Angling Trust: Should I join?

[yorkydoodle]

Just wondering what you all think of the Angling Trust. Is it something that many of you subscribe to, and should I really join to be doing right? I really have no idea about this, and could do with hearing the views of other members on this one...

 

[mick b]

.
If you read the 'rethink of the river close season thread' you will see that the Angling Trust can be heavily influenced by its corporate (trade) 'supporters' to such an extent that the ordinary member just becomes an irrelevant number on the membership list.
The ATr also describes itself as having a 'political wing', so if thats what you wish to subscribe to its your choice.

Im a member of my local River Association and County Wildlife Trust but doubt I will ever join the Angling Trust under its present set-up.

 

[bear dies]

With lots of meaningless personnel over 15 I think on over 30k a year, it would take a long time for your penneth worth to filter down to doing any good. You are just keeping useless bods in jobs.

Press releases every week about nothing like the great "fixed lines found" that were not actually found by anyone remotely connected with the trust, but a story was released about volunteer bailiffs ? Join your local River Association and don't get drawn in!

Its a NO from me by the way

 

[thecrow]

Do a search on here read through the threads (there are lots) and then decide for yourself, its not something I will be joining.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I was a member from the outset but decided not to renew my membership quite recently.

Pros and cons like in most things, but currently, for me at least, the cons outweigh the cons.

I agree with Mick B inasmuch as it seems that club and professional and trade memberships seem to carry more sway at the moment than individuals

Read up as much as you can, inwardly digest and make your decision.

Good luck

 

[keora]

I've been a member of the Angling Trust (including its predecessor the ACA) for over forty years.

The benefits of the Trust is that it represents angling in negotiations with the Government and other bodies. It's successfully negotiated a relaxation in the rules relating to the protection of cormorants. It has represented anglers in obtaining damages after waters have been polluted. Here's a list of current projects related to freshwater fishing.

Freshwater Campaigns - The Angling Trust

Anglers acting as individuals can do very little to combat threats against angling. Only body such as the Angling Trust can be effective. The fees members pay helps angling in general, and the benefits do filter down to anglers.

I'm a member of club which has been receiving advice from the Trust concerning declining catches on a local river. The Trust helped set up a joint meeting with it, the EA and clubs with fishing rights on the river.

 

[laguna]

It has potential.

Still waiting for an answer to my email sent over 4 weeks ago regards insurance protection for example...

Can you afford not to join? the answer is YES you can just carry on fishing (for the moment) and save yourself £25 (spend it on an extra 2 days fishing on a commi or put it towards a years club membership) but whatever comes along that may affect your rights to fish/our industry in the future... with nobody to fight our corner?

 

[steph mckenzie]

The Angling Trust debate as to whether to join or not, is a very personal choice for the individual. It's a bit like asking whether or not you should join the AA breakdown cover. Everyone will have their opinion.

If you think joining will benefit your angling and help angling in general then join (look on their website and see what the benefits to you and others would be). If however, you feel that your fishing doesn't need it nor would you joining actually make any difference to you or others, then don't join.

Spend £25.00p to support an organisation because you believe in it, or take the £25.00p and spend it on fishing tackle, at the end of the day it's a personal decision.

 

[mick b]

The Angling Trust debate as to whether to join or not, is a very personal choice for the individual. It's a bit like asking whether or not you should join the AA breakdown cover. Everyone will have their opinion.

If you think joining will benefit your angling and help angling in general then join (look on their website and see what the benefits to you and others would be). If however, you feel that your fishing doesn't need it nor would you joining actually make any difference to you or others, then don't join.

Spend £25.00p to support an organisation because you believe in it, or take the £25.00p and spend it on fishing tackle, at the end of the day it's a personal decision.

Totally agree Steph, but if the Angling Club/s or waters you fish on a day ticket basis are members of the ATr then you are already a member because you have subscribed indirectly, the only thing you miss out on is the individual voting rights.
And if the ATr puts more weight in the opinions of their 'trade' members then a single individual is, as previously, just a number on a list.

.

 

[thecrow]

Martin Salter was on the radio this morning talking about the Angling Trust, I wasn't best pleased to hear Nigel Botherway say that anglers that were not members should "be ashamed" why is that then?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Martin Salter was on the radio this morning talking about the Angling Trust, I wasn't best pleased to hear Nigel Botherway say that anglers that were not members should "be ashamed" why is that then?

