A challenge to anyone......

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

I am throwing down a challenge to anyone that feels they can achieve it, the challenge is simple ;

Make a good ,reasoned case why anglers should NOT join the new Angling Trust , please use logic and sound argument , not opinions or speculative thoughts.

P.S "Because you do not choose to" is not a convincing reason, the floor is yours.

 

[Gary Dolman]

I agree that a body such as the Angling Trust needs to be formed, and have no disagreement with the legal side, which stems from the excellent ACA.

Where my reticence comes from is in the lack of information regarding the people who will be running the Angling Trust. Who are they? What are their credentials? Have they a record of success in this area? I have searched their website and can find no details.

Personally if my money is ostensibly going to be contributing to their wages, I would like to have some confidence that this is not going to be just another Pseudo Quango. Plush offices & top of the line equipment do not necessarily make a successful organisation.

Personally I found the available information a little "thin" and would have preferred something more substantive. Having the right voice is more important than just having a voice.

 

[Fred Bonney]

Couldn't agree more Gary.

Although I have joined, it is probation period as far as I am concerned until October 2010

Then we shall see, if not before.

So, my warning to the Angling Trust is,before you set yourselves up in the Ivory Tower, show that you are worth it.

 

[Graham Whatmore]

If and why a person does or does not join an organisation is private and though some may give their answers and it happens to be 'no' what then eh! do they immediately come under fire because you and others think they should?

I think the subject is best dropped and left to each indivdual to make up his or her mind and maybe if this project gets off the ground the doubters may then change their minds - or not, as the case may be.

 

[Cakey]

threads like this really really piss me off.............................

 

[Tony Rocca]

Because there are far more important things in life than spending £20 on a bunch of self appointed folks who think they can say that they represent ALL anglers.

And, no one has convinced me that angling needs such a body...... its a bleedin hobby for chrisake

Good work in the past from the ACA,......... Fish legal is just an insurance policy.

Finally, blokes like you Bob, who think they are righteouss in startingsuch threads.

 

[Beecy]

What i don't get is why, when people are members of such organisations they then have to show the letters after thier name as though its some sort of qualification that sets them aside from the rest of us?

 

[Kevin Perkins]

Hmmmm

In one of my surprisingly more lucid moments a while ago, I wrote this piece:

NUBA

Not another posh restaurant in London, but yet another organisation thought up and designed to unite all of us anglers together, there'll be a stampede to join, I don't doubt. No one asked me what I want, but I'm going to tell you anyway. I want to pay one subscription per year of £50 for a Fishing Permit that runs for twelve months from the day I buy it.

Let's assume one million anglers pay up, the resultant funding of £50m would be allocated as follows: <ul>[*]The organisation that collects the money pays the EA the £24 to cover my Rod Licence, those amounts collected are paid over, say quarterly. - £24m [*]£2 per FP goes to the ACA. - £2m. [*]£4 per FP goes into admin costs - £4m. [*]£3 per FP goes into a fighting fund to raise the profile of angling until holders of the FP are given as much clout in the media as organisations such as the RSPB and RSPCA. - £3m. [*]£3 per FP goes towards funding to encourage youngsters into the sport - £3m. [*]£7 per FP to be made available as grants for improving access to fisheries, additional car parking and toilet facilities and bank clearance schemes - £7m [*]£7 per FP is made available as funding to clubs who will make their day ticket waters available to FP holders - £7m [/list]

Still think it makes sense. and I would join an organisation like this is a flash, but is it where AT is going.......?

 

[trev (100M bronze)]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Beecy (RAC) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

What i don't get is why, when people are members of such organisations they then have to show the letters after thier name as though its some sort of qualification that sets them aside from the rest of us?</blockquote>
Hence the reason why I like people to know I can swim 100 meters in my pjs

 

[Beecy]

ahh, but thats different Trev !

yours is a real achievment and one you have every right to boast and feel proud of. Youve got off your arse and done something, not just filled out a form and wrote a cheque

 

[Lord Paul]

Same here

 

[keith rid]

if some one is appointed as a say , fisheries scientist or fishery officer, I would want to see that they are qualified for the job....hence the letters after their name....anyone can look these up and see what they mean.

 

[keith rid]

quick query...does it cover all of GB or only england and wales? No point in me joining if not!

 

[Wolfman Woody]

OK Bob, but pin back your eyelids and take no notice or stupid critics like the "Bad One".

Yes, I wanted to see a single organisation that could take on Whitehall and P*TA and challenge RSPB or anyone else that threatened angling's continued existance. It would merely be a PR and lobbying body staffed by experts in that field, not necessarily anglers. In fact, anglers would be last on the staffing list.

The new body would reach out to encourage EVERY angler throughout the land to join and would not put cost in the way, so a membership or £3-£5 maximum would be required. All other services, match organisation, coaching, fisheries consultatives, funding, fighting polluters would be carried on by the then existing (now defunct) bodies. My hope would have been that at least 50% of anglers would eventually become members - approx £6m - £10m per year - just to fight our corner in parliament and elsewhere.

------------------------------------------------------------

However, what happens when a committee designs something new? You get a Frankenstein's monster.

My fear is genuine. It is that this new organisation is promising far too much and some of its promises will fall by the wayside. In trying to be all things to all anglers, it wants to charge £20, four times more than my maximum and this will disuade far more anglers than it will encourage, unfortunately.

