Opinion Piece - The Angling Trust

[Graham Marsden]

No, it's just apathy. Always has been.

That's right, even when it was the ACA rather than Fish Legal.

For the great majority, in plain language, it's a case of 'not interested', or 'can't be arsed'.

At least not until somebody dumps a few kegs of cyanide into your river.

 

[no-one in particular]

I am going to be unpopular with this view. And I base it on ignorance because I dont know much about the angling trust. I was put off immediately that they charged £20. I sort of imagined a few guys working out that if they got 100,000 anglers to pay £20 a year (was that thier target for the first year?) then they would be set up for life. Nice offices, nice secratarys, clean job, company cars, dont have to get the hands dirty etc. I would have gone for it if I had thought of it. Now , in advance I will apologise for that if it upsets anybody and I am sure I will be told off. And I admit I am ignorant of the facts but I just couldn't help being a bit cynical at the £20. It made me think this was more a money making excercise than anything else.

 

[Kevin Perkins]

That's right, even when it was the ACA rather than Fish Legal.

For the great majority, in plain language, it's a case of 'not interested', or 'can't be arsed'.

At least not until somebody dumps a few kegs of cyanide into your river.

IF the Angling Trust is the way forward, then the easiest way to replace the apathy is by making membership compulsory.

Why do we tolerate a situation when purchase of an EA rod licence is compulsory, when we know that anglers aren't the main concern of that august body, yet membership of an organisation whose main concern is angling is left as voluntary?

Do we really have to have TWO lots of subscriptions to pay to ebnsure all our needs are met...!!!

 

[thx1138]

Why do we tolerate a situation when purchase of an EA rod licence is compulsory, when we know that anglers aren't the main concern of that august body, yet membership of an organisation whose main concern is angling is left as voluntary?

Do we really have to have TWO lots of subscriptions to pay to ebnsure all our needs are met...!!!

Are you suggesting the rod licence is a subscription?

...there was me thinking it a legal requirement, to regulate the use of instruments that exploit fish.

If you want representation in industry, you join the union. If you want representation in sport, you join your governing body. So if you want representation in angling, join the AT. The rod licence has nothing to do with it.

 

[Paul H]

Quote: Originally Posted by Graham Marsden That's right, even when it was the ACA rather than Fish Legal. For the great majority, in plain language, it's a case of 'not interested', or 'can't be arsed'. At least not until somebody dumps a few kegs of cyanide into your river. IF the Angling Trust is the way forward, then the easiest way to replace the apathy is by making membership compulsory. Why do we tolerate a situation when purchase of an EA rod licence is compulsory, when we know that anglers aren't the main concern of that august body, yet membership of an organisation whose main concern is angling is left as voluntary?

I am inclined to agree, I said on a previous AT related thread - sometimes people have to be told what to do for their own benefit.

Ideally the rod licence would cost more but I think we have established the likelyhood of that happening at zero. A surcharge on tackle items would be fine by me, even a surcharge on my club ticket wouldn't bother me, as long as it went towards the good fight.

The only way to fight apathy when it reaches this kind of magnitude is by making funding compulsary in some way. Yes there will be people who don't like it but there are people who don't like the rod licence or TV licence.

You cannot please all of the people all of the time but you can bet the same people who objected to contributing would be the first to complain that no one did anything for them when the antis get their way.

 

[richiekelly]

you are exactly right paul to become a member of the AT you must know of their existance and more importantly WANT to become a member, some sort of levy that cannot be escaped is the only way to ensure that the AT is properly funded and make no mistake if it isnt it will fail and to me that means that angling has failed itself once again, i have spoken to people on the syndicate that i fish and also at local waters that havent heard of the AT they had no idea who they are when told how to join a lot said £20 was to much but will happily spend silly amounts on the latest fishing gadgets or wonder bait.there will be people who would not want to join that would be paying towards the AT but thats life i am afraid we all pay into things that we dont aggree with through taxes but we have no choice and i belive there should be no choice when it comes to the proper funding of the only voice that speaks for angling without funding the voice becomes a whisper that nobody will hear and we cannot allow that to happen

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Do we really have to have TWO lots of subscriptions to pay to ebnsure all our needs are met...!!!

If you were to say that the rod licence is a tax, I would agree with you entirely. I have said that for the past 18 or so years, but at least the money is put back into fisheries. As is the BBC licence with broadcasts, but unlike the road tax which definitely ISN'T spent on roads.

However, I still prefer the AT to be a voluntary contribution and would like to see all anglers joining through their conscience rather than being forced to. Anyway, Kevin, you were proposing a licence fee of £50, you must be overjoyed that to join both (rod licence + AT) you'll still be saving £4 this year!

You cannot please all of the people all of the time but you can bet the same people who objected to contributing would be the first to complain that no one did anything for them when the antis get their way.

To right, Paul. I have seen it far too many times at pooorly attended work parties and at following matches etc., everyone moans that something more should be done to clear the swims. Yet you talk of charging more on the permit and said same people go off the handle.

 

[Stealph Viper]

Make it compulsary to join the Angling Trust ................ Madness.

Sea Anglers do not have to buy a Rod License even if they live in and fish on English waters.
Anglers in Scotland don't have to buy a Rod license to fish full stop (well, they didn't used to have to).

So only those that coarse fish in England would be forced to join .................. Madness.

It has to be a choice, made by Anglers, that want to help to make a difference.
The Angling Trust will still survive, albeit, in a smaller scale, but in time it will grow with support, advertisement and education.

