Graham Marsden
Editor Emeritus
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Opinion Piece - The Angling Trust
Opinion Piece - The Angling Trust
- Thread starter Graham Marsden
- Start date
Stealph Viper
Well-known member
I think the charging of a Levy on items of tackle that we buy, is a bad idea.
My reasons for this are that i believe that the Angling Trust needs to be built and formed on a structure of Belief and Faith, not on Taxing the Anglers you want to represent.
People should join the Angling Trust because they believe in what they are trying to achieve and why they are trying to achieve it.
They should join because they love their sport and want it to remain that way for years and years to come, not just for our generation but for future generations.
The introduction of a Levy on Tackle shops, Manufacturers etc, still inevitably ends up being paid for by the Anglers that buy their products, and could lead to people who don't want to joining the Angling Trust feeling like they are being forced to support an Organisation they don't want to join .............. not a great idea.
The Angling Trust will grow in time, and a quick fix is not a long time solution, the Angling Trust needs to cut it's cloth to suit what it currently has and work to that, which is what i believe they are currently doing and getting their house in order, which they are also achieving.
Do more anglers need to support the Angling Trust ??
In my opinion, Yes they do.
Is a Levy a good idea?
In my opinion, No it is not.
I have read somewhere that people have donated money to the Angling Trust above what the actual Joining Fee is, some have even donated prize money to the Angling Trust and some have even donated Prizes back to the angling trust that could be auctioned off.
That money that they were not expecting to receive should have been used to advertise the Angling Trust in all the Major Fishing Magazines every month for 12 months.
I admit, i do not know how much this would cost (if anyone knows then post a reply) but that money would probably attract more anglers to the Angling Trust.
Anglers are already contributing to the cause by word of Mouth, and Forums etc but the Angling Trust need to do more to make themselves more visible and transparent to all anglers in England and Wales.
Oh, incase anyone wonders, Yes, i am already a member of the Angling Trust, mainly in thanks to Fishing Magic, before i read it on here and debated it with more than a few Members, i had never heard of the Angling Trust.
My reasons for this are that i believe that the Angling Trust needs to be built and formed on a structure of Belief and Faith, not on Taxing the Anglers you want to represent.
People should join the Angling Trust because they believe in what they are trying to achieve and why they are trying to achieve it.
They should join because they love their sport and want it to remain that way for years and years to come, not just for our generation but for future generations.
The introduction of a Levy on Tackle shops, Manufacturers etc, still inevitably ends up being paid for by the Anglers that buy their products, and could lead to people who don't want to joining the Angling Trust feeling like they are being forced to support an Organisation they don't want to join .............. not a great idea.
The Angling Trust will grow in time, and a quick fix is not a long time solution, the Angling Trust needs to cut it's cloth to suit what it currently has and work to that, which is what i believe they are currently doing and getting their house in order, which they are also achieving.
Do more anglers need to support the Angling Trust ??
In my opinion, Yes they do.
Is a Levy a good idea?
In my opinion, No it is not.
I have read somewhere that people have donated money to the Angling Trust above what the actual Joining Fee is, some have even donated prize money to the Angling Trust and some have even donated Prizes back to the angling trust that could be auctioned off.
That money that they were not expecting to receive should have been used to advertise the Angling Trust in all the Major Fishing Magazines every month for 12 months.
I admit, i do not know how much this would cost (if anyone knows then post a reply) but that money would probably attract more anglers to the Angling Trust.
Anglers are already contributing to the cause by word of Mouth, and Forums etc but the Angling Trust need to do more to make themselves more visible and transparent to all anglers in England and Wales.
Oh, incase anyone wonders, Yes, i am already a member of the Angling Trust, mainly in thanks to Fishing Magic, before i read it on here and debated it with more than a few Members, i had never heard of the Angling Trust.
Kevin Perkins
Well-known member
Does the Angling trust speak out for anglers......?
The reason why I ask is that the recent horrific pollution on the Trent has been widely reported in the media, but where is/was a 'spokesperson' from the Angling Trust???
If birds or animals were involved, the RSPCA and RSPB would have been the first port of call for a reaction, if they weren't already hammering on the doors of the various media outlets to put their point across.
And that is the chicken and egg situation for the AT, until it gets recognised as the voice of anglers, then it hasn't got a hope of gaining the respect of anyone outside of angling
The reason why I ask is that the recent horrific pollution on the Trent has been widely reported in the media, but where is/was a 'spokesperson' from the Angling Trust???
If birds or animals were involved, the RSPCA and RSPB would have been the first port of call for a reaction, if they weren't already hammering on the doors of the various media outlets to put their point across.
