The Angling Trust and the Rivers Close Season is it time for some answers?

[Titus]

I'm of the opinion that the reasons for the close season being implemented (protecting stocks of gravid fish) no longer exist, insomuch as the majority of river anglers, coarse and game, no longer take fish for the pot.

In fact, it could be said that by preventing sport anglers from fishing when fish may or may not be spawning (debatable point) we are leaving the door open for the odd few who, either through ignorance of, or contempt for the law, do fish for the pot.

This reason alone throws doubt on the validity of a close season.

 

[no-one in particular]

I think Craig made a good point that is often overlooked when this talk of who represents who is made.
The AT must have a wide cross section of every type of angler in its ranks. Pleasure, match, specimen, commercially interested, clubs etc.
In this respect they represent all of us pretty much and the only people who can get a good all round view of the angling community- that cannot be a bad thing- I cannot think of any other organization that could do this and it would be necessary to have as wide a view as possible for any discussion or change in angling legislation.
Forums cannot facilitate that. there are thousands of them, just to many individual views spread across the wide internet, it would be impossible.

 

[thecrow]

The AT membership wouldn't be too happy if they sat on this forum all day.
Why not join and give them your view, instead of expecting someone else to pay their membership fees for you to get what you want? If more people joined the AT would have more say and more views on what it's members want, and more would get done.
Sitting on forums isn't going to change anything.
You can't expect a handful of people to be working on every aspect of our sport. And if you knew Martin, you'd know he's not one to sit on his a**e and do nothing, and he'll be working probablty double the hours on AT campaigns than what he is paid for.
I was still chasing big carp and a member of the SAA, and ACA, when the AT came about but I still joined, so I don't understand how specimen angling was ignored.

I was a member, reason I am not any longer? lack of honesty from the trust, going behind anglers backs to achieve what they want, to be frank with you I no longer trust them.

I don't expect anyone to pay their fees for me to get what I want but that type of rhetoric is what I have come to expect from the look at me I care I am a member type of angler. Its all been said before and all it does is alienate anglers that are not members.

I don't expect a handful of self appointed people to work on every aspect of angling, I would expect some sort of feedback to a debate started on here by MS before ANY contact was made with the EA regarding the rivers CS, once again that lack of trust is reinforced by their own actions, were the membership aware that this recent contact had been made, nothing on their site.

I care not a jot what hours MS works, that is his choice he is not forced into it the same as he wasn't forced into starting a debate on here.

Like you I was a member of the SAA and the ACA, I was astonished that when the trust was first set up there was nothing on their site to do with specialist angling despite them receiving around £10,000 from the SAA, it was many months before anything appeared and that was after many complaints both here and elsewhere.

If you truly believe that a forum cannot change anything perhaps you can tell me why the trust through their representative use this one to put over their points and start debates on here?? they don't need to sit on here all day just long enough to be open and honest about what they are doing.

---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------

I think Craig made a good point that is often overlooked when this talk of who represents who is made.
The AT must have a wide cross section of every type of angler in its ranks. Pleasure, match, specimen, commercially interested, clubs etc.
In this respect they represent all of us pretty much and the only people who can get a good all round view of the angling community- that cannot be a bad thing- I cannot think of any other organization that could do this and it would be necessary to have as wide a view as possible for any discussion or change in angling legislation.
Forums cannot facilitate that. there are thousands of them, just to many individual views spread across the wide internet, it would be impossible.

Sorry Mark I cannot agree that because they represent a cross section of anglers they represent us all, they represent their individual members and clubs/syndicates that have joined, that's all. Of the clubs that have joined how many have done so to take advantage of the very good insurance that is offered? The only "all round view" they can get is from their members isn't it? after all forums do nothing.

When anglers join a club I doubt very much that their first thought is "are they a trust member" more that the club have waters they want to fish.

Any change to the river CS should be on scientific evidence, these were the words of the AT and the EA now we find that the trust have already been in touch with the EA about the CS some clubs have offered their waters for trials all this without the required evidence to show there is even a need to change it never mind do it. I am for a change in the CS but only if scientific evidence proves beyond doubt that there is a need for it.

If I may I would like to ask you the same question I asked of Craig, if forums cannot change anything why do the trust use this one to start debates?