 

[Kevin Perkins]

However, I still prefer the AT to be a voluntary contribution and would like to see all anglers joining through their conscience rather than being forced to. Anyway, Kevin, you were proposing a licence fee of £50, you must be overjoyed that to join both (rod licence + AT) you'll still be saving £4 this year!

OK, lets' do it the other way round, ramp up the Rod Licence to say £40 per year for the next 5 years, let the EA keep £30 and let them pass on £10 a head per angler as levy/tax whatever to the AT

 

[Stealph Viper]

OK, lets' do it the other way round, ramp up the Rod Licence to say £40 per year for the vnext 5 years, let the EA keep £30 and let them pass on £10 a head per angler as levy/tax whatever to the AT

Would that not tie the AT in with the EA which is a Government run body, which i feel a lot of Anglers would not want the independent AT tied in with such a Governemnt body.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Ahhh! So now you want a further discount of another £6?

You're not Jewish by any chance are you, Kevin?

For heaven's sake man, if you haven't joined already, get your wallet out. Next to Peter Jacobs you must be the wealthiest person on here.

Mind you, we never discuss Marsbar's wallet as you well know.

 

[richiekelly]

The Angling Trust will still survive, albeit, in a smaller scale, but in time it will grow with support, advertisement and education.

if a levy was put on tackle everyone that fishes would contribute

do we really want the AT to survive on a smaller scale surely the louder the voice the more people hear it , as for advertising the ACA used to advertise but how many anglers were members only a small percentage, the AT is already a lot smaller than was first envisaged

education is good only when people want to learn and im afraid that in angling apathy rules unless something affects an angler as an individual and even then most will just turn to another water or species or as has happened in the past think it is someone elses resposibility to become a member of the AT anglers must want and care enough to join and even if anglers know of the AT and their aims i am afraid that most wont, tax levy or whatever it is called will be a bitter pill to swallow for some who will moan as always but i have always found the biggest moaners are the ones who do least and expect the most.

 

[thx1138]

You're not Jewish by any chance are you, Kevin?

QUOTE]

you're out of order there Woody.

 

[Kevin Perkins]

You're not Jewish by any chance are you, Kevin?

QUOTE]

you're out of order there Woody.

James

My skins is thicker that Marsbars' wallet, and that's impenetrable.....I'm sure that no malice was intended by Old Father Thames, the barbel snaffling, swim-pinching git, nor was any taken.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

You're not Jewish by any chance are you, Kevin?

you're out of order there Woody.

Why so? Explain please.

---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------

no malice was intended by Old Father Thames, the barbel snaffling, swim-pinching git,

Now that I do take offence to. I did NOT pinch your swim Perkins! I asked where you wanted to fish and asked if I could fish upstream of you - TO BE OUT OF YOUR WAY! It's not my fault that you carry the curse of Cain when you go fishing.

 

[preston96]

We can all debate the best way to get anglers to part with their "pittance" to keep angling and there will always be those who disagree......but we need to sort it fast.

Swordsies idea.....make it a fiver membership, is still the best idea.......if we can find some way to make it payable by all who want to wet a line.

 

[richiekelly]

We can all debate the best way to get anglers to part with their "pittance" to keep angling and there will always be those who disagree......but we need to sort it fast.

Swordsies idea.....make it a fiver membership, is still the best idea.......if we can find some way to make it payable by all who want to wet a line.

put it on the rod licence

 

[Emmo (Angling Trust)]

So what about the few of us that saw some "good" in the intended work on anglers behalf and joined on Lifetime membership (of ACA now transferred to AT)? Are we to be expected to pay again now through some compulsory scheme because we did see the benefit and elect to support our chosen sport early rather than later?

 

[Stealph Viper]

You could charge £1.00p to join the Angling Trust, it will still only attract the people who are aware of who they are.
They need to make themselves more visible to Anglers and they need to make it so that all anglers can see the benefits of joining, as and when the AT becomes more established, the work that they do will become more apparent and will attract more anglers.

Yes, there will always be doubters and there will always be apathy (god, i hate that word) the only way to combat that is to make yourself visible and in there face, that way they can't say that they didn't know about it or that they didn't see the point of joining.

More every day anglers have been bringing members to the AT, than what i can see the AT are trying to attract to join.

 

[klik2change]

Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of the Angling Trust and Fish Legal said

... etc

WHO in the media or general public is going to know what fish legal is? Why are TWO organisations named by the chariman of the ONE organsation supposedly representing angling?

The reason for it is the infighting within angling itself. This goes to show how far we still have to go.

Someone suggested renaming AT as the Angling Conservation Trust. I would support that. The AT probably needs a relaunch anyway. The new CE should get all the heads together - and any other declared interested parties - and give them a severe dose of leadership domination.

I strongly agree with Jeff about the levy or tax - call it what you will - on angling goods sold.

The levy on the EA is a NON STARTER. It may well even be illegal. I strongly doubt it CAN happen, so I think we should forget it. What examples exist of such a levy via a government ministry?

I think the trust needs to focus on membership numbers, not on funds. Let the money come from those who can and will pay it. allow thr numbers to rise by allowing FREE membership. My guess is the vast majority of anglers are precisely those who go out "every other month with their mates when the weather is fine". The mebership numbers and the well known apathy back this viewpoint up.

---------- Post added at 08:08 ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 ----------

I did hear a Radio 5 Live programme where they were talking to the Secretary of the local fishing club. The poor guy was nearly in tears and it highlighted the depth of anglers passion for the river perfectly. I think the public would rather hear that human story than some 'spokesperson' who has probably never seen the river commenting on it.

James, you are spot on here! I think there still should be words from the AT, and their importance should not be underestimated, but the human angle is even more important. Note that the BBC did seek out the man from the local club for comment.