And that is the chicken and egg situation for the AT, until it gets recognised as the voice of anglers, then it hasn't got a hope of gaining the respect of anyone outside of angling
Graham Whatmore
Senior Member
Which is why I suggested renaming it Kevin, as the A.C.T. - Angling Conservation Trust at least it broadens it out to other than fishing.
Not sure about taxing anglers, though I personally wouldn't mind I don't think it is a solution that would go down very well - 1 volunteer is better than 10 pressed men - isn't that what they say?
Not sure about taxing anglers, though I personally wouldn't mind I don't think it is a solution that would go down very well - 1 volunteer is better than 10 pressed men - isn't that what they say?
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
Birds and animals were involved, Kevin, maybe they weren't seen dead by the side of the river or floating on it, but then they are blessed with the privilege of not having to be permanently in it. The Angling Trust are on the case, this I know for a fact, but it is up to the BBC, Sky, and ITV who they choose to interview in their 3 minute alloted space. No other group was interviewed except the EA in this case so your comments are unfair in that respect.
I would just add that Mark Lloyd has been interviewd on the BBC on a previous occasion.
His comments are also recorded on this website about this incident - "Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive of the Angling Trust and Fish Legal said: “This incident demonstrates yet again the need for business to take the utmost care in handling noxious chemicals. Drains should never be used as a means of disposing of waste chemicals. We will be pressing for a full investigation of this tragedy and will do everything we can to make the polluters pay for the damage they have done to our members’ interests on the river.”"
-------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I was trying to make it clear, I don't want to tax anglers buying tackle in a direct sense. Hence I was a little uncomfortable about using the word levy, but it's the only one that seemed to fit. It could also be a donation from teh manufacturer out of their profits, but either way it has to come from somewhere, money doesn't grow on trees.
The £1 I am proposing would come off a discount ultimately so you would never miss it and neither would the dealer. It was always £1 that was given away, it never really existed.
Let me give you an example. I've been buying a fair bit of stuff recently for a forthcoming trip and saw a rod discounted by 43% so I bought it as it could be useful. Had it been discounted by only 41% (that would have been about £1 difference) I would still have bought it because it would still be as useful and I would never have known what else it could have been discounted to. All that I know is I would have made an incredible saving with either discount.
Now you might say, well now I've saved an extra pound, but only because I now know that. I would still have been as happy with my purchase had I not saved that extra pound. Get it now?
Well, perhaps my glass is always half-full that I look on the positive side of life.
It's just an idea to kick around and try to find some short-term funding for the AT and to point out that everyone in angling whether it's just your sport or providing your livelihood should be doing their utmost to help out.
Kevin Perkins
Well-known member
Jeff
Whilst I don't doubt that animals and birds would have suffered too in this incident, all the banner headlines were that 'thousands of fish' were killed. Had that have been thousands of birds, or thousands of otters/voles/newts etc.etc. you can bet that the media would have had spokespersons from the two groups on hand to give the viewers/readers a graphic and doom laden view on the long term damage to wildlife.
In my opinion, and I've said it in the past, is that the the best way foreard is to have a National Fisshing Licence priced at £50 per year, paid directly to the Angling Trust. Every month they can drip feed £25 per angler to the EA and the rest (£25M per year) can be used to build up a proper organisation to support anglers and fisheries. That kind of money could fund schemes to get kids involved in fishing. Any clubs joining would permit a least one water that anyone holding a licence could fish for free, a National Day Ticket database, in effect. It could fund our own 'Water Wardens' to patrol fisheries and assist the EA bailiffs (in the manner that PCSO's do for the police, a visible presence on the bank) etc etc.
But will it happen..? NO, so we will be left with a largely toothless entity, that will suffer from lack of support for if the funding is left on a voluntary basis. And if it can't be seen and heard to be helping angling, then sadly, that voluntary support will eventually just melt away
Whilst I don't doubt that animals and birds would have suffered too in this incident, all the banner headlines were that 'thousands of fish' were killed. Had that have been thousands of birds, or thousands of otters/voles/newts etc.etc. you can bet that the media would have had spokespersons from the two groups on hand to give the viewers/readers a graphic and doom laden view on the long term damage to wildlife.
