Fishing MPs

[Cliff Hatton]

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news_events/18412-fishing-mps.html

Liddle bidda politics from Martin Salter...must say, it's good to see MPs looking like genuine anglers rather than Westminster Men in baseball caps (though Hague did look rather cheeky in his...)

 

[binka]

Political work in the chambers of power is just some of the work which I greatly respect and applaud the Angling Trust for.

I’m going to make a political comment now but one that is very pertinent to the point in that you only have to look at what Labour did when they held power and were lagging in the polls… Namely throwing the doors open to immigration knowing full well that those who came in would likely vote for them in future elections.

Don’t take my word for it, Labour have admitted it themselves and look where that has all ended up.

Now envisage a not too unlikely scenario where another political party is lagging in future polls, maybe a closely fought general election and one way of “reaching out” for those crucial extra votes would be a proposal to ban Angling?

In the immigration case the politicians did what was best for them and their craving for power, not what was in the best interests of the country and I have no reason to believe that it would be any different should Angling fall under the spotlight as it would only take one anti-Angling MP or sharp eyed vote campaigner/grabber to set the ball rolling.

That is one big reason why we as anglers need effective representation at parliamentary level.

My apologies to Martin if that sounded cynical and in no way was is it directed at him personally but that is what happened and you can bet your last breath that is what will happen again be it with Angling or some other issue where the politicians can get a broad swathe of opinion on their side in order to pick up a few extra votes.

As the Corbyn debacle was mentioned in that article, you only have to look at the rebel MP's to see that they are hypocritical enough to try and oust a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader to get their own way.

Democracy swept aside for their own individual interests, namely their insatiable ambition for power which sees them lose sight of the basic principles and the kind of politics that to me is akin to watching a bunch of scrabbling nursery kids fighting over a burst bag of sweets.

There’s no point either in trying to say that Angling is too big an industry to ban, the then government scrapped an NHS IT project and condemned it to the bin after spending ten billion quid... The annual turnover of the Angling industry is worth a fraction of that amount.

Which brings me to the “but”…

In addition to this political work the Trust also need to show results on the bank and it’s my opinion that this simply isn’t happening with reference to the paddler issue.

It was a number of years ago now that Richard Benyon announced that paddlers cannot assume PRN’s yet the situation on the rivers remains unchanged.

Unchanged is not really the right word as it has actually gotten worse, there now appears to be far more paddlers armed with an ever hardened militant attitude.

So what are the Angling Trust going to do about it?

I’ve asked the question openly and invited them to an open debate yet I can’t even get a reply from them which not only puts my back up but also makes me suspicious of if there really is anything they can do.

To me it’s as simple as recruiting a willing riparian owner to make the initial complaint, coordinating with the EA to have a launch on site at any one of the problem areas along with a couple of PCSO’s on dry land and getting these militants off the river where their details can then be verified and processed to await the due course of action from Fish Legal.

Once word gets around the paddling world I’m pretty certain it would have far greater effect than the current strategy which appears to be telling them not to do it because it’s naughty.

You don’t have to take my word for that either, I have filmed them and their openly declared F**K You attitude, let me know if you would like a copy of the clip.

So…

In the absence of any reply or willingness from the Angling Trust to engage in debate over the issue can I direct the issue to you Martin, as one of our caring Angling MP’s, to offer a response as to what is going to be done over the issue of militant paddlers?

To the Angling Trust themselves...

I think we all appreciate that no one gets it right all of the time but a refusal to engage or even comment by way of a reply is simply not on.

You claim to be fighting on my behalf so show me some fight, not silence!

 

[thecrow]

Cracking post Steve but me being a cynical old bu££er I reckon that the most that you can expect is a reply that just pays lip service to both the problem and your question that's if you get an answer at all.

I really do hope that I am wrong but I am so sure that I wont be that if you get some action i.e. action on the bank/river from a combined Angling Trust/EA operation and by that I mean they follow your suggestion (even if its loosely followed) and some of these militants are apprehended I will join the Angling Trust

 

[no-one in particular]

I wish there was a better rapport with the trust on this forum. It would be so much better; even political opponents get together to discuss a common cause as Martin pointed out in his piece. And even when they are opposed they don't get the choice of not discussing the issues they have with those that disagree with them! Which at the end of the day, despite the odd verbal punch up; is better for all of us.

