Attention all you anti-Trust sorts .....

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I'm going to a regional forum tonight and will voice all of these concerns regarding Angling Trust membership and the fee structure. I shall be pointing out

• the high cost of the one payment (£25) for everyone in these difficult financial times
• propose to break it down to (something like) £10 Trust, £2-3 for optional insurance, and £12-13 for Fish Legal option.
• Also propose a Fish Legal alone membership (like the old ACA, although I doubt this has legs)
• Payment by direct debit on a monthly (or at least quarterly) basis worked out at £2.50 per month - all in, no options.

I hope that whatever comes out of tonight's meeting will be recommended to the Trust's Committee for implementation or if modified at least with a view to make it easier to recruit more anglers. Tomorrow, I'll let you know the outcome of the meeting's discussion (if I can and not bound by some secrecy gag, I like openness).

 

[no-one in particular]

At least someones on the ball; I'm in for a tenner.

 

[tiinker]

Donate your tenner to fish legal then in the meantime.

 

[laguna]

I would bet a £10 Trust membership would recruit x3 fold, insurance and fish legal offered as an option on DD.

Offering credit to everyone will inevitably incur admin costs, but instead of chasing these, at least if DD payments are not met then insurance and legal protection could be voided.

 

[Titus]

If you want more individual members negotiate some angler benefits like cheap tackle insurance deals, discount tickets at commercial fisheries etc for members. People want something tangible for their money and anglers are among the tightest people on the planet.

 

[no-one in particular]

Donate your tenner to fish legal then in the meantime.

I only donate to charities like Great Ormond Street which has terminally ill children to look after because I have a sense of balance and priority in life. And I wish to urge anyone else to do like wise. Fishing is just fishing, enjoyable but, its small beer and there are many more worthwhile causes that only have donations to exist on. Things like Fish Legal will survive without donations I am sure. So, no offense Tinker but, I will ignore your advice , thanks anyway.

In the meantime Jeff, I wish you luck with your endeavors, I personally think it would be a very positive move if you instigated a £10 joining fee. To me and possibly many others it would just about be a reasonable, affordable and fair fee. Whether it would raise the membership, who knows but, I am sure it would be worth a try. It would be the first step for someone like me to join and then I could and would take other steps to help make the AT a better organization. And you never know, it might persuade many others to join. (and just to preempt the low debate, I am a tight ----, so what. get over it)

Just a question, does the AT invest money in owning/have the rights to any waters. Would having its own venues scattered around the country be attractive to some.

 

[tiinker]

I only donate to charities like Great Ormond Street which has terminally ill children to look after because I have a sense of balance and priority in life. And I wish to urge anyone else to do like wise. Fishing is just fishing, enjoyable but, its small beer and there are many more worthwhile causes that only have donations to exist on. Things like Fish Legal will survive without donations I am sure. So, no offense Tinker but, I will ignore your advice , thanks anyway.

In the meantime Jeff, I wish you luck with your endeavors, I personally think it would be a very positive move if you instigated a £10 joining fee. To me and possibly many others it would just about be a reasonable, affordable and fair fee. Whether it would raise the membership, who knows but, I am sure it would be worth a try. It would be the first step for someone like me to join and then I could and would take other steps to help make the AT a better organization. And you never know, it might persuade many others to join. (and just to preempt the low debate, I am a tight ----, so what. get over it)

Just a question, does the AT invest money in owning/have the rights to any waters. Would having its own venues scattered around the country be attractive to some.

I take it that you will never join on that premise bit of a lame duck in the first place saying you would pay a tenner . It seems to me you just use the subject of the Angling Trust just as something to talk about and have no real interest in it other than that.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I only donate to charities like Great Ormond Street which has terminally ill children to look after

I hope they're not terminally ill. we also contribute to GOSH, but to help them cover the cost of expensive operations and other medication that will give the children a life.

Things like Fish Legal will survive without donations I am sure.

WRONG! It gains nothing from winning cases except maybe a few paltry expenses which hardly pay for the effort. This was always the case with the ACA, it's a not-for-profit organisation so all it can do is lose money and ask the anglers to support it.

