Angling Trust - some figures that might be of interest

davestocker · Aug 30, 2009

Here is a list of what other UK membership organisations charge for individual membership. How paltry the AT's £20 appears by comparison.

British Ass. Shooting & Conservation (BASC) £62
Countryside Alliance £52
Ramblers Association £27
National Trust £46
Badger Trust £24
Wild Trout Trust £35
Council Protection Rural England £29
RSPB £35
English Heritage £41.50
World Wildlife Fund £36-40
Salmon & Trout Association £40

klik2change · Aug 30, 2009

I saw in the Angling Times that the Countryside Alliance actually fund some kids' fishing groups.

---------- Post added at 12:19 ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 ----------

Sorry Dave, I forgot to say hello - this is your first post after all... welcome to FM!

r1paul · Aug 30, 2009

English Carp Heritage Organization ( ECHO ) , £20 Annual Membership .

Peter Jacobs · Aug 30, 2009

klik2change said:
I saw in the Angling Times that the Countryside Alliance actually fund some kids' fishing groups.
QUOTE]

Yes we do.

In addition there is the supported Get Hooked on Fishing and and Get Hooked Midlands that have been assisted.

The CA also support 'Casting for Recovery' for women who are, or have, suffered from breast cancer.

Sadly though, the majority of anglers only think about the CA as an organisation to fight the ban on fox hunting.

The CA also work with; the Carp Society, the old ACA, the S&TA and a few other angling organisations when and where necessary.

davestocker · Aug 30, 2009

Interesting that you mention the CA. They've a membership of around 100,000, of which 20-30,000 are probably anglers (as well as being shooters/hunters/falconers). They might even represent more anglers than the S&TA.

Jeff Woodhouse · Aug 30, 2009

klik2change said:
I saw in the Angling Times that the Countryside Alliance actually fund some kids' fishing groups.

Sorry Dave, I forgot to say hello - this is your first post after all... welcome to FM!

Angling Trust will be supporting National Fishing Week in future as well as all the Angling Coaches who work closely with the EA to encourage more junior anglers. With more money and more members they might achieve an awful lot more in time.

Interesting facts though Dave.

Dave has been around for a long time, it's just that he hasn't posted before on the NEW FM so his counter has zeroised. Maybe someone can put that right for him.

Peter Jacobs · Aug 31, 2009

davestocker said:
Interesting that you mention the CA. They've a membership of around 100,000, of which 20-30,000 are probably anglers (as well as being shooters/hunters/falconers). They might even represent more anglers than the S&TA.

Dave,

During the period when FACT et al were beginning to form the AT I did suggest a possible 'merger' with the CA but this was not given much, if any thought, although I had an interesting conversation with Mark Lloyd over the possibility.

The other interesting thing was that the S&TA (also with around 100,000 members) decided not to fully merge with the other organisations in the AT, preferring to maintain their Charity status.

Imagine how strong an AT/S&TA/CA alliance might be?

Mind you, that would also mean a membership fee of around £50 per annum, but then that is still only £1.00 a week!

Around a quarter of a million members?
That is one very loud and strong voice.

904_cannon · Aug 31, 2009

Duplicate post somehow??

904_cannon · Aug 31, 2009

It would NEVER work Peter, and I for one would not be part of it.

As for the conversation with ML, Mark is an employee of the AT, and wasn't even that at that time. As I have said on numerous occasions, it's the Board that sets the agenda and policies, the CEO's, or whatever, see those through to fruition. It is not the CEO's job to be deciding which direction any organisation should go.

My only experience of GHOF is, and I stress, it was in my immediate area of the NE, when my club helped them out on a couple of occasions by letting them use our stillwater complex to complete there projects after, as they said, they were 'evicted' from their base. All I will say on this is that there will not be a third occasion. Job creation schemes come to mind.
As for development of angling with youngsters within the AT, for some unknown and illogical reason the AT stubbornly refuses to even talk to Les Webber (MBE) at Angling Projects. If anyone can, Les can! Sadly the AT doesn't agree.

davestocker · Sep 2, 2009

Here's another figure based on my trip to WH Smiths this morning. To buy Angling Times every week would cost about £85 a year.