 

[binka]

I wish there was a better rapport with the trust on this forum. It would be so much better; even political opponents get together to discuss a common cause as Martin pointed out in his piece. And even when they are opposed they don't get the choice of not discussing the issues they have with those that disagree with them! Which at the end of the day, despite the odd verbal punch up; is better for all of us.

I quite agree.

The offer has been extended to the Trust repeatedly, if only they would stop letting the side down and engage.

As has been requested.

Silence is no good to anyone and the silence coming from the Trust is, I'm afraid, rather deafening.

You can't build a rapport with someone who simply chooses to ignore you and the issues which concern you but my door is always open to them.

Step up Angling Trust...

 

[thecrow]

I wish there was a better rapport with the trust on this forum. It would be so much better; even political opponents get together to discuss a common cause as Martin pointed out in his piece. And even when they are opposed they don't get the choice of not discussing the issues they have with those that disagree with them! Which at the end of the day, despite the odd verbal punch up; is better for all of us.

The problem that I see with the trust is that since its inception and having good intentions to act for the ordinary chap that goes fishing it has lost its way in its clamour to keep hopping from one thing to another releasing press shots on what it sees as important at any one time only to then later on let those things fall by the wayside.

To not engage with anglers members or not on matters that are very important to them will imo loose them members and will harden the views of anglers that are not members.

If you read the trusts website after most reports there is the same wording about what they could do with more money, well here is a chance for them to do more that costs nothing simply engage with anglers on here, respond to e mails and stop ignoring those that they say they represent.

 

[thecrow]

Just bringing this thread back to the top just in case anyone from the Angling trust has missed it and would like to reply, you never know.

 

[laguna]

The paddling issue has simply proven too expensive to pursue Steve, it would also be impossible to police. We know that.

I know of one and his mates who regularly paddle to far out reaches - to fish!
They have done so for years, neither of them have ever bought a rod licence and don't give a damn what I or riparian owners think.

 

[thecrow]

The paddling issue has simply proven too expensive to pursue Steve, it would also be impossible to police. We know that.

Then why did the Angling Trust get involved with it at all? was it just another chance to put out yet another attention grabbing headline that had no substance to it, are the Trust really that cynical?

 

[binka]

The paddling issue has simply proven too expensive to pursue Steve, it would also be impossible to police. We know that.

I know of one and his mates who regularly paddle to far out reaches - to fish!
They have done so for years, neither of them have ever bought a rod licence and don't give a damn what I or riparian owners think.

I think we can tackle it Chris but we need support from those that should be supporting us.

The EA have used a launch to check licences on the Trent so why not double up the purpose and make it more efficient by including illegal paddling and, in the case you mention, fishing?

The EA already have powers, training and database access to be able to verify name and address details so no Police involvement is required.

Providing the willingness of the riparian owner is there (and this is where I think clubs can do more in pointing out the benefits and agreeing it with them) it is then just a simple case of getting Fish Legal onto it on behalf of the controlling club and issuing a private prosecution for the civil offence.

Beyond that, if there is damage of any kind (including to spawning grounds, anglers lines, signage etc) it is my understanding that it then becomes a criminal offence.

Aggravated Trespass is another area of the Law where I don't think we use the tools that we have at our disposal, this is from the CPS website...

Where they have used threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour to the occupier, the occupier's family, employees or agents;

I think most if not all of us have had the displeasure of that one at sometime or another.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

I have more chance of walking on the Moon than the AT have of bringing anglers together.

They have got to where they want to be, and now look down on it's members as not worthy.

The reply you may get Steve is a simple one.

Thanks for letting us know about your concerns regarding Paddlers, we will look into it.

Right now the AT need a Paddle, as they are up a Creek without one.

 

[laguna]

I believe the will is there but not the money to set any sort of precedent. Its all very frustrating.

 

[no-one in particular]

I believe the will is there but not the money to set any sort of precedent. Its all very frustrating.

