Well done the Angling Trust. Another reason to join....

[Rhys Perry]

I think Richard makes some good points, the problem with fishing today, and this may sound a bit obvious, is an awful lot of anglers are only concerned with catching fish, be it numbers or sizes, and to hell with anything else. In fact to many anything else just gets in the way so the attitude is lets eradicate it.
The voice of angling, or rather those that shout the loudest, tend to be in this camp, so the public perception of us is one of nature hating fish killers.
At the end of the day we pointlessly drag fish from their homes with big metal hooks, this is how non anglers see us, and when we go mouthing off about wildlife spoiling our pointless and cruel fun how do we expect the public to react!?
We need to show that despite this being a seemingly cruel and unnecessary pastime, which lets face it is, that the good can out way the bad by giving a lot back through conservation of the environments we fish in.
I hope that there are enough in the AT that can see this because we need to adopt this attitude. Sadly I feel far too many couldn't give a stuff about the environment they fish in just so long as they can catch trophy fish that look good in magazines.

 

[David Hall]

Well said Steve. I would also like to point out that the Angling Trust was only formed in the early part of 2009 and struggled for support from the outset, making it almost impotent in its early stages. Perhaps that's why they were unable to help in your case Daryl. I think we have seen them grow in stature since then and gain a much louder voice. They have started to make a difference and will continue to do so if supported. Why do you think people like the RSPB are so powerful? They have over one million members! The AT have 15,000.....pathetic.

the RSPB members don't pay the EA anything, it's a view that i hear all the time, not my view,
why should i pay twice!, i have spoken to dozens of anglers on the bank in the last 5 years, in all sort of venues, puddles, rivers and carp lakes, it's what i hear .:confused:

 

[Richard Hamlyn]

I was merely suggesting that rather than moan and whine about anglers, and voice concerns about possible threats an so on to angling (which I think is way over the top by the way), why not join the AT and do something far more positive. Why not be a positive force rather than a negative influence? I think I am allowed to share this thought on the forum.

Howard,

Why do you think that someone who works towards improving angling's image to the general public is a negative influence?

 

[Ben Whitehouse]

Steve,

I know what you have written comes from the heart, but I’m afraid I cannot agree.

Firstly congratulations to Andrew Boyne as he makes some very good points in his post. The single biggest threat to angling is the general public’s opinion of us, and the reason it is so poor is due to the fact that they think it is cruel to stick hooks in fish for fun and that anglers are all rather silly people anyway sitting there for hours and hours in the rain and catching very little. In short Joe Public does not like us very much. Now we know that this is not the case but this public perception still exists. It’s true that a pastime with so many people taking part in it must statistically have its share of complete idiots among them but I choose to think they are not representative. The majority of people I fish with are knowledgeable and environmentally aware and are excellent ambassadors for a sustainable countryside.

What we need to look at is how there comes to be such a massive disconnect between the reality of angling and anglers and the public image of us. It is here that we continually shoot ourselves in the foot with our published thoughts on forum such as this that we need to shoot the seals. Shoot the cormorants and any other large bird that eats fish. Shoot the otters. Lock up East European Poachers. Cull anything that we think may be a problem; in short the instant response of many of us is to destroy anything that we perceive threatens our pastime irrespective of any reliable data.

The likes of Tony Rocca do not help by having a link on all his posts that takes you to his blog where he displays photos of him shooting birds out of the sky and making very disparaging remarks about other anglers who have anything to do with the Barbel Society. Now Tony has every right to do this, and many people think that by throwing our lot in with the hunting and shooting brigade it makes us stronger, but does it help our cause regarding our public image? Rightly or wrongly the public hate the snot nosed toff on a horse with his pack of hounds and the lines of country gents blasting grouse and pheasant, so what do we have to gain from being associated with them?

Back to Steve’s point that by not joining the Angling Trust we are somehow not pulling our weight for angling and should be ashamed of ourselves. The fact that the vast majority of anglers have not joined is possibly a demonstration of voting with their feet. That is to say as the Trust does not represent ALL of angling, coupled with the fact that we have seen other representative bodies fail miserably in the past, the majority of anglers have no faith in its ability. Of course there is a chicken and egg situation here, but to quote from Field of Dreams “if they build it we will come”. Asking people to join a body because it’s all we’ve got will not be successful.

I agree with what Richard is getting at here. I had no problem with the Angling Trust and had read up on it's membership however, as Richard says you only have to look on the facebook pages, local/national media pages to see that Joe Public has seen the original press release from the Angling Trust and are clearly blaming "anglers" as a whole for wanting to shoot the seal. They are ignoring the other suggestions and are focusing their anger on the shooting comment. The public will also frown upon angling when it goes on fishing forums and reads all the people supporting the shooting of the seal.

Don't get me wrong, as a river Severn angler, i appreciate the AT doing something when all the other bodies, such as the EA, did nothing. I can understand locals anglers are so mad that they want to shoot it but i do not agree with this as i relocation is clearly better than termination (which i'm glad to see is the option) and shooting it would do more damage than good.

However, it says on the AT membership page that the Trust is there to protect anglers and also "solve all the problems that affect our sport". Whilst i appreciate they do attempt this, the press release mentioning the shooting of the seal has had the opposite effect and is a contradiction of this as it has caused all us anglers to be viewed dimly by even more members of the public and this could be seen to be causing problems for our sport not resolving them. As Richard says the AT should be working to improve the public's view on angling as we all know how great angling is and how much we care for all flora and fauna we come across whilst out on the banks. Also look how the actions of just one hardcore wildlife-enthusiast non-angler has banned masheer angling on the Cauvery. I know that's far fetched but shows you don't want to upset the wrong people!!

What i am getting at is this was very bad PR skills by those who wrote the press statement in the first place and the shooting should not have been mentioned , as you say the AT only has 15,000 members and there are by all accounts 1.5 million rod licenses sold - therefore the actions of a representative group of 15,000 anglers has potentially had an impact on 1.5 million fisherman, as a higher number of public will frown upon an already frowned upon pastime which is a great shame, as most of the public have no idea how much good fisherman do to the lakes and waterways of this country.

Also why should i "hang my head in shame" at not being a member when due to the press release of the AT i have had to spend the last several weeks defending my beloved sport against a number of people who didn't give two hoots before but have just jumped on the "save Keith" bandwagon as all they can see from other media sources is that all fisherman want to shoot the seal?

This is why , currently, i choose not to be a member of the AT and i don't feel like it should be me hanging my head because of this ......

Rant over.

 

[Howard Cooke]

Howard,

Why do you think that someone who works towards improving angling's image to the general public is a negative influence?

But you are not doing any "work" are you? You are just saying how terrible most anglers are blah, blah, blah. That's just a rant. Something you are perfectly entitled to do by the way. All I am saying is, if you feel that strongly, why not be on the inside where you potentially have more of a mandate and a greater ability to influence things. Join what ever committee may exist.

 

[Richard Hamlyn]

But you are not doing any "work" are you? You are just saying how terrible most anglers are blah, blah, blah. That's just a rant. Something you are perfectly entitled to do by the way. All I am saying is, if you feel that strongly, why not be on the inside where you potentially have more of a mandate and a greater ability to influence things. Join what ever committee may exist.

Howard,

How do yo know how much work I have personally done to promote angling? In any case the fact that I may or may not have devoted countless hours to further the cause of angling is of absolutely no importance. What is important are the issues I raise; not me personally. In the great scheme of things I am totally unimportant and that suits me just fine.

 

[Stephen Whyte]

I heard that the seal in question eat a duck while people were feeding it, but i don't know if this is the case:confused: From what i understand, is that everyone was involved in a solution from the "start", but i'm just wondering when a decision was made to remove the seal (before or after the duck thing, if it happened). Have also read some members suggesting that the seal could be shot humanely as its welfare, in the long term, is at risk. I think this is a reasonable opinion, and not as gung-ho as some interpretations suggest. I remember an occasion a few years ago when a seal turned up on the yorkshire Ouze i think, but i don't know what the outcome was. Just a few thoughts. If this has been brought up before i apologise, as i can be a bit of a numpty.

Stephen

 

[Andrew Boyne]

The voice of angling, or rather those that shout the loudest, tend to be in this camp, so the public perception of us is one of nature hating fish killers.
At the end of the day we pointlessly drag fish from their homes with big metal hooks, this is how non anglers see us, and when we go mouthing off about wildlife spoiling our pointless and cruel fun how do we expect the public to react!?

Exactly. I've tried to get those shouters to see this on various otter/cormorant threads in the past but i'm afraid they just don't get it Rhys.

This is why , currently, i choose not to be a member of the AT and i don't feel like it should be me hanging my head because of this ......

Rant over.

No point quoting the whole post - but again. Spot on. You've no need to be ashamed of anything. It's your choice if you choose not to join an organisation that claims to represent you. Richard made the point about not wanting to stand alongside other field sports, to be honest - i don't want to stand alongside the man who wants to stuff several hundred pounds of baby carp into his net from a dug out puddle in an attempt to win a few quid. His angling world is a world away from mine. There simply can not be a single body that represents him and me.

 

[Nathan Walter]

If it ate a few chihuahuas we might get a slightly different response from the general public!

My personal view is the At said the right things. They didn't downplay the situation. They stated just how serious it was and that if no one was going to do anything about it and help the AT relocate the animal then they MAY have to apply for a licence to shoot the animal. It worked and now its going to be moved.

Some non anglers will always frown on us, some couldn't care less about us and some have no issues with us at all (I do think some of you over exagerate the public's view of anglers). We have to stand up for what we think is right and sometimes that will make us enemies. I'm not sure there's a lot we can do about that. In this instance I think it was dealt with in the right way.

 

[Howard Cooke]

Howard,

How do yo know how much work I have personally done to promote angling? In any case the fact that I may or may not have devoted countless hours to further the cause of angling is of absolutely no importance. What is important are the issues I raise; not me personally. In the great scheme of things I am totally unimportant and that suits me just fine.

Point taken Richard and if only more people had your level of self awareness.

 

[Darryl Davis]

Nathan, I can take your point in that the River Hull situation occurred at their start, and perhaps that is why they were so impotent then.

However on a wider perspective, trying to shame other anglers into joining the AT is counterproductive, I think that will serve only to alienate those with doubts. I have mine, not about Fish Legal I might add. I am not alone in this - see The Angling Trust, an ?Unbelievably Weak Governing Body? - Not Just Teeth: December

Some of the sometimes blundering public statements, the un-elected paid bureaucratic management team, the support for Kayak fishing, the lack of a visible position regarding Zander and Catfish (two species I fish for) and their inept standing order/direct debit situation where I was every year having to refill the same form for any payment to them and then end up paying twice. None of which happened in 30 years of ACA, NASA/SAA membership.

The only reason I post this is because I am reconsidering this as really there is no other legal entity that represents Anglers. Among the good things are their stance on eel preservation ( Eels, their regulation, the Environment Agency and the Angling Trust - The Angling Trust ).

My membership I let slip this year due to my annoyance at the aforementioned Direct Debit situation. If I believed more in them, I would have completed the DD form for the fifth successive year and sorted out the hassle later. If I do rejoin its because of a reasoned rationale not inept peer pressure.

 

[Paul Curtis]

I think a lot of people miss the point about the angling trust, and for that matter other organisations representing interests sporting or even commercial/industrial. Of course I don't agree with everything they say or do. Point is that umbrella organisations are there to represent the majority of members such as myself, who don't have time for the politics and lobbying,and so pay someone else to do it for me.
As a commercial horticulturist I have to pay a compulsory levy to fund research. I can vote for who represents me but the direction of research is not always of value to me.
Now can anyone think of a compusory levy on anglers to an organisation which does not always fight for anglers interests or worse?

Paul

 

[Jeff Edisbury]

I'm still asstounded by the quotes on here. You are all still trying to appease yoursselves as to what you can do to save our sport. The " i only fish for bullheads and gudgeon between Bewdley and Berwick, what's in it for me" approach is laughable and ultimately futile. The point being that we ALL need a unified voice on angling. Without this, we are sadly peeing in the wind and a laughing stock to other lobbyists such as RSPB (of which i am also a member by the way) who have a huge influence down to their size. RSPB membership currently 1.1 million and growing!

Get it together and stop fighting with each other.

J

 

[Eddie Farrell]

good point andy, most of us are river anglers on here, so we are only interested with the rivers, even though some time we may fish lakes, when the rivers are close,
so will the AT caters for all aspects of fishing, river angler, the lakes/ match men angler,salmon /trout angler it might be hard to keep them all happy and of course you do have the choice to join,
i do think the AT, will have sit to down and lisen to its members to see what they want and put it to a vote, and that things are with in reason that way its the members that decide, , this can be done on a percentage, and a time scale, that way it wont take months to get things done, not like the otter saga , at the end of the day we want whats best for our angling,

 

[Bob Gill]

I'm still asstounded by the quotes on here. You are all still trying to appease yoursselves as to what you can do to save our sport. The " i only fish for bullheads and gudgeon between Bewdley and Berwick, what's in it for me" approach is laughable and ultimately futile. The point being that we ALL need a unified voice on angling. Without this, we are sadly peeing in the wind and a laughing stock to other lobbyists such as RSPB (of which i am also a member by the way) who have a huge influence down to their size. RSPB membership currently 1.1 million and growing!

Get it together and stop fighting with each other.

J

Well said.
Bob

 

[Neil Smart]

Of course if Angling should be represented by a unified body it would be reassuring if before uttering anything they might want to check that what they say would not make the situation a whole lot worse.

 

[Nick Coulthurst]

You Get What You Pay For

Has the AT made some PR gaffs ? Missed out on opportunities to improve the public's perception of us ? Made administrative errors ? Funny that it's not the all singing, all dancing, slick representative body we'd like it to be, but it's never going to be that until it increases its membership. It operates on a shoe string budget compared to the RSPB, has much more contentious issues to deal with, and is faced with great apathy among the people it represents. As I often say to the wife, forget the jobs I haven't done round the house this week, and take a look at the ones I have. Just based on what the AT has done to fight pollution, and hydroelectric power alone, its worth the £20. Having Martin Salter on board is a major step in the right direction, but the Trust needs many more capable people, and guess what, they cost money. It's no good saying I'll join when it's the all singing, ......... , because it's not going to get there without support. It's just like a business, it needs investment to succeed.
Richard, I think how you think the public perceives angling is way wide of the mark. Most people have either close friends or relatives who fish, and whilst I'm sure some think it an odd pastime, very few are actually opposed to it. I think the public has a far dimmer view of people who want to ban fishing. As for forging relationships or alliances with other representative bodies such as hunting and shooting, these options wouldn't have to be considered if more people joined the AT, not that I personally think they are necessarily a bad idea. I personally eat meat, and don't have a problem with people who shoot. Shooting a rabbit or pheasant for the table is in my opinion, the most humane way of dispatching an animal. For people who live and work in the country, shooting is just viewed as something lots of people do. It's not the preserve of the "toffs", by any means. I for one, celebrate the diversity of lifestyles and pastimes in the UK.
I think that "public opinion", needs to distinguished from "media opinion", and one way to make sure that the two actually converge is to have a representative body with some teeth. It's much easier for people with influence in the media to have their own opinions presented as "public opinion" when they know the representative body opposing them is a puny outfit with 15,000 members.
I know some have very different opinions to me on these issues and I respect that, but at the end of the day, if angling is no longer around in 25 years, I'll be OK with myself : I joined the AT, picked up my litter, treated other water users with respect, cared for the fish .......

Nick C

 

[Adrian Williams]

But you would have 3 choices:
Join at the non AT rate
Join at the AT member rate
Not join.