 

[Craig Hunt]

I was a member, reason I am not any longer? lack of honesty from the trust, going behind anglers backs to achieve what they want, to be frank with you I no longer trust them.

I don't expect anyone to pay their fees for me to get what I want but that type of rhetoric is what I have come to expect from the look at me I care I am a member type of angler. Its all been said before and all it does is alienate anglers that are not members.

I don't expect a handful of self appointed people to work on every aspect of angling, I would expect some sort of feedback to a debate started on here by MS before ANY contact was made with the EA regarding the rivers CS, once again that lack of trust is reinforced by their own actions, were the membership aware that this recent contact had been made, nothing on their site.

I care not a jot what hours MS works, that is his choice he is not forced into it the same as he wasn't forced into starting a debate on here.

Like you I was a member of the SAA and the ACA, I was astonished that when the trust was first set up there was nothing on their site to do with specialist angling despite them receiving around £10,000 from the SAA, it was many months before anything appeared and that was after many complaints both here and elsewhere.

If you truly believe that a forum cannot change anything perhaps you can tell me why the trust through their representative use this one to put over their points and start debates on here?? they don't need to sit on here all day just long enough to be open and honest about what they are doing.

---------- Post added at 14:53 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------





Sorry Mark I cannot agree that because they represent a cross section of anglers they represent us all, they represent their individual members and clubs/syndicates that have joined, that's all. Of the clubs that have joined how many have done so to take advantage of the very good insurance that is offered? The only "all round view" they can get is from their members isn't it? after all forums do nothing.

When anglers join a club I doubt very much that their first thought is "are they a trust member" more that the club have waters they want to fish.

Any change to the river CS should be on scientific evidence, these were the words of the AT and the EA now we find that the trust have already been in touch with the EA about the CS some clubs have offered their waters for trials all this without the required evidence to show there is even a need to change it never mind do it. I am for a change in the CS but only if scientific evidence proves beyond doubt that there is a need for it.

If I may I would like to ask you the same question I asked of Craig, if forums cannot change anything why do the trust use this one to start debates?

Only the poster from the AT can answer this.

So what have you done about what the AT has done to lose your trust in them, except for not to rejoin and whinge about them on a forum?
I was at last years AGM venting my frustrations, and have since had a meeting at my club with them, and have another coming up next month.

Regarding the money put in from the SAA, was there not a representative from the SAA on the original board of the Angling Trust? Maybe it's him you should speak to about why there was so little on the website regarding specimen angling. And it'll probably be the same answer, that there was only a skeleton workforce trying to cover too many bases.

 

[thecrow]

So what have you done about what the AT has done to lose your trust in them, except for not to rejoin and whinge about them on a forum

You just cannot help it can you?

How about offering membership to certain lapsed members at a reduced rate, I never saw that advertised on the trust website.

Or how about climbing into bed with the biggest polluters in the country when they had Thames Water as sponsors for a matches on the Wye, not only once but twice. I see nothing I could have done about such daft decisions taken by the trust, are you trying to tell me that one member could have stopped what were obviously decisions taken inside the trust BEFORE they became public knowledge.

It may be that I got sick of the holier than thou attitude of some of their members, some of whom are/were quite high profile being in the press and on TV/ Radio, saying that if you were not a member you were not a proper angler or didn't care. Did a lot of good that did, NOT.

The "skeleton workforce" that you mention was only that after they had to draw their horns in after being wildly optimistic about the amount of anglers that would join.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Ray. The 2001 Salmon and Freshwater Fish Review recommended to abolition of the river close season and I opposed this on the grounds that we need to have evidence to justify any changes. This is what the EA are starting to do. I'm not interested in 'commercial pressure' real or imagined and neither am I scared of raising difficult issues or looking at what the evidence tells us. Be patient and let's see what they come up with. If you bother to read my original article and copious others you'll see that I'm instinctively in favour of conservation at all levels.
As Craig says...there's a job to be done and I need to get back to work but I wanted to give you the courtesy of a reply because it had gone quiet on this issue for a while. Cheers Martin

Thanks for the reply Martin,
Patience, I have that in abundance what I don't have is the inclination to sit on my hands while the AT keep us in the dark. It was you Martin who raised this issue on FM, not the FM members you asked for our opinions. They were given freely from both anti and pro river close season supporters.

