A Trust For All Anglers

[Wolfman Woody]

Update on last night's meeting.

Well, it transpired that when we went around the table asking member or not, only 4 of the "rif-raf" had or were joining out of 14 present and one of those said his membership of the NFA was transferred and that he would renew in July, partly in order to keep his coaching licence. Of the other 10, one may join next month, and three (not me) were adamantly against it.

In order to aswage people's fears and answer any questions we are hoping to have an AT rep to the next meeting, which we are opening up to other clubs officials in the area. This will be primarily to get the clubs to join.

As for our organisation and will we join, there are different stories coming from those that have enquired or simply looked on the AT website. It's confusing because we are in a sense a club (association of clubs), but not in AT's eyes, it seems. Being so would have cost us £796 per year for AT+FL membership. However, we are also classed as a riparian owner with no direct members, this is true, and as such can join AT+FL for just £105 per year. We are also a fisheries consultative and it's the same cost again, I believe, though we can't pay twice and be two organisations.

Anyway, just keeping you informed that it's not an entirely negative picture and there certainly weren't any facial contortions coming from me. Perhaps Mr Hackett would like to be the AT's representative at our next meeting? Better not spoil their chances, eh?

 

[GrahamM]

<blockquote class="quoteheader">Peter Jacobs wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class="quote">"Come on lads stop this petty back biting for Fs sake! no one is going to "Win", " Now if that had been stated a few months ago then maybe the entrenched positions might not have been taken. As it is, with the; "you are either with us or agin' us" or the "you can s*d off, bu$$er off and play golf, and other such bullying comments, it is hardly surprising that some people have become less than enchanted with the whole thing. What was it that Nigel said, "Learn to play the ball and not the man" </blockquote>


Bullying or trying to shame people into joining any organisation never works and if I'm only a little guilty of that in my pro-AT stance then I apologise.

But I would say to those who hesitate to join the AT thatthere is a much bigger issue at stakethan liking or disliking certain individuals on either side of the fence and making decisions based on that. No one should be in an entrenched position, either for or against the AT, but open minded, and willing to give them the best possible chance.

I'm also concerned that some are basing their decision on the individuals who are running the AT being unknown to them. Most of them have done stirling work for the organisations they came from, and many of them did it for nothing more than the love of angling. None of them have a reputation that suggests they will do anything but their best, and Ireckon that there is no one else in the angling political world who look like they coulddo a better job.

Obviously, some will disagree with that, and if they do then there is no better way to fight for 'your' man or woman to be involved with the running of the AT in future than by joining and campaigning from the inside.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Graham,

I certainly wouldn't have included you in that league, so as far as I am concerned there is no apology necessary.

That said, there have been some vitriolic and belligerent comments made, both on the forums and in e-mails, (usually totally unfounded) that I have used the "ignore" button for one particular contributor.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Graham Marsden wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>I'm also concerned that some are basing their decision on the individuals who are running the AT being unknown to them. Most of them have done stirling work for the organisations they came from, and many of them did it for nothing more than the love of angling. None of them have a reputation that suggests they will do anything but their best, and Ireckon that there is no one else in the angling political world who look like they coulddo a better job.</blockquote>

Not a question of the being "unknown", nor is it a question of their "love of angling". Of that last one I have no doubts about and these people would be fine if they simply wish to continue carrying out the same work as they've always done.

However, this new body has (or so I thought) been set up to play a whole new ball game, a game at which all the previous bodies failed at before so why should they be different now just because they have come together?

I'm afraid you'll have to remind me again of the <u>main objective</u> (quite apart from it being one body etc.) of this new organisation. It seems to be getting lost amongst the well wishers and good intents.

