Grayson,don't you realise that probably more than fifty percent of members of animal and bird associations are people who think they should be backing these groups because they watch springwatch,they have no real clue of what goes on in the background,whereas angling will only ever be backed by anglers,a lot of these people can't tell the difference between a buzzard and a red kite,wouldn't know what a cuckoo looked like until it landed on their heads and called,still put their money in though,makes them feel as though they are doing their bit for the environment,bless em....
mikench
Well-known member
The angling fraternity will never compete with the RSPB or similar on conservation, ecological grounds or perceived standards of caring and compassion for the principle object of that organisation . The reasons are varied but still patently obvious. Anglers catch fish using hooks and sadly some do not survive the experience. More can and should be made of the conservation of fish stocks, fish husbandry ,the welfare of our waterways for all species and the preservation of fish stocks at sea and those that migrate. The message must be clear and not mixed.
John Aston
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 2,548
The point is well made - I included RSPB as a reference point , and the BASC figures are more resonant .
Re funding , just about every big charity bids for grants and projects funded by central government. That doesn't prevent them lobbying nor does it prejudice the bidding for future grants - or seeking judicial review (for example )of a government decision.
I will leave it that - it is good to see that there are still some open minds , even if I get the impression from some that some minds are closed even to the possibility of joining . No organisation can be all things to all men (or women ) , and the tightrope of compromise is very hard to walk.
I remain onvinced that we need a powerful national lobbying and representative body like never before . Who knows if it will ever happen though - even the ACA enjoyed an utterly pitiful level of support .
Right , time to dust the fly rods off and go trout fishing !
Re funding , just about every big charity bids for grants and projects funded by central government. That doesn't prevent them lobbying nor does it prejudice the bidding for future grants - or seeking judicial review (for example )of a government decision.
I will leave it that - it is good to see that there are still some open minds , even if I get the impression from some that some minds are closed even to the possibility of joining . No organisation can be all things to all men (or women ) , and the tightrope of compromise is very hard to walk.
I remain onvinced that we need a powerful national lobbying and representative body like never before . Who knows if it will ever happen though - even the ACA enjoyed an utterly pitiful level of support .
Right , time to dust the fly rods off and go trout fishing !
mikench
Well-known member
I remain onvinced that we need a powerful national lobbying and representative body like never before . Who knows if it will ever happen though - even the ACA enjoyed an utterly pitiful level of support .
I agree entirely. The problem is the majority need to be persuaded both to join and to put their hand in their pocket. The two are inextricably linked. If fishing goes the way of hunting , we the majority, will only have ourselves to blame.
As Hellen Keller said :" science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all -- the apathy of human beings.
I agree entirely. The problem is the majority need to be persuaded both to join and to put their hand in their pocket. The two are inextricably linked. If fishing goes the way of hunting , we the majority, will only have ourselves to blame.
As Hellen Keller said :" science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all -- the apathy of human beings.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
No solutions then, no acknowledgement of any plan b, no change, its all peoples closed minds as well as there apathy etc. etc. You will be back or someone like you will be in another couple of years making the same arguments and the same results will happen and the AT will carry on in the doldrums as it has for the last 10 years or so. I don't think you have learned anything from this debate or your mind is closed to any debate. You just cannot accept that the AT are doing it wrong or your selling it wrong, its always someone's else fault, it cannot be yours or the AT's can it. I should have followed my first instincts and not joined in this; it's a waste of time to get any of you to wake up a bit and start listening to people who you know are trying to help and offer to give some advice. To you we are for or against and those against must have something wrong with them, you will never understand that those who do not join are the best bit of market research you could ever have. I have gone to great length and so have a few others to get you to open your own mind, I am not going to waste my valuable time again on it. Sorry buddy, nothing personal, just frustrating as it always has been and most probably will always be.