I suspect that like me they expected the AT to keep them abreast of what the AT had decided from the results of the debate it facilitated on here. Not unreasonable for myself and others to expect Martin seeing as you wanted our views is it Martin?

Apart from patience Martin I also have the urge to ask a lot of questions, how else do you find out anything if you don't ask?

Tell me Martin if you will or indeed can, have the AT taken into account the following in its pursuit for change to the current rivers close season?

1, Paddlers rights to paddle? I think I may be right in saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the AT raised objections to these requests along the lines of protecting spawning fish. If the rivers CS is changed or abolished any objections along those lines would be untenable would they not?

2, What does the AT have to say about landowners putting up the price of fishing rights if the AT are successful in having the rivers CS abolished or altered?

3, Has the AT thought about the many river based angling clubs that might not survive if they see their fishing rights rents increased?

4, Has the AT even thought about any of these points and what the consequences might be if the AT is successful in what is surely its quest to have the rivers close season either altered or abolished.

Kind regards
Ray

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Moderator Hat: off, i.e. a personal view:

The potential for abolishing the River close Season has to be the one major divisive issue facing angling, and the Angling Trust, today.

For whatever reasons individual anglers pursue the current status quo there is one thing that unites us all and that is that the Close Season is one of the last vestiges of conservation that we, as anglers, have in our armoury today.

That we maintain the Close Season says more about us, as anglers, than any other one thing that we do.

The Angling Trust should, in some ways, be lauded for taking on such a divisive topic and one that is bound to see a significant drop in their membership regardless of which way they move to convince the EA in their decision.

It does seem obvious to me at least that there are some commercial forces at work pushing for either the abolition or the shortening of the Close Season, neither of which appeal to me as an individual angler.

It has been mentioned already that the Angling Trust should take into full consideration that anglers are not the only users of our rivers and that there are literally hundreds of conservation organisations who all have a vested interest in leaving the rivers, bankside, flora and fauna alone to rest for the current 3 months period. Thier voices will be heard, as will that of Natural England especially where rivers, like the Hampshire Avon are concerned, where the valley is virtually entirely an SSSI.

To be totally honest I am not surprised to read that there have been quite a lot of action behind the scenes, so to speak, and to be totally honest I would have been utterly surprised had there not been.

As I said previously, this has to be the one major divisive issue facing angling today, and one that for my part, I would sadly give up my membership of the Angling Trust for once and for all if it went the way of Close Season on our Still waters, lakes and some canals.

From talking and corresponding with many individuals, and quite a few clubs as well, it seems that my position is one shared by many.

 

[The bad one]

Probably my only post on this subject and conciliatory line on what the Crow says re the SAA. He’s correct in that the SAA gave around 10K to the start up of the AT. I’m pretty certain in cash terms it was the largest contribution. The SAA encouraged all it’s members to join the AT when the merger was complete.

He’s also right that Specialist Angling was overlooked by the AT, until it got some stick over it, I being one of them that gave it. WE, Specialist Angling, were promised a regional structure under the formation of the AT. I know that because I asked the question at one of the last SAA meetings before the merger was complete.
And so there no ambiguity of what I’m saying, I was for 5 years and right up to the merger the Conservation Officer for the SAA and attended every meeting regarding the merger.

To date the AT has reneged on that promise for a regional structure for SA, and I’ll say it, plain and simple, I had a real ding dong on the phone with Mike Heylin about it before I left the AT 3 years after it was formed.
What the AT did and in my view it was somewhat a sop to SA, was to continue to run a national quarterly SA meeting near Syston. However, like the complaints made on here there was never any answers to matters raised at those meetings. So 2 ½ years in I stopped going to them after attending NASA, SACG, SAA meetings for almost 20 year. Grudgingly, coming to the conclusion I’d far better things to do with my time than travel 220 miles round trip to be told NOTHING meaningful!
Whether those meeting still take place I wouldn’t know, and to be honest don’t really care for what they achieved!

