Don’t give a fcuk

oh dear~think
seems as though keith has problems with a large percentage of the population (sea anglers included) who don’t fit in with his dewy eyed vision of how things used to be.
shame really.

Is kicking the sea anglers out of AT proposed as reward or punishment?

Re: the comments, what National Governing Body is he a member of and who decided he should be on it?

Personally I tend to agree. I know most sea anglers in general would rather walk on hot coals that have to buy a licence, but I think that’s very short sighted. If they contribute revenue to the government the way i see it they become far more important than they are now, and are more likely to have a say in matters such as conservation and the creation of protected zones. As for whether they should be part of the Angling Trust, I don’t agree that they should be kicked out because whether it’s actually successful at the moment or not, the vision of having one body to represent all anglers is a worthy one IMO.

I have just read through what Keith has written. I can understand the logic of what he says, not only about sea anglers, but also a number of commercials – not all, but a number.

Sea anglers and I am an occasional one, do not wish to be represented so it would be good if they were to be excluded from the Angling Trust. Unfortunately as Keith is no doubt fully aware and where his logic breaks down, is that Government will only speak to THE representative body of ANGLING – that is the whole of angling including sea anglers.

When it comes to commercials, unfortunately the ones that are properly managed for the fish and fishing rather than the pound out of your pocket into theirs and don’t throw up loads of 100lb weights every week are the very ones that anglers will not fish as ‘there are not enough fish in there’. Evidence enough for me that control and perhaps even legislation is required!

As for the rivers then I am fortunate enough to fish some of the best for 4 months of the year. Rivers that are actually year on year and where my average weight over a series of matches last year was over 15lb a match! Those rivers are on the Broads system.

Totally agree, in fact, I flatly refuse to fund the Angling Trust for the benefit of anglers that will not support the Angling Trust!!!!!!

Why should any non contributing angler to AT benefit from my hard earned money?

All of you anti AT anglers give yourselves a nice big pat on the back……you have won, you have managed to grind me and so many other believers down, congratulations, you must feel so proud of all you have achieved for and on behalf, of angling, your legacy of doing bugger all will live forever.

If I was the Angling Trust I would be very quick to distance myself from Keiths ramblings as it may be viewed that they are the opionions of the trust and not just Keiths thoughts. ~think ~think ~think

I’m not aware of any anglers that didn’t support the Angling Trust requesting you to fund it Bob.

I presume you contributed out of choice, which is precisely what you sought to deny those of us who weren’t interested in it, when you called for compulsory membership and rod licence levies.

“you must feel so proud of all you have achieved for and on behalf, of angling”

After about three years of going around in circles still no-one has established exactly what it was that needed “achieving”.

There is absolutly no doubt the majority of anglers benefit greatly from the unselfish efforts and financial backing of the minority of anglers, particulary through the efforts of Fish Legal, CR you, and thousands like you, refuse to aknowledge this simple fact, but a fact it is, until you are prepared to accept this, there is no point in continuing any sort of debate, I have given up all hope for the Angling Trust and have moved on, knowing most “anglers” are not worth a light, enjoy what little fishing rights you still have,whilst you still have them.

What rights are we in danger of losing ? What benefits do we receive leaching off the goodwill of others ? How many other diehard Angling Trust members do you think feel the same way as you Bob ? Lastly if it wasn’t for the fact of having to join to fish fishomania & the nationals how many members do you think would be feeling the same as you ?

@Swimfeeder:

“There is absolutly no doubt the majority of anglers benefit greatly from the unselfish efforts and financial backing of the minority of anglers, particulary through the efforts of Fish Legal, CR you, and thousands like you, refuse to aknowledge this simple fact, but a fact it is, until you are prepared to accept this, there is no point in continuing any sort of debate,”

So it’s a question of faith and belief.

Not unlike global warming.

@Swimfeeder wrote:

There is absolutly no doubt the majority of anglers benefit greatly from the unselfish efforts and financial backing of the minority of anglers, particulary through the efforts of Fish Legal, CR you, and thousands like you, refuse to aknowledge this simple fact, but a fact it is, until you are prepared to accept this, there is no point in continuing any sort of debate, I have given up all hope for the Angling Trust and have moved on, knowing most “anglers” are not worth a light, enjoy what little fishing rights you still have,whilst you still have them.

So what your saying here is if you can’t afford to join the Angling Trust your not worth a light?
There are countless thousands of people in this country who are realy struggling to pay their way at the moment and will be for the foreseeable future. If the Angling Trust is so committed to making a difference why not make Membership a pound then i’m sure most of the thousands of the great unwashed would give it a punt.
Rather than just the people who can afford to have an opinion taking the option to join.

@dirkdiggler wrote:

If the Angling Trust is so committed to making a difference why not make Membership a pound then i’m sure most of the thousands of the great unwashed would give it a punt.
Rather than just the people who can afford to have an opinion taking the option to join.