Can't believe you are so misguided, Mark. Where do these ideas of yours come from? As for investing in waters where you could then fish, they can hardly afford to pay the staff at the moment let alone buy up vast tracts of land. It might be possible in the fulness of time when they are bringing in £3,000,000 a year or more, but for now they are struggling because of anglers like yourself.



Anyway, I said I would update you all.

The meeting went well with most (can't think anyone spoke against) of the delegates agreeing that some change is necessary. However, Mike asked me to put the prosposals in writing and send it to the guy in charge of fund raising at the ATr. This has gone off this very morning with copies to Mike (of course who is Chair), Mark Lloyd, and Martic Salter as well as our Thames Area ATr rep. Hopefully amongst them, they will be able to convince the executive to make some changes.

The easiest is the direct debit month by month as this makes no change to the fee structure, I have proposed £2.50 per month to allow for additional bank charges. We'll see how that goes.

Splitting the fees between the Trust and Fish Legal may take some time, I am told, possibly up to 15 months (committees are bodies that keep minutes and waste hours), but hopefully something will eventually change.

If anyone serves on a regional forum wants to get in touch and support such a change, PM me and I'll send off the report, but you must be a representative on a regional forum or serve with the ATr .... Please - it's sensative stuff.

 

[hugo curgudgeon]

I hope they're not terminally ill. we also contribute to GOSH, but to help them cover the cost of expensive operations and other medication that will give the children a life.WRONG! It gains nothing from winning cases except maybe a few paltry expenses which hardly pay for the effort. This was always the case with the ACA, it's a not-for-profit organisation so all it can do is lose money and ask the anglers to support it.

Can't believe you are so misguided, Mark. Where do these ideas of yours come from? As for investing in waters where you could then fish, they can hardly afford to pay the staff at the moment let alone buy up vast tracts of land. It might be possible in the fulness of time when they are bringing in £3,000,000 a year or more, but for now they are struggling because of anglers like yourself.



Anyway, I said I would update you all.

The meeting went well with most (can't think anyone spoke against) of the delegates agreeing that some change is necessary. However, Mike asked me to put the prosposals in writing and send it to the guy in charge of fund raising at the ATr. This has gone off this very morning with copies to Mike (of course who is Chair), Mark Lloyd, and Martic Salter as well as our Thames Area ATr rep. Hopefully amongst them, they will be able to convince the executive to make some changes.

The easiest is the direct debit month by month as this makes no change to the fee structure, I have proposed £2.50 per month to allow for additional bank charges. We'll see how that goes.

Splitting the fees between the Trust and Fish Legal may take some time, I am told, possibly up to 15 months (committees are bodies that keep minutes and waste hours), but hopefully something will eventually change.

If anyone serves on a regional forum wants to get in touch and support such a change, PM me and I'll send off the report, but you must be a representative on a regional forum or serve with the ATr .... Please - it's sensative stuff.

I shall send you a PM, meanwhile piscators, just join. I contribute to many charities and my daughter has been in GOSH on several occasions. I am selling poppies for the brave lads.

£20 is a pittance for all the good work that the Trust does. Anyone who fishes should join!

Regards

Hugo

 

[nicepix]

£20 is a pittance for all the good work that the Trust does. Anyone who fishes should join!

Regards

Hugo

Perhaps you could tell us why we should join? We've been waiting long enough for a good reason to be put forward mg:

 

[tiinker]

If you have not been convinced by now Nicepix I think there is little chance you ever will be it would be a waste of time and effort you can take a horse to water but you can not make him drink comes to mind.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

If you have not been convinced by now Nicepix I think there is little chance you ever will be

Absolutely correct, Stanley. You can take a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead. He lives in France anyway, not much point in him joining until he comes back and by then he may well want to.

 

[nicepix]

Absolutely correct, Stanley. You can take a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead. He lives in France anyway, not much point in him joining until he comes back and by then he may well want to.

Well, how many pages did the last thread take up and all you could come up with was join the AT bcause you might regret not joining? Hardly a compulsive reason is it?

