• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

A.T. working for the EA.

Graham Elliott

Senior Member & Supporter
If anyone thought one of the key functions of the AT was to challenge the EA when it doesn't perform to standard might be surprised to find it will in fact now be the other way round.....

The voice of angling.......or the voice of the EA?


Some people may feel duped.
 
providing expert advice to clubs and fishery owners on how to identify and secure additional funding
improving facilities at fisheries and clubs for anglers
encouraging take-up among junior anglers and address the recent decline in this age group
retaining and recruiting more anglers to go fishing
exploring options to develop the voluntary bailiff scheme which has been piloted in the South East
working with enforcement partners (including the police), club and fishery owners to clamp down on angling-related rural crime.

Talk about passing the buck!

The contract is worth £1 million per year to do the job the EA are supposed to be doing and are getting how many millions from rod licences per annum?
 
Part of the new AT remit is to clampdown on '' angling related rural crime '' could this be the death knell for the otter ? They live in the country and behave in a criminal fashion scoffing all the fish :D
 
The AT sub-contracted to the EA, and getting £1 million off them, do you consider that a good or bad thing ? I know it sounds like the EA are passing the buck, but don,t you think the AT will actually spend it on fishing related issues, which can only be a good thing ?
 
I have no choice when it comes to paying taxes, I have none other than to pay for a rod licence if I want to go fishing, I now find that I have no choice but to contribute to an organisation I would not contribute to if I had a choice as I and the majority of anglers in this country do now. :mad:

If the AT were supposed to keep an eye on the EA who keeps an eye on the pair of them now? burglars watching burglars ?
 
I think Anglers have already been duped and for quite some time..

We pay a tax to pursue a past time..

We all brought into the idea that the EA would help Angling.

And some still buy into the idea that joining various groups/organisations will also help..

The fact is Predation is top of the list of urgent priority's to protect Course Fishing, there of course other problems, but as ive said Predation is top of the list..

Without Fish there is no Angling..

The River venues in this country are getting less and less as every year passes simply because the fish have gone..

Some areas of the country have seen it happen firstly, many more will follow..

This is not a cycle..

The so called balance is not good for Angling.
 
If they get complete control of ALL licence money and ditch their own membership subscription so we're not paying twice, then I'm all for it.
Sadly I can't see this happening.

Do we not have a right to see exactly how/where our licence fee is spent? If so I think we should be demanding it, I dread to think how much of it is spent on dredging.
 
As Graham says and Neil indicated.
The relationships between companies that in many cases are guilty of the causative problems in angling and the supposed saviours has become blurred and incestuous in my opinion.
 
As Graham says and Neil indicated.
The relationships between companies that in many cases are guilty of the causative problems in angling and the supposed saviours has become blurred and incestuous in my opinion.

How can the self proclaimed supposed voice of all anglers continue to take money from the countries biggest water polluter????..... now working for the EA.
They certainly dont represent me and i wouldnt dream of joining whilst they continue to seek sponsorship from Thames water (and severn trent water?) For their "flagship" riverfest !!!!
 
Agree Graham,
If we can't draw a clear definitive line between the two where does that leave us?
I have long shared the suspicion that the EA and some other wildlife trusts harbour anti angling individuals among the many others that haven't an axe to grind.
Angling clubs can't afford to enter into litigation in order to protect their rights and are seen as a soft target , as are, to a lesser extent riparian owners.

Rivers are increasingly viewed by many councils as an amenity that should be enjoyed by all and not remain the preserve of anglers. Right To Roam kickstarted it, and many boaters have taken advantage of the EAs reluctance to enforce non navigable status on natural channels on our lowland rivers, with more and more new builds with river frontage being sold with meaningless mooring rights which are taken to mean navigation rights! I could go on.....
Because many of those that seek to turn a blind eye to long held angling rights receive public funding ,clubs and riparian owners should also be able to draw on legal aid to protect their legal pastime and investment.
As this will never be the case, we need an independent legal body to support us, which is why I personally liked the look of the ATs legal arm Fish Legal.
To find that the AT are now financially linked to the EA is a disappointment .

I've just put down one of my favourite angling books which is Kevin Grozier's 'Avon Days and Stour Ways', who in his last chapter, 'reflections ' opitimiises the importance of angling and the threat from the enemy within.
 
So it would appear that the EA have 'outsourced' their angling related responsibilities on the cheap to the angling trust.
If this goes as well as the outsourcing my local council has done we are in deep doo doo.
 
The AT is an umbrella organization, representing angling as a whole, so funnily enough it doesn't do exactly what I or any other individual would like it to do. Accept that and then you may be able to appreciate the things it does which you do agree with. The EA subcontracting to the AT, the EA having a relationship with Thames Water ....., these are all things I would expect from an organization intent on expanding it's realm of influence. You don't change other organizations minds by ignoring them like a petulant child. Its called politics, like it or not, it's how change comes about in the modern age. The more work the AT can take off the EA the better IMO, because irrespective of the budget the AT is given to do the job, I'm sure they'll do a better job than the EA. I really hope the majority of posters so far on this thread are not representative of anglers in general or we're in deeper **** than I thought.

Nick C
 
The AT is an umbrella organization, representing angling as a whole, so funnily enough it doesn't do exactly what I or any other individual would like it to do. Accept that and then you may be able to appreciate the things it does which you do agree with. The EA subcontracting to the AT, the EA having a relationship with Thames Water ....., these are all things I would expect from an organization intent on expanding it's realm of influence. You don't change other organizations minds by ignoring them like a petulant child. Its called politics, like it or not, it's how change comes about in the modern age. The more work the AT can take off the EA the better IMO, because irrespective of the budget the AT is given to do the job, I'm sure they'll do a better job than the EA. I really hope the majority of posters so far on this thread are not representative of anglers in general or we're in deeper **** than I thought.

Nick C

Thanks Nick, you've just said what i couldn't put in to words. :)

And maybe, if every license payer had of signed up to the AT early on, they wouldn't have had to take this route to make in-roads.

Come on lads/lasses, 60p a week to try and save our rivers, surely its worth a go.
 
Thanks Nick, you've just said what i couldn't put in to words. :)

And maybe, if every license payer had of signed up to the AT early on, they wouldn't have had to take this route to make in-roads.

Come on lads/lasses, 60p a week to try and save our rivers, surely its worth a go.

Exactly, everyone moans about the state of angling yet we finally get a national organisation to represent us and nobody supports it!

Though I'm getting the impression the same old cynics on here will never be happy whatever happens.
 
It all sounds a little too cosy with chimes of "meet the new boss same as the old boss " . If I wished to engage a firm to litigate on my behalf against the EA I would not choose one who, to all intent and purpose , is on their payroll .
Of course the AT has to forge relationships with the likes of the EA. Regional AT meetings have always included more than a sprinkling of EA speakers as well as those representing river trusts.
As I mentioned in my previous ramblings, angling clubs need, more than ever, someone to fight their corner, and I have always advised membership of the AT and Fish Legal to be a good thing, and far cheaper than engaging a specialist firm of solicitors at club level. However, I cannot see that subcontracting to the EA is going to be positive PR , and won't persuade the cynics among us to join.
 
I will never ever join an organisation that has double standards when it comes to money, one part of the AT fights pollution while another accepts money as sponsorship from the biggest polluter in the country.

I could go on to list things that stop me joining but I wont as I will only be accused of moaning which believe me I am not I have principles which I will change.

As the AT and the EA were in consultation well before and probably during the awarding of this contract about the licence fee I expect a rise in the fee to pay for this contract.

Very little has been said from either side about what roles the AT will be taking over from the EA, the AT has published some "key objectives" most of which they are already involved with, so if (more likely when) the licence fee increases what can anglers expect in return for their money from the EA and the AT?
 
Back
Top