Angling Trust - Worth YOUR Money??????

[jukebox1]

Right I'm starting this thread (if it is ok []) as the Chasewater thread is getting a bit cluttered up with this issue at present and we need to keep this thread clear as I will be directing a lot of site traffic at it very soon with regards to starting an action group. As some of you may have read there is an ongoing debate as to what the Angling Trust do for YOUR money? Members of it have asked for help but been denied any usefull advice or information. Is this acceptable?? Do we need to stand shoulder to shoulder and be united as a group with some clout??? Is it just another way to get your money from your pocket??? Peter has posted some interesting facts about them and hopefully he will repost them here []


Whats your views and are you a member and if not why not ????

 

[Dave]

I'm a member and why not?

Personally I don't think I'll gain any personal benefit from being a member but then again my 20 will go into the pot to help out those that do require help, advise and assistance

It's a bit like car insurance, I pay it but hope I don't need to make a claim. I'm in a breakdown club but hope I don't need to phone them. I've got life insurance ....etc. etc, etc

For 20 you cannot singularly expect much these days, but collectively if enough people chipped into the pot it could finally buy angling a voice that had to be heard

 

[Peter]

Not a problem James.
So I'll do a reprise of a few bits and bobs here.

I have a real problem with people knocking the Angling Trust, in an attempt to justify why they won't stump up the cash to support them.
If people feel hard done by, by an organisation they don't or won't support, I suggest they download the PDF of the Angling Trust accounts for 2009, you can do it HERE.

The Trust made a LOSS last year of 21,264.
The most frightening figure is the income from Individual Membership.. 130661, which at 20 a head represents just a little over 6500 anglers, which is a figure that frankly stands as a shamefull inditement of just how few anglers give any thought to the future of their sport/hobby/pastime.[!]

There is no such thing as a free lunch, if you want them to support you, you have to support them.

What's the difference between the Angling Trust and say the RSPB?
The RSPB has 1,500 employees, 12,200 volunteers and over 1 million members (including 150,000 youth members), making it the largest wildlife conservation charity in Europe.

Why do you think they're so active? it's probably because it's so well supported. The last figures I can find are from 2006 and are as follows........

The RSPB is funded primarily by its members; in 2006, over 50% of the society's 88 million income came from subscriptions, donations and legacies, worth a total of 53669 million. As a registered charity, the organisation is entitled to Gift aid worth an extra 28p on every 1 donated by income tax payers. The bulk of the income (63757 million in 2006) is spent on conservation projects, maintenance of the reserves and on education projects, with the rest going on fundraising efforts and reducing the pension deficit, worth 198 million in 2006.

Set against that sort of organisation, with their lobbying power and financial muscle, Anglers may as well pee into the wind.

Purely and simply, their supporters put their money where their mouths are, and get the support they want when they need it.

Unless Anglers are prepared to throw their weight behind an organisation such as the Angling Trust (and I don't see a viable alternative at this point in time) we as anglers are always going to come off second best.

Realistically I'm afraid that isn't going to happen [!] It's hard enough trying to get anglers to stump up less than 3 pence a day to keep this Forum running, that so many claim they'd be lost without, to imagine for one second that they would commit themselves to less than 6 pence a day to try and safeguard their entire sport, both now and for future generations.[!]

 

[stikflote]

Peter,can you explain why ,A.T,have not done anything,about chase water ??

at this moment i am a member of A,T,,from what i can see AT started off on the wrong,foot they expected all anglers to chi p in with twenty quid,,i think it was too much money

i believe tho may be wrong,that we are on the third adminstration of A.T
thats not saying a lot .

IM in a club of of twenty five members,only two of us are members of A.T ,i had a load of leaflets sent to me from AT, i gave em all out ,sad to say no one was interested.

 

[codenamemilo]

Good Lord. Chasewater thread gets cluttered with AT stuff. Now youre going to clutter the AT thread with Chasewater posts?

The AT will have to pick and choose their fights carefully on their budget. For a 20 individual membership you can't expect a personal knight in shining armour.

 

[me]

Well as in peters words im the gobby git who will not give AT 20 quid until i know what im getting for it, id better post.

Im not a member and this is why.