Been tried before at a £1 under another guise and still no numbers of anglers joined, washed or unwashed. I am afraid that in my view Bob is correct, there is no point in going through all the old arguments again and again.

Either you fall into a minority that accept that the Government will only talk to a strong representative body like they do for cycling, athletics, boating, canoeists, birdwatchers etc and angling should be represented in a similar way or you believe that we are a disparate group of individuals where everyone else except you litters the countryside and shouldn’t be anywhere near where you to fish when you want and where you want preferably for nothing.

By the way, why do you think Government have spent millions of pounds on unused cycle tracks and moorings for boats where fishing is banned? – I will tell you what I believe – because of pressure from the representative bodies of those sports.

@Swimfeeder wrote:

There is absolutly no doubt the majority of anglers benefit greatly from the unselfish efforts and financial backing of the minority of anglers, particulary through the efforts of Fish Legal, CR you, and thousands like you, refuse to aknowledge this simple fact, but a fact it is, until you are prepared to accept this, there is no point in continuing any sort of debate, I have given up all hope for the Angling Trust and have moved on, knowing most “anglers” are not worth a light, enjoy what little fishing rights you still have,whilst you still have them.

Now thats what i call loyalty!

I have no great opinion re Keith Arthur and giving Sea Anglers the boot but I do think all anglers (sea / game / coarse) benefit from a single unified body. Rugby League which is a sport in my heart was hampered by numerous ruling bodies. The Government (Sport England) then made a single governing body a requirement of funding. It worked quite well. All 3 spheres of angling need to be together IMO.

I understand what Bob is saying and why he is saying it. For sure times are hard but anglers on the net / anglers who buy bespoke handmade float / buy day tickets for commercial fisheries can hardly cry foul at the comparatively small outlay for AT membership. I often see people giving to charity to make themselves feel good so maybe AT membership could work the same. I think the ACA certainly did. Likewise you do not have to agree with everything an organisation does in order to support it.

That angling trust talking shop:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/britains-rivers-come-back-to-life-2172580.html

Their hot-air emissions need curtailing.

Or we’ll all die from global warming.

@caster rob wrote:

@Swimfeeder:

“There is absolutly no doubt the majority of anglers benefit greatly from the unselfish efforts and financial backing of the minority of anglers, particulary through the efforts of Fish Legal, CR you, and thousands like you, refuse to aknowledge this simple fact, but a fact it is, until you are prepared to accept this, there is no point in continuing any sort of debate,”

So it’s a question of faith and belief.

Not unlike global warming.

No CR, It’s a question of accepting a simple fact, if you are prepared to accept the simple fact that the Angling Trust/Fish Legal greatly benefit anglers/angling, you and all others like you, lose all basis for argument against the Trust, but,and here is another fact, that will not happen, you would rather come up with any excuse to justify your “argument”………global warming? how about, does Santa exist? or Aliens? or who shot JFK?

What utter,utter bollocks.

@JohnC wrote:

@Swimfeeder wrote:

There is absolutly no doubt the majority of anglers benefit greatly from the unselfish efforts and financial backing of the minority of anglers, particulary through the efforts of Fish Legal, CR you, and thousands like you, refuse to aknowledge this simple fact, but a fact it is, until you are prepared to accept this, there is no point in continuing any sort of debate, I have given up all hope for the Angling Trust and have moved on, knowing most “anglers” are not worth a light, enjoy what little fishing rights you still have,whilst you still have them.

Now thats what i call loyalty!

John C, Loyalty?

Over the years I have come to expect almost zero loyalty where anglers are concerned……. and thats a another fact some “anglers” need to accept.

Alright, I’ll try a different tack.

What benefits have I enjoyed since the inception of AT that wouldn’t be there if they weren’t?

Don’t go over the well-trodden path of prosecuting polluters because the EA did that before them and will probably do it after them.

@dirkdiggler wrote:

@Swimfeeder wrote:

There is absolutly no doubt the majority of anglers benefit greatly from the unselfish efforts and financial backing of the minority of anglers, particulary through the efforts of Fish Legal, CR you, and thousands like you, refuse to aknowledge this simple fact, but a fact it is, until you are prepared to accept this, there is no point in continuing any sort of debate, I have given up all hope for the Angling Trust and have moved on, knowing most “anglers” are not worth a light, enjoy what little fishing rights you still have,whilst you still have them.

So what your saying here is if you can’t afford to join the Angling Trust your not worth a light?
There are countless thousands of people in this country who are realy struggling to pay their way at the moment and will be for the foreseeable future. If the Angling Trust is so committed to making a difference why not make Membership a pound then i’m sure most of the thousands of the great unwashed would give it a punt.
Rather than just the people who can afford to have an opinion taking the option to join.

Where have I stated if you cannot afford to join the Angling Trust you are not worth a light?

If joining the AT was FREE, most anglers would not bother, why? because they do not give a flying toss, …… so please do not keep trotting out all of the same old,lame excuses.

Keith is an honest ,straight up and down individual, I like to think I am the same, right is right, and the truth is the truth, if any of you are really truthful, you will,like me accept the sad fact that anglers are a waste of time when it comes to galvanising themselves into any sort of organisation, I flatly refuse to fund that sort of apathy/laziness any longer, I cannot believe any of you would have the audacity to have a problem with that, but then again………….
perhaps I can.

@caster rob wrote:

Alright, I’ll try a different tack.

What benefits have I enjoyed since the inception of AT that wouldn’t be there if they weren’t?

Don’t go over the well-trodden path of prosecuting polluters because the EA did that before them and will probably do it after them.

“Don’t go over etc etc”

Well, as you are attempting to instruct me what I should be typing on this forum, perhaps you could type the reply to your question for me?
thanks in advance, I am off to feed the horse.

We are unfortunately a docile nation who accepts their fate almost finding ways to harm ourselves much like sheep.

NWAC 2010

Amazing what a bit of rebellion / anarchy can achieve ~think

@caster rob wrote:

Alright, I’ll try a different tack.

What benefits have I enjoyed since the inception of AT that wouldn’t be there if they weren’t?

Don’t go over the well-trodden path of prosecuting polluters because the EA did that before them and will probably do it after them.

Here you go CR , a little bit of research and effort revealed this; http://www.fishlegal.net/page.asp?section=602&sectionTitle=News in 2010 surely enough to convince even their worst sceptic ???? oh by the way, whilst I was on the Angling Trust site I renewed my annual membership.

your quite correct bob there not worth a toss. bunch of hand ringing meme,s. same old lame excuses for not supporting there sport. there input into angling and its future is absolute zero and im sure future generations will one day thank them for there sterling efforts on there behalf. you actualy wonder if they do go fishing at all. i somehow doubt it.
global warming ??? what that all about toryboy. according to the tax experts the sea will rise and flood the land~think . is this going to happen before the icecap melts and the glaciers move to africa~think i visited blackpool last week for the first time in 50 years. the sea was in the same place as it was then so is this sea rise going to happen all at once . no its a tax scam made up by the tory/new labour elete to squeeze more cash out of the poor, and put their relatives into well paid non jobs. no change there then. question toryboy are you one of these non job handringers put on forums to spread the,” your doomed” gospel~think ~think .~think it would explain your dislike for any angling body that represents anglers young and old and could cost your paymasters money if aloud to grow. MMmmmm enemy within.

@Swimfeeder wrote:

@caster rob wrote:

Alright, I’ll try a different tack.

What benefits have I enjoyed since the inception of AT that wouldn’t be there if they weren’t?

Don’t go over the well-trodden path of prosecuting polluters because the EA did that before them and will probably do it after them.

Here you go CR , a little bit of research and effort revealed this]

That’s mostly “wrote to them” “attended a meeting here” stuff, the sort of thing Angling Associations can do for themsleves. Nothing unique there.

@herbie wrote:

your quite correct bob there not worth a toss. bunch of hand ringing meme,s. same old lame excuses for not supporting there sport. there input into angling and its future is absolute zero and im sure future generations will one day thank them for there sterling efforts on there behalf. you actualy wonder if they do go fishing at all. i somehow doubt it.
global warming ??? what that all about toryboy. according to the tax experts the sea will rise and flood the land~think . is this going to happen before the icecap melts and the glaciers move to africa~think i visited blackpool last week for the first time in 50 years. the sea was in the same place as it was then so is this sea rise going to happen all at once . no its a tax scam made up by the tory/new labour elete to squeeze more cash out of the poor, and put their relatives into well paid non jobs. no change there then. question toryboy are you one of these non job handringers put on forums to spread the,” your doomed” gospel~think ~think .~think it would explain your dislike for any angling body that represents anglers young and old and could cost your paymasters money if aloud to grow. MMmmmm enemy within.

Most of the well-paid non-jobs were in the Town Halls and civic centres last time I looked.

If you ever learn to communicate in English you may notice that I’m totally dismissive of the AGW theory, hence my reference to faith and beliefs.

Talk about hard work, maybe we should use crayons.

if an Angling Trust levy gets placed on the rod license, I shall give up fishing. I don’t want a single penny of my money going to an organisation that lies to member clubs and almost puts them out of commission regarding a clear cut and admitted by the other party legal case. Last time I read anything, this country was free & open and the only legal requirement for angling was the rod license – stick a levy on it and then it makes the AT something that it is not. As I buy TWO rod licenses a year, that would mean me paying TWICE to the AT but not getting TWICE the “value”.
I have had a read through the AT “2010 Strategy” and at no point in it does it pertain to the LARGEST discipline of angling (carp fishing). On the first page of the “strategy” it states that the AT are opposed to sea anglers requiring a rod license!
The Angling Trust is there IMHO simply for the match, sea & game anglers & nobody else.
Until somebody can give me 100% cast iron evidence that the AT actually do something for the carp anglers, my mind is made up & I shall support other organisations that do things for carp angling.