I think there are many reasons why anglers dont join the AT. Reasons given to me have been varied. One thought they were a another Goverment Quango run by faceless Bureaucrats (probably getting confused with the EA ?) Another well known angler told me he left because they were in denial about Otters I think he took the view that the only good Otter was a dead one. I think it is good that Anglers Trust are trying to raise their profile at the day it is only as good as its membership and leadership and as mentioned on here they are the only show in town.
wetthrough
Well-known member
I'm in. In my view anglers need a common voice and the AT appears to be the only one. Whether or not they're doing the job as well as we'd like I wouldn't know but we need someone. Although I'm another that didn't think badgering the gov't during lock down shone a particularly good light on anglers.
I think the angling community is very divided and we shoot yourselves in the foot time and time again. Once again I have received an email from one of my clubs reminding the membership how to behave eg attitudes to bailiffs turning up without membership cards litter etc all very depressing. My wife and I are members of the RSPB and Herts and Middx Wildlife Trust and dont recall getting emails spelling out how we should behave on their reserves. We really are our own worst enemies at times. Good luck to
Jamie Cook I think he has his work cut out.
The problem that the Trust have is the same as we have in general in society today.
For anglers most issues are either black or white and no one wants the grey ground in between, we have seen this in general over the last 5½ years in all things . . . .
The major angling issues of; Canoe access, Cormorants, Otters and/or the Close Season . . . . are all ones that individually we as anglers are either 100% for or 100% against . . . . but the Trust have to take a position (and often it is a weak one in the middle) so as not to upset one side or the together . . . . they are in a lose-lose situation . . . . .
For obvious reasons the Trust need to be "politically neutral" given their arrangements with the EA and DEFRA but by so doing they lose the support of both sides in these angling issues . . .
It seems like a lifetime ago that we had these debates here on FM with the likes of Mark Lloyd and Mike Heylin (spelling . . . ?) with Martin Salter occasionally offering his two pennyworth as well.
Mark Lloyd and I debated many issues by e-mail and I always found him to be a reasonable man who would see different views or argument. I well remember him bemoaning that the Trust cannot be all things to all anglers . . . and really nothing has changed in that respect today.
For anglers most issues are either black or white and no one wants the grey ground in between, we have seen this in general over the last 5½ years in all things . . . .
The major angling issues of; Canoe access, Cormorants, Otters and/or the Close Season . . . . are all ones that individually we as anglers are either 100% for or 100% against . . . . but the Trust have to take a position (and often it is a weak one in the middle) so as not to upset one side or the together . . . . they are in a lose-lose situation . . . . .
For obvious reasons the Trust need to be "politically neutral" given their arrangements with the EA and DEFRA but by so doing they lose the support of both sides in these angling issues . . .
It seems like a lifetime ago that we had these debates here on FM with the likes of Mark Lloyd and Mike Heylin (spelling . . . ?) with Martin Salter occasionally offering his two pennyworth as well.
Mark Lloyd and I debated many issues by e-mail and I always found him to be a reasonable man who would see different views or argument. I well remember him bemoaning that the Trust cannot be all things to all anglers . . . and really nothing has changed in that respect today.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2020
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 416
Yes, I am a relative newcomer to the site, but it comes as no surprise that the question of the Trust has popped up in the past, as it has always been contentious.However, I do feel it is a vital issue so I make no apologies, and I relish hearing all these views.
I think most sensible things have been said on these posts. As for me... I think Jamie Cook will prove to be a very positive leader.
I think we do need a body like the Trust to fight for us on so many fronts. I cannot see anyone else having the same clout as the Trust, at least not for the years it takes to build up some sort of credibility.
Like a few of you, I personally see no need for the match sponsorship side of things, and feel it is a distraction and dilution of resources. That’s my own belief, but I don’t know everything and I know there will be a counter argument, whatever that is.
I take no pleasure in criticising the large statutory bodies. I have no idea why they chose to be so obstructive and generally useless, but the fact they are only increases the need for the Trust, in my view.
Perhaps, join the Trust now. Give it two years to see if the big issues we face are tackled, and judge then.
I think most sensible things have been said on these posts. As for me... I think Jamie Cook will prove to be a very positive leader.
I think we do need a body like the Trust to fight for us on so many fronts. I cannot see anyone else having the same clout as the Trust, at least not for the years it takes to build up some sort of credibility.