In my opinion, and I've said it in the past, is that the the best way foreard is to have a National Fisshing Licence priced at £50 per year, paid directly to the Angling Trust. Every month they can drip feed £25 per angler to the EA and the rest (£25M per year) can be used to build up a proper organisation to support anglers and fisheries. That kind of money could fund schemes to get kids involved in fishing. Any clubs joining would permit a least one water that anyone holding a licence could fish for free, a National Day Ticket database, in effect. It could fund our own 'Water Wardens' to patrol fisheries and assist the EA bailiffs (in the manner that PCSO's do for the police, a visible presence on the bank) etc etc.
But will it happen..? NO, so we will be left with a largely toothless entity, that will suffer from lack of support for if the funding is left on a voluntary basis. And if it can't be seen and heard to be helping angling, then sadly, that voluntary support will eventually just melt away
Last edited:
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
I would agree with your proposal for AT to collect the licence fee, Kevin, and drip-feed it back to the EA. It just isn't going to happen, but you might want to outline your plan to a David Cameron, he seems to have the best chance of implementing it, if he agrees that is.
I disagree that it is toothless and doesn't reach out to the media. Don't forget it's only been going for 9 months, about the gestation period of a baby human, what do you expect? We, on FM, are publishing a press release about every fortnight and then there's articles like mine and separate threads that have been launched in the past.
I'm afraid that for far too many anglers, apathy is the easy answer and always has been. It's not that £20 is too expensive for most of them, it's getting off their a*se, writing cheque/phoning/going to their website and putting their details in to become a member. Most will not and will never make that effort and many would rather stand on the sidelines and mock those that do or just ride on the wave made by the rest of us.
Plain bone-idleness and couldn't give a **** attitude, that's all it is Kevin. But never worry, because there's always another fool to make up the shortfall and work on their behalf. I've said before about the age of members on angling club committees, on the TFCC it must be something in the range of 60, and I know one AC where the chair/secretary/treasure (I guess he's the only one who does any work) is 76. It downright shameful, but a sad fact of angling life.
People complain about social scroungers and benefit bums, look no further than your average angling club to see who's prepared to do the work.
(rant over)
I disagree that it is toothless and doesn't reach out to the media. Don't forget it's only been going for 9 months, about the gestation period of a baby human, what do you expect? We, on FM, are publishing a press release about every fortnight and then there's articles like mine and separate threads that have been launched in the past.
I'm afraid that for far too many anglers, apathy is the easy answer and always has been. It's not that £20 is too expensive for most of them, it's getting off their a*se, writing cheque/phoning/going to their website and putting their details in to become a member. Most will not and will never make that effort and many would rather stand on the sidelines and mock those that do or just ride on the wave made by the rest of us.
Plain bone-idleness and couldn't give a **** attitude, that's all it is Kevin. But never worry, because there's always another fool to make up the shortfall and work on their behalf. I've said before about the age of members on angling club committees, on the TFCC it must be something in the range of 60, and I know one AC where the chair/secretary/treasure (I guess he's the only one who does any work) is 76. It downright shameful, but a sad fact of angling life.
People complain about social scroungers and benefit bums, look no further than your average angling club to see who's prepared to do the work.
(rant over)
I'm not sure if I want my AT membership spent on them commenting on every pollution incident in the country.
It was a localised incident. Most TV coverage of the incident was talking to the EA who were investigating it. I did hear a Radio 5 Live programme where they were talking to the Secretary of the local fishing club. The poor guy was nearly in tears and it highlighted the depth of anglers passion for the river perfectly. I think the public would rather hear that human story than some 'spokesperson' who has probably never seen the river commenting on it.
njb51
Well-known member
A money making scheme...if I may.
Why not let Tackle Shops and the like "sell" Angling Trust membership?
This would have a number of benefits...The AT would gain more funds by more people joining up; the Tackle Shop would gain an amount of commision for every person who joined the AT through them.
It wouldn't cost a lot to implement; it could work by using leaflets that could be dropped into a bag after the sale was made and each tackle shop would have a specific code so that the AT could keep track of where the membership was sold. This code could even be used on the AT website, maybe to get a membership discount.
There wouldn't be much of a burden on the tackle shop at all and it would encourage them to spend 2 minutes explaining to someone the benefits of the AT.
Just a suggestion and apologies if it has been made before.
It's all very well sitting back and saying that the AT has to become the voice of angling before anyone will listen, but surely as anglers, it is up to us to help make that happen.
Why not let Tackle Shops and the like "sell" Angling Trust membership?
This would have a number of benefits...The AT would gain more funds by more people joining up; the Tackle Shop would gain an amount of commision for every person who joined the AT through them.
It wouldn't cost a lot to implement; it could work by using leaflets that could be dropped into a bag after the sale was made and each tackle shop would have a specific code so that the AT could keep track of where the membership was sold. This code could even be used on the AT website, maybe to get a membership discount.
