If the AT were free a charity free to join

geoffmaynard · Dec 31, 2010

A couple of ideas off the cuff, without thinking too much about them:

How about if membership to the AT was free to join? With donations gratefully accepted and one or two employees working as fund raisers as per charities.

In fact, why not make it into a charity? I think a lot of people about to join baulk when they realise it's not. Then pressure the EA to add a donate to charity option to their license sale forms, as they do (very successfully) in the USA. Charities get tax breaks and loads of free advertising.

Membership numbers would in theory explode and funds would probably stay at least the same but possibly skyrocket.

stikflote · Dec 31, 2010

they still aint getting any more of my money, charity or not,
i gave em a chance and they ruined it

Peter Jacobs · Dec 31, 2010

I thoughT that the main reason why the S&TA decided against conjoining with the Angling Trust (ATr) was because the ATr didn't want anything to do with charitable status.

Given that we have over 100k members all paying around £45.00 per annum I think that the S&TA have got their busines plan just about right.

That Coarse anglers are loathe to part with a meesly £25.00 a year is testament to their lack of support for their pass-time and their cavalier attitude, I'm alright pull up the ladder Jack!

I was against the ATr right from the outset, and I still don't like the secretive manner in which they used member organisation(s) fees to set-up without any real consultation, until after the fact, or is that FACT?

That said, I joined, and have given a couple of donations as well, and will continue as a member for at least another year. I still believe that the ATr have something good to offer and am prepared to support them for a while longer.

richiekelly · Dec 31, 2010

stikflote said:
they still aint getting any more of my money, charity or not,
i gave em a chance and they ruined it

none of mine either

geoffmaynard · Dec 31, 2010

So you two, despite being committed and concerned anglers, are not members. And I should think there are many like you. But would you put your name down as a member if there were no costs involved? I would think you probably would, because there's no reason not to. This applies to the majority of anglers. So gaining membership numbers and gaining funds are two very different things. By linking the two, the AT work at a disadvantage. They could have 100s of 1000s members inside a year and could then rightly claim to be representing those members when approaching politicos etc when lobbying on our behalf.

Jeff Woodhouse · Dec 31, 2010

geoffmaynard said:
How about if membership to the AT was free to join? With donations gratefully accepted and one or two employees working as fund raisers as per charities.

I like it - blue sky thinking!

Now if you see any little piggy-wiggies flying across said blue sky, your idea might work.

Seriously, I can agree with Peter to some degree and I too had my complaints - fees too high, why change the ACA, why the need fro all to join the one ... etc. However, as I've said too many times, I will give it three years (this year being the last - or maybe not.) It's the only show in town and if it fails we'll have nothing at all and not likely to have for at least another 10 years perhaps. In that time, heaven help us for having no representation at all.

At the same time, I can agree or at least sympathise with many posters in the other popular thread as to why they have dropped out or haven't joined. I couldn't see why the ACA, NAFAC, the SAA, or NFA (and others) couldn't retain their own identity and pay a fee to be included around the table, as with FACT. Seemed logical to me, that and having a low fee of just £5 so I could turn around to all the moaning, tight-fisted, grumblers and say "Cough up a miserable fiver you tight wadd, it's less than the price of a packet of fags to be represented." and then hopefully most of the million or so of us would join.

Still, let's see what the new year brings, eh?

Lord Paul of Sheffield · Dec 31, 2010

The main problem is angler pay to have the rigth to fish - then pay to fish

The liecnce need to ne abloished and repalced by a need to join the ATr as a right to be able to fish - then see the numbers and the money increase

904_cannon · Dec 31, 2010

IMO they got it right with FACT, then went that last mile too far.

Paul Boote · Dec 31, 2010

Peter Jacobs said:
I thoughT that the main reason why the S&TA decided against conjoining with the Angling Trust (ATr) was because the ATr didn't want anything to do with charitable status.

Given that we have over 100k members all paying around £45.00 per annum I think that the S&TA have got their busines plan just about right.

That Coarse anglers are loathe to part with a meesly £25.00 a year is testament to their lack of support for their pass-time and their cavalier attitude, I'm alright pull up the ladder Jack!

I was against the ATr right from the outset, and I still don't like the secretive manner in which they used member organisation(s) fees to set-up without any real consultation, until after the fact, or is that FACT?

That said, I joined, and have given a couple of donations as well, and will continue as a member for at least another year. I still believe that the ATr have something good to offer and am prepared to support them for a while longer.

The dear old "S&T".

Once, years ago, I gave lots of talks to that ouftfit's regional branches, at no charge, just travel expenses - about my extensive fishing and my take on fishing (Spotties, my pretty-damned-good flytying skills and ideas on the same [then and now], about Spotties and freshwater sailfins and other non-spotty, fishy sporting stuff, both here and abroad, that I had "done" along the way) - even took some of its Committee and what soon I soon found to be really hard-ball "Heavy Friends" (awfully "naice" folk that I had known a good twenty years and who trusted, who were mostly retired and flush with loot and who really should have known better) to some of my hard-travelled, hard-found, then virtually unknown, world-class spottie-fishing spots [on their well-rehearsed, perfectly charming, wide-eyed insistence], then got comprehensively and not so charmingly poo-ed upon.

Nope, sorry and all that, despite being the immaculately well-educated (at the Right Place, with all the Right People etc) English / British Gentleman that I was raised to be and stlll am [old-style Real Thing]: NEVER trust a fundraising and ever-networking Soc, Assoc, Trust, or, for that matter, a Charm-Lite Spinner of a Tor............

stikflote · Jan 1, 2011

GEOFF,
i was a member of ATr, but i decide not to renew my subscription,

richiekelly · Jan 1, 2011

geoffmaynard said:
So you two, despite being committed and concerned anglers, are not members. And I should think there are many like you. But would you put your name down as a member if there were no costs involved? I would think you probably would, because there's no reason not to. This applies to the majority of anglers. So gaining membership numbers and gaining funds are two very different things. By linking the two, the AT work at a disadvantage. They could have 100s of 1000s members inside a year and could then rightly claim to be representing those members when approaching politicos etc when lobbying on our behalf.

geoff

i was a member but am not now,i would not join even if was free as the ATs does nothing to represent my branch of angling,they have courted a very small part of angling to gain members and ignored a large group of anglers who's representation was doing what they were supposed to, why i dont know.

where would the money come from without membership fees? i doubt if many outside of angling have heard of the ATs as opposed to say the RSPB who are known to the general public.

904_cannon · Jan 1, 2011

You sure about 100,000 S&TA members Peter?
They might represent 100k through individual and club/association membership but that is a far cry from having 100k individual members.

NAFAC used to represent 400,000 anglers, I'm sure they would have liked 400,000 individuals

(and had no payed staff)

S&TA currently has 650 individual and 35 club membership in Wales,(from a S&TA web document) I would imagine that is roughly mirrored throughout the UK.

Peter Jacobs · Jan 1, 2011

john m h said:
You sure about 100,000 S&TA members Peter? They might represent 100k through individual and club/association membership but that is a far cry from having 100k individual members.

From the S&TA website:

"S&TA has 100,000 individual and club members throughout the UK within a countrywide Branch network. A small professional staff is based in London supported by many volunteers throughout the country. We have excellent contacts in both Houses of Parliament, the devolved UK Governments and with senior officials in the European Commission."

As I said John, the S&TA seem to have the right business model regardless of how we split hairs over numbers.
I am as unhappy about the apparent failures within the ATr as anyone else and I can certainly see where you and the rest of the SAA feel as if you've all been collectively stabbed in the back after handing over your hard-won readies to the ATr.

But, as was pointed out to me a couple of years ago, it is all we have got, so lets try to support it while we can.

If it is doomed to failure then I still think that an 'alliance' with one of the bigger, older and apparently wiser organisations would be a good step to take for us coarse anglers.

I'll be renewing my membership this month and I urge all concerned anglers to do likewise.

stikflote · Jan 1, 2011

the blanker said:
geoff

i was a member but am not now,i would not join even if was free as the ATs does nothing to represent my branch of angling,they have courted a very small part of angling to gain members and ignored a large group of anglers who's representation was doing what they were supposed to, why i dont know.

where would the money come from without membership fees? i doubt if many outside of angling have heard of the ATs as opposed to say the RSPB who are known to the general public.

A lot of Anglers, have not heard of angling trust either, a lot of them do not take the angling mags ,and some do not read the leaflet from E A with licence,,this is from what i asked my club members
i gave them all a ATr leaflet of now 30 members only two of us were members of ATr,

904_cannon · Jan 1, 2011

I doubt any of the current Board members have the balls to do what needs to be done Peter.
And as I said on the other thread, I doubt there is the cash to do it.

Tee-Cee · Jan 1, 2011

Do the ATr management realise that'problems'exist(with the current stucture of the organisation)for many Coarse fishermen or are they happy with the current state of play as far as membership is concerned?

I renewed my membership again late last year without really knowing if I was wasting my money because I want fishermen-long after I'm gone-to have a sport to be proud of with a professional body protecting the interests of all fishermen.....

This thread is one of many similar threads over the last 12 months that has questioned the direction ATr is taking with some supporting it and some against(for various reasons!)but they never seem to go anywhere.......just a(relatively)few interested anglers giving views or opinions...............and never(?)have I seen any comment or explanation from anyone within ATr to answer or at least join in the debate(s)..

Does anyone know what is the projected membership figures ATr are looking for in 2011 and how they are planning to induce new members to join?
From what I read on FM it seems 2011 will see as many leave as join which cannot bode well for the future-ATr will never be any form of force if it carries on in that manner!!

BUT DO THE ATr MANAGEMENT take this on board-are they worried??

richiekelly · Jan 1, 2011

Tee-Cee said:
Do the ATr management realise that'problems'exist(with the current stucture of the organisation)for many Coarse fishermen or are they happy with the current state of play as far as membership is concerned?

I renewed my membership again late last year without really knowing if I was wasting my money because I want fishermen-long after I'm gone-to have a sport to be proud of with a professional body protecting the interests of all fishermen.....

This thread is one of many similar threads over the last 12 months that has questioned the direction ATr is taking with some supporting it and some against(for various reasons!)but they never seem to go anywhere.......just a(relatively)few interested anglers giving views or opinions...............and never(?)have I seen any comment or explanation from anyone within ATr to answer or at least join in the debate(s)..

Does anyone know what is the projected membership figures ATr are looking for in 2011 and how they are planning to induce new members to join?
From what I read on FM it seems 2011 will see as many leave as join which cannot bode well for the future-ATr will never be any form of force if it carries on in that manner!!

BUT DO THE ATr MANAGEMENT take this on board-are they worried??

it would seem that they are happy with "the current state of play" as the question of getting answers from the ATr has been asked before on here and nothing was forthcoming, perhaps as long as there are enough members to keep paying the bills they will just be happy to lurch along as they have been doing.
i would love to see an organisation with some clout representing all anglers and would pay double the current amount If i could be sure that something was being done to safegaurd my grandchildrens fishing,at the moment i cant see what they have to offer new members never mind existing ones.
i think that membership of the ATr has already peaked and the ATr have realised this hence the liason with kayak anglers but from what i read on the kayak anglers forum[and they seem a decent lot] they will not make up the shortfall of members leaving.

IF THERE IS ANYONE FROM THE ANGLING TRUST READING THIS PLEASE GIVE US SOME ANSWERS BEFORE ITS TO LATEAND WE HAVE NOTHING.

stu_the_blank · Jan 2, 2011

the blanker said:
IF THERE IS ANYONE FROM THE ANGLING TRUST READING THIS PLEASE GIVE US SOME ANSWERS BEFORE ITS TO LATEAND WE HAVE NOTHING.

Blanker,

They wouldn’t answer points on their own Forum so you have two chances of them answering anything on this one, no hope and Bob Hope! (Showing my age!)

On the main thread, my opinion is that while it is left to individuals to join, apart from a hard core of committed anglers (who the ATr seem to want to push out, too awkward to deal with people who have an opinion!) most can’t be ar**d, no matter if the fees are £25 (let’s face it, not a fortune) or nothing.

I think that the only business model which might work is to convince clubs, organisations etc to automatically join their members. To do this the fee structure would have to be re-visited. The other people who should be supporting the concept are the Trade. It needs somebody to inspire and sell the dream. Instead, we are ’assured’!

The current management of the ATr have set a course which is failing and seem incapable of doing anything about it. They lack passion, political nous, a vision, in fact anything that might inspire the troops. Pay your money, shut up and put up with what you are given.

Stu

Ray Daywalker Clarke · Jan 2, 2011

I would rather see the ACA form again. Then see the rod licence money go to them.

This way, as licence paying anglers we have a say. We have a say who sits on the Committee, and not have a bunch who only look after their own interest, and each other.

This way we also have the money to buy waters across the country, and have cheap day ticket fishing, the money goes back into the waters and to the ACA.

We would then have control of our sport, rather than it be in the hands of those who dont care about all aspects of angling.

Putting a levi on the rod licence is a NO NO, you might as well put the money on an open fire, as giving any levi to the ATr would go up in smoke.

alan whittington · Jan 2, 2011

The ATr dont give a flying fig about anglers who are already members(got their money etc),they are trying to coerce match anglers and their clubs(for more money),as for plans for getting more members,i asked 18 months ago what were the trust using to tempt members and was told on FM that i/we shouldnt need luring and should join for the good of the sport,ive now been a member for appx. 15 months and will not rejoin later this year,they havnt done that much and have actually gone against my own wishes and hopes for the trust,even if it was free it would be poor so therefore no i wouldnt join/rejoin,i see the trust going in similar fation to the NFA,an organisation devoted to the running of matches and little else,now ive nothing against match fishing(as i did it myself for many years),but there are a lot more anglers outside of of this facet and they need a voice too.

If the AT were free a charity free to join

Content Editor

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Content Editor

Moaning Marlow Meldrew

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

alan whittington

Guest