- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Fish Legal – And Why I Think You Should Join It
Fish Legal – And Why I Think You Should Join It
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
richiekelly
Well-known member
I would join Fish Legal on its own but that is not possible in England is it .to support Fish Legal you have to join the other bit,
"As I said above, there is no organisation which protects fish. Or is there?"
Well, it could be easily argued that this organisation protects fish and fishing . . . . watch this video Rod and let me have your thoughts
Watch our Video - The Salmon & Trout Association
and:
"If there is one at all, it is Fish Legal, and it is doing great work, and deserves your support.
Join Fish Legal and help the fight for your future fishing."
An impassioned plea, and rightly so, in aid of Fish Legal* (the ACA that was . . . .) but as has been pointed out above it is not possible to be able to join the one without the other.
* Just who was it who dreamt up that ruddy silly name?
Well, it could be easily argued that this organisation protects fish and fishing . . . . watch this video Rod and let me have your thoughts
Watch our Video - The Salmon & Trout Association
and:
"If there is one at all, it is Fish Legal, and it is doing great work, and deserves your support.
Join Fish Legal and help the fight for your future fishing."
An impassioned plea, and rightly so, in aid of Fish Legal* (the ACA that was . . . .) but as has been pointed out above it is not possible to be able to join the one without the other.
* Just who was it who dreamt up that ruddy silly name?
chub_on_the_block
Well-known member
I would rather be reading about his big roach and how he caught it than another thread that promises to turn acrimonious and very long as entrenched views play off against each other all over again.
But just to throw my own contentious spanner in the works - who is this man and should i know who he is?. He doesnt seem to get involved in threads by FM regulars, so i presume he is famous?.
But just to throw my own contentious spanner in the works - who is this man and should i know who he is?. He doesnt seem to get involved in threads by FM regulars, so i presume he is famous?.
richiekelly
Well-known member
He doesn't get involved in threads on here because as far as I can see HE AINT A MEMBER, he just pops up with these things now and then, as for being famous, well I had never heard of him until he popped up on here.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
richiekelly
Well-known member
I did send money to the ACA when I was a member of that, did you? have you rejoined yet?
Fish Legal cannot be joined on its own in England but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland it can be joined separately for £25, I would sooner see £25 of my money go to FL than to a "trust" that I don't want to join.
bennygesserit
Well-known member
No I haven't rejoined yet , I probably won't to be honest but they did get 25 quid off me ( the Trust and Fish legal ).
What I have been doing , to salve my conscience frankly , is to stick a pound in every charity bucket that I encounter.
Also the other day I donated a fiver to save the Children by text after one of those harrowing adverts, they phoned me the next day asking if I wanted to sign up for direct debit, I probably will do that, I used to give a tenner a month to my kids school.
Do you actually join Fish legal ? Does that give you any benefits ?
It was an honest question , in hindsight I posted lazily without any qualifiers , I wasn't having a pop
In truth I think Rod has been pretty clever with this latest missive inasmuch as I think, regardless of an individula's views on "the Trust," that each of us truly has a soft spot for the old ACA, now rebranded as Fish Legal.
Reading back over his previous pieces, he has tried manfully to extoll the virtues of "the trust" (but seemingly having failed if the forum thread replies are any real measure)
So, he now turns to the one bright light of the whole "Trust" ensemble being the rebranded ACA or Fish Legal as we now know it.
Sadly, as we also know, it is not possible to join just the Fish Legal section . . . . . . . but full marks for a valiant effort I say
Reading back over his previous pieces, he has tried manfully to extoll the virtues of "the trust" (but seemingly having failed if the forum thread replies are any real measure)
So, he now turns to the one bright light of the whole "Trust" ensemble being the rebranded ACA or Fish Legal as we now know it.
Sadly, as we also know, it is not possible to join just the Fish Legal section . . . . . . . but full marks for a valiant effort I say
The bad one
Well-known member
Why FM keeps dishing up the same old same old drivel from this NO MARK that no one outside his own computer knows is beyond me
You'd think that by now the editorial team would have got the message, his often poorly researched berating and condescending garbage is falling rightly on deaf ears of the vast majority of “active” members on its site.
And I'll let you and the No Mark into a little secret, the Atr by this stage in its development and according to its Development Plan (which I still have a copy) should have had 300,000 individual members. It hasn't, the indis are at about 15,000 and it really needs to look at why that is?
And some of the answers usually appear after his garbage is printed by FM.
You'd think that by now the editorial team would have got the message, his often poorly researched berating and condescending garbage is falling rightly on deaf ears of the vast majority of “active” members on its site.
And I'll let you and the No Mark into a little secret, the Atr by this stage in its development and according to its Development Plan (which I still have a copy) should have had 300,000 individual members. It hasn't, the indis are at about 15,000 and it really needs to look at why that is?
And some of the answers usually appear after his garbage is printed by FM.
Graham Elliott 1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2002
- Messages
- 1,710
- Reaction score
- 0
Interesting view from the Bad one.
Presumably based on performance pay, the employees will be getting a 95% pay cut?
And if that swim is where I think it is just below the bridge..........at around £400 for a few months coarse fishing, Rod could pay for us all.
Presumably based on performance pay, the employees will be getting a 95% pay cut?
And if that swim is where I think it is just below the bridge..........at around £400 for a few months coarse fishing, Rod could pay for us all.