Get the members, get the money, then exercise the will. Too many ordinary part time leisure anglers just don't join up; not enough of or the right incentives for them would be my guess. the appeal is aimed too much at the serious full time angler. Needs another level; of membership in my opinion, cheaper for one thing. Its all very well saying its only so much a week etc but it does not work for some hard pressed family trying to meet all the bills etc; its still another £30 they have to find.. A £5 basic fee with an extra £1 for each family member would be nice.
There's the trust, parliamentary level, MP's, fish legal and the lawyers etc, fighting the big issues for the serious anglers but there are not enough of them to fill the coffers.

 

[thecrow]

The EA has plenty of money, they get it from the fishing tax imposed on anglers, they must have plenty as they gave 4 million to the Angling trust last year to do what they should be doing, its their statutory duty to maintain and improve fisheries so why are they not doing it in this case? is it just cheaper and easier to keep stocking small Barbel into the Trent? tens of thousands have gone into the river in the last few years, might the money be better spent finding out why they need to do this and then doing something about it? but then I suspect they already know the reasons.

I believe that the Angling Trust are loathe to get involved in anything that might upset their bed fellows the EA and its all down to money.

---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 ----------

Get the members, get the money, then exercise the will. Too many ordinary part time leisure anglers just don't join up; not enough of or the right incentives for them would be my guess. the appeal is aimed too much at the serious full time angler and there are just not enough of them to fill the coffers.

Not enough is done by the Trust to increase membership by getting out and promoting the trust, seems to me that they are happy with things as they are ................ good jobs and all mates together but don't rock the boat!

 

[no-one in particular]

The EA has plenty of money, they get it from the fishing tax imposed on anglers, they must have plenty as they gave 4 million to the Angling trust last year to do what they should be doing, its their statutory duty to maintain and improve fisheries so why are they not doing it in this case? is it just cheaper and easier to keep stocking small Barbel into the Trent? tens of thousands have gone into the river in the last few years, might the money be better spent finding out why they need to do this and then doing something about it? but then I suspect they already know the reasons.

I believe that the Angling Trust are loathe to get involved in anything that might upset their bed fellows the EA and its all down to money.

If they have plenty of money then they could fight the canoe issue and employ a full time media officer. If they have the money then perhaps it is a lack of will. . Wish they could just explain it all to us..

 

[thecrow]

Angling Trust anybody there ???????????

 

[Graham Elliott 1]

May I suggest to Cliff that if the AT and especially MS wish to promote themselves on FM then it's quite right they should also engage with FM's members.

If the information they give ( I this case a plug for Owen Smith) is not for debating, I would restrict the access.

 

[thecrow]

Not only a plug but defending a friend on social media



"I know of these things because I took the offending photo which the Corbynistas pinched from this blog and I felt obliged to respond to a Facebook post along these somewhat intemperate lines:"

Pity that using social media doesn't extend to answering or debating questions asked by anglers some of whom are members of the very organisation he represents.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

May I suggest to Cliff that if the AT and especially MS wish to promote themselves on FM then it's quite right they should also engage with FM's members.

I think you will find that Martin has responded quite often here on the FM forums.

Back in early July MS stated in his article that:

"Once I had ploughed through the inevitable backlog of emails and got my diary into some sort of order in was clear that I was going to be on the road a fair bit over the next couple of months."

The date of the MP's piece being published is well after the date when it was submitted, so it is safe to assume that he is still away . . . .

If that is the case, then maybe, just maybe, we should stow the long-felt dislikes of all things Angling Trust, and, cut the chap a little slack?

 

[thecrow]

I think you will find that Martin has responded quite often here on the FM forums.

Until the questions start to get awkward and to the point and then its a disappearing act.

---------- Post added at 08:41 ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 ----------

If that is the case, then maybe, just maybe, we should stow the long-felt dislikes of all things Angling Trust, and, cut the chap a little slack?

By ignoring some of the facts that involve MS and the trust? politics unless angling related are jumped upon on here so why was the very thinly veiled politics within the article allowed, I fail to see what any MPs constituency or party has to do with angling as well as the fact that a mate of MS is a candidate for the leadership of a party.

Looks to me like a fair bit of slack has been cut to him in the article.