Is that Korum's Nigel Botherway then?

Another 'professional' angler?

It is comments like his that help to turn people off of joining in my opinion.

 

[thecrow]

I just do not think this "verbal blackmail" does them any good and as you say its likely to turn anglers away from them rather than gain the members they say they need, if Martin Salter had anything about him he would have corrected him.

 

[mick b]

Yep, thats the one!

A representative for a fishing tackle company.....trying to 'encourage' (bully) the average angler to join the Trust, perhaps so it will seem more balanced instead of being a Trade dominated Organisation with a few private members.

Question; does a trade/commercial member of the Angling Trust have a single vote (the same as an ordinary member) or.........?


.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Question; does a trade/commercial member of the Angling Trust have a single vote (the same as an ordinary member) or.........?

Question: How many Trade members are there?

 

[mark brailsford 2]

I cant make my mind up about joining the AT again and have come to the thinking that my money would be of better use to the Ribble Trust! Decisions, decisions, mg:

 

[mark lloyd at]

Hi folks,
I don't usually get involved in forums as the job keeps me too busy, but I came across this one searching for something else and felt compelled to provide some information to help you make up your minds about joining.
We currently have 17,500 individual members, 3,700 of which are free junior members (under 18) and 1,300 of which are life members. We also have 1,422 club members with a combined membership of nearly 400,000 anglers.
Our individual members provide, collectively, about £275,000 of revenue to support our work.
Our club members provide about £165,000 to support Angling Trust and £140,000 to Fish Legal (there is a separate membership for Fish Legal). Therefore members of our member clubs contribute about 75p per head per year to both organisations to campaign and take legal action on their behalf.
Our work is very much guided by the views of both our individual members and our club members.
Club members do have extra votes at AGMs, in a multiple of the individual membership up to a maximum of 10 votes. i.e. a club paying £250 a year would have 10 votes, and so would one paying £700 a year. A club paying £50 a year would have 2 votes. There has never been a vote at an AGM where clubs and individuals have voted in noticeably different ways.
We have about 45 trade members, who pay just £30 a year, and a collection of sponsors who support our national teams to help them compete. I genuinely don't understand what the suggestions being made on here about undue corporate influence are all about.
I believe that we have achieved a great deal for fish stocks and fishing in the 5 years we have existed.

In summary, what we do is fight for Fish and Fishing by:
• Improving and protecting fish stocks
• Providing a strong and unified voice for angling
• Promoting the benefits of angling for all
• Standing up for the environment
• Making polluters pay
• Supporting excellence in angling

What have we achieved:
• Secured the right to properly protect our fisheries from cormorants and goosanders
• Helped persuade parliament to oppose plans to build a barrage across the Severn Estuary
• Fish Legal won an injunction to stop a major River Trent hydropower scheme licensed to kill over 100 fish a day. This led to another scheme being cancelled as well and the company going out of business.
• Fought the polluters in 50 separate legal cases and provided free legal advice to 220 Fish Legal member clubs and fisheries in the last twelve months.
• Won a judicial review of the government’s river basin management plans in 2011 and secured £100m of new funding for improving rivers.
• Launched a radical new Charter for Chalk Streams to fight over abstraction and deliver better protection.
• Consulted 30,000 anglers and 780 organisations in bringing forward the first ever National Angling Strategy with new government funding to get more people fishing.
• Reduced poaching by educating Eastern European anglers about how to fish legally.
• Recruited 100 volunteer bailiffs in a pilot scheme that is now being rolled out nationally.
• Won a review by DEFRA of the bass minimum landing size and pressing for inclusion of estuary netting
• Secured support from the Environment Minister for keeping canoeing restricted to rivers with a public right of navigation and stretches with voluntary access agreements.
• Fought off accusations by the MMO that recreational sea anglers sell their catch.
• Delivered over 200 major competitions and supported our England teams to win 6 gold, 5 silver and 10 bronze medals at world championships and home internationals in 2012.
• Beat off angling bans and restrictions and fought against the sell-off of waters to non-angling interests.
• Trained 1,300 coaches and helped introduce 100,000 people to angling in the past four years.
• Set up 35 County Angling Action Groups to get more people fishing more often.
• Successfully campaigned for a ban of the sale of invasive plants such as floating pennywort.
• Introduced new benefits and discounts for members on fishing, clothing, bait and tackle.
• Represented our sport on at regional, national and international level.