The best bit of advice you have given is your last; go fishing which I will do next month and enjoy it and not give a toss about anything else. I am not bothered about having a voice or any of it, just the same as the majority of anglers; life's too bloody short mate.
mikench
Well-known member
To whom is your rant directed Mark? Grayson could be the lone voice in the wilderness but at least he is a voice. He cannot do anymore than voice his opinion to the rest of us and I'm now persuaded that my voice is more likely to be heard, even if ignored, as a member than not. The old adage about being in the tent p****** out springs to mind.
I shall join and have my say but whether I renew is down to what I feel I have or can achieve .
I shall join and have my say but whether I renew is down to what I feel I have or can achieve .
no-one in particular
Well-known member
I am not having a rant at him, it's just the same arguments and the same selling goes on and on for years its been going on, and no one listens to the most important voice in it all, those like me that don't join, they just never learn anything from these debates and I have had a few; it gets very frustrating, I have a desire for an organization that gets every angler involved as well, not me, its not about me its about all the thousands of other anglers that are not getting served; I am arguing for them. But I am not going to bother anymore.
Tight lines and to you Grayson, hope you catch some trout buddy; don't worry about it, its only fishing.
Last edited:
mikench
Well-known member
I was only converted 10 minutes ago so something has worked. I have made my reservations and my reasons clear. If a significant number of disenfranchised anglers joined and voiced their views and misgivings , there is more chance that their views may have an effect and be listened to.
It was Einstein who said " the world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything" There is an analogy there.
It was Einstein who said " the world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything" There is an analogy there.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
That's good Mike, I understand you, and sincere good luck with it. but who should get listened the most, the ones who money you have not got, those that are not persuaded! especially when it is thousands of them maybe even more than a million. Grayson doesn't understand that or more to the point neither do the AT; no sense in it.
Last edited:
Grayson, my mind is not closed to the possibility of rejoining the Trust.
If memory serves me my membership number was something like 00019. I cancelled my membership shortly after the ‘grant’ (sorry, contract following a strict bidding process) from the EA as I saw the obvious conflict of interest.
If (and it is a big if) I see positive progress on issues such as the enforcement of PRN on rivers, reduction of abstraction and predation then I will reconsider my position.
If memory serves me my membership number was something like 00019. I cancelled my membership shortly after the ‘grant’ (sorry, contract following a strict bidding process) from the EA as I saw the obvious conflict of interest.
If (and it is a big if) I see positive progress on issues such as the enforcement of PRN on rivers, reduction of abstraction and predation then I will reconsider my position.
As I said,I was an individual member for some years,but as every year passed my unhappiness on lack of progress on things were becoming increasingly more important at that time(so important I cant remember them now),today issues of paddle boarding,canoeing,cold water swimming etc are massive and whilst anglers pay for the privilege of having their day destroyed,these people don't,I wonder if landowners would miss anglers rents if fishing died a death,they certainly would not get a penny from the new water users...If we suddenly became more forceful in defending anglers rights,whereas now nobody knows what the angling trust is...
steve2
Well-known member
How long before a representative of the AT come on here and answers some of these questions. After all this site is suppose to have 100000 members all potential AT members.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2020
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 416
I am genuinely happy that the debate continues, because it is a vital one. I think most of us are agreed angling needs a voice in the modern age, whereas it didn’t nearly as much when we were kids. I could list the reasons, but I think we all know them.
I suppose I am concerned about the finances, and that is what I pick up from the doubters. I agree 100%. I have long been appalled over the number of jobs in fish conservation, and how much some people have been paid over the years. What’s the phrase? Where do you get the biggest bang for your buck?
I have really tried to damp down my concerns over the EA, at least in the East, because I like several of the people there, and appreciate they are very good people working under difficult conditions. However, as an organisation, in the East, the EA stinks. Many of its policies are bad and bizarre. But above all, money is wasted like confetti. Everyone I speak to, with a relationship with water, tells me the same sad tale. I have no doubt the EA is short of money, but in large part that is because of waste that takes my breath away.