Much has been made about trust in the AT, it lost mine years ago over the above and other issues, which leaves me wondering how many more long-term committed campaigning anglers has it lost from its membership?

 

[thecrow]

Superb post TBO, explains a lot and puts the record straight about what happened.

 

[martinsalter]

Ray. You make some interesting points. Please email them to me if you would like me to feed then into the meeting with the EA. Btw...I'm not aware of any evidence that clubs experienced challenging rent rises when the close season was lifted from canals and stillwaters ! Cheers Martin

 

[no-one in particular]

If I may I would like to ask you the same question I asked of Craig, if forums cannot change anything why do the trust use this one to start debates?

I don't think they do very much, as far as I can remember its a very rare occurrence. I guess on this subject of the close season and as they are trying to reach a official stance on the close season they thought it worth casting the net further than their own membership. Which is very thoughtful of them. However, I still think a proper referendum of their own members would have been fairer and more importantly conclusive. It would have been done and dusted in a short space of time. And the result would have come from a good cross section of anglers so, probably would have been a fair reflection of the larger angling community anyway by default.
I think they are trying to hard to please everyone, should have stuck to their own members. Its their club, their money, they deserve a official stance from their leadership based on a consensus of their views.

---------- Post added at 10:22 ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 ----------

Much has been made about trust in the AT, it lost mine years ago over the above and other issues, which leaves me wondering how many more long-term committed campaigning anglers has it lost from its membership?

I don't know Baddie, some big mistakes have been made; but should the punishment of not joining, withdrawing membership, damnation on forums like this this be a life sentence ! At what point to give a second chance, take the foot off and give them a break.? In making that decision; its worth looking back and seeing the good points as well, not just the mistakes.

 

[thecrow]

the result would have come from a good cross section of anglers so, probably would have been a fair reflection of the larger angling community anyway by default

No way can it be taken as a "fair reflection of the larger angling community" it would only be a reflection of their members views and their members views are in the minority by a long way.

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------

I don't know Baddie, some big mistakes have been made; but should the punishment of not joining, withdrawing membership, damnation on forums like this this be a life sentence ! At what point to give a second chance, take the foot off and give them a break.? Are they that bad to deserve
same question to Crow.

For me to many "mistakes" have been made, to many broken promises (see TBOs post) to many times insulting none members, to much arrogance in believing they know what anglers want when its clear from membership numbers they don't, not enough honesty.
Once I had been fooled I still gave them a chance but the debacles that followed made my mind up and unless there are massive changes within the trust and the way they conduct themselves they wont be getting my money again.

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

Ray et al

You say that the AT was not 'elected' by anglers democratically, so can not claim to to represent angling and/or all anglers.

Not all 'organisations' are elected, most are usually just set up to do something, e.g. a business is set up to make money for its shareholders (just and example).

But an organisation (or business) can soon become recognised as 'the leading authority' or 'an authority' or 'expert advisor', etc.

In this case the AT aim to represent angling (probably not all angling, but to the best they can at this stage - it may take time to represent all angling and please everyone) - and therefore, at the moment, they are the only body in place to represent angling, angling clubs, and the interests of anglers when advising/lobbying government.

Perhaps if this was to be done in a different way, i.e. with a democratically elected body, then maybe the answer is for someone man enough, with an alternative set of standards and objectives, to set up an opposition.

This opposition, when big enough in number and influence, can then challenge the AT to redress the balance that some think is going the wrong way and also advise/lobby government, the EA, etc. Over time, the situation could change to the point where there are elections - just imagine voting day, who do you vote for to represent angling as you would like it the AT, The Anglers' Front or Anglers United?

But how does an angler qualify/get registered to vote? From what age? Should women be allowed to vote? How do you prove you're an angler when registering?

All this will take time and effort of coarse and, as I already mentioned, someone man enough to set up an alternative.

So, who's going to do it?

Who can put forward a clear alternative (and persuade others to support it)?

Who's man enough?


P.S. Just to be clear I was a member of the AT, but decided not to rejoin. Just for starters I cant be part of an organisation that promotes an event such as Fishomania - for me it's not what angling is about.

 

[Titus]

P.S. Just to be clear I was a member of the AT, but decided not to rejoin. Just for starters I cant be part of an organisation that promotes an event such as Fishomania - for me it's not what angling is about.