Last edited:
nicepix
Well-known member
If Rod Sturdy were man enough to join in on the debate that he incites then I might have some time for him. As it is he sets a debate going, takes no part in it then pops up to summarise HIS views on the input. And HIS views are no more worthy than OUR views. So why FM give him the slot is beyond me
My view is that Fish Legal has its place and that place is to represent and advise angling clubs and organisations. I do not see any place for the sister organisation Fishing Trust. Neither organisation is going to represent the individual.
My view is that Fish Legal has its place and that place is to represent and advise angling clubs and organisations. I do not see any place for the sister organisation Fishing Trust. Neither organisation is going to represent the individual.
Lord Paul of Sheffield
Well-known member
Why FM keeps dishing up the same old same old drivel from this NO MARK that no one outside his own computer knows is beyond me
You'd think that by now the editorial team would have got the message, his often poorly researched berating and condescending garbage is falling rightly on deaf ears of the vast majority of “active” members on its site.
And I'll let you and the No Mark into a little secret, the Atr by this stage in its development and according to its Development Plan (which I still have a copy) should have had 300,000 individual members. It hasn't, the indis are at about 15,000 and it really needs to look at why that is?
And some of the answers usually appear after his garbage is printed by FM.
The reason he keeps getting his articles on FM is probably because he's one of the few who still submit them
On the old FM under Graham Marsden you had to write a good article and wait your turn in the queue
Mark Wintle, Kevin Perkins, Jeff Woodhouse, Lee Swords to name a few had articles both informative and humours on FM.
And before you start o the "things change, people move on, you've looking thru rose tinted glasses" I' m just stating why I think his articles get on FM
sam vimes
Well-known member
I puzzled by this. Why does FM persist in allowing these one way opinion pieces to be posted when every thread they generate ends up locked? What exactly is the point?
Beyond that, it seems to have been no more than a week since the last thread died a painful death. If it's ok by everyone, I'll sit this one out from now on.
Beyond that, it seems to have been no more than a week since the last thread died a painful death. If it's ok by everyone, I'll sit this one out from now on.
In the interest of balance I think it only fair to note that we (FM that is) can only publish what is sent in for publication.
So, if anyone has the time to write a counter article then please, by all means, go for it . . . . .
I do think however that Rod could make an effort to reply to some of the questions raised on these threads though..
---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------
So, if anyone has the time to write a counter article then please, by all means, go for it . . . . .
I do think however that Rod could make an effort to reply to some of the questions raised on these threads though..
---------- Post added at 16:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------
Last edited:
Steve Pope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2000
- Messages
- 5,461
- Reaction score
- 1
Having had the great pleasure of writing quite a few pieces for FM with hopefully more to come I have always taken the view that if questions are raised politely on the forum then it is only common courtesy that you should answer them.
To put it bluntly it comes with the territory.
More so if you are writing a piece knowing it is controversial and will stimulate further debate.
If you don't you can hardly expect what you say to be taken seriously no matter how forcibly or eloquently it is put across.
To put it bluntly it comes with the territory.
More so if you are writing a piece knowing it is controversial and will stimulate further debate.
If you don't you can hardly expect what you say to be taken seriously no matter how forcibly or eloquently it is put across.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
You still do.
For this month we have articles 'in the queue' from: Kevin Perkins, Paul Garner, Simon Cooper, Graham Elliott, Alan Yates, Skippy, Tony Gibson, Rod Sturdy (again) and Welchy.
We welcome submissions from everyone and the editorial team will ensure all contributions are well presented and illustrated, no matter how they are originally submitted.
So, rather than whinge about those who do make the effort to put fingers to keyboard, why not try to contribute something yourself?
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
Excellent film. Thank you. The S&TA are shown to do a great job in it. But are they also really concerned about the other species Peter? Catfish, barbel, pike etc? Or cod, bass and conger eels? Do they concern themselves with the small farm ponds and gravel pits with just coarse fish in them? Or for example nursery grounds for sea-bass? And do they lobby within govt to stop future problems arising? Or do they only address problems retrospectively - after the damage has been done?
I think not.
Sorry, but only the ATr & FL really fits that bill. It's the only all-discipline force fighting for all angling. Not that I consider S&TA inadequate in any way - they just have a different agenda.
Well Geoff, take another look, down the right hand side you will see other current campaigns that are ongoing.
Salmon Conservation | Trout Conservation | Sea Trout Conservation | Fish Farming | River Ecology
Then, take a look at this one:
Hydropower Fish Passage
I think that fish passage schemes don't really differentiate between species either . . . . . . neither does their work on over abstraction.
I have also just received a reply (pretty darn quickly too) from my enquiry as to whether I can donate solely to Fish Legal without anything going to the Angling Trust.
The answer was that YES you can donate to just Fish Legal, so to all those who, like me, are not entirely satisfied with the Angling Trust but want to support Fish Legal (gggrrrrr, that blooming name again) you can do so.
This can apparnetly be done either over the phone or by bank transfer.
Salmon Conservation | Trout Conservation | Sea Trout Conservation | Fish Farming | River Ecology
Then, take a look at this one:
Hydropower Fish Passage
I think that fish passage schemes don't really differentiate between species either . . . . . . neither does their work on over abstraction.
I have also just received a reply (pretty darn quickly too) from my enquiry as to whether I can donate solely to Fish Legal without anything going to the Angling Trust.
The answer was that YES you can donate to just Fish Legal, so to all those who, like me, are not entirely satisfied with the Angling Trust but want to support Fish Legal (gggrrrrr, that blooming name again) you can do so.
This can apparnetly be done either over the phone or by bank transfer.