There wouldn't be much of a burden on the tackle shop at all and it would encourage them to spend 2 minutes explaining to someone the benefits of the AT.
Just a suggestion and apologies if it has been made before.
It's all very well sitting back and saying that the AT has to become the voice of angling before anyone will listen, but surely as anglers, it is up to us to help make that happen.
Kevin Perkins
Well-known member
Jeff
I would agree with your proposal for AT to collect the licence fee, Kevin, and drip-feed it back to the EA. It just isn't going to happen, but you might want to outline your plan to a David Cameron, he seems to have the best chance of implementing it, if he agrees that is
If compulsion is the only way forward, then let's set about bending the ears of anyone that is, or can, do something to about it. The £20m that the EA gets from Licence sales is a pinprick of their £1000m annual budget, so the argument for having it all due on 1st April is about as appropriate as the date itself.
If enough of us want it, why can't we ask for a change.....?
I would agree with your proposal for AT to collect the licence fee, Kevin, and drip-feed it back to the EA. It just isn't going to happen, but you might want to outline your plan to a David Cameron, he seems to have the best chance of implementing it, if he agrees that is
If compulsion is the only way forward, then let's set about bending the ears of anyone that is, or can, do something to about it. The £20m that the EA gets from Licence sales is a pinprick of their £1000m annual budget, so the argument for having it all due on 1st April is about as appropriate as the date itself.
If enough of us want it, why can't we ask for a change.....?
The bad one
Well-known member
ATrust did get some NT. Media coverage
cyanide-leak
cyanide-leak
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
Sorry Phil. Your original link didn't work. The quotation, folks is from Mark Owen of AT.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
Well done with the reminders Woody. I finally got around to joining today!
mikeshaw1979
Well-known member
So they have a Mark Owen as well as Mark Lloyd - Chief Executive.
Anyone would be forgiven for thinking, that with those Welsh sounding names, the AT covered Wales - but they don't.
They don't even cover English rivers administered by EA Wales eg the Dee at Chester, or those on the right bank of the Tweed and all the English tributaries, such as the Till, that flow into it - which are administered by Scotland - no salmon on Sunday there.
Given that: why should I, in Chester, support an AT that can't represent me, or my local interests?
I, and many others, feel that the steering committee lost patience way too soon, they should have held on and formed a proper all UK body. They didn't, and this goes a long way to explain the lack of public confidence, and therefore support, in this venture.
Point 2: Why no concesionary membership? OAPs cannot be expected to cough up the full (£20) annual fee - it's no real surprise that they aren't joining. As others have said: "alienate them at your peril!".
I'm an OAP, well my age says I am, and a member of the AT. I can afford £20. My local PH charges £2.90 for a pint of Bass you do the maths. :w
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
JK's right, and you don't get an OAP's discount on rods and reels, and feeders, and floats, and maggots, and pellets, and ............ :wh
mikeshaw1979
Well-known member
Good for you - with that thought process: fully employed anglers ought to be able to pay £40 per annum.
I'm just trying to explain the current less than 99% of angling's mempership 'take up'; thias has to be a bit more than just apathy.
I'm just trying to explain the current less than 99% of angling's mempership 'take up'; thias has to be a bit more than just apathy.
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
No, it's just apathy. Always has been. Always will ... I hope it changes.
Anyway, under this socialist government people will be expected to work until they're 90 before claiming a pension in future so the AT are starting now!
Anyway, under this socialist government people will be expected to work until they're 90 before claiming a pension in future so the AT are starting now!
Stealph Viper
Well-known member
When i first looked in to joining the Angling Trust, i spent a lot of time looking through there website just to see what they were all about and what they wanted to achieve.
I also spent a lot of time on here debating with others as to what the benefits were to me, not to any other person, but to me (well it was my £20.00p).
I am sure that when i read through the FAQ page, that originally they did cover England and Wales. Am i mistaken? or has something changed.
The question was from someone in Scotland who said did the Angling Trust cover Scotland, and the reply was , No, because Scotland had their own governing bodies for fishing, and that only England and Wales were covered. (or something along them lines)
I also spent a lot of time on here debating with others as to what the benefits were to me, not to any other person, but to me (well it was my £20.00p).
I am sure that when i read through the FAQ page, that originally they did cover England and Wales. Am i mistaken? or has something changed.
The question was from someone in Scotland who said did the Angling Trust cover Scotland, and the reply was , No, because Scotland had their own governing bodies for fishing, and that only England and Wales were covered. (or something along them lines)