On the issue of a relationship between the AT and the CA, I worked full-time in the regional media team of the CA between 2000-4, and saw just how much could be achieved in PR terms by working the regional media to one's advantage. Maybe the CA could handle some of the AT's PR activities. The CA will have the pricey MediaDisk (for the unfamiliar
http://www.mediadisk.co.uk/md2006web/forms/general/loginpage.aspx) for the nationwide distribution of media releases. Let's be asking what the CA will be doing if we get a repeal of the so-called Hunting Act, and whether an arms length relationship with the AT might benefit both parties.

geoffmaynard · Sep 2, 2009

As an opponent of fox hunting, I couldn't support the CA. I suspect a lot of others out there feel the same - probably more than the AT can afford to lose.

904_cannon · Sep 2, 2009

I agree entirely Geoff. I believe way back in the days of FACT they disassociated themselves from the CA so any talk of a merger is :wh in the wind

Peter Jacobs · Sep 3, 2009

geoffmaynard said:
As an opponent of fox hunting, I couldn't support the CA. I suspect a lot of others out there feel the same - probably more than the AT can afford to lose.

As I said on a different thread; we anglers are such a disparate lot that we would have to put aside many deep-seated predujices if we are ever to merge into a healthy, strong and definitive Field Sports Association.
Unless the AT thrive then a merger might be the only way forward left.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the hunting of foxes with dogs, and that Act will be repealed in the relatively near futrure - it is totally absurd, and unenforcable, to the point where even the Prosecutors are dropping cases left, right and centre.

john m h said:
I agree entirely Geoff. I believe way back in the days of FACT they disassociated themselves from the CA so any talk of a merger is whistling in the wind

I wonder what that decision was predicated upon John? More predujice?

alan whittington · Sep 3, 2009

The biggest difference between the assosiations quoted Dave is that our sport seems deeply fragmented with disagreements everywhere whereas most of those mentioned are in agreement standing together(obviously some dischord but not like us).Also price is immaterial,its what you get for the money thats more consequential,and i dont see a shopping list,to keep tag of,or an adequate communication network(sorry to harp on)

904_cannon · Sep 3, 2009

"I wonder what that decision was predicated upon John? More predujice?"
Personally yes, Peter. Your friends at the CA almost put me out of business when it organised the fuel blockade here in the NE a few years back, even the emergency services had problems getting fuel. Nothing short of disgraceful, especially as the farmer followers were using red diesel to get them to the protests. No disrespect to you Peter, as Ive said before, but I'd give up fishing before join up with the CA.

geoffmaynard · Sep 3, 2009

I personally abhor the manner in which the CA appropriated the 'hunting, shooting, fishing' label, chucking us all in the same box. These pursuits are not in my mind related in any way.
I just spent 10 minutes ranting away - then deleted it as it was so off topic - but shows my depth of feeling on the issue

Peter Jacobs · Sep 3, 2009

Geoff,

you have a PM.

dezza · Sep 3, 2009

geoffmaynard said:
I personally abhor the manner in which the CA appropriated the 'hunting, shooting, fishing' label, chucking us all in the same box. These pursuits are not in my mind related in any way.
I just spent 10 minutes ranting away - then deleted it as it was so off topic - but shows my depth of feeling on the issue

Oh Dear!!

Of course hunting, shooting and fishing are related. They are all connected with the hunting of wild creatures, whether they be fish, fowl or mammal!

Gary Newman · Sep 3, 2009

Most fish escape with just having a quick photo taken of them and are then returned to the water, but foxes and the like aren't quite so lucky. I'd personally have trouble supporting the CA because of the hunting side of things (specifically fox hunting and hare coursing), shooting i don't have so much problem with as it is usually a clean kill that the animal doesn't even know is coming (not like a fox that has been chased for miles by hounds) and is often for the pot.
I don't really think it would be sensible for angling to associate itself with a group that has already had several of their 'sports' banned, as it would make it easier to put us all in the same bracket.

dezza · Sep 3, 2009

And I support the Countryside Alliance. I do not chase foxes on horseback but I have no objection to people who do.

There are a large number of anglers who support the CA, and there are a large number of CA supporters who support the right to fish. I have spent a bit of time in the company of members of the CA and I have never had one of them who has objected to the sport of angling. In fact a lot of them go fishing.

Angling Trust - some figures that might be of interest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moaning Marlow Meldrew

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Content Editor

Well-known member

Moderator

alan whittington

Guest

Well-known member

Content Editor

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member