So! I feel that the AT does the sort of job, partly, that we need, and I do not think its wastage is in the same league. At least I pray not. I know completely where I would like my own annual fishing fee to go, and that is where it might well not be frittered away like it is at present.
I suppose I am concerned about the finances, and that is what I pick up from the doubters. I agree 100%. I have long been appalled over the number of jobs in fish conservation, and how much some people have been paid over the years. What’s the phrase? Where do you get the biggest bang for your buck?
I have really tried to damp down my concerns over the EA, at least in the East, because I like several of the people there, and appreciate they are very good people working under difficult conditions. However, as an organisation, in the East, the EA stinks. Many of its policies are bad and bizarre. But above all, money is wasted like confetti. Everyone I speak to, with a relationship with water, tells me the same sad tale. I have no doubt the EA is short of money, but in large part that is because of waste that takes my breath away.
So! I feel that the AT does the sort of job, partly, that we need, and I do not think its wastage is in the same league. At least I pray not. I know completely where I would like my own annual fishing fee to go, and that is where it might well not be frittered away like it is at present.
John, currently the Trust get a piece of my annual fees to two clubs and a percentage of my annual EA licence.
It is not an argument in favour of the Trust for you to simply complain about the EA. We have covered that issue before.
When you look at the amount of resources used by the Trust to meet their KPIs from the ‘contract’ with the EA then even the most ardent of supporters would have to agree that that is wholly disproportionate to the key issues that the average angler is concerned about.
I was a member of the old ACA for many years and one of the initial individual members of the Trust, but would repeat my earlier comments regarding how they can earn my membership back.
Even so I still contribute annually to Fish Legal as they are truly necessary in my book.
It is not an argument in favour of the Trust for you to simply complain about the EA. We have covered that issue before.
When you look at the amount of resources used by the Trust to meet their KPIs from the ‘contract’ with the EA then even the most ardent of supporters would have to agree that that is wholly disproportionate to the key issues that the average angler is concerned about.
I was a member of the old ACA for many years and one of the initial individual members of the Trust, but would repeat my earlier comments regarding how they can earn my membership back.
Even so I still contribute annually to Fish Legal as they are truly necessary in my book.
Last edited:
sam vimes
Well-known member
It seems as though some are addressing Grayson as if he is officially representing the AT in some way. As far as I'm aware, and I could be wrong (I'm sure he'll put me right if I am), as evangelical as he may appear to be, he's no more than an angler that happens to be an AT member. Ranting at him isn't going to change much unless someone at the AT reads the thread.
Another point that is bemusing me is the repeated suggestions that the AT are sponsoring Fishomania and other big matches. Again, as far as I'm aware, the AT are running/administering these matches not sponsoring them. That's why their logo is plastered all over the place at such matches. It's also worth noting that you actually have to join the AT as an individual to fish these matches. I can only wonder what the membership figures would look like if this weren't the case. However, I've heard more than the odd comment from match types that they are less than impressed with being coerced into joining so they can compete in the Fisho series. It's also worth noting that there are now a couple of alternative big money match series that don't fall under the auspices of the AT.
I'll be entirely upfront about this, and it won't be a surprise to many, for various reasons, I've hardly held the AT in particularly high regard in the past. However, my stance has softened somewhat due to what they've done in the last year. I'm quite happy that they've done a good job liaising with government and representing our interests. If anything, I felt that they may have pushed a little too hard for my liking at the beginning of 2021.
I'm at the point where I no longer begrudge the existence of the AT and those that draw salaries from it. I'm still not overly comfortable with the ties between the AT and the EA. I no longer begrudge the money they receive from the various clubs and syndicates I'm part of. I no longer rail at the AT's claim that they represent me. Whether individual anglers like it or not, it's now seemingly a fact that the AT does represent us all as far as the Government is concerned.