As for "there is no better way to fight for 'your' man", as it happens, I remembered a name over lunch who would be brilliant for this type of role. He is so well connected in the corridors of power that he knows most of the cabinet and other ministers on first name terms and I'm sure if the right 6 figuresalary was waived at him, he'd be tempted. Unfortunately he knows two things about fishing, nothing and bu**er all, but I'm sure that wouldn't handicap him in any way. The other problem is, he's working for Boris Johnson at the moment.

 

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

Try here Woody;

http://www.anglingtrust.net/page.asp?section=30&sectionTitle=About+Us

 

[Wolfman Woody]

No good keep pointing to that, Bob. I'm not talking about what they promsie to do, much of that they did before as separate groups. I read all of that and much more that has been sent to me via emails from all and sundry. A lot of it is "Jam tomorrow"

I'm talking about their main reason for wanting to be ONE BODY.

"Control of nuisance predators" Hmmm, won't PAC have something to say? /forum/smilies/smile_smiley.gif

 

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

Control of Nuisance Predators does not mean Pike or Zander, and well you know it, try Cormorants , Otters, Mink, etc , if you doubt my word, ask Angling Trust directly and stop putting 2+2 together and making 5 , a less charitable person would think you are trying to drive wedges between separate disciplines of angling.

As for your other question, are you serious?

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Oh do get a grip of yourself now, Bob. It was a "joke", a "whimsical jibe" mainly because of my stance on getting rid of zander, catfish, and even carp from our rivers, which the PAC lads didn't like. You'll be getting as bad as the Bad one in a bit.

/forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

Fortunately, I've put him on my "Ignore" list now.

For your info, I was involved with the fight against cormorants from fairly early days. Right now it's mitten crabs that are worrying, but these are all separate issues and not for this thread.

You are so obviously sold on this new body, that's fine, but you seem oblivious to what others, me too, are asking. You don't see any chinks. No matter, I'm not going to get any further I can see.

Hey, put yourself forward for a directorship when you get the chance at the AGM in 2010. You'd be entitled to.

 

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

Woody wrote;

"For your info, I was involved with the fight against cormorants from fairly early days. Right now it's mitten crabs that are worrying, but these are all separate issues and not for this thread."

Lets be clear here then, you are saying these issues are nothing to do with Angling Trust, not good enoughreason's for anglers to join the Trust? who will fight these issues if the Trust did not exist? I am growing very tired of your nonsense Woody.

You are the one that needs to "get a grip", you just argue for the sake of argument, andthe sarcasm shown in your last postis a sure sign you are losing this particular debate.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

"Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded."

Fyodor Dostoevski - as in Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, Notes from Underground and Demons etc.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Bob, there was absolutely no sarcasm meant there. Honestly.

Just on the issue of cormorants, it was the late Terry Mansbridge, a delightful and very patient man, who chaired the Morran Committee on cormorant control. Sure someone has to take the reins now and continue the fight, it was NAFAC which is now part of AT so yes, they will keep the fight going. I hope!

When I said you can put yourself forward for a directorship, that will be absolutely true. At the first AGM to be held before the end of March 2010, there will be so many board seats kept back for the members to elect representatives to. So it was a very genuine bit of info, if you want one get your name forward, do all you can in the meantime and hope enough members like you at the AGM. You never know.

Please don't see words <u>I do not write</u>, and not all that I write is a joke. Telling what isn't at times can be difficult, I know.

Now you must admit that keeping thread like this going is bringing attention to the AT. It's up to you and others who have joined to fight their corner and not insult people.

 

[Dave Smith]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Woody the Wolfman wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

I'm talking about their main reason for wanting to be ONE BODY. </blockquote>


Because the government would not entertain talking to anglers, without a governing body.

There was no one organisation, or common set of values.

that has now been sorted or rather has started on the road to being sorted. so Anglers now have a voice and will now be taken seriously. The 1.56million awarded by sport England backs this up....