The angling body was the NFA and im my eyes did absolutly sod all for angling, anglers ect it even got the name Not For Anglers. Out of the blue with no info ect came a new body called Angling Trust and membership was/ is 20 quid. There was very little info about AT when they first came out just about the fee. Im not a big match man. Im more of a pleasure angler who attends the odd match which are such as md's knock up matches, guest at the odd club match or in the past things like the odd jinx match. When people were going on about joining AT i always said i would wait and see what they were about before i joined. You wouldn't buy a brand new model car that no one had ever heard of or seen. So i never joined.

This year a local resorvior to me needed work doing on it and it was to be drained (this is the thread that jukebox is on about) The res contained cats, carp, pike bull heads ect ect. The res was over 200 years old and the fish that were dyeing due to being stranded with the water being empted included perch over 4lb, roach 2 lb, pike in the 20lbs, eels over 8 lb. The local council owned the lease to the res and not a fishing club. A number of local anglers/ people were doing all they could to try and help/save the fish but all the bodies BW, EA, AT would do any thing to help.

In my veiw this was the perfect advertisement for AT to gain members/ supporters. If they had got involved and helped the slaughter of fish the publicity would of been unreal and i would of seen that they were as they say for the angling community so would many other. During the chase water disaster, one of AT's members got in touch with them and asked for their help or advice, but they did nothing. They have left the disaster to carry on and kill more fish. In the chase water thread i had a big knock at AT for their lack of involvement in the chase water disaster to which 2 of there members lee (mouse) and Peter (mugger) replied by having a go at me for knocking AT and explained that AT would only help/ advise were a club and its members are members of AT. This to me means that AT isn't for all anglers only those who pay there membership fee. So pleasure anglers (member or non member) who only fish local non club waters can not expect any help of AT if there is a disaster on the non club water.
After the episode of whats happened at chase water i beleive AT have missed out on the biggest and best advertising campaign they could of ever wished for. The lack of interest and involvement At have shown at chasewater and how they have ignored their members as totaly shown me that AT are nothing more than NFA in disguise.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by stikflote

Peter,can you explain why, A.T,have not done anything,about chase water ??

What do you expect them to do?
Given the fact that they not being supported by the very people that want their support. I would imagine looking at the figures that lack of finance has a fair bit to do with it.

 

[me]

Peter advice costs nothing. Im sure they could of advised on what paths to follow on the chase water case to try and save the fish. Mark lloyd posted on the chase water post but he gave no advice he just copied and pasted the bull of the councils website which every one had already seen. When he was questioned on this he grabbed his coat and as never posted on the thread again

 

[Dave]

Simon, with the greatest respect, the AT is run as a not for profit organisation but still needs funds to succeed.

It can't be seen to fight every battle, let alone on a shoe string budget, battles cost money and lots of it even more so if it starts involving courts and legal wrangles, and as such the AT will no doubt have to be very careful as to which fights it picks and which it walks away from

No one in business can champion every cause unless (a) they've got an unlimited budget, or (b) they know that they stand a very good chance of winning

What are the AT expected to do in the Chasewater case?
They haven't got the financial backing to take on two councils and force them into acting for the benefit of the fish.
They haven't got the manpower to throw at the issue when other issues that are winable are out there

The Chasewater issue is a serious one but not a winable one as all that would happen is that the councils in charge of the damn (sp) wall will prove that the work does need to be done and that it would endanger human life and livelihoods if it wasn't - case won

If you're serious about the Chasewater issue, put your money where your mouth is, get everyone else onboard who is likewise, join the AT en-mass, and then get on the phone to them until you get someone onboard

You will have more leverage that way and also the AT I presume would be in a better position to dedicate some time and money to assist you

 

[me]

Dave all i expected AT to do at chase water was give us advise on how to go about things not actual do the fighting for . People were asking questions but getting no answers. In the chase water thread as well as AT i also knocked BW, EA ect. The problem with EA is i have no way of protesting as if i don't pay them they will not give me a licence so i can't pleasure fish or fish the md's match saturday. As i say advice cost nothing. This site is wholly made up of advice which is given free of charge.

 

[Peter]

Simon,
To Hijack this thread one last time.
Chasewater must be covered by The Reservoir Act.

Now taken from the EA website.....

Enforcement
Information on how we enforce the Reservoirs Act 1975.

We are responsible for the enforcement of the Reservoirs Act 1975 in England and Wales. The Water Act 2003 transferred this responsibility from 136 local authorities on the 1 October 2004.

We will soon be enforcing the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 which has updated the Reservoirs Act 1975. Timings of when this legislation can be applied will come from the Government after the general election.

Our role
As the Enforcement Authority we are responsible for:

Maintaining a register of reservoirs, and making this information available to the public.
Ensuring that the Undertaker has appointed a Supervising Engineer.
Ensuring that the Undertaker commissions regular inspections of the reservoir by an Inspecting Engineer.

Ensuring that the undertaker carries out essential works required in the interests of safety as soon as practicable under the supervision of a qualified civil engineer (Inspecting Engineer).

Enforcing the Reservoirs Act 1975 by influencing, warning, cautioning and ultimately prosecuting non-compliant Undertakers.
Commissioning supervising engineers, inspecting engineers and essential works required in the interests of safety in the event of non-compliance and recouping full costs incurred from the Undertaker.
Producing a Biennial Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and to the Welsh Assembly Government.
Acting in an emergency if the Undertaker cannot be found.
We will achieve this through applying the principles of better regulation.

Looking at that I feel that the buck stops with the EA if the local council are negligent in their actions, however it's really nothing to do with this thread [!] and as such I won't be arguing the chasewater scenario on this thread any more.

 

[codenamemilo]

I doubt the AT can do anything about it anyway. The AT steps in when a 3rd party pollutes/damages a strecch of water owned or controlled by a club to try and fight for the latters interests or incurred losses, do they not?

If the local authority or body who OWN the water decide to drain it to do work on it, then what has it got to do with the AT, or more correctly what authority do they have to intervene?

 

[stikflote]

well what ever they get no more money off me

 

[jukebox1]

My post from The Chaswater thread------------------------------
Right last words from me on this Angling Trust cr4p. Chasewater, as rightly stated, is not controlled by any angling club and as for the comment about gobby gits wanting something for nothing that is verging on the point of obscene All we ever wanted was firstly for the fish to be put back in the venue where they have evolved for the last 200 or so years and most importantly when the reasons for this were given for it not to be a viable solution, was for the fish to be rescued and to stop them from perishing as they have been left to do so.We are not in it for any personal gain and neither are the 500 or so people who signed the petition from around the country,just that we all felt strongly that the water should be put back to its former state.!Is it right then that the fish should just be raped and be allowed to die because there is not an angling club in control of the water ???? That comment is absolute b0110x it is about fish not being left to perish and them being saved and rehomed and if you believe this should,nt be done because there is not an angling club in situ that pays the A/T their fees then shame on you and you should be downright ashamed of yourself to call yourself an angler If I see a dog being neglected or someone trapping birds am I not entitled to inform the relevant body that deems itself responsible (RSPCA, RSPB) because I dont contribute financially to their cause ???? Of course you would because thats what the organisations state that they do and they SHOULD be informed.I'm also sure that the Angling Trust would distance themselves from your nonsensical comments about them only representing members or clubs as the below paragraph is lifted from there website---------------
Angling Trust is the new, single organisation to represent all game, coarse and sea anglers and angling in England. The formation of Angling Trust brings with it a positive new future for angling. For the first time ever, there is a single body to take cohesive action to solve all the problems that affect our sport.--------------
Also a point to bear in mind for yourselves is that as anglers who do not belong to any clubs(and there are more of us that are'nt than what are)it should not matter as Angling Trust also use government funding and as a taxpayer if my money is going to the leading voice on angling then I should be allowed to have my say and ask questions from this organisation. see below for another extract from their site-----------------------------------
Our Mission
As the governing body for all angling, the Angling Trust seeks government funding to develop the sport from grass roots participation through to elite performance. We develop programmes with clubs to increase participation, particularly amongst groups who have yet to discover the joys of going fishing. We protect the rights of all anglers to do what they love most.-------------
So ask yourselves and also your reresentative of A/T if they are their to protect its members or the welfare of anglers the waters they use and the fish that we angle for I am pretty sure that your views will be completely different to A/T itself about whether you have to be a member,club etc to highlight any potential problems you encounter with the sport Also I would like to add that members who have paid there money asked for it to be looked into and nothing was achieved by that so why should they continue to contribute with their club members or friends when their is nothing proactive being done by them????? As I stated above, very recently a board member (I think that was his position )of the A/T, found dead specimen fish and the local media were informed and duly reported on the matter but again where were the main body and what have they done?? This guy was not a joe public, I,ve paid my subscription, but a representative of them and still nothing was done bar the highlighting of the situation again in the press. By all means after having a look through the Angling Trust website I can see that their Fish Legal arm (formerly ACA)does some sterling work in bringing to justice polluters and other things that cause environmental damage and they should be applauded for that as they are a non profit making organisation but the Angling Trust have missed a trick in not stepping in to help with the situation and it would have been great for them to recruit more members from the midlands who have taken an interest in the wates decline. Chasewater also has hundreds of thousands of visitors from across the country each year and if the people knew that the A/T had championed the cause of saving the fish then I,m sure that more people would have taken an interest in their workings. Also when some stupid numptys state that they are only their for their paying members and no one else - then the A/T can say"Not really just have yourself a look at what we did for the welfare of the fish at Chasewater and instead all they will find now is people being annoyed that they are not the one voice of angling as they state aand just another organisation who want to take your money and give you f*** all in return.

Again I will say that the A/T CLAIMS it supports ALL anglers and also seeks government backing so as a taxpayer I SHOULD be able to ask for advice or assistance should I not ????? I agree with what Peter has posted about anglers needing to stand united and having an organisation that represents us as anglers but when you seek the minimum of input ie advice on paths to take and you are ignored then it does not fill you with confidence. I understand that with all the problems our sport faces in todays age with predation,pollution fish taking etc we do need a united front and I think that maybe the Environment Agency should be made to give some of their licence money to the Angling Trust and then at the end of the year the accounts made public so we can see what they spent the money on with a view to getting another sum for the next year??? After all, our rod licences seem to creep up on a yearly basis and more problems than ever now face our sport !!! How many other hobbies require a licence fee like ours does???? As the biggest hobby in the UK and the year on year rises in rod licence tax are we really seeing any more improvements to the sport we all love and the waters we love to fish?? IMO we are not and at what point will it get better or stop rising ?? Maybe there is an element that their should be seperate licence where all the money goes to an organisation like the Angling Trust who solely have the interests of anglers at heart and the Rod licence becomes seperate ??? Any thoughts lads.[]

 

[jukebox1]

Originally posted by Peter

Simon,
To Hijack this thread one last time.
Chasewater must be covered by The Reservoir Act.

Now taken from the EA website.....

Enforcement
Information on how we enforce the Reservoirs Act 1975.

We are responsible for the enforcement of the Reservoirs Act 1975 in England and Wales. The Water Act 2003 transferred this responsibility from 136 local authorities on the 1 October 2004.

We will soon be enforcing the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 which has updated the Reservoirs Act 1975. Timings of when this legislation can be applied will come from the Government after the general election.

Our role
As the Enforcement Authority we are responsible for:

Maintaining a register of reservoirs, and making this information available to the public.
Ensuring that the Undertaker has appointed a Supervising Engineer.
Ensuring that the Undertaker commissions regular inspections of the reservoir by an Inspecting Engineer.

Ensuring that the undertaker carries out essential works required in the interests of safety as soon as practicable under the supervision of a qualified civil engineer (Inspecting Engineer).

Enforcing the Reservoirs Act 1975 by influencing, warning, cautioning and ultimately prosecuting non-compliant Undertakers.
Commissioning supervising engineers, inspecting engineers and essential works required in the interests of safety in the event of non-compliance and recouping full costs incurred from the Undertaker.
Producing a Biennial Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and to the Welsh Assembly Government.
Acting in an emergency if the Undertaker cannot be found.
We will achieve this through applying the principles of better regulation.

Looking at that I feel that the buck stops with the EA if the local council are negligent in their actions, however it's really nothing to do with this thread [!] and as such I won't be arguing the chasewater scenario on this thread any more.

Hi Peter, I have got people looking into this at the minute and going through the legal side of when the council become accountable and the work is carried out regardless by the Environment Agency [^]

 

[jukebox1]

And if anyone mentions Ch******** again on this thread they need to give a hundred hail marys and be sent off individually through Newcastle High Street with a placard recruiting new members for the Gay Fishermans Association whilst wearing pink camo waders [][][B)][)]

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by me

Peter advice costs nothing. Im sure they could of advised on what paths to follow on the chase water case to try and save the fish. Mark lloyd posted on the chase water post but he gave no advice he just copied and pasted the bull of the councils website which every one had already seen. When he was questioned on this he grabbed his coat and as never posted on the thread again

Simon, to be quite frank when you post comments like the following on a public forum.....

So AT only looks after its members so they don't give a t0ss about fish or angling only the silly suckers who give them 20 quid for their annual p1ss up. So if i become a silly sucker and give them 20 quid what will they do for me? will they only look after the fish in my peg and not the bloke next to me if he aint a silly sucker ? To be honest mouse with the post youve just put supporting AT as made them look even worse than i thought they were.

why the hell should they stay around and justify let alone advise a non-member who is hell bent on not joining them anyway?


As I've repeatedly said, if enough people became members of the AT because they were anglers and wanted to show their support not just see what they personally were going to get in return for their subscription, then the Trust would be in a far greater position to spend the time, manpower, and financial resources to champion the causes.

It's quite evident that you do not have the fogiest notion of how a business has to function in order to survive. The AT is not a government backed quango with unlimited coffers, it's funding is in the main from people like, or should I write unlike, you

Plain and simple, if you don't pay the fare you don't ride the bus

Tbh I'll give the AT 12months maximum before they hang up their boots and close shop if your are indicative of the general feeling and support towards them. They cannot survive on year on year losses. Employees need wages and if the money isn't there then neither will be the employees.
And gawd forbid if a case did arise that needed their full backing, say for instance an out and out apeal to ban angling, they would struggle to afford to buy the stamp let alone the paper to write in support of us


You posted on this thread: "When he was questioned on this he grabbed his coat and as never posted on the thread again"

I'm sorry but I've just read through the whole of the Chasewater thread and tbh if I'd have been Mark I wouldn't have even offered you an initial post in the first place bearing in mind the blatant negativity against him and the Trust.

In order to gain support you need to give support

 

[Auto]

So , if the NFA , er..I mean the AT have to pick and choose which fights they get involved in for financial reasons, how much money would we have to chuck at them before they get involved in the fights that we want them involved in ? Rather than the ones they choose.
The fights that the old ACA used to get involved in should have been self financing by claiming costs from guilty parties, why has this suddenly become dependant on membership now that the AT has been born. I have been a member of the ACA in the past, but will not be contributing to what I now see as a revamped NFA,and their equally inept cronies having no idea what my contribution will be spent on.

 

[jukebox1]

to be fair I think the bashing started after the initial post and the non reply to questions. Why bother posting then dissapearing?? I think maybe after reading some posts that it does deserve a chance to grow and then we can see what impact they have with a bit of clout. One thing I have learnt is that their are still a lot of barriers within angling and a hell of alot of different opinions and if you couple this with the fact that there are many anglers who already pay a fortune just to go fishing ( rod licence,tackle, bait,permits,travel,etc etc it all adds up to be a pricey game to be in if you take it seriously. A lot of people will simply not join due to the fact it is a new organisation that requires 20 of your money with no proven track record and with people already spending a lot of money on their fishing in these times of hardship I can in a way understand why support is low. Not saying its right but I can understand. Maybe we should,nt really be lambasting the Angling Trust at all but demanding answers and action from the Environment Agency who receive most of our money ???? Hopefully the Angling Trust will quietly grow, and not fold, and when cases become more prominent and more of us can see what they are achieving then the support will steadily grow and they can thrive??

 

[Dave]

Auto, to take a case up you need funds in the first instance.
If you win the case you can sometimes claim costs but this doesn't neccesarily mean you will get them.
If the third party then launch an appeal you then have to be able to fund your case again, and even if you win that you are not guaranteed to get the costs back.

To be awarded costs is not the same as being given them and if the third party decide not to pay then you again have to have the finacial support to pursue them to get it.

It's a viscious circle and the reason why so many big organisations win against the little man - purely and simply by having more money behind them and being able to fund expensive battles that the little man would have to shy away from or conceed at an early date.

Likewise to take on a large organisation you need to have the funding behind you to see it through to the very end otherwise you will lose regardless if you in the right or not

3million anglers in this country, and if half supported the AT it would give a massive 30million a year to be able to fight and force a win on just about any and every case.
Sadly that'll never happen with the appathetical approach a lot of anglers take