What I'm a little less convinced about is what the AT might need another £30 from me for. They've effectively been representing "me" (whether I liked it or not) without it. Don't get me wrong, £30 might be very little to many people. Whilst I could afford it if I really had to, it's not merely loose change to me. I can always find better uses for a spare £30. Beyond contributing to someone's income, I simply don't see what £30 gets me that I don't already get for nothing. If they really want my individual membership it needs to be about £10 or less. I wouldn't miss £10. I can't afford to give £30 away to just anything. For £10 I'd expect nothing, by the time we get to £30 I'm expecting something tangible.
Having been a member of BASC in the past, the only thing I got for my money was the insurance. For an individual shooter, that was great. BASC membership proved to a landowner that you were sensible enough to join and they knew that it meant you were insured. I know that the AT offers similar liability insurance for anglers. However, most individual anglers simply don't require it. Unlike shooters, they are invariably covered by the club, syndicate or fishery's own insurance. It's not the real inducement to join that they might think it is.
Another point that is bemusing me is the repeated suggestions that the AT are sponsoring Fishomania and other big matches. Again, as far as I'm aware, the AT are running/administering these matches not sponsoring them. That's why their logo is plastered all over the place at such matches. It's also worth noting that you actually have to join the AT as an individual to fish these matches. I can only wonder what the membership figures would look like if this weren't the case. However, I've heard more than the odd comment from match types that they are less than impressed with being coerced into joining so they can compete in the Fisho series. It's also worth noting that there are now a couple of alternative big money match series that don't fall under the auspices of the AT.
I'll be entirely upfront about this, and it won't be a surprise to many, for various reasons, I've hardly held the AT in particularly high regard in the past. However, my stance has softened somewhat due to what they've done in the last year. I'm quite happy that they've done a good job liaising with government and representing our interests. If anything, I felt that they may have pushed a little too hard for my liking at the beginning of 2021.
I'm at the point where I no longer begrudge the existence of the AT and those that draw salaries from it. I'm still not overly comfortable with the ties between the AT and the EA. I no longer begrudge the money they receive from the various clubs and syndicates I'm part of. I no longer rail at the AT's claim that they represent me. Whether individual anglers like it or not, it's now seemingly a fact that the AT does represent us all as far as the Government is concerned.
What I'm a little less convinced about is what the AT might need another £30 from me for. They've effectively been representing "me" (whether I liked it or not) without it. Don't get me wrong, £30 might be very little to many people. Whilst I could afford it if I really had to, it's not merely loose change to me. I can always find better uses for a spare £30. Beyond contributing to someone's income, I simply don't see what £30 gets me that I don't already get for nothing. If they really want my individual membership it needs to be about £10 or less. I wouldn't miss £10. I can't afford to give £30 away to just anything. For £10 I'd expect nothing, by the time we get to £30 I'm expecting something tangible.
Having been a member of BASC in the past, the only thing I got for my money was the insurance. For an individual shooter, that was great. BASC membership proved to a landowner that you were sensible enough to join and they knew that it meant you were insured. I know that the AT offers similar liability insurance for anglers. However, most individual anglers simply don't require it. Unlike shooters, they are invariably covered by the club, syndicate or fishery's own insurance. It's not the real inducement to join that they might think it is.
Last edited:
Chris,if a person takes to the defence of an organisation in such a way it is difficult not to oppose that point of view,especially if you were a member and were disappointed by what obviously was a lacking in service,this is what I believe Peter and I have in common,I fortunately can afford to pay the thirty pounds,but it would foolhardy to give money to an organisation that doesn't give the service you paid for...