How many choices do you need

I guess some people will look for any excuse not to join

You originally said

Perhaps clubs could consider a 2 tier membership system
£x for AT members or £x +£20 for non AT members with the difference being donated to the AT?
Might persuade a few more people to make their minds up (although it should be a no-brainer anyway imo).

I need an option where I am not being charged a compulsory sum which is donated to an organisation which I do not want to be a part of.

Until the ATr gets it's act together with regard to match fishing on overstocked venues they will get nothing from me.

But that's a whole different thread.

 

[Dave Powell]

Nathan, I can take your point in that the River Hull situation occurred at their start, and perhaps that is why they were so impotent then.

However on a wider perspective, trying to shame other anglers into joining the AT is counterproductive, I think that will serve only to alienate those with doubts. I have mine, not about Fish Legal I might add. I am not alone in this - see The Angling Trust, an ?Unbelievably Weak Governing Body? - Not Just Teeth: December

Some of the sometimes blundering public statements, the un-elected paid bureaucratic management team, the support for Kayak fishing, the lack of a visible position regarding Zander and Catfish (two species I fish for) and their inept standing order/direct debit situation where I was every year having to refill the same form for any payment to them and then end up paying twice. None of which happened in 30 years of ACA, NASA/SAA membership.

The only reason I post this is because I am reconsidering this as really there is no other legal entity that represents Anglers. Among the good things are their stance on eel preservation ( Eels, their regulation, the Environment Agency and the Angling Trust - The Angling Trust ).

My membership I let slip this year due to my annoyance at the aforementioned Direct Debit situation. If I believed more in them, I would have completed the DD form for the fifth successive year and sorted out the hassle later. If I do rejoin its because of a reasoned rationale not inept peer pressure.

Never had a problem with my Direct Debit Darryl. It would be good to see you back on board.

Dave

 

[Richard Hamlyn]

Has the AT made some PR gaffs ? Missed out on opportunities to improve the public's perception of us ? Made administrative errors ? Funny that it's not the all singing, all dancing, slick representative body we'd like it to be, but it's never going to be that until it increases its membership. It operates on a shoe string budget compared to the RSPB, has much more contentious issues to deal with, and is faced with great apathy among the people it represents. As I often say to the wife, forget the jobs I haven't done round the house this week, and take a look at the ones I have. Just based on what the AT has done to fight pollution, and hydroelectric power alone, its worth the £20. Having Martin Salter on board is a major step in the right direction, but the Trust needs many more capable people, and guess what, they cost money. It's no good saying I'll join when it's the all singing, ......... , because it's not going to get there without support. It's just like a business, it needs investment to succeed.
Richard, I think how you think the public perceives angling is way wide of the mark. Most people have either close friends or relatives who fish, and whilst I'm sure some think it an odd pastime, very few are actually opposed to it. I think the public has a far dimmer view of people who want to ban fishing. As for forging relationships or alliances with other representative bodies such as hunting and shooting, these options wouldn't have to be considered if more people joined the AT, not that I personally think they are necessarily a bad idea. I personally eat meat, and don't have a problem with people who shoot. Shooting a rabbit or pheasant for the table is in my opinion, the most humane way of dispatching an animal. For people who live and work in the country, shooting is just viewed as something lots of people do. It's not the preserve of the "toffs", by any means. I for one, celebrate the diversity of lifestyles and pastimes in the UK.
I think that "public opinion", needs to distinguished from "media opinion", and one way to make sure that the two actually converge is to have a representative body with some teeth. It's much easier for people with influence in the media to have their own opinions presented as "public opinion" when they know the representative body opposing them is a puny outfit with 15,000 members.
I know some have very different opinions to me on these issues and I respect that, but at the end of the day, if angling is no longer around in 25 years, I'll be OK with myself : I joined the AT, picked up my litter, treated other water users with respect, cared for the fish .......

Nick C

Nick,

I do not agree with you on many things you have said, but it is really good to see a reasoned response to the thread content .