BTW:- I have a current annual EA licence and will be partaking of some fishing when I come over to the UK later in the month. I also have a current Cyprus annual licence and a current French Carte de Peche should you feel the need to check them

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

all you could come up with was join the AT bcause you might regret not joining?

Then you didn't read or take in all of it so what is the point of taking it further. You can find out all you want by refering to their site and to the press articles on this site. Needless to say, you won't bother... The case rests, your Honor.

 

[Will Barnard]

If you want more individual members negotiate some angler benefits like cheap tackle insurance deals, discount tickets at commercial fisheries etc for members. People want something tangible for their money and anglers are among the tightest people on the planet.

Titus, have you looked at the member benefits page on the Trust site?

 

[no-one in particular]

I take it that you will never join on that premise bit of a lame duck in the first place saying you would pay a tenner . It seems to me you just use the subject of the Angling Trust just as something to talk about and have no real interest in it other than that.

I said I would join for a tenner and I will. And I would have done a big favor to many.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff, I believe it has been touched on before about offering fishing to members. Could clubs offer members a free or day ticket fishing once a year to members of the AT. I travel around a bit and something like that would be attractive to many casual/pleasure anglers. It would also give someone like me the chance to fish some different waters occasionally instead of having to pay a lot of money. The clubs may benefit by attracting new members and the AT could benefit as well. A lot of clubs have waters that hardly ever get fished so , even if they limited that once a year offer to those waters it, would not impinge on existing club members. Now, you will have many reasons for being against the idea but, is there not some room for thinking and innovation on that.
Many argue that they see no tangible benefit in joining and this could be a tangible benefit.
You know you have to make people WANT to join, not just they need or have to join and especially not bullying them into it or just playing on their fears. It just doesn't appear to target the casual/pleasure angler or, at least it is failing to do so. and that's the big majority; they have to start thinking more about that in my humble ignorant opinion.
(PS, Point taken about the Fish Legal, I talk from ignorance sometimes)

 

[tiinker]

I said I would join for a tenner and I will. And I would have done a big favor to many.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff, I believe it has been touched on before about offering fishing to members. Could clubs offer members a free or day ticket fishing once a year to members of the AT. I travel around a bit and something like that would be attractive to many casual/pleasure anglers. It would also give someone like me the chance to fish some different waters occasionally instead of having to pay a lot of money. The clubs may benefit by attracting new members and the AT could benefit as well. A lot of clubs have waters that hardly ever get fished so , even if they limited that once a year offer to those waters it, would not impinge on existing club members. Now, you will have many reasons for being against the idea but, is there not some room for thinking and innovation on that.
Many argue that they see no tangible benefit in joining and this could be a tangible benefit.
You know you have to make people WANT to join, not just they need or have to join and especially not bullying them into it or just playing on their fears. It just doesn't appear to target the casual/pleasure angler or, at least it is failing to do so. and that's the big majority; they have to start thinking more about that in my humble ignorant opinion.
(PS, Point taken about the Fish Legal, I talk from ignorance sometimes)

Pleasr explain how you joining for a tenner does anyone a favour.

 

[nicepix]

Back in the days of the ACA I posted their accounts on another forum.

During the resultant discussion with Mark Lloyd amongst others I predicted correctly that the ACA would go bust withn two years as they were spending far more than they were receiving in memberships, the kitty from previous legacies, etc. was running dry and their costs of their recruitment initiatives meant that they were effectively paying so much for every new membership that it would take years if ever to recoup the costs.

I also had the opinion that the ACA was not for the individual but for the clubs. Individuals would not beneft from the ACA as it was unlikely that the ACA would fight for losses incurred by individuals if the owners of the water were reluctant to make a claim. I suggested that the ACA concentrated its efforts on becoming a specialist consultancy for clubs and owners of waters.