Even though I was a member of the ACA that is the main reason I will never join the AT as an individual member.
Promoting matches in what amounts to a giant bouillabaisse, albeit a poor one due to the lack of variety of species, is not something I want to give my hard earned to.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Ray. You make some interesting points. Please email them to me if you would like me to feed then into the meeting with the EA. Btw...I'm not aware of any evidence that clubs experienced challenging rent rises when the close season was lifted from canals and stillwaters ! Cheers Martin

Morning Martin,
Thanks for the offer putting my points forward and please consider it done. I live in the real world Martin not in some fantasy world created by some great writer of fiction. Should the rivers close season be abolished or changed to make the fishing season longer I would fully expect landowners to increase fishing right fees. That's called business and most businesses would look to increase profit from their assets that's called enterprise.

So if all year fishing becomes available on our rivers or the season is increased it is logistically sensible to expect rents to increase. We lived in different times than that when the close season went on our still waters. I can tell you that two of the clubs I belonged to back then saw increases in rents. But they had high membership numbers and could sustain the increases via a small increase in club membership.

Today however we are living in different times and many are suffering hardship in our society (MP's aside) so any increases in club memberships may result in some having to choose very carefully where they spend their money.

This in turn starts the snowball rolling, members drop out of clubs, club revenue falls, the clubs then have to look at which waters they rent are viable to keep. So it continues clubs are forced to give up waters and they maybe lost forever to open to all fishing.

A friend of yours Martin can give you a fine example of this, rent increases and falling membership numbers of his organisation have resulted in it giving up fisheries. This happened before the proposed change to the river CS. Like most clubs and organisation's further rent fees and memberships fee increases will no doubt see even further falls in memberships and lost waters.

Landowners know the value of their assets Martin and like good business men they will reap the best from them should the CS go or be changed make no mistake about that.

I doubt that most anglers have thought about what a change to the rivers CS might bring, or indeed the AT. Couple this with the increase in rod license fees that we can expect due to the trust talks with the EA things may look very different to them very soon.

Regards
Ray

Mr CC,
As you rightly say it would take to long to set up anything in opposition to the AT, and so impossible to redress the damage I and others believe it is doing to angling via pandering to a few names and some commercial pressure to alter or change the rivers CS and rod license fees.

The AT cannot claim to have the support of angling on either of these issues, it may have the support of its 17,000 individual members and some of its member clubs. I belong to three such clubs and not one of them have been approached on either subject. So Mr CC one has to rightly ask just who is driving both the changed to the rivers CS and any increase in rod license fees?

I am sure if the AT stuck to issues like pollution, predation, poaching and other angling related problems its membership would swell. You have highlighted your own reasons for not renewing your membership and there are many like you. The AT seem to be oblivious to these facts. Or is the truth of the matter they don't really care about what we anglers really want from them?

Kind regards
Ray

 

[binka]

maybe the answer is for someone man enough, with an alternative set of standards and objectives, to set up an opposition.

Don't be daft corky, that would mean that those spouting this hot air fantasy that the ATr don't represent the majority of anglers would have to put some substance where their keyboards are instead of pedalling their presumptious, tired old unqualified and fact-less numbers game.

The ATr represent the largest single body of UK anglers, outside of that there is an even higher number of individual anglers with views and voices that speak separately, not as one.

So... Until they do as you and I too have on occasion suggested and form an organisation which enjoys a higher majority within the ranks of angling then they are just gonna have to lump it regardless of how much it irritates them and how much spouting on about it that they want to do to the contrary.

Presuming that every angler that's not a member of the Trust also doesn't regard themselves as being represented by them is an utter unqualified fantasy and if it isn't then I again invite them to put up their numbers and prove it.

 

[no-one in particular]

No way can it be taken as a "fair reflection of the larger angling community" it would only be a reflection of their members views and their members views are in the minority by a long way.

---------- Post added at 12:31 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------



For me to many "mistakes" have been made, to many broken promises (see TBOs post) to many times insulting none members, to much arrogance in believing they know what anglers want when its clear from membership numbers they don't, not enough honesty.
Once I had been fooled I still gave them a chance but the debacles that followed made my mind up and unless there are massive changes within the trust and the way they conduct themselves they wont be getting my money again.