Like a few of you, I personally see no need for the match sponsorship side of things, and feel it is a distraction and dilution of resources. That’s my own belief, but I don’t know everything and I know there will be a counter argument, whatever that is.
I take no pleasure in criticising the large statutory bodies. I have no idea why they chose to be so obstructive and generally useless, but the fact they are only increases the need for the Trust, in my view.
Perhaps, join the Trust now. Give it two years to see if the big issues we face are tackled, and judge then.
Keith M
Well-known member
That’s exactly how I feel; however the trust is the only body we have to represent our sporting interests; so we don’t really have a choice; I think it just needs to redirect its resources to things that are more important to all of us in the sport and not be diluting our resources on things like sponsoring fishing matches; surely.
As for raising extra money; Maybe If they had an Angling Trust collection box on the counter of all tackleshops where customers could drop their change in when they popped in to buy tackle and bait; surely that could raise extra cash for the Angling Trust and Fish Legal; so anglers who are not members of the Angling trust could still be contributing something???
I agree with this totally and I will be joining the Angling Trust this year; and I just hope that it spends most; if not all; of our monies on the more important issues rather than have people like me think that I’m most probably sponsoring fishing matches;
Keith
Last edited:
I dont fish many matches and certainly not ones that need sponsoring.
However I do think that by having the Trust mentioned on the entry forms and probably elsewhere in the blurbs it keeps them in more anglers mind as a result.
No publicity is bad publicity?
However I do think that by having the Trust mentioned on the entry forms and probably elsewhere in the blurbs it keeps them in more anglers mind as a result.
No publicity is bad publicity?
no-one in particular
Well-known member
The EA are probably the natural choice to look after the waters, prosecute polluters etc.. I know they are not respected but if they had more funds would they be more effective? Would anglers be willing to give them more money. I might possibly as long as I could see where the money was being spent. We could still have an organization like the AT as well but it would be more like a big club, providing us all with up to date information, national waters, matches (I don't see why not). There are a lot of things it could do, some they do already, I enjoy their sea angling news more than anything else because it is just that, it is not clouded or disrupted so much by all this being the voice of angling and politics etc. and fish legal and so on.. They do get involved in some issues like bass stocks etc. but it is a lot more informative and and a lot more interesting than its coarse fishing side.
People are making the same arguments why we should all join that have been made for the last 10 years or whatever it is, what makes them think it is suddenly going to work now. The "only show in town" is one of the worst arguments, people only join something and part with cash because they want to not because there is no other choice. So, how do you make people want to join, not carrying on with the same old and the same old arguments. I am always amazed at the dismissing of people you want to join something as somehow there must be something wrong with them, they are apathists, put nothing back into the sport like trying to embarrassing them into something. You want to sell something and you start by insulting them great, that's going to work isn't it. This happened in the first days, the same arguments and it didn't work then so why is it going to work now!
If there are 2 million anglers in the country why don't they join, because there just is not much to interest them, a big swathe of them are just part time pleasure anglers, they are just not interested in fish legal, politics, matches, having a voice etc. etc., so they don't bother.
I doubt anything will change though, this will all go to sleep again and then in a couple of years it will come back and the same arguments will be put forward and the result will be the same. I was going to leave this thread alone as I knew it would just be a rehash of the same divided and I was right. Grayson was right about a plan B but it is the AT that need one; in fact the whole of fishing needs one up to a point.
People are making the same arguments why we should all join that have been made for the last 10 years or whatever it is, what makes them think it is suddenly going to work now. The "only show in town" is one of the worst arguments, people only join something and part with cash because they want to not because there is no other choice. So, how do you make people want to join, not carrying on with the same old and the same old arguments. I am always amazed at the dismissing of people you want to join something as somehow there must be something wrong with them, they are apathists, put nothing back into the sport like trying to embarrassing them into something. You want to sell something and you start by insulting them great, that's going to work isn't it. This happened in the first days, the same arguments and it didn't work then so why is it going to work now!
If there are 2 million anglers in the country why don't they join, because there just is not much to interest them, a big swathe of them are just part time pleasure anglers, they are just not interested in fish legal, politics, matches, having a voice etc. etc., so they don't bother.
I doubt anything will change though, this will all go to sleep again and then in a couple of years it will come back and the same arguments will be put forward and the result will be the same. I was going to leave this thread alone as I knew it would just be a rehash of the same divided and I was right. Grayson was right about a plan B but it is the AT that need one; in fact the whole of fishing needs one up to a point.
