in the meantime I have a football match to watch.
 
Darren Hawen said:
A neutral question/point - what's the general feeling if say £1.00 was added to the price of the annual rod licence, and this money went to the angling trust, would the people who are against joining the trust still buy a licence and fish? Also, as has previously been mentioned, many clubs are now members of the trust/fish legal, and through joining said clubs, the trust is being supported by your club fees regardless of your personal opinion.





Darren.
Click to expand...


Both scenarios are situations where an angler wanting to fish either a club water or to fish at all would have no choice if they wished to remain legal,

I would still pay for a licence because I have to if I don't want to be prosecuted for fishing without one( don't get me started on the EA though :D ) although the chances of that are very slim, the fact that some of my money would be going to the trust would be annoying but unavoidable, thankfully this situation would require an act of parliament to become law and is not one i can see happening in the near future, I must say that the thought of being forced to pay towards the trust would not imo be something that should ever be contemplated.

On the other scenario i do belong to clubs that are trust members and have no problem with that, it makes sense for clubs or fishery owners to be members, the insurance alone makes it worthwhile as it does should their waters suffer from a pollution incident. i see no advantage from individual membership.
 
Neil Smart said:
You keep on about holier than thou attitude, and now I am belittling those that are non-members. I can assure you I am not of that persuasion, I admire feistyness in a chap, not willing to conform, but frankly your stance is without merit and I think you already know that, but you do go on!!!

I am not going to itemise all the things AT do for the good of Angling, I have the membership book, I know what they do, I can send you mine, or you can have your own if you join Besides if you have issues...JOIN, I am sure your concerns would be heard, in the meantime I have a football match to watch.
Click to expand...

Answer the question if the trust does lots for anglers .... name one thing they have done for me, i don't think that you can.
 
Graham Young said:
Answer the question if the trust does lots for anglers .... name one thing they have done for me, i don't think that you can.
Click to expand...

The excellent work of Fish Legal for a start - don't you as an angler benefit from polluters being taken to court and prosecuted?

And what about Fish Legal's landmark case last year which ruled that water companies in England & Wales (and yes that includes Thames Water) are ‘public authorities’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and so are under a legal obligation to disclose any environmental information they hold to the public? Surely as an angler you benefit from that.

What about all the government policy consultations that the Angling Trust puts a lot of work into trying to ensure that the views of anglers are represented?

And then there is the admirable 'Building Bridges Project' which seems to have enjoyed some success in educating Eastern European Anglers on the fishery rules and bylaws etc ?
 
There are plenty more as well Joe, but some peeps just don't want to hear it. I genuinely don't think the low individual membership numbers have anything to do with what the Trust does for angling, it really can't be. Maybe their marketing could be better, but I also think it has a lot to do with the market they are attempting to attract - anglers. Whether it's the individual nature of fishing or the demographic I don't know, but there's something.

Nick C
 
In case some have not looked, it may be of interest to note that the income received by the AT in 2015 was £2,410,931, while expenditure was £2,351,435.

Of that, £1,217,827 was accounted for by 'Wages, salaries, recruitment and pensions', leaving under half of all income to be spent carrying out all their good works.

Such is the world I guess. Perhaps that is normal? I wouldn't know.

Cheers, Dave.
 
That is very normal Dave, the wages of staff carrying out their duties on behalf of the Trust , for the benefit of angling, are always going to be a significant cost. I don't think inflated wages at the Trust is something that can be levelled at it, they had several positions advertised not that long ago, and they were all very modest salaries for the roles. OK so the guys at the top make a few quid, but how's that different from any other organisation ?

Nick
 
At a cursory glance that doesn't seem unreasonable Dave, in fact I probably would have expected the proportion of income spent on employment costs to have been a bit higher. It's a fair enough question to ask though - it is the role of members like yourself to ensure the AT is held to account.

I disagree with the AT on quite a few matters, the odd way they have acted over beavers for instance, but they are the only organisation that can represent angling as a whole - they are certainly a better option than those swivel-eyed headbangers at the CA!
 
Joe Winstanley said:
The excellent work of Fish Legal for a start - don't you as an angler benefit from polluters being taken to court and prosecuted?

And what about Fish Legal's landmark case last year which ruled that water companies in England & Wales (and yes that includes Thames Water) are ‘public authorities’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and so are under a legal obligation to disclose any environmental information they hold to the public? Surely as an angler you benefit from that.