I hope this helps provide the information you need.
Someone mentioned not getting a response to their e-mail about insurance cover. That sounds very unusual; we aim to reply within a week at the outside to all enquiries. Please feel free to email me at mark.lloyd@anglingtrust.net with the details and I will reply.
There is also lots of information at Official Insurance Scheme for Angling Trust Affiliated members

I'm afraid I won't be able to engage in the debate further.
All best wishes
Mark
Mark Lloyd
Chief Executive, Angling Trust & Fish Legal

---------- Post added at 05:38 ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 ----------

PS It's very important that people support their river trusts (I have standing orders myself with three that cover the rivers I fish). River trusts do the practical work on the ground. We do the political advocacy and take the legal cases that support that work. Eden Rivers Trust and the Wye and Usk Foundation were actually both founded with funds raised from legal cases won by the old ACA, which has now become Fish Legal.
Given the state of the EA and NRW, I'm afraid that the River Trusts need our support, as well as there being a strong need for a single unified organisation which can support all anglers (the Angling Trust) and one which can bring the polluters to book (Fish Legal). Joining us costs just £25 - less than 50p a week.

 

[thecrow]

Hi folks,
I don't usually get involved in forums as the job keeps me too busy, but I came across this one searching for something else and felt compelled to provide some information to help you make up your minds about joining.
We currently have 17,500 individual members, 3,700 of which are free junior members (under 18) and 1,300 of which are life members. We also have 1,422 club members with a combined membership of nearly 400,000 anglers.
Our individual members provide, collectively, about £275,000 of revenue to support our work.
Our club members provide about £165,000 to support Angling Trust and £140,000 to Fish Legal (there is a separate membership for Fish Legal). Therefore members of our member clubs contribute about 75p per head per year to both organisations to campaign and take legal action on their behalf.
Our work is very much guided by the views of both our individual members and our club members.
Club members do have extra votes at AGMs, in a multiple of the individual membership up to a maximum of 10 votes. i.e. a club paying £250 a year would have 10 votes, and so would one paying £700 a year. A club paying £50 a year would have 2 votes. There has never been a vote at an AGM where clubs and individuals have voted in noticeably different ways.
We have about 45 trade members, who pay just £30 a year, and a collection of sponsors who support our national teams to help them compete. I genuinely don't understand what the suggestions being made on here about undue corporate influence are all about.
I believe that we have achieved a great deal for fish stocks and fishing in the 5 years we have existed.

In summary, what we do is fight for Fish and Fishing by:
• Improving and protecting fish stocks
• Providing a strong and unified voice for angling
• Promoting the benefits of angling for all
• Standing up for the environment
• Making polluters pay
• Supporting excellence in angling

What have we achieved:
• Secured the right to properly protect our fisheries from cormorants and goosanders
• Helped persuade parliament to oppose plans to build a barrage across the Severn Estuary
• Fish Legal won an injunction to stop a major River Trent hydropower scheme licensed to kill over 100 fish a day. This led to another scheme being cancelled as well and the company going out of business.
• Fought the polluters in 50 separate legal cases and provided free legal advice to 220 Fish Legal member clubs and fisheries in the last twelve months.
• Won a judicial review of the government’s river basin management plans in 2011 and secured £100m of new funding for improving rivers.
• Launched a radical new Charter for Chalk Streams to fight over abstraction and deliver better protection.
• Consulted 30,000 anglers and 780 organisations in bringing forward the first ever National Angling Strategy with new government funding to get more people fishing.
• Reduced poaching by educating Eastern European anglers about how to fish legally.
• Recruited 100 volunteer bailiffs in a pilot scheme that is now being rolled out nationally.
• Won a review by DEFRA of the bass minimum landing size and pressing for inclusion of estuary netting
• Secured support from the Environment Minister for keeping canoeing restricted to rivers with a public right of navigation and stretches with voluntary access agreements.
• Fought off accusations by the MMO that recreational sea anglers sell their catch.
• Delivered over 200 major competitions and supported our England teams to win 6 gold, 5 silver and 10 bronze medals at world championships and home internationals in 2012.
• Beat off angling bans and restrictions and fought against the sell-off of waters to non-angling interests.
• Trained 1,300 coaches and helped introduce 100,000 people to angling in the past four years.
• Set up 35 County Angling Action Groups to get more people fishing more often.
• Successfully campaigned for a ban of the sale of invasive plants such as floating pennywort.
• Introduced new benefits and discounts for members on fishing, clothing, bait and tackle.
• Represented our sport on at regional, national and international level.