Last edited:
As a member of the trust from it's starting for several years,I dropped out like Peter,imho they do nothing that really needs doing,even when it came to lockdown fishing,they failed appallingly to get the necessary clarification for angling,they didn't even give reasons on why they didn't,I sent an email to the trust,bearing in mind i'm not an individual member,but both clubs i'm a member of pay in,the answer I got was just an acknowledgement of my email,total garbage and sums up the usefulness of the trust,as for it being the only show in town and so we should support it,not a cat in hells chance from my side,and the cost is negligible,but they do actually have to do something,just being a figurehead is of no interest to me,in fact the old ACA did far more,no we are a laughing stock....
I am wondering a little on just how the Angling Trust can "take on" the EA when they are being funded by the EA to the tune of £1.3 million per annum*? With that million coming from the licence monies presumably . . . .
Personally I was always a little suspicious of this "contract" and I well remember arguing with Mark Lloyd when it was first being tendered.
In fact, if you read the wording of said tender it was plainly obvious that only the Trust would actually qualify to bid based on the pre-set conditions, and the "tendering" process . . . .
Regardless, that is history now but the level of the Trust's independence still can be questioned . . . .
As I said earlier on this thread, before I re-join I want to see some positive progress (or at least a determined position) made on issues such as , Cormorants, Canoe access and PRN, Otters and Abstraction . . . .
Disclaimer: the opinions above are my own and not necessarily those of the owners of FM or its Administrators/
* from the audited 2020 Annual Accounts
Personally I was always a little suspicious of this "contract" and I well remember arguing with Mark Lloyd when it was first being tendered.
In fact, if you read the wording of said tender it was plainly obvious that only the Trust would actually qualify to bid based on the pre-set conditions, and the "tendering" process . . . .
Regardless, that is history now but the level of the Trust's independence still can be questioned . . . .
As I said earlier on this thread, before I re-join I want to see some positive progress (or at least a determined position) made on issues such as , Cormorants, Canoe access and PRN, Otters and Abstraction . . . .
Disclaimer: the opinions above are my own and not necessarily those of the owners of FM or its Administrators/
* from the audited 2020 Annual Accounts
John Aston
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 2,548
So should we blunder apathetically on then shall we , without a voice at all , or with a very quiet voice ? Because for all the reasons we can find not to support the Trust, I haven't seen a single suggestion of what other organisation should , or could represent our sport .
I don't want to prolong this 'debate' but can I just mention some numbers?
BASC 150, 000
RSPB 1.1 million
RSPCA - a surprisingly small 25,000 , but 1700 staff and annual turnover of £140 million
Butterfly Conservation Trust - 40,000 members, 80 employees
Ever felt under-gunned ?
I don't want to prolong this 'debate' but can I just mention some numbers?
BASC 150, 000
RSPB 1.1 million
RSPCA - a surprisingly small 25,000 , but 1700 staff and annual turnover of £140 million
Butterfly Conservation Trust - 40,000 members, 80 employees
Ever felt under-gunned ?
I am not saying that we should not have a voice at all, and I don't think anyone else is either.
What I am saying is that I want to see positive progress on the main issues that confront our sport today . . . . and some of those mean going against the very same government department that is providing majority funding for the Trust . . .
None of those issues are "new" and have been a blight on our sport for years . . . . and yet they remain, and are not diminished at all.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
bb
Have the AT ever done a survey of what anglers might want and what they would be prepared to pay for it? Or are they not bothered? Are you bothered? You have shown no interest in any reasons why people are not joining, don't you think it is time you and your friends in the AT started to listen. You and they have put the reliance on your the only show in town for years, ever since it started, so by default everyone will join, hasn't worked yet has it. And I doubt it ever will, human nature just doesn't work like that.
They are smart, they stick to basics, give people what they want at a price they are prepared to pay. Take the RSPB for example, I joined a couple of years ago, I later left but not because I was not happy with them, £4 a month and I got a brilliant quarterly mag, access to any number of reserves, great offers on all sorts of things. I bet a majority of people joined for these reasons, not because they wanted a voice, or because they had to because it was the only show in town. Your still selling it by barking up the wrong tree in my opinion same as those like you have always done, when are you going to realize it is not working? The AT is more like a specialist serious organization that is going to appeal to very few people.