What about all the government policy consultations that the Angling Trust puts a lot of work into trying to ensure that the views of anglers are represented?

And then there is the admirable 'Building Bridges Project' which seems to have enjoyed some success in educating Eastern European Anglers on the fishery rules and bylaws etc ?
Click to expand...

Can i reply by firstly saying that i view the trust and FL as different organisations FLs role is self explanatory while the trust is imo political.

Fish Legal do some great work and if i were able to join them as a separate entity from the trust i would do so like a shot, unfortunately when i enquired about that i was told that i could not do that in England but that it was possible in Wales and Scotland.

Your second point is again about Fish Legal not the trust, i believe that water authorities are still withholding information, but even if they were complying it hasn't stopped pollutions by water companies has it?

Work that is done by the trust with government has as far as i am aware not produced anything other than a whole stream of publicity shots from the trust.

Building bridges Project although a good idea has and continues to fail, the reason is very simple, those that want to fish legally do so while those that don't carry on doing what they do as they know that the chances of being caught are slim, i have been involved in an incident involving being threatened by 3 EEs, that personal experience was enough for me.
 
Darren Hawen said:
A neutral question/point - what's the general feeling if say £1.00 was added to the price of the annual rod licence, and this money went to the angling trust, would the people who are against joining the trust still buy a licence and fish? Also, as has previously been mentioned, many clubs are now members of the trust/fish legal, and through joining said clubs, the trust is being supported by your club fees regardless of your personal opinion.

Darren.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be in favour of making anglers donate to the AT, it could stir up ill feeling, and it would probably have all sorts of legal ramifications. Organisations like the S&TC UK and the Wild Trout Trust could also insist that this applies to them also - it could create havoc! Might not be a bad idea to have a voluntary section on the rod licence application which gives you the opportunity to donate to the AT or Fish Legal if you so wish.
 
Mike Daniel said:
http://www.fishlegal.net/page.asp?section=168&sectionTitle=Current Cases

http://www.anglingtrust.net/page.as...Title=What+the+Angling+Trust+is+doing+for+you
Click to expand...

Mike i wont comment on your first link as i have already posted my views on Fish Legal.

The 2nd link i find amusing as the majority of thing mentioned there are things that are the statutory duty of the EA. should anglers be paying twice to get the service they pay for through the rod licence? my view is that they shouldn't.
 
I’ve just been reading the readers comments Ref AT, I well remember there many negative accounts about the ACA over the years. I often got told I was daft to donate so much money and effort to the organisation, IE when I was on the ACA council it would cost me around £150-00 to attend each meeting with train fares, hotel accommodation etc., all my writing fees and talks have all gone to the ACA as it was and now to my other 2 charities Crossroad Care and he ABF The Soldiers Charity. When a cheque went to the ACA I felt what I was doing in trying to improve our rivers and stream was well worth all the effort and cost. As an Ambassador with the AT I continue to do my best in promoting the good work of the organisation, two good examples of the AT are dealing with the cormorant problem, also the bailiff schemes . for all those who support the AT I say “Thank you†Regards Martin James
 
Graham Young said:
Can i reply by firstly saying that i view the trust and FL as different organisations FLs role is self explanatory while the trust is imo political.

Fish Legal do some great work and if i were able to join them as a separate entity from the trust i would do so like a shot, unfortunately when i enquired about that i was told that i could not do that in England but that it was possible in Wales and Scotland.

Your second point is again about Fish Legal not the trust, i believe that water authorities are still withholding information, but even if they were complying it hasn't stopped pollutions by water companies has it?

Work that is done by the trust with government has as far as i am aware not produced anything other than a whole stream of publicity shots from the trust.

Building bridges Project although a good idea has and continues to fail, the reason is very simple, those that want to fish legally do so while those that don't carry on doing what they do as they know that the chances of being caught are slim, i have been involved in an incident involving being threatened by 3 EEs, that personal experience was enough for me.
Click to expand...

It is only for reasons regarding corporate governance that the AT and FL are technically two organisations, and that is really all it is, a technicality.