I don't think your understanding my point on this Crow. Its like when opinion polls are conducted, they take 5000 people of a "cross section" of the public from "all walks of life" and use the result to reflect the overall way all the public will vote. And its not often wrong, sometimes yes but, not often. The AT has a good cross section of "all types" of anglers and clubs etc". Match, pleasure, specimen, clubs, commercially interested parties etc. Any survey of there opinions and views probably is a fair representation "proportionally" of the "bigger" angling community.

As to your second point, that's your prerogative, I didn't think you would say anything else.You want to punish for the rest of your life, you go ahead. Punishment or lifelong vendetta ! the former fair enough, the latter well what can I say.

---------- Post added at 11:58 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------

Even though I was a member of the ACA that is the main reason I will never join the AT as an individual member.
Promoting matches in what amounts to a giant bouillabaisse, albeit a poor one due to the lack of variety of species, is not something I want to give my hard earned to.

I am not a match angler but, they are a large part of the angling scene-It would seem wrong to me if the At did not cater for them.

 

[thecrow]

I don't think your understanding my point on this Crow. Its like when opinion polls are conducted, they take 5000 people of a "cross section" of the public from "all walks of life" and use the result to reflect the overall way all the public will vote. And its not often wrong, sometimes yes but, not often. The AT has a good cross section of "all types" of anglers and clubs etc". Match, pleasure, specimen, clubs, commercially interested parties etc. Any survey of there opinions and views probably is a fair representation "proportionally" of the "bigger" angling community.

As to your second point, that's your prerogative, I didn't think you would say anything else.You want to punish for the rest of your life, you go ahead. Punishment or lifelong vendetta ! the former fair enough, the latter well what can I say.

I understand perfectly what you are saying, I don't agree with what you are saying, that doesn't make your or mine right its just different opinions, I think mine is correct though

I cant punish the trust nor do I have a vendetta against them, if I did posting on here would make no difference according to some would it?

What I do have is a mind of my own, I do not follow like a sheep because someone tells me its the right thing to do or that if I don't I don't care about angling or that I am not a real angler (whatever that is) as far as I know there are certain things in this country that you cannot avoid paying, being a member of the Angling Trust is not one of them, I choose not to be a member along with the majority of anglers in this country.

---------- Post added at 15:07 ---------- Previous post was at 15:05 ----------

So... Until they do as you and I too have on occasion suggested and form an organisation

How could anyone do that? the trust have had all the money from other organisations when it was formed (mine included) would they have been able to do it without?

 

[Titus]

I am not a match angler but, they are a large part of the angling scene-It would seem wrong to me if the At did not cater for them.

Just because they are a large part of the angling scene does not make them right, either from a sporting standpoint or more importantly from a fish welfare standpoint.
It seems a bit perverse to me that an organisation which purports to champion fish welfare would support this type of competition.

I have been of the opinion for a long time that if angling were to ever come under serious attack from a dedicated band of antis then the idea of heavily stocked, man made, doughnut lakes with a fisherman every 10 yards heaving out 20 fish an hour would be a difficult one to defend.

But then being someone who, rather than seeing fishing as a competition for the most or the biggest, simply sees it as a great excuse to visit and spend time in some beautiful places I would not normally see, I am probably in the minority.

 

[binka]

How could anyone do that? the trust have had all the money from other organisations when it was formed (mine included) would they have been able to do it without?

I have no idea but the fact is that until someone does then you will be viewed, like it or not, as being represented as an angler by the Angling Trust no matter how much stink you kick up to the contrary.

There can only be one single majority voice in anything, not just angling.

Can I ask a question on this money business...

Were the negotiations for the individual organisations which initially formed the Angling Trust carried out within any form of due diligence and legal framework?

I ask this because surely this would have established core requirements from the individual organisations which in turn would have ensured their on going individual interests and any wrong doing by the Trust could then be addressed with a legal action.

It appears to me that either:

a) The original merger was formed around an insufficient legal framework with regard to the individual organisations

or

b) There was sufficient legal framework but those feeling aggrieved are not pursuing a course of action to rectify the problem

?