Have the AT ever done a survey of what anglers might want and what they would be prepared to pay for it? Or are they not bothered? Are you bothered? You have shown no interest in any reasons why people are not joining, don't you think it is time you and your friends in the AT started to listen. You and they have put the reliance on your the only show in town for years, ever since it started, so by default everyone will join, hasn't worked yet has it. And I doubt it ever will, human nature just doesn't work like that.
Last edited:
no-one in particular
Well-known member
deleted post
no-one in particular
Well-known member
deleted-repeated post.
Keith M
Well-known member
Yes but these organisations are not only able to raise extra money from the public through things like selling bird books, calendars, places for the public who pay for nice days out at bird sanctuaries, butterfly houses, RSPCA centres etc. they also publish various guides, & information packs etc. etc. and they can raise a lot of their cash these ways, but what does the Angling Trust do apart from run fishing matches for its members and struggle to maintain its membership numbers?
Perhaps the Angling Trust should learn from these other more successful organisations.?
At present the Angling Trust is not yet big enough to be able to spread its wings and sponsor things like Fishing Matches without stretching its purse too much; but if it were to take on ideas to increase its cash flow like the other organisations above it might not only attract a lot more members but it could also have a much more healthy purse; and get a better public image in the process.
Sitting back and just expecting anglers to join; as it is now; is obviously not working and it needs a serious rethink.
That’s what I think anyway.
Keith
Last edited:
no-one in particular
Well-known member
If Grayson and the like want a voice, get the numbers first, the voice and funds would follow. As said before they were always trying to jump before they could walk. I think the worse thing was that they took over from these other angling organizations so they thought they had done the walking by default and then It didn't work but they still tried to jump and still are really.
Last edited:
no-one in particular
Well-known member
If there was an angling organization like that I would join and £4 a month wouldn't be a problem. And more to the point I bet thousands of others would as well, all those families that go to commercials and kids etc., that's what they want, not all this serious stuff constantly being thrust at them, fight this and fight that.
Its such a shame it could be so much a vibrant lively happy thing.
Last edited:
wetthrough
Well-known member
It might help membership if angling clubs were a bit more pro active at promoting the AT. Just checked three sites, Warrington AA, Bay Malton and Lymm Angling. You're lucky if there's even a AT logo on the sites and even then it's hard to find. Most just refer to the AT in Covid updates so they're presumably members. There a fair chance a lot of anglers aren't even aware (or weren't prior to Covid) of the AT. A low level request to consider supporting the AT when members are joining/renewing wouldn't come amiss. Mind, getting angling clubs to update websites might be challenging
mikench
Well-known member
I might just join but I have reservations. May I be devils advocate for a moment relating to large fishing competitions like Fish O' Mania. I have no interest in competition at all and wouldn't have a chance if I did. I do not use a keep net preferring catch and release. When I see bulging keep nets or fish jammed into a landing net for a photo I find fish welfare concerns clearly missing. I find the sponsorship and promotion of such events somewhat incompatible with conservation, water quality and predation by cormorants, goosanders and otters. Filling keep nets and landing nets as above cannot be good for the fish. I am not advocating a ban on such events( changes could be made in the interests of the fish) but I feel that AT sponsorship of them is an attempt to curry favour with tackle manufacturers, professional anglers and the like at the expense of the majority of normal anglers who fish for fun. Judging by the membership numbers this tactic hasn't worked thus far and is unlikely to going forward.
AT should concentrate on the majority and preserving fish stocks in ponds, rivers and lakes up and down the land. To promote the conservation, water quality and ambience of our waters should be the priority and not, being deliberately perjorative, sponsoring events which to non anglers and anti hunting types are at odds with the rest and which just pander to business and prize money for a tiny minority.
I presume chinese walls are erected between the AT and the EA with regard to funding and in my experience they are a poor substitute for true independence.
AT should concentrate on the majority and preserving fish stocks in ponds, rivers and lakes up and down the land. To promote the conservation, water quality and ambience of our waters should be the priority and not, being deliberately perjorative, sponsoring events which to non anglers and anti hunting types are at odds with the rest and which just pander to business and prize money for a tiny minority.
I presume chinese walls are erected between the AT and the EA with regard to funding and in my experience they are a poor substitute for true independence.
Last edited: