Seems to me that according to your own figures over 41% of those anglers that responded wouldn't mind seeing the CS abolished (sorry, should say amended or abolished) IF it can be proven not to be detrimental. That seems to me to be a mandate for at least carrying out some research. Until such time as there are some results to examine then they have no reason to tell anyone what, where or how they are carrying it out as certain indivuals interferance could jeodardise the outcome.That prejudges what the results will be, doesn't it. If the results of the research show no detrimental harm will be done then carrying out the research will also do no harm. Even so, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, except that in this case, you may not actually break any at all. Who knows?
Oh, of course! Crow knows doesn't he? I'm afraid that this entire thread has just been used as another battering ram to try and break down the Trust by the usual non-member miscreants. It's pathetic, pathetic because they are just afraid of the possible that there is no threat to fish life.
Loggerhead,
We could of course manipulate the figures another way, if any study is carried and I say "if" as we do not know that is going to happen. Now lets say that a study is carried out and it is found that it would be detrimental to our rivers if the CS was altered or indeed abolished. The 26.5% who say they would only support change if it was found not be detrimental would then side with the 38.5% who do not want to see any change giving us 65.0% of anglers in favour of keeping the CS as it is. By the way only 3.5% thought the dates should be changed.
All conjecture of course simply because the AT are either unwilling or unable to tell the angling world, an angling world they consulted just what they are doing.
I have made it clear (well I thought I had) that I am,
1, Not anti Angling Trust (I support them via my club memberships)
2, Had no wish to bring anyone's integrity into question.
But here you are calling others miscreants ( a word that has many meanings none of which are pleasant) none of which would describe me!
Mad, belligerent, persistent, good looking and the best barbel angler in the universe, these are words that some have used to describe me. Some have used others that I could not possibly use on this family forum. These are words I can admit to, but miscreant? Never!
I am the one who started this topic (so must be the one you are calling miscreant) not as a battering ram to break down the trust, but as a means of gaining information from the Angling Trust no more no less.
You may wish to withdraw your insult aimed at your fellow anglers and of course me?
Regards
Ray