- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Recreational Fisheries and Habitat Survey
Angling Trust Recreational Fisheries and Habitat Survey
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
black kettle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 0
Just gone over the survey in question. More AT hogwash.
thecrow
Well-known member
Cant see how any survey in this country can be used for anything when its also linked to Australia and the USA, totally different environments and ways of fishing.
Why are the trust doing this? are they gaining financially from it?
Why are the trust doing this? are they gaining financially from it?
derwentbob
Well-known member
Yup, pushing the social media question again. I would think that the local tackle shop is still the first call for information for most anglers but having an online survey will naturally overemphasise the role of social media.
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
It might just be used to 'prove' how recreational fishing improves habitat and what wonderful defenders of the natural world anglers are.
Just a thought.
Stu
Just a thought.
Stu
thecrow
Well-known member
Information is the tool of the educated man,
When meeting with government/bodies or applying for most grants you will be asked how do you know what you are asking for is really needed and how will it be sustained
If you have the answer
"well we did a national nay international survey and these were the results,and we made these changes/recommendations to make our goal achievable"
you are far more likely to get a favorable response.
Of course you could do nothing and then just moan about nothing getting done.
When meeting with government/bodies or applying for most grants you will be asked how do you know what you are asking for is really needed and how will it be sustained
If you have the answer
"well we did a national nay international survey and these were the results,and we made these changes/recommendations to make our goal achievable"
you are far more likely to get a favorable response.
Of course you could do nothing and then just moan about nothing getting done.
thecrow
Well-known member
The information being gathered by this survey in Australia and the USA can have no bearing on what goes on in this country, the types of fishing are poles apart as are a lot of the waters and certainly in the USA the amount of money spent and people employed protecting the environment, the educated man in this case should be looking for what the trust has to gain from this international survey.
I will ask again although I doubt I will get an answer, are the trust gaining financially from this survey?
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
Well Crow, Angling is still a mainstream pastime in the US and Australia, whereas we are a diminishing and ageing group of largely grumpy old men. Our political clout is on the wane. (down to 1 Million I am lead to believe, a 75% reduction in 30years). If we don't reverse it, we are toast.
If angling really has a positive and beneficial effect on the Environment, it will in all these countries. Makes sense to me to expand this to the anglosphere.
Type of fishing etc is irrelevent, we are either environmental vandals (as the anti's see us), protectors and improvers (as we would like to see ourselves) or, most probably, somewhere inbetween.
By the way, who do you think that the ATr is finacially benefiting from? I can't see who would pay, or why.
Stu
If angling really has a positive and beneficial effect on the Environment, it will in all these countries. Makes sense to me to expand this to the anglosphere.
Type of fishing etc is irrelevent, we are either environmental vandals (as the anti's see us), protectors and improvers (as we would like to see ourselves) or, most probably, somewhere inbetween.
By the way, who do you think that the ATr is finacially benefiting from? I can't see who would pay, or why.
Stu
Purely for information, many survey companies offer financial inducements to have links to, or their actual surveys, on other groups webpages.
Whether this is true in this case, or not, can only be answered by the Angling Trust themselves.
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
Thanks Peter.
But if that's what we are talking about, so what? The implication seemed to be that inappropriate scullduggery was afoot!
Stu
But if that's what we are talking about, so what? The implication seemed to be that inappropriate scullduggery was afoot!
Stu
thecrow
Well-known member
Entirely agree with your first paragraph but cannot agree with the second, what good will it do fishing in this country to know what happens in say the USA where fishing styles are different to most mainstream methods in this country.
Most anglers IMO are as you suggest somewhere between what none anglers think of us and what we think of ourselves, a survey that anglers fill out isn't going to change that as far as I can see and it certainly isn't going to get us the environmental protection that fish and game provide in the USA.
Finally, I think that because I tend to look beyond the surface of things and as I cannot see any benefits from the survey there must be other reasons for it, this other reason could be dispelled by someone from the trust but as yet has not been, I wonder why that is?
---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------
No implication of anything stu, just a question that's all, after what I read about favourable membership fees for certain groups I do not trust the trust, if they are gaining then good luck to them but please be up front about it.
Been through it, will not be completing it, and certainly do not wish to assist any 'monkey'........
I doubt any the questions were provided by the ATr either.
Its this vague type of exercise that demeans the Trust rather than enhances it
mg:
.
I doubt any the questions were provided by the ATr either.
Its this vague type of exercise that demeans the Trust rather than enhances it
mg: .
nogoodboyo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 22, 2013
- Messages
- 485
- Reaction score
- 2
Very odd.
Got as far as Q3 - apparently finishing junior school is the pinnacle of my academic achievements.
Sorry for being cynical - as usual.
Got as far as Q3 - apparently finishing junior school is the pinnacle of my academic achievements.
Sorry for being cynical - as usual.
Personally I have no problem either way . . . . . . . . .
The problem I think is when it comes to the Angling Trust is that to some they can do no wrong, while to others they can do nothing right.
If every angler thought the former then their membership would be multiplied many times over.
Stuck on a membership of little more than what they had when it was the old ACA (having taken away the freebie junior members) it seems that they have failed to mobilise the thinking of the vast majority of anglers.
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Peter,
I think if the ACA went independent again the trust membership would collapse as a lot of members only joined to support the ACA.
Personally, I never trust those who rise to unelected positions within any sphere of life.hno:
The trust will never have the full support of ALL anglers, the CS debate and the trust raising it is a prime example of how to alienate and divide anglers. AS you say for some it can do no wrong, but it appears it can do no right for the vast majority of anglers.
Kind regards
Ray
I think if the ACA went independent again the trust membership would collapse as a lot of members only joined to support the ACA.
Personally, I never trust those who rise to unelected positions within any sphere of life.
hno:The trust will never have the full support of ALL anglers, the CS debate and the trust raising it is a prime example of how to alienate and divide anglers. AS you say for some it can do no wrong, but it appears it can do no right for the vast majority of anglers.
Kind regards
Ray
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
I agree Ray, but even the ACA could only muster about 17,000 at the height of their popularity, which dropped down to 9,000. I just think that most anglers don't really care.
Stu
Last edited:
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
Afternoon Stu,
I am not sure that most anglers don’t care, but you may be right. I think it more a case of most being wary of the trust and the way it came into being via several other vehicles and not in a democratic way.
A lot see it as a job for the boys setup and one that really does not want individual members. These are just my honest opinions of an organisation that appears to be unwilling to engage ordinary anglers. One that is more interested in it’s member clubs who as a whole contribute less in revenue per head than individual members by way of membership fees.
Kind regards
Ray
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
Hi Ray,
If the ACA could only convince a maximum of 17,000 out of what was then 4,000,000 anglers (just over 0.4%) that trying to fight back against polluters was worth fighting for, I am convinced that most (99.6%) couldn't care less. But who knows, maybe they had good reason not to join the ACA.
Your other points on the ATr are certainly also the view of others on this forum (and behond, no doubt), and I can fully understand why you would take this view.
If the ACA was to reform independently, I would probably go with it. However, I think that Fish Legal is worth the sub in itself and some things that the ATr do are of benefit to all of us. I never expect to agree with everything, it's a balance and it has to be a personal view.
Kind Regards
Stu
thecrow
Well-known member
I have e mailed the address on the page before the survey proper to try to get more information about the survey, doubt I will get a reply but you never know.
Ray I am one that would think about joining the ACA again but would still be suspicious because of what allegedly happened before.
Ray I am one that would think about joining the ACA again but would still be suspicious because of what allegedly happened before.