You say that the AT is 'political'. Good! That is exactly what we need them to be. Many would say, myself included, that the AT are not nearly political enough. Surely you are long enough in the tooth Graham to appreciate that nearly every single issue that poses a threat to our rivers and waterways is rooted in politics - angling does not exist in an isolated bubble. No water company has ever set out to deliberately cause pollution, no housing developer ever built on a floodplain with the intention of exacerbating peak flows, no water company has ever extracted water from a river deliberately to reduce river flows, no farmer has ever deliberately set out to cause diffuse pollution - the fact these things happen and are allowed to happen is rooted in a series of dreadful Government policies dating back decades. Politics is at the centre of it whether you like it or not. Fish Legal do a brilliant job, but the long-term goal surely has to ensure that these incidents don't happen in the first instance. To some extent, one of the long-term goal of the AT must be to make the work Fish-Legal surplus to requirements? (And I do appreciate that we are currently light years away from that happening).

Anglers and other interest groups who care about the freshwater environment need to be as ruthless and as well organised as the political lobbyists who serve the interests of big agri-business, developers and the hedge funds who control our water companies. And the politicians who set our policies need to be rigorously held to account - the Angling Trust has the potential to provide a medium for this, but it can only do so if anglers are prepared to get behind it. You don't have to agree with everything they do, I know I certainly don't, it is unlikely that I ever will.

There is nothing to stop AT members from taking the AT to task when they are not happy with the direction the AT are taking. In fact in its in the AT's best interests that members do hold it to account and ensure their views are heard. All AT members can attend the annual AGM which provides a opportunity for members to air concerns from the floor, there is also the opportunity to do the same at the regional meetings and forums. Mark Lloyd and other board members and trustees can also be emailed directly. Let them know how ****ed-off you are, they need to hear it.

Re EIR - yes some water companies may still be withholding some information, but now, thanks to the AT/FL, that is now against the law and action can be taken. It would be naive to expect the EIR case to have suddenly stopped water companies causing pollution over night - most of which is diffuse in nature rather then than specifically point source. I don't think anybody expected that to happen, but unquestionably the EIR case is a big step in the right direction in helping the likes of the AT and Rivers Trusts get a better handle on water quality issues in specific catchments.

The Building Bridges Project only started around 4-5 years ago - it is unrealistic to expect the EE poaching situation to have miraculously ceased in that time. I'm sorry to hear of your bad experience - but is it really fair to judge the success of the project because of that bad experience?

I have seen some examples that the message is getting across. A good example being a photo I was sent on Saturday by a friend of mine who was fishing the tidal trent. A Polish angler who had been fishing the peg below him had landed a salmon (approx. 10lb) whilst lure fishing for Pike. He asked if my mate could take a picture for him, he handled the fish impeccably and was equipped with all the correct paraphernalia (decent landing net unhooking hat, forceps etc), and went to great lengths to ensure the fish had recovered properly. Would that have happened 10 years ago? I'm not so sure.

PS - you can make a donation to Fish Legal without any money going to the AT.

Anyway - I'm off fishing, the conditions look bang-on:)
 
Martin James said:
I’ve just been reading the readers comments Ref AT, I well remember there many negative accounts about the ACA over the years. I often got told I was daft to donate so much money and effort to the organisation, IE when I was on the ACA council it would cost me around £150-00 to attend each meeting with train fares, hotel accommodation etc., all my writing fees and talks have all gone to the ACA as it was and now to my other 2 charities Crossroad Care and he ABF The Soldiers Charity. When a cheque went to the ACA I felt what I was doing in trying to improve our rivers and stream was well worth all the effort and cost. As an Ambassador with the AT I continue to do my best in promoting the good work of the organisation, two good examples of the AT are dealing with the cormorant problem, also the bailiff schemes . for all those who support the AT I say “Thank you†Regards Martin James
Click to expand...

While i would applaude your efforts both past and present Martin there are for me things that i just cannot forgive the trust for the main one being accepting money from polluters as sponsorship.
 
Joe Winstanley said:
It is only for reasons regarding corporate governance that the AT and FL are technically two organisations, and that is really all it is, a technicality.

You say that the AT is 'political'. Good! That is exactly what we need them to be. Many would say, myself included, that the AT are not nearly political enough. Surely you are long enough in the tooth Graham to appreciate that nearly every single issue that poses a threat to our rivers and waterways is rooted in politics - angling does not exist in an isolated bubble. No water company has ever set out to deliberately cause pollution, no housing developer ever built on a floodplain with the intention of exacerbating peak flows, no water company has ever extracted water from a river deliberately to reduce river flows, no farmer has ever deliberately set out to cause diffuse pollution - the fact these things happen and are allowed to happen is rooted in a series of dreadful Government policies dating back decades. Politics is at the centre of it whether you like it or not. Fish Legal do a brilliant job, but the long-term goal surely has to ensure that these incidents don't happen in the first instance. To some extent, one of the long-term goal of the AT must be to make the work Fish-Legal surplus to requirements? (And I do appreciate that we are currently light years away from that happening).