John Aston
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2007
- Messages
- 997
- Reaction score
- 2,548
I hadn't intended to return to this but I will confirm , as Sam says, that I am just an ordinary angler . I do belong to the Trust , and I have done some work with them , as I have in the past for STA and WTT . I am not here to defend the Trust as I cannot speak for them . The only point I wished to make is that angling desperately needs a national voice (and I assume nobody disagrees with that? ) and that , in my view , the Trust has that voice . It is fine if some don't agree with me , or even choose to direct personal flak at me if it makes them feel better. Sticks and stones , Now I really am off fishing ...
no-one in particular
Well-known member
I guess some of the rant references are aimed at me, it is nothing personal, I don't know Grayson, if it is thought of as ranting fair enough but it it is aimed at all who share his views because he represents those that have those views on this one subject and don't and will carry on getting nowhere in my opinion.. I don't know how to explain that exactly but apologies to Grayson if he thinks it is personal in some way and I haven't called him any names, been rude to him in any way or directed any "personal flak" at him so the sticks and stones comment is not really necessary. I could equally rant at John Bailey who also persists with the same view that somehow selling the AT as the only voice of angling will suddenly change everyone's heart and go and join the AT. As I said before if it hasn't worked for 10 year's why do they think it will work now.
I think apart from the existing members I have learned that there are four that have left the AT and one that has joined and he only on a probation basis. Hardly setting the world alight is it, its the same message that all those that think this is the one big reason we all should all join have been peddling ever since the AT started and they still think it is a great message, that's what I don't understand but then again what else have they got, there is that..
I will have a rant at John Bailey instead, he says "angling needs a voice in the modern age". It needs a modern representation as well. What I mean by that is all the thousands of families and individuals who fish commercials just a few times a year, or prop a rod up on a pier or jetty when they are on a day trip or holiday. This is possibly the biggest group of anglers of all, have you ever seen the packed commercials and piers all through the summer, probably not or are you not interested in them like the AT, they don't exist in your world! They don't care about a voice for angling, canoes, pollution, fish legal, naming or shaming anyone, fishomania, etc.. I doubt many of them belong to clubs either. Where's a modern organization for them. It is fine having a serious angling organization for those that want a voice, want to fight canoes, pollution, license dodgers, have lawyers, and specialist policemen on hand, just a small special group of serious anglers but non of this has any appeal to the vast majority of anglers. They are not going to part with £30 for any of that and that is were the bread and butter is. Until you wake up and stop thinking "we are the only voice in angling" and that's all you need to be, then you will get not much further than you have for the last ten years selling the same message. that just about everyone has for the same period of time up to the present day.
It will all come back in another couple of years, the AT will still be in the doldrums, the same tired message will be pedaled all over again, nothing will be learned; that's what I "rant" at and all the individuals responsible for it, I don't have a pet favourite.
I think apart from the existing members I have learned that there are four that have left the AT and one that has joined and he only on a probation basis. Hardly setting the world alight is it, its the same message that all those that think this is the one big reason we all should all join have been peddling ever since the AT started and they still think it is a great message, that's what I don't understand but then again what else have they got, there is that..
I will have a rant at John Bailey instead, he says "angling needs a voice in the modern age". It needs a modern representation as well. What I mean by that is all the thousands of families and individuals who fish commercials just a few times a year, or prop a rod up on a pier or jetty when they are on a day trip or holiday. This is possibly the biggest group of anglers of all, have you ever seen the packed commercials and piers all through the summer, probably not or are you not interested in them like the AT, they don't exist in your world! They don't care about a voice for angling, canoes, pollution, fish legal, naming or shaming anyone, fishomania, etc.. I doubt many of them belong to clubs either. Where's a modern organization for them. It is fine having a serious angling organization for those that want a voice, want to fight canoes, pollution, license dodgers, have lawyers, and specialist policemen on hand, just a small special group of serious anglers but non of this has any appeal to the vast majority of anglers. They are not going to part with £30 for any of that and that is were the bread and butter is. Until you wake up and stop thinking "we are the only voice in angling" and that's all you need to be, then you will get not much further than you have for the last ten years selling the same message. that just about everyone has for the same period of time up to the present day.
It will all come back in another couple of years, the AT will still be in the doldrums, the same tired message will be pedaled all over again, nothing will be learned; that's what I "rant" at and all the individuals responsible for it, I don't have a pet favourite.
Last edited: