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

[thecrow]

They perfectly have the right to take a vote from their members and formulate their official stance from their members vote.

Yes they do, what they do not have the right to do is carry that official stance forward into discussions with government claiming to represent all anglers views.

 

[no-one in particular]

Yes they do, what they do not have the right to do is carry that official stance forward into discussions with government claiming to represent all anglers views.

I don't know why your so bothered about this Crow. Its a bit disingenuous granted but, I am not so sure they do this much and everyone talks up their game a bit given the chance. They probably had to do this as they struggled to get recognized and it worked. I am sure many of us have stretched the truth a bit to get ahead. And I am sure everyone involved in any decision making are aware of the actual membership numbers of the AT, whatever claims are made. So, I give them a bit of latitude in this respect. It doesn't bother me.

What I don't understand and often surprises me- is a lot is made of this being represented thing and yet, those that do make a big thing out it; don't seem bothered that they have no representation.

I would have though someone such as yourself, a keen angler, lots of ideas about how you want fishing to be, would really want to be represented. The angling trust was made for anglers like you.

 

[thecrow]

I don't know why you get so hot and bothered about this. Its a bit disingenuous granted but, I am not so sure they do this much and everyone talks up their game a bit given the chance. They probably had to do this as they struggled to get recognized and it worked. I am sure many of us have stretched the truth a bit to get ahead. And I am sure everyone involved in any decision making are aware of the actual membership numbers of the AT, whatever claims are made. So, I give them a bit of latitude in this respect. It doesn't bother me.

What I don't understand and often surprises me- is a lot is made of this being represented thing and yet, those that do make a big thing out it; don't seem bothered that they have no representation.

I don't get "hot and bothered" as you put it I merely post things as I see them.

So even you are now saying that the trust are not truthful? "Stretching the truth" not really the thing to do when you have the word trust in your name.

Its the trust that started with the "representing all anglers" they don't and never will although they continue to claim that they do. Why that surprises you from an organisation that according to you "stretches the truth" I have no idea.

I can tell you who struggled to get recognised, specialist anglers that's who, the trust had nothing on their site about then when the trust was formed despite taking £10,000 of their money when they set themselves up.
It has changed now and for those that think the trust don't read things on forums it only changed after much complaining on here.

When you say "whatever claims are made" does that mean you believe they have been less than truthful about membership numbers? it reads that way to me. As you say you "give them a bit of latitude" I on the other hand particularly when paying money would not.

None members are just that for a lot of reasons, a lot that I know don't want to be represented by them and for the trust to claim that they do is untrue, I would go so far as to say they do not even represent the views of most anglers and that's why anglers don't join.

 

[no-one in particular]

For Ray, listen Ray I don't know much about this survey or much else so, this is just guess work. I think asking all anglers for their opinion probably just confused the issue a lot. I suspect a lot of differing opinions were given. Trying to formulate a official stance was probably too difficult. And/or being a survey, probably did not get that many triers. maybe, they just couldn't work out a proper stance from this survey and just went stum. But, they should come back with something.
And I think a official stance should be based on members views, not everyone else.
I am not saying that non members, don't have a view, or should have a right to a view or that they are not important, of course they are; just if its the official stance of the AT then it should be only their members stance. they have paid to join so, its their club.

 

[maverick 7]

For what it's worth.....I have always felt that the Angling Trust is nothing more than a Job Creation Scheme....if of course, I am right in assuming the representatives of that organisation gets paid for whatever it is they do.

...and until the "Trust" gains mine by doing something that makes me sit up and take notice...my money will remain in my pocket.

Maverick

 

[Ray Wood 1]

For Ray, listen Ray I don't know much about this survey or much else so, this is just guess work. I think asking all anglers for their opinion probably just confused the issue a lot. I suspect a lot of differing opinions were given. Trying to formulate a official stance was probably too difficult. And/or being a survey, probably did not get that many triers. maybe, they just couldn't work out a proper stance from this survey and just went stum. But, they should come back with something.
And I think a official stance should be based on members views, not everyone else.
I am not saying that non members, don't have a view, or should have a right to a view or that they are not important, of course they are; just if its the official stance of the AT then it should be only their members stance. they have paid to join so, its their club.

Mark,
I am listening, quite right the AT could form a stance on the rivers close season via it's membership and that would be fine. The problem arises if they then took that stance forward as the stance of anglers per sae. If they only wanted to base their stance on membership of the AT only, why facilitate a debate on fishingmagic? They obviously wanted to get a wider view on just what anglers wanted in regard to the rivers close season.

Well they got those views both on here and on the trusts own website both for and against any change to the existing rivers close season. Eleven months later the very same anglers that were asked for their views are in the dark regarding just where the AT are on this issue.

I read somewhere that they are in talks with the EA regarding both the rivers close season and rod license fees. That would suggest that they have or already had formed a stance and that they were putting that stance forward to the EA for change. Why else enter talks if they did not want change? The AT hardly work with transparency, I am unaware of any further information being given to its membership on this issue. My member clubs have been given no update, those who were asked for views have been given no update.

Personally I am not happy with this situation, I do not trust organisation's that work behind closed doors, I don't trust organisation's that are un-elected or answerable to its membership.

Are we expected to just sit around waiting for this un-elected body to tell us that the rivers close season is abolished or changed or do you think an update is in order. That is my question, I did not start this topic to go over the pros and cons of the rivers close season it was started to ask for some answers from the AT on a subject they asked us to give our views on. I don't think that is to much to ask do you?

Regards
Ray

 

[thecrow]

The opening batsman that kicked off this debate is very noticeable by his absence even though he has been on here very recently.


Martin Salter opens what is likely to be the biggest debate in angling, yes it has been debated many times before, but now it’s getting serious...

 

[metalmicky1944]

If we do away with closed season we deprive the our Eastern Block residents in this country their three months of trouble free unlicensed fishing for their dinner on our river banks.
I'm all in favour of the closed season but as an ex club bailiff I can count on one hand the times I have seen a Severn-Trent bailiff or official on the banks of the Trent between March 15th to June 15th over the years.
But I have pulled out of the river more submerged long lines with over 100 baited hooks on them stretched across the width of the river overnight, or observed groups of men with a dozen or so rods in the water drinking Spotchek cans of larger round a camp fire on the bank.
For the closed season to work it needs to be observed properly and policed along the banks correctly at the moment that is not happening

 

[The bad one]

I'm all in favour of the closed season but as an ex club bailiff I can count on one hand the times I have seen a Severn-Trent bailiff or official on the banks of the Trent between March 15th to June 15th over the years.
But I have pulled out of the river more submerged long lines with over 100 baited hooks on them stretched across the width of the river overnight, or observed groups of men with a dozen or so rods in the water drinking Spotchek cans of larger round a camp fire on the bank.
For the closed season to work it needs to be observed properly and policed along the banks correctly at the moment that is not happening

I take it you reported all of this a) to the EA and b) the police for the criminal offence it is. And you have all the log numbers of the reported incidents? You then went on to asked for feedback using the log numbers on what actions both took? And if little or nothing was done, you asked your club Secretary to make the strongest representations possible to the Head of the EA locally and the Chief Constable of the Service in the area it happened did you?

 

[martinsalter]

Ray. There is no climb down, U Turn , prevarication or whatever by myself or the Angling Trust. The EA, who will make the final decision, have agreed that the current situation is in need of a review. That review has started, albeit fairly recently due to staff shortages and pressure of work, and a number of studies and papers are being assembled. We shall be meeting again with them shortly, together with anglers from both sides of the debate, to see where they have got to. A number of (non commercial) angling clubs have contacted us and offered their waters for use in any pilot projects the EA fisheries teams may wish to adopt. We will update anglers once we know more. All I would say is let's not be afraid of looking at the evidence. Cheers Martin

 

[black kettle]

No surprise at the response from Mr Salter which pretty much conformed my own suspicions. Seeing as there has obviously been a fair bit going off behind the scenes already, even though "staff shortages" have held up proceedings apparently, (smiley face on a bloke who came down with the last shower of rain) I would like to see a show of hands from anyone outside the AT ivory towers who knew anything about this? None AT members were asked to enter into a debate over this issue by the AT via their agent Mr Salter and many aired their opinions including me. Now it appears the EA, who have previously gone on record to officially state that there would be no change in the close season until scientific evidence was produced which proved nothing detrimental would happen to the river environment by lifting/altering the rivers close season, are now saying that the current situation is in need of a review? The BIG question is; What has happened in the world of wild fish stocks and wildlife all along our rivers to make the EA think there is a need for a review?? I would like the AT or the EA to explain what has actually changed which has made such a review necessary? Martin Salter might like to tell us all what has changed in this regard?