How many more "burton meres" do we have to loose to other organisations, how many more restrictive rules will we have enforced on us before we wake up and smell the coffee?

my fishing gear is probably worth about £4,000- £5,000, if fishing gets banned I'd guess it will be worth a lot less.... I know this might seem a long way off, but it's a very real prospect, and if my £20 helps in even the smallest way then they can have it... indeed they already have.

 

[Fred Bonney]

Surely you need somebody to look after where angling taxes are being spent,you can't do it on your own.

It's all very well saying I pay my licence,but who keeps an eye on the receivers of that money, you can't do it on your own.

You can stop paying, but the collecters will get you in the end, because there is nothing you can do on your own!

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay (ACA)]

Well after reading all I can about AT I can say that everything in OUR organisation looks very positive indeed. There may be aspects of the AT that a few do not like, but heck, it's bigger than any single one of us, or any club or association. A truly national organisation covering all aspects of angling is something we have always wanted

I say join, and make it work.Members should not be bullying others to join, but encouraging them to do so.

I was dismayed to read that the editor of another angling website will not support AT.

And why not join PJ?

AT is worth it - it's certainly bigger than any personal issue you may have.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Underpinning a lot of the detractors' positons on the AT is that perhaps like a new reel or a new rod, they want it to be exactly like they want it to be before they will part with their money.

This ignores two important points:

1) As is not a product but a developing organisation in its early days.,s it not unrealistic to expect it now, or perhaps ever, to be exactly what every angler wants it to be?

2) Unlike a rod or a reel, once you have bought in as a member , there is opportunity to steer it in the direction you want it to go.An opportunity that does not exist if you do not join.

My last observation is that one reason some are not joining is that it will fail like similar initiatives in the past.That a self fulfilling situation if ever Isaw one.

 

[Quiver man]

I have to say the last four posts have been very very good, arguably better than the AT has on their site. All quite varied, all valid points, without any chest beating.

Mucho Bueno !

 

[Michael Heylin]

Sorry for not being here sooner, I have been a little bit busy.

Woody“Better than water abstraction facilities that kill millions of fry each year as they get sucked up. Not much happening about them though!”Fish screens come under the same set of proposals as weirs and fish passes, which are being consulted on by Defra at the moment under the Water Framework Directive. Angling Trust will be responding to that consultation as part of our ongoing work on the WFD.

Peter“As it is, with the; "you are either with us or agin' us" or the "you can s*d off, bu$$er off and play golf, and other such bullying comments, it is hardly surprising that some people have become less than enchanted with the whole thing.”I should point out that no one acting as a spokesman for Angling Trust has said either of those things, nor would they.

Woody“I'm talking about their main reason for wanting to be ONE BODY.”The main reason for needing one body is that three of the formative bodies had overheads in running each organisation, the other bodies were run by volunteers. Three lots of overhead will be reduced to one lot of overhead and leave more money available to campaign for angling and anglers.That is the economic argument.

The political argument is simply that one body representing all angling will be listened to more consistently and with more care by more organisations that the previous five bodies all wanting their say, mostly in order to promote their own body.

“"Control of nuisance predators" Hmmm, won't PAC have something to say?”PAC has already spoken to me and has been given assurances that this relates to cormorants, goosanders, seals, mink, otters, signal crayfish and mitten crabs amongst others.

Guys, at the end of the day each of you will decide whether to support Angling Trust or not. Just what is the point of being at each other’s throats over the issue? If the five organisations had started from there it would never have happened.

I have always taken the view that unity at a national level would be much easier to achieve than unity at a local level, where we need game fishers, coarse anglers and sea anglers all working together to deliver better fisheries and more fish. The sooner anglers realise that they all share a common goal and that what joins them is greater than what separates them, the sooner this great sport will start to make real progress in the modern world.

The groups behind Angling Trust realised some time ago that we are stronger together than apart. You chose whether to join or not.

 

[Greg Whitehead]

Good to see you back mate. Keep up the good work all of you. There are some as appreciate how much you've given and how much you continue to give. Let's hope we all get where we need to be.