What was wrong with going for a minimal amount and then anglers could still join the other organisations if they wished - ACA, NFA, NFSA, SAA, NAFAC, VHF, B&Q etc. I don't know, but the 'leaders' have now decided.

And what of the professional LOBBYISTS and PUBLIC RELATIONS people I had in mind? Well, not one of the current board is qualified in that department and to my knowledge, no-one will be engaged for the time being. They may come on board later in 2010, but I just wonder if some of the existing board will have become a little too comfortable by then with their feet firmly under the boardroom table.

Since many comparisons are being made to the RSPB it would be interesting to learn just how many 'professional' lobbyists they employ? Yes I know they've been going longer, but you have to set some targets as priorities, the main one being REPRESENTATION to Parliament. I still don't feel that this is going to be achieved in the short term at least and the only reason AT is getting so much press coverage at the moment is thanks to Martin Salter and a few other supporters - it hasn't yet made the 6 o'clock news, has it?

It doesn't end there, but that is my chief worry. They want £20 per year for amateurs.

(I don't mean to insult members of the board whose intentions I'm sure are good, but they just do not have the required accreditation for doing the dirty job that they want to get into.)

 

[Kevin Perkins]

Jeff

Valid points, succinctly made if I may say. We already have a pool of highly qualified fisheries officers, reasearch scientists et al employed by the EA that we already pay forvia our rod licence fees. Are we making sure they are working for our best interests?

Perhaps it is just a PR/lobbying machinethat we need to fund, andwe won't get thatwith only a couple of hundred anglers paying £20 a year

 

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

Gary, I think you have raised an important point, a point I will raise with Angling Trust.

Fred, We have come to the same conclusions , so are in agreement, thus far.

Graham, My intention was to illustrate just how hard it is to make a case for anglers NOT to become members....that is all, this is not a witch hunt, and I have no intentions of making it one.

As for the rest of you, well you have failed miserably, with the odd exception, most of you have resorted to having a personal digat me for asking a pertinent question on an angling forum, I am sorry if this thread upsets you.

Nice try Woody, I have fears about Angling Trust just like you, but it is too early to condemn, criticize or come to anyconclusions just yet, the Trust is just over 2 weeks old after all.

I apologise again if any of you are offended, but in my defence , I think some of you are very touchy,my intention was/is to illustrate a point and make anglers look at things from a different angle, a different view point , that is all.

If any of you wish to make this a personal issue, feel free to e-mail me.

 

[Cakey]

"My intention was to illustrate just how hard it is to make a case for anglers NOT to become members"

its just as hard to make a a case for anglers to become members !

 

[Beecy]

" Graham, My intention was to illustrate just how hard it is to make a case for anglers NOT to become members....that is all "

its not hard, its easy......... 20 quid !

A better way would have been to put a pound or two onto the nextrod license so every one who buys one gets the first years menbership on a trial basis.

then, when the thing has run for a year, you can make your own mind up if its worth paying £20 for the next year

 

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Cakey wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

"My intention was to illustrate just how hard it is to make a case for anglers NOT to become members"

its just as hard to make a a case for anglers to become members !</blockquote>
<blockquote class=quoteheader>Beecy (RAC) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

" Graham, My intention was to illustrate just how hard it is to make a case for anglers NOT to become members....that is all "

its not hard, its easy......... 20 quid !

A better way would have been to put a pound or two onto the nextrod license so every one who buys one gets the first years menbership on a trial basis.

then, when the thing has run for a year, you can make your own mind up if its worth paying £20 for the next year</blockquote>
http://www.anglingtrust.net/page.asp?section=30&sectionTitle=About+Us

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Bob, I do not take offense at all, if someone wishes to defend that position then fair enough. But you say to Graham "My intention was to illustrate just how hard it is to make a case for anglers NOT to become members."

It's not hard for me at all to find a reason. The reason stares at you blatantly - they lost the plot.

Now I'm not just being offhanded in saying that, but the intention was always to provide a first class lobbying and PR support role for ALL anglers. Yet, having been created there are NO professional people on board in those roles and not likely to be for another year at least (so I believe from a board member).

And the price, as I say, £20 will deter more anglers (Beecy above for one) than it will attract. I can see how they could justify that charge with all the services they have now incorporated into the new body from all the old ones, but most anglers would probably not have wanted those.

I also understand what some people are saying about paying your money and shouting from the inside, but those in charge may well assume that because I've paid my £20 I am now fully in favour of their chosen direction. I just hope that one or two are reading my misgivings (I will write to Mike Heylin in time, I promise), but I fear that if I shout from either side, in or out, it will be like shouting in a force 10 storm by the side of a thunderous waterfall.

PS. I'm not touchy, btw, I just like taking the peace out of Phil, who deserves nothing less.

------------------------------------

Kevin, Yes the EA does provide excellent Fisheries Officers and research facilities, but they do need holding in check from time to time. Fortunately, in the Thames Region we have the TFCC and other river based consultancies that do try to hold them to task. However, the TFCC, although once part of NAFAC (now AT), is wholly funded by the EA Thames Region Fisheries Dept. Strange, but it does seem to work, we provide feedback on their efforts amongst other things.