Serious question what would engage you in the ATrust?

To help all at the ATrust, Ruth in particular, What would engage, involve, you to participate in the Trust.

Be informed more?
Feel consulted?
Feeling your views are being valued?
Regular vote/referendum on matters?
A members reading room of top quality articles on their website?

Just a few to get you thinking.

Regular vote/referendum on matters

Angling Trust Flyers, that i could ask my Local Tackle shop to hand to customers when they purchase something from their shop. They could even do a template on their website and i could just print them out.

The bad one said:

To help all at the ATrust, Ruth in particular, What would engage, involve, you to participate in the Trust.

Be informed more?
Feel consulted?
Feeling your views are being valued?
Regular vote/referendum on matters?
A members reading room of top quality articles on their website?

Just a few to get you thinking.

Click to expand...

definetly to be imformed more............a good website would be good, and total honesty about where the cash has gone!!

I felt if they had a forum on their site it might help, but then again it might just get hit by every nutter who had a grudge to bear against them, bit like the barbel wars we used to get on here. Perhaps if it was for members only, though.

Otherwise, just being there to fight pollution cases and maybe informing us in a way that would make sense of some of guff comign out of Europe now. The legalese that is used goes well over my head so if there was some legal eagle who could give us a "Janet and John" summary, that would be amazing.

To be honest, I treat it like the insurance on my car. For twenty years I paid through the nose wondering what the hell I was getting for my money until just the other month I met with a headcase. I think the bill on my car was around £2000 and his was a right-off and it justifies all that I have been paying. So all praise to Fish Legal (still hate that name though.)

A regularly updated website and a forum/area for members only is a must.

The option for members to democratically vote online and have a direct 'say' in how we operate would be a winner I think.

A good quality quarterly/annual magazine would be nice too, giving not only prosecution news, but articles also.

I would not expect to be consulted, as such. Voting by the membership should have the status of recommendation only. Those at the centre of the action should be free to make their own minds up, otherwise decision making would be impossible. Perhaps there could be an email suggestion box?

I would like to be kept informed, which ought to be easy but probably isn't. I think a "members' only" moderated forum is a very good idea indeed. Personally I would expect board members to make statements only, unless they wish to become personally involved in forum threads.

The reading room is an excellent idea. Perhaps there could be a viewing room for films, with pay-per-view to provide a bit more income? That could become an independent fishing channel. Thought needs to be given to money-making schemes. I would like the trust to be forward looking as well as conservation minded.

I want a body that I feel gives me a return for my fee. I don't expect miracles. If the Angling Trust carry on doing what the individual bodies did then that does it for me. If I feel they are wasting my fee they won't get it again.

I'll be honest...I dont really understand what the Angling Trust is or does or why I should support it if indeed I should.

I am willing to be enlightened but they will have to do a bit better than they have to get £20 off me.Sorry...but that's the reality of it.I understood the ACA,I dont understand the AT.

Feels like Groundhog day to me. Hee Hee

Referendums/dei should only be used for major issues/constitutional change.

A better? area/regional structure (two way) This was how the AT was supposed to work with local/regional issues feeding up to the national body.

A web forum would only result in what we already have, open or closed.

Those who really want it to work should not be afraid to put a little effort in by way of attending quarterly meets, (sadly a few Coronation Streets/Eastenders would be missed, but life's a $itch) Eventually these could be framed to fit in with EA RFERAC's and Consultatives so that there is a seamless structure from local to National, albeit on different area/regional issues. All Angling/Fisheries RFERAC appointees SHOULD be a member of the AT anyway.

On extra funding; what about monthly angling mags putting an extra cost on the cover price, this being donated to the AT with members getting a small discount on the magazine cost? This would only be possible with a monthly subscription system but could work.
I'm not sure whether there is the need, or room, for an AT monthly magazine but many years ago the NFA did just that.
NAFAC and the NASA/SAA used to publish some really good stuff too, and they were free to members.

Listing legal action/issues (as in the last-only AT published newsletter) might inform but hardly excites and grabs the readers attention, neither does it leave you waiting for the next to drop through the letter box.