I hope this helps provide the information you need.
Someone mentioned not getting a response to their e-mail about insurance cover. That sounds very unusual; we aim to reply within a week at the outside to all enquiries. Please feel free to email me at mark.lloyd@anglingtrust.net with the details and I will reply.
There is also lots of information at Official Insurance Scheme for Angling Trust Affiliated members

I'm afraid I won't be able to engage in the debate further.
All best wishes
Mark
Mark Lloyd
Chief Executive, Angling Trust & Fish Legal

---------- Post added at 05:38 ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 ----------

PS It's very important that people support their river trusts (I have standing orders myself with three that cover the rivers I fish). River trusts do the practical work on the ground. We do the political advocacy and take the legal cases that support that work. Eden Rivers Trust and the Wye and Usk Foundation were actually both founded with funds raised from legal cases won by the old ACA, which has now become Fish Legal.
Given the state of the EA and NRW, I'm afraid that the River Trusts need our support, as well as there being a strong need for a single unified organisation which can support all anglers (the Angling Trust) and one which can bring the polluters to book (Fish Legal). Joining us costs just £25 - less than 50p a week.

I would have thought that trade members would have paid more than that as they stand to loose more than the average angler, i.e. their business.

 

[mick b]

Question; does a trade/commercial member of the Angling Trust have a single vote (the same as an ordinary member) or.........? .

Following Mark Lloyd's post I sent him an email and this is his reply.

"Trade members would get one vote as they only pay slightly more than £25. Sponsors get no vote unless they are members."

So there is the definative answer, from the Chief Executive.

He also added
"We are entirely neutral on the closed season issue, but this is a debate that we are facilitating."
...........



Now my question is;
Why does the Angling Trust feel it must facilitate a debate on the close season?

The defination of facilitate is to 'smooth the way of an action or process'
Thus I assume from Mark Lloyd's words that the Angling Trust wishes to make it easier for the subject of the River Close Season to be openly discussed.

However, in "fighting for Fish and Fishing" Mr Lloyd claims the Trust do this by "improving and protecting fish stocks" and by "standing up for the environment"

The Barbel Society can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Barbel breed during the close season and that successful breeding would be damaged by anglers being on the banks during the close season months.

By facilitating a debate that goes directly against its own aims and objectives is not the action of a neutral party and leaves the Angling Trust open to the charge of hypocrisy.


Copy forwarded to Mr Lloyd.

 

[mark lloyd at]

Mike,
We're facilitating a debate about the close season because there were widespread calls for the dates to be changed from our members and in the angling press. There are relatively few voices calling for it to be abolished entirely. I think that it is interesting to consider various questions about it such as whether it should be the same dates in the whole country, whether it could be flexible depending on species, or equally whether it should stay the same as it has been for many years. It would also be useful to collate the kind of information you are talking about with regard to barbel to ensure that any decision (including to keep it as it is) is supported by good evidence.
As I said, we are not taking a position on this until we have heard the views of our members. It is our job to represent anglers and to do so we need to discuss issues which concern them. Our position may well be that it should not change; I can't say until we've had the debate.
I can state categorically however that we would never sanction any change which could not be justified on fish welfare and environmental grounds.
All best Mark

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I can state categorically however that we would never sanction any change which could not be justified on fish welfare and environmental grounds.

Given that we (anglers) are not the only interested parties with respect to the rivers then have the Angling Trust made any approaches to other groups and organisations outside of the fishing world?

From my own relatively meager efforts by e-mail I have been very surprised as to the replies I have received that indicate that there would be a strong disagreement, outwith the angling world, to any proposed changes.

Furthermore, I would argue that those with a financial interest in seeing or bringing about change are those that have close ties with the angling media, and as such I would strongly challenge your use of the word widespread.

The Barbel Society's Spawning Survey results have been published for a number of years now, as have those for other species, Grayling in particular, and these appear to fully support the current dates.