Wind the clock on a few years and things have changed. The ACA is no more, but some of the guys who were at the helm when it foundered are now in charge of another ship doing virtually the same thing. They have split into two - Fish Legal is the specialist consultancy that I suggested was useful to fishery owners, and they have the AT for private members. I still have the opinion that this is of no use whatsoever to individual anglers and no one yet has come up with a valid reason for me to change that opinion. I don't buy into the moralistic and empty threat reasons no more than I would support a charity or invest without checking the figures and researching the organisations.

AT and Fish Legal now do not publish their accounts online. There is no way to research whether their funding is being put to good use. In the days that the ACA published their accounts online it was obvious that the vast amount of money went into keeping the organisation going in wages and admin costs. Little went into the cause they were supposed to be on with. They cherry picked cases to fight so as to improve their success rate but were effectively nose diving into bankruptcy.

If / when someone can put up a valid case for individuals joining the AT or if sufficient information is made available I will reconsider. Until then I will not be brow beaten by those who think they know best.

 

[chub_on_the_block]

I said I would join for a tenner and I will. And I would have done a big favor to many.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff, I believe it has been touched on before about offering fishing to members. Could clubs offer members a free or day ticket fishing once a year to members of the AT. I travel around a bit and something like that would be attractive to many casual/pleasure anglers. It would also give someone like me the chance to fish some different waters occasionally instead of having to pay a lot of money. The clubs may benefit by attracting new members and the AT could benefit as well. A lot of clubs have waters that hardly ever get fished so , even if they limited that once a year offer to those waters it, would not impinge on existing club members. Now, you will have many reasons for being against the idea but, is there not some room for thinking and innovation on that.
Many argue that they see no tangible benefit in joining and this could be a tangible benefit.
You know you have to make people WANT to join, not just they need or have to join and especially not bullying them into it or just playing on their fears. It just doesn't appear to target the casual/pleasure angler or, at least it is failing to do so. and that's the big majority; they have to start thinking more about that in my humble ignorant opinion.
(PS, Point taken about the Fish Legal, I talk from ignorance sometimes)

I think theres some good points there - i was one who said something similar in a previous thread.

The thing that strikes me is that there is a declining access to free or day ticket river fishing in many areas. For example, to fish the Ivel you would have to join one of the 8 or so clubs affiliated to the Ivel Protection Association. Whole chunks of other rivers are out of bounds to casual visiting anglers unless they join a local club (never mind the new syndicates if there happen to barbel in the vicinity). An argument why this is a good thing is that such stretches can attract litter or disrespect from anglers who dont have the same concern for them or sense of ownership perhaps as a local members only club might. But if more waters were opened up to ATr members - even on an occasional guest ticket basis - those fears should be allayed.

I think this is important because an organisation like the ATr should be promoting access along the lines of "Sport for All" and fighting to preserve fishing rights where they are threatened, rather than simply helping private clubs to protect their assets on behalf of their memberships.

I have a reluctance to join clubs where i feel they will use my joining fees to stock carp or manage the waters in a way that i would rather they didnt, but i have to bite my tongue and join up to fish the river stretches they control.

 

[geoffmaynard]

In the days that the ACA published their accounts online it was obvious that the vast amount of money went into keeping the organisation going in wages and admin costs. Little went into the cause they were supposed to be on with. They cherry picked cases to fight so as to improve their success rate

I have a mate who runs a small charity and he is constantly faced with a similar situation. This is an expensive world we live in: he can't tell the world this but it is understandable; on bad income years, the majority of his income is used on supporting the infrastructure of his organisation, wages, rent, equipment etc. On good income years there's a big surplus to do the good work - but without that base infrastructure investment there is nothing in place to enable the charitable work when the money comes in. As anyone who has tried running a small business or other organisation well knows, running costs are expensive. These have to be paid first or the whole thing collapses.
As for cherry picking cases. Yes. I think the reason is because if they lose just one legal battle the costs could be so astronomical it would bankrupt a poorly funded organisation. In my opinion, the ACA/ATr/FL simply cannot afford to take on a case which they are not 100% certain to win. This is not about justice, it's about the law. They have to work within those constraints.
I never used to understand this point of view when I was an angry and righteous younger man but with age comes a little more understanding.