---------- Post added at 14:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Stealph Viper said:

Regular vote/referendum on matters

Angling Trust Flyers, that i could ask my Local Tackle shop to hand to customers when they purchase something from their shop. They could even do a template on their website and i could just print them out.

Click to expand...

Contact Mark Lloyd and you can have as many 100's/1000's of the application/information brochure as you can give out.

Clubs can send them out to all members when renewing their yearly subs. I even included a couple of paragraphs on the benefits of joining the AT in the letters I send out to all new/renewing members of my club.
I've even put some application forms in my local Post Offices to be given out to those paying for their rod license.

And whats wrong with tackle shops asking for the application forms?

I'll be straight with you - I've not joined. I am/was a member of the ACA - not heard anything from them, but the money still goes out.

Why haven't I joined? Well if there was a ACA (Fish Legal? What a silly name, I always fish legally) only option I'd do that straight away. But you're asking me to support an organisation that I really don't feel any affiliation to. I don't know who the decision makers are and I don't know what their agenda is. I wasn't convinced by the fluff on the leaflet I got, neither the expected membership figures or the supposed benefits I would get from becoming a member.

So what would convince me to join? Well some idea of what my money would be used for; some idea of what I would be used for (one amongst 100,00 members); some idea of how I could contribute if I felt aligned with what the AT was about; some idea of how I could make my voice and my concerns heard (it's grim up north tha knows).

Talk to me about litter, disgarded line, poaching. Talk to me about where I live and where I fish and the issues I face.

Sean,

It's not possible to answer all of your questions in a brief posting, but like you I hate the new name for the ACA.

Once upon a time if an angler wanted an organisation to speak on his behalf he joined the NFA, or the SAA, or NAFAC, of were he a sea angler, the NFSA. It was a tough choice and most anglers would answer with "Who are the SAA?" or "The NFA only work for match anglers." and as for NAFAC, no one gave a damn about them, did they?

Yet we all wanted one voice, an organsiation that would represent us to the Government of the UK and to Europe where necessary. One voice alone (the single angler) is like peeing (being nice) into a gale force wind, it just falls back on your own boots.

Now, you can at least say "Ah, the Angling Trust, I **** them!" (insert love or hate as approriate), but it is the only organisation that we have. It's not perfect by any means yet and I for one wouldn't expect it to be and it may never reach "perfection" in many anglers minds, but one by one I am positive they will tackle issues that are close to our hearts.

One thing a lot of angler have made clear to the AT is that we don't need governance. We want them to listen not just tell. That will happen, but not immediately, it could take a couple more years yet after all there were 6 (or 7) organisations that merged and they need some sorting out.

In fact a lot needs sorting out and I get the feeling that they are taking some of the right steps now.

The question is, do you want to be a lone voice peeing into the wind or do you want to join the rest of us (members) and put the fires out before they spread? One way costs you £20 per year, the other way might cost you your sport. Which is worth more?

And that's just the way I see it.

The question is, do you want to be a lone voice peeing into the wind or do you want to join the rest of us (members) and put the fires out before they spread? One way costs you £20 per year, the other way might cost you your sport. Which is worth more?

And that's just the way I see it.[/QUOTE]

Well I am with a few others as a non member, well 99% of Anglers going by the AT figures, so i am not peeing in the wind. Fishing will never be banned, that is pie in the sky talk.

However as a member via a club, the fish legal name has to be the most stupid name the AT could come up with, but then the name Angling Trust isn't that good either.

And thats just the way i see it Woody

Ray you've stated time and time again you won't join AT as an individual......your choice. So the reality is you'll never engage with it. So I guess the question I asked doesn't really apply to you. Yes it is right that only 1% of anglers had at the time of the crisis joined and 99% hadn't, but that 99% are individual anglers on their own. It's not as if they were in membership of an alternative body that speak for them is it?

So effectively they would be treated by the powers that be, as Woody suggests wind pi$$ers.

Anglers Conservation Association (ACA) or Fish legal (FL) didn't make no differance to me as i didn't know anything about either of them, and as for the name, Fish legal is easier to say and to spell so i like it.
I didn't even know what the Angling Trust (AT) was, and boy did that kick up a storm on here when i mentioned that.
I went from being Apathetic to being just plain old Pathetic, even worse in some cases, but it only made me more determined to find out for myself Who and What the AT are and what they are trying to achieve.
Here are my reasons for deciding to give them a try, and at the end of that annual subscription if i don't like what i am seeing, i have the option of not renewing my annual membership.