Anglers and other interest groups who care about the freshwater environment need to be as ruthless and as well organised as the political lobbyists who serve the interests of big agri-business, developers and the hedge funds who control our water companies. And the politicians who set our policies need to be rigorously held to account - the Angling Trust has the potential to provide a medium for this, but it can only do so if anglers are prepared to get behind it. You don't have to agree with everything they do, I know I certainly don't, it is unlikely that I ever will.

There is nothing to stop AT members from taking the AT to task when they are not happy with the direction the AT are taking. In fact in its in the AT's best interests that members do hold it to account and ensure their views are heard. All AT members can attend the annual AGM which provides a opportunity for members to air concerns from the floor, there is also the opportunity to do the same at the regional meetings and forums. Mark Lloyd and other board members and trustees can also be emailed directly. Let them know how ****ed-off you are, they need to hear it.

Re EIR - yes some water companies may still be withholding some information, but now, thanks to the AT/FL, that is now against the law and action can be taken. It would be naive to expect the EIR case to have suddenly stopped water companies causing pollution over night - most of which is diffuse in nature rather then than specifically point source. I don't think anybody expected that to happen, but unquestionably the EIR case is a big step in the right direction in helping the likes of the AT and Rivers Trusts get a better handle on water quality issues in specific catchments.

The Building Bridges Project only started around 4-5 years ago - it is unrealistic to expect the EE poaching situation to have miraculously ceased in that time. I'm sorry to hear of your bad experience - but is it really fair to judge the success of the project because of that bad experience?

I have seen some examples that the message is getting across. A good example being a photo I was sent on Saturday by a friend of mine who was fishing the tidal trent. A Polish angler who had been fishing the peg below him had landed a salmon (approx. 10lb) whilst lure fishing for Pike. He asked if my mate could take a picture for him, he handled the fish impeccably and was equipped with all the correct paraphernalia (decent landing net unhooking hat, forceps etc), and went to great lengths to ensure the fish had recovered properly. Would that have happened 10 years ago? I'm not so sure.

PS - you can make a donation to Fish Legal without any money going to the AT.

Anyway - I'm off fishing, the conditions look bang-on:)
Click to expand...



Yes i am long enough in the false :) tooth to realise that Joe, the ones that are not are almost always to do with money as is very plain from the Powick weir debacle *** but that's a different thing for another day.

I agree that the trust has the potential to hold large organisations to account but to be able to do that they must have clean hands and i am afraid they just don't, taking money from who they did was a huge mistake but they have repeated the mistake, why because there was no one else? sooner not have it than compromise the integrity that is so vital.

All the Eastern European anglers i have met have not been of the poaching/fish killing sort indeed lots are wrongly tarred with the same brush as those that are, there is a polish chap and his son that fish my club still water when they first fished it they went to great lengths to make sure everyone knew they practised catch and release they shouldn't have to do that. my point about the Building Bridges programme is that there is a large number of EEs that know what they do is wrong/illegal they also know that the chances of getting caught are very small, imo the money would have been better spent on publicising those that fish legally more and not on educating those that don't want to be educated.

Yes i know i can make a donation to Fish Legal but i wont until i can be absolutely sure that it went to them and not elsewhere and i am afraid that at the moment i cant be.

Good luck for your session.

*** it would appear that its not for a different day, there is some very disturbing reading on the Save Powick Weir facebook page today involving the trust.
 
Graham I wasn’t getting at anyone just giving my view, I’m the first to respect other people’s views, even if I don’t personally agree with them that’s called democracy, If anglers don’t want to support AT they can of course support Fish Legal, a strange name, I would like to see it called The Pollution Fighters which I feel would attract a lot of non-anglers as the ACA did. Regards Martin
 
Angling Trust

Just a few things the club that I am a member has received from the AT in the last 18 months-

Financial grant for fisheries improvement (spent on 10 pegs-platforms etc I think it was in the low £000's)
Training up of 5 Angling Champions to help with our Junior section
Advertising/support on a recent junior angling initiative from the regional rep (Danny Williams-top man)
Pledged support for a new fishery-stocking and pegs

AT will get my support and membership!

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