Call me picky, but does anyone else think that this looks like a done deal and the so called FM debate was just part of a smoke screen? Why absolutely no mention of this until Ray Wood started turning over a few stones to see what what laying beneath them??

It will be interesting, if not highly predictable, to learn who the clubs are that are offering their venues for "trials"? And seeing that the EA has gone on record to state scientific evidence was needed before any change could be made and that particular statement has been rubber stamped by government, is the EA or Mr Salter or anyone inside the AT ivory towers going to tell us who exactly will be carrying out this scientific survey and more importantly, is the cash required to pay for it coming out of my rod license fee?? I pay my license fee for fisheries work NOT for anything that I see as detrimental to wild fish stocks and river fisheries.

Furthermore Mr Salter and the AT, is the EA and the AT going to consult all the wildlife and conservation organisations who also have vested interests in seeing the rivers close season maintained? Are these organisations, who represent millions of their own members, like the RSPB for instance, going to be invited to sit around the table and take part in any scientific research to ascertain if wildlife will be impacted by this exercise?

I see this as a major move towards ostracizing UK angling from the rest of our sporting counterparts who all revere and embrace their close seasons as being of paramount importance for the preservation of their quarry. If we allow this to go forward and reduce our own sport to a pastime where we pursue fish relentlessly allowing them no rest bite at all what does that make us? What other sporting pastime pursues its quarry relentlessly offering it no quarter what so ever?

Shame on the Angling Trust for instigating this. I am so very glad I never wanted to join their ranks or be a part of dragging river angling towards its darkest days.

Regards,

BK.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Ray. There is no climb down, U Turn , prevarication or whatever by myself or the Angling Trust. The EA, who will make the final decision, have agreed that the current situation is in need of a review. That review has started, albeit fairly recently due to staff shortages and pressure of work, and a number of studies and papers are being assembled. We shall be meeting again with them shortly, together with anglers from both sides of the debate, to see where they have got to. A number of (non commercial) angling clubs have contacted us and offered their waters for use in any pilot projects the EA fisheries teams may wish to adopt. We will update anglers once we know more. All I would say is let's not be afraid of looking at the evidence. Cheers Martin

Hi Martin,
Thanks for the reply, on what grounds have the EA decided that the current rivers close season needs to be reviewed? You talk about evidence, what evidence is that if I may ask? As far as I am aware any change to the current close season on our rivers was to be based on scientific evidence, have the AT come up with some? You say that there will be a meeting with them shortly along with anglers from both sides who will they be? Will it be the so called named anglers who called for this change which would include Steve Pope, Dave Harrell and Bob Roberts all of who have vested commercial interests in seeing the cs gone? Who will be representing the retention of the rivers CS? I only ask so that we have some idea of who the anglers from both sides might be so that we can all see that fair play and a level playing field is on offer.

In my near 70 years on this planet I have witnessed many man made mistakes regarding our wild life and its enviroment, should our rivers CS go or be altered this will be another one. Of course those who are commercially driven will not care one iota, they may hide behind a change of heart or whatever excuse they think will fool the majority of us, they do not fool me for one moment. Some were anglers I respected, that respect no longer exists!

Kind regards
Ray

 

[bennygesserit]

The AT do represent us in so much as they are the place any organisation would go to if they want the view of anglers.

Self appointed yes but by a number of anglers , still the minority though , but more than you think when you take club membership into account.

As they are , probably , the only game in town then if you want an influence on this subject then I am afraid you have to join the AT and campaign To get your view across , after all the AT have a right , if not a perfect one, to campaign as they see fit.

 

[thecrow]

The AT do represent us in so much as they are the place any organisation would go to if they want the view of anglers.

Very true Benny, my problem with that is that they don't represent the views of most anglers, if they did surely those anglers including me would join/rejoin.

Anglers don't have to join the AT to get their view across it can and has been done from the outside, at their beginning a lot of money came from specialist anglers, those anglers were ignored by the trust for a long time and only after many debates on places like this did they do anything about it.

The post from MS merely confirms what I have thought for a long time, the trust exists for the trust they are not open with what goes on but worst of all they are not to be trusted.

 

[river wanderer]

Can't you still fish on a river in close season as long as you are only using worm as a hook bait?. I may have been informed wrong about this so would appreciate being shown in the right direction.

 

[Craig Hunt]

Very true Benny, my problem with that is that they don't represent the views of most anglers, if they did surely those anglers including me would join/rejoin.

Anglers don't have to join the AT to get their view across it can and has been done from the outside, at their beginning a lot of money came from specialist anglers, those anglers were ignored by the trust for a long time and only after many debates on places like this did they do anything about it.

The post from MS merely confirms what I have thought for a long time, the trust exists for the trust they are not open with what goes on but worst of all they are not to be trusted.

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.

 

[greenie62]

Can't you still fish on a river in close season as long as you are only using worm as a hook bait?...

In short NO!

However - it depends where you are fishing - and what for - subject to local Bye-Laws!
For example - where I started fishing on the Severn in mid-Wales, you could fish for Trout with worm during the Coarse close season, provided you didn't use a float. Occasionally you might accidently catch coarse species but these were to be released as quickly and carefully as possible!
On the mid-upper Dee in N.Wales, you are not allowed to use maggots - at any time!

Always check your local bye-laws!

Tight Lines!

 

[no-one in particular]

I understand Martin Salter's point, it can take an awful long time to get meetings like this underway especially when dealing with several organizations. I have been in this position myself and it can be a very difficult, sometimes impossible exercise to undertake..

I don't think it is a case of mistrusting the AT. It can take a lot of time to assimilate a lot of different opinions and a lot of information and organize these meetings but, I agree with Ray,; some more information and up-dates would not have gone amiss.

The world changes and all laws and legislation should be reviewed every so often. The close season is no exception. To see if there is a better way for the sport and the environment.

It seems to me this review has been conducted fairly well. Consultations with lots of different organizations and those with a direct and a indirect interest. Such a consultation should include those with a commercial interest and the angling trust. And the AT have solicited opinion outside their membership which they did not have to do.

The AT have a good membership base of many varied interested parties including clubs and individual members of all types of anglers so they represent a good cross section of the angling community, no other organization I know of can do that.

It would be impossible to include directly the million or so organizations with one member each !

That's always going to be the problem for the EA or any Government organization when they are reviewing any angling matter. Outside the AT there is very little proper representation of a good cross section of the angling community that I know of. Still at least all those that took part in this survey are being represented by the AT. That should be some consolation.

 

[martinsalter]

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

 

[no-one in particular]

I don't get "hot and bothered" as you put it I merely post things as I see them.

So even you are now saying that the trust are not truthful? "Stretching the truth" not really the thing to do when you have the word trust in your name.

Its the trust that started with the "representing all anglers" they don't and never will although they continue to claim that they do. Why that surprises you from an organisation that according to you "stretches the truth" I have no idea.

I can tell you who struggled to get recognised, specialist anglers that's who, the trust had nothing on their site about then when the trust was formed despite taking £10,000 of their money when they set themselves up.
It has changed now and for those that think the trust don't read things on forums it only changed after much complaining on here.

When you say "whatever claims are made" does that mean you believe they have been less than truthful about membership numbers? it reads that way to me. As you say you "give them a bit of latitude" I on the other hand particularly when paying money would not.

None members are just that for a lot of reasons, a lot that I know don't want to be represented by them and for the trust to claim that they do is untrue, I would go so far as to say they do not even represent the views of most anglers and that's why anglers don't join.

We will have to agree to disagree on this Crow, I stand by my earlier post. I doubt this has often been claimed very often and its probably just a bit of chest puffing. Its a common human trait to over egg or blow up your importance, in my book, its not such a big sin. I have just seen too much of it in my life to attach any real importance to it. As your not really bothered by it but, often repeat this anyway and as "just something the way you see it" you must be looking too hard for something to peck at, as is your want. Therefore its hard for me to take your report seriously so, I will pass. .