1, I like that they want to set up a organisation to represent Angling as a whole in England.
2, I like that they are willing to persue anyone who deliberately breaks the law and causes any harm to the sport of Angling.
3, I like the £5 million public liability insurance i get for being an individual member.
4, Probably more important, i like that they are trying to secure the future of our sport for not just the anglers of today, but, also for the future anglers that will be here tomorrow.

Now don't get me wrong, i don't want to tell anyone why they should join, that's your own individual choice.
I don't like everything that i've been hearing about the failure of the Angling Trust to date, and i stated weeks ago, i felt it was being poorly managed.
I joined because i liked the concept of the AT and not because i was a member of another association that has joined the AT or because i know the people running it.
Anyone who doesn't want to join the AT is still ok in my eyes, and i would happily stand or sit on the bank of a water and fish with them, i wouldn't judge anyone on whether they are an AT member or not, but on what type of person they were as an individual.

The bad one said:

Be informed more?

Click to expand...

I get regular e-mails which is quite enough, the rest of the information is there for anyone who can be @rsed to click a mouse. Glossy magazines etc. can come later once the Trust is established.

Feel consulted?

Click to expand...

Yes, but at the current state of development they are probably not in a position to make use of the data collected.

Feeling your views are being valued?

Click to expand...

Acknowledged, not necessarily valued. They should only be valued if they have some basis to them.

Regular vote/referendum on matters?

Click to expand...

By what means? Not everyone has e-mail or t'interweb, and postal votes would wipe out the financial resources of the Trust very quickly.

A members reading room of top quality articles on their website?

Click to expand...

That would be great, although they'd have to go a long way to beat the articles on here.
I'll carry on paying (less than the cost of a decent takeaway for 2), because I really don't care about what the Trust can do for me individually in the short term, I'm willing to regard it as insurance so that there's an independent organisation that represents my passion (it's much more than a sport), unable to be leant on by politicians and able to fight for other anglers who have lost their fishing through the selfishness, greed or stupidity of individuals or businesses.

To be honest Woody at the moment I feel more inclined to join the SATA than the AT. It has more clout, more influence in higher places and is on a sound financial footing.

Its interests and mine are aligned as we are both concerned about the preservation of the wild places that I love.

Sean Meeghan said:

Its interests and mine are aligned as we are both concerned about the preservation of the wild places that I love.

Click to expand...

Only the ones with salmon, trout and sea trout in them...

Ray Daywalker Clarke said:

Well I am with a few others as a non member, well 99% of Anglers going by the AT figures, so i am not peeing in the wind. Fishing will never be banned, that is pie in the sky talk.

Click to expand...

Yep, 99% of all anglers are peeing in the wind, Ray.

No one will listen to you because you have no lobby group to confront the MPs or MEPs. You can moan from the hilltops and the government will always know they are right, because they never listen to you. They haven't in the past when the six separate organisations were going.

And fishing will never be banned?

Don't kid yourself. Oh, it won't come as a straight edict out of government saying "We're going to ban fishing."

No, they use "salami tactics". Slice by slice. Little by little they'll whittle away your rights.

1. ban all fishing from council owned parks and areas
2. ban the use of keenets completely
3. ban the sale of livebaits (maggots and worms)
4. ban fishing from any public footpaths or towpaths onthe grounds of public safety
5. ban fishing from reservoirs for fear of terrorism (always a good excuse that.)

Etc., etc., etc.. until it's not worth going.

You think they won't? Join the Liberals and be our covert spy, they've muted it already. Won't be long before mamby-pamby Labourites follow suit. Salami tactics, you'll hardly notice you're being eradicated.

Etc.

Wolfman Woody said:

Join the Liberals and be our covert spy, they've muted it already.

Click to expand...

where and when?

Salami tactics in Russia, or China, are deliberate and done according to a plan.

Here, everything happens by accident. Suddenly a fait accompli presents itself... and wallop! - it's done if it's useful, or seems like a good idea at the time.

If it were done, it would be done in an opportunist manner - that's how democracies work.