Opinion Piece - The Angling Trust

[Graham Whatmore]

I see we are still getting the "its all too much having to pay for our angling" posts and purely on the basis that its "too much" they don't join.

Precisely why it should be compulsory in some form so that those who want to fish pay and those that don't pay, don't fish - simple really.

 

[Stealph Viper]

Precisely why it should be compulsory in some form so that those who want to fish pay and those that don't pay, don't fish - simple really.

If you were to do this, what insentive would the AT have to perform to higher standards than any Angling Organisation that came before them, None, and why? because they have a gauranteed revenue.

They would become just like the EA and look how much say we have as Anglers as to what they do ...................

 

[preston96]

If you were to do this, what insentive would the AT have to perform to higher standards than any Angling Organisation that came before them, None, and why? because they have a gauranteed revenue.

They would become just like the EA and look how much say we have as Anglers as to what they do ...................

It would be up to us to make them perform......by voting them in or out, dependant on performance.

 

[Graham Whatmore]

So rather than work to get the AT running efficiently as a non governmental org. which entails paying money to them you prefer the alternative of doing nothing and continueing the status quo.

Fishing is based on paying, always has been and always will be. You need a licence to fish (which costs more than the £20 fee for AT), if you wish to fish any water you will need to pay for the privelege of so doing either via a season ticket which could be in excess of £100 for a lot of clubs or via a day ticket but if you don't want to pay this then you don't fish - again, simple really.

Our waters need protecting because one thing is for sure you can't rely on any governmental organisation to do do this, surely every one can see this, and the larger the organisation designed to do this the more clout they will have to change things. For that to happen I (a pensioner incidentally) would pay even more than £20 to achieve this and willingly too, I care enough about my fishing to fork out for what is effectively my benefit.

 

[Stealph Viper]

Graham, the answer is in your statement, "Willingly" not forced.

If every angler in Britain was forced to do so, you could say that in one way it was at least consistant, but you are only suggesting that Anglers only in England that pay for a rod license should be forced to Join the AT .................. How is that fair??

It is for the AT to make themselves visible and attractive to the Angling Public, it is for us the Angling Public to support them.
It is not for the AT just to be there and for us the Anglers to be forced to make them a successful business, they have to play there part and play it in a big way.

How much advertising do you see for the Angling Trust on a day to day basis that is eye catching, and attractive enough, for someone to stop and have a look at it??

you prefer the alternative of doing nothing and continueing the status quo.

As i am already a member of the AT how is that doing nothing, i have helped Les to join the AT and i have told other anglers who were not aware of the AT about them and what they want to achieve, how is that sitting back and doing nothing.

I do not want to press gang Anglers in to joining the AT unlike some Anglers.

The EA will not allow the AT to be part of their (Rod License Funding) if the AT are going to appose what it is they are doing, and for the AT to remain independent they need independent funding.

Pay to fish waters whether they be clubs or day ticket waters ................. you still get to chose which water you want to fish, not, right, you live in Stoke so you can only fish waters in your own area.

You will invite a lot more resentment against the AT if you force people to join them and i am sure no matter how good your intentions may be the AT wouldn't want such negative publicity.

 

[J K]

So rather than work to get the AT running efficiently as a non governmental org. which entails paying money to them you prefer the alternative of doing nothing and continueing the status quo.

Fishing is based on paying, always has been and always will be. You need a licence to fish (which costs more than the £20 fee for AT), if you wish to fish any water you will need to pay for the privelege of so doing either via a season ticket which could be in excess of £100 for a lot of clubs or via a day ticket but if you don't want to pay this then you don't fish - again, simple really.

Our waters need protecting because one thing is for sure you can't rely on any governmental organisation to do do this, surely every one can see this, and the larger the organisation designed to do this the more clout they will have to change things. For that to happen I (a pensioner incidentally) would pay even more than £20 to achieve this and willingly too, I care enough about my fishing to fork out for what is effectively my benefit.

But Graham you are a responsible citizen.

How many are there fishing who don't pay for their rod licence?

The EA have a job vacancy here for the leader of a new team of baliffs. If everyone was like you there would be no need for this.

Does compulsory rod licences mean that everyone who goes fishing has one? I don't think so.

How would you police a compulsory fee to the AT?

 

[Graham Marsden]

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.

True, but without the membership fees to fund advertising how do they do it?

Some kind of compulsory membership/levy is the only way; anglers have always been, and always will be, looking for excuses not to join or pleading ignorance. You can advertise it on the front page of every national newspaper and on every commercial TV channel and you'll still have a majority saying:

"Angling Trust? Never heard of it."

"And anyway, even if I had I wouldn't join because..........."

Make your own list of all the pathetic excuses you've read.

---------- Post added at 10:25 ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 ----------

If you were to do this, what insentive would the AT have to perform to higher standards than any Angling Organisation that came before them, None, and why? because they have a gauranteed revenue.

Not if their jobs depended on their performance.

 

[Stealph Viper]

How is someone saying that they have never heard of the AT, a pathetic excuse for not joining them??
If they genuinely haven't heard of the AT how could they be expected to join them.

Compulsary Membership is not the way forward.

Imagine if your own FM was compulsary to join, yes, you would have millions of members but how many would want to promote it positively and how many would want to contribute to it positively.

I appreciate your passions and the other Grahams as to why you want to impose a compulsary order to join the AT but i think your reasonings are wrong.

It is up to the AT to make themselves successful so that all the members have a positive supporting of the AT without any negativeness, they are members because they wish to be and wish to support the AT, without disagreements about who should be in charge, who should be representing which water first etc etc etc.

If they impose Cumpulsary AT membership all you will end up with is a whole lot of in fighting amongst members who didn't want to join in the first place and those that were willing to join.

 

[klik2change]

It seems to me that a new concensus is starting to emerge:

1. compulsory levies are the only way forward because the vast majority of anglers are apathetic.
2. the levies should be charges on sales of angling goods paid for, eventually, by the individual angler.
3. Other levies should be made on club membership subs
4. it is slowly being recognised and accepted that a levy or additional charge on the rod license is NOT feasible.

 

[Robert Woods]

I had excuse that it was too much at £20...but you would spend that just mooching round tackle shop on bits & bobs. I would be gutted if Dane or Severn was polluted like Trent and if Anglers Trust get their act together maybe it would help these things from happening.

 

[Stealph Viper]

Not if their jobs depended on their performance.

What, you mean like it does with the EA ............... i don't think so.

There jobs already depend on their performance, if they don't perform they they won't succeed as an organisation, but, that is what everyone is afraid of isn't it.

My own Membership number is over 50,000, that's a minimum of 50,000 x £20.00p which equates to over £1,000,000 and don't forget they have donations from other Members way above that, and some clubs that have paid more than the £20.00p individual membership fee, and they still need more money for Advertising.
I said in the beginning, way before i became a member that the AT have tried to run way before they had learned to walk.
They are working backwards, they made themselves big before they had thought about how they would sustain it all, and now you would expect us Anglers to pay for it compulsively to help them to maintain that.
I just think that it is wrong.

 

[Graham Marsden]

How is someone saying that they have never heard of the AT, a pathetic excuse for not joining them??

I didn't say that.

How do the Trust make themselves successful without the funding to do so?

In an ideal world you're right, we wouldn't need compulsory membership. Unfortunately, all the years the ACA was in existence, and the recent launching of the Trust stands as solid proof that we do need it.

History makes my argument a solid one.

 

[Stealph Viper]

How do the Trust make themselves successful without the funding to do so?

The AT should have established itself and then grown as and when the Organisation grew, what they have done, is set up a great big Angling Trust Castle and then thought , christ how are we going to sustain this great big organisation as we don't have the customers to sustain it.

I agree they do need more members to make them a larger organisation which others would have to look at seriously as a threat to them disrupting angling.
I just don't agree with the press ganging anglers and only anglers that buy a rod license in England in to joining them.

If Anglers wish to donate more than the Joining Fee to the Angling Trust, then they should be able to dictate where that money should be spent.
Everyone donating money to the Angling trust should donate it to the Angling trust purely to fund advertising and it should be clearly set out on the AT website as to how much has been donated and the costs of the advertising that the donations had funded.

That way, anyone could clearly see how the money is being spent.

 

[thx1138]

i am already a member of the AT how is that doing nothing

One thing that stands out in all of the pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments here is angler's expectations.
What do you expect from your governing body? What do you expect for twenty quid?

I am not picking on you Stealth, but here you claim the AT is 'doing nothing', and it seems to be a common perception amongst anglers. It isnt the case.

As a sport governing body, the AT is doing allsorts of stuff. Representing the sport's interests at government level, campaigning, organising domestic and international competitions, supporting clubs, developing a coaching network.. all kinds of stuff. Throw in a decent insurance policy, and that sounds like £20-worth to me.

The problem the AT faces, unlike any other sport governing body, is that the AT is not only trying to govern a sport and it's politics, but also fight for all of the conservation issues that come with angling. It seems to me that where most anglers see the trust falling short is with the protecting fish stuff, and particularly associated with rivers (please tell me if I am wrong). E.g. the canoe access issue. Anglers who fish only on commercials, and dont fish matches, can see little need to join AT, and I cant see them ever joining.

Without the AT, that conservation-type stuff would come down to someone like the Association of River Trusts.. but anglers seem to demand that their sport governing body should pick up all these issues too. The result is that the AT gets spread too thin and struggles to cope on any front.

So there, in my eyes, is the problem. Too much to do, not enough resource to do it.
The solution, in my view, is not a need for more money, but a need for more people. The AT can represent on the national scale.. talking to government, etc, but what angling really needs is more people representing it's interests in the open, multi-user type forums, not just behind closed doors. One strong voice is great, but many voices singing the same tune is even better. If all of the passionate, conservation-minded anglers that there are (and there are clearly lots, judging by this forum) had representation on river trusts, angling would have an exceptional representation and influence.

I dont think we need more paid people. We need more volunteers. Judging by the amount of time some folks spend on this forum, they have time to give. Fuelled by their passion, that is a powerful resource, much more powerful than money.

 

[Stealph Viper]

I am not picking on you Stealth, but here you claim the AT is 'doing nothing', and it seems to be a common perception amongst anglers. It isnt the case.

James, that isn't quite what i meant, what i meant was along the ways of Promoting themselves.
I heard of the AT on here, i genuinely didn't have a bloody clue who they were.
If i hadn't have been a member of FM i probably still wouldn't have a clue who they are.

The volunteer idea, is a good idea, and i would support that and contribute to volunteering to helping out as and when i could.

Instead of just debating it all on here, why don't we compile a list of idea's, all that are good in their own right, and e mail them to the AT as a group of FM members and then we can get the AT's response to each idea, and if there are any that the AT would be willing to take on board.

---------- Post added at 11:54 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

1) A flier document on the AT website (no bigger than an A4 size with a clear and concise explanation of what the AT does and represents and how you can join), that can easily be printed out and then can be handed out by Anglers to other Anglers or Angling Shops.

 

[Emmo (Angling Trust)]

Instead of just debating it all on here, why don't we compile a list of idea's, all that are good in their own right, and e mail them to the AT as a group of FM members and then we can get the AT's response to each idea, and if there are any that the AT would be willing to take on board.

Excellent idea!

 

[Graham Whatmore]

Do you think AT are oblivious to the comments on here Stealph because if you do then you are wrong, they read threads like this and even come on to comment sometimes as well.

I said to you last time this was discussed, don't take all these posts so personal you seem to think they are all directed at you for some silly reason, and yes, I remember you saying before that you had joined, just so you know.

 

[Stealph Viper]

Why do you think i am taking them personally??

I am merely putting my point across, and replying to posts, if that is me taking them personally, then we are all guilty of taking them personally.

What harm will it do to send an E mail to the AT with a list of helpful suggestions and to hear what their response to these suggestions may be??

 

[Paul H]

I just don't agree with the press ganging anglers and only anglers that buy a rod license in England in to joining them.

I don't really see that adding a quid or two to tackle items over (Jeff's suggestion) of £100.00 could be called press ganging. £1.00 on every £100 is one penny for every £1.00.

A pack of hooks costing £2.99 now costs £3.02, that's hardly an injustice.

There are people now who complain the trust is too expensive and does nothing for them, there will be people who didn't join who complain when they lose their fishing or the trust folds, or both. There will also be people who object to paying an extra penny on every pound to fund them; personally I would rather have the trust fighting for anglers and sod the people who whinge about it as opposed to the possible alternatives.

You cannot please all of the people all of the time - therefore it is a choice as to which option provides the most beneficial outcome.

1. Nothing changes - the trust (possibly) folds, angling ends up with little or no proffesional representation and we run the risk of losing our sport. People whinge that too few of us joined and others that didn't join whinge that there is no one helping them.

2. We add a small levvy to tackle and/or club tickets - the trusts is funded well and fights the good fight on our behalf for years to come. People whinge about hooks costing 3 pence more than they used to but they get to go fishing in relative peace.

I know which outcome sounds best to me.

 

[Stealph Viper]

This is exactly why i suggested asking the AT what they would like to do, if we compile a list of idea's, whether the AT visit this website or not and ask them for their opinions on the ideas, these would of course include Compulsary Membership whether it be tied in with the Rod license fees or with a levy on Fishing tackle, volunteers, free advertising by handing out fliers etc.

Let's hear what the AT would like to do.

Now that is simple (isn't it)