That Packham pest again.

If you're a huntsman or have a pet that you're proud of post about it in here
Steve Burke
Jack Pike
Jack Pike
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Apr 29 2015 17:48

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by Steve Burke »

Kev Berry wrote: Fri May 03 2019 09:21 -
Mike J wrote: Thu May 02 2019 09:02 -
Disunity is allowing every field sport to walk blindly into oblivion, its just a matter of who goes first and when.

Probably the finest field sport organisation is the BASC that represents shooting.
Dispite its huge numbers Angling has nothing remotely like it, just count the number of angling bodies alone, is it 3 or 4, or ??

We should (must) consolidate under one single body, something like our old British Field Sports Society.
Use the BASC legal and publicity departments, anglings weight of numbers and the Trout and Salmon's high level contacts, only then we would have a bastion ready for what is coming over the horizon.

United we stand, divided.......
First they came for the split shot
and I did not speak out
because I did not use it

Then they came for the hounds
and I did not speak out
because I did not have any.

Then they came for the fox hunters
and I did not speak out
because I was not a fox hunter.

Then they came for me, an angler
and there was no one left to speak out for me


Do not ask for whom the bells toll-------


whether you like or dislike the hunting and shooting brigade is irrelevant---WE are all classed as blood sports by the Anti's, the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB, the RSPCA, PETA, etc etc

Mike is spot on united we stand.

But the typical angler will do f**k all to protect his sport if it means putting his hand in his pocket
Those meant to look after our sport are PAID by those govt bodies---they will not bite the hand that feeds them , particularly as being an angler is not part of the criteria to getting a job with the AT.
The Angling Trust has been described as the voice of angling, and joining is the way to get your voice heard by politicians, just the same way as the RSPB is for birdwatchers. The RSPB has over a million members and thus absolutely massive financial clout.

Despite their supposedly being almost 3 million anglers only some 12000 (yes, 12 thousand) are members of the Angling Trust. Think what angling could achieve if even just 10% of anglers joined the Angling Trust!

Full details are on the Angling Trust web site at www.anglingtrust.net

Some of you may not be happy with the way the Angling Trust is run. Well, why not join and vote for change?

Or are you happy to make excuses? And be the first to moan when angling gets directly attacked and we've not got the infrastructure or resources to fight back?
Kev Berry

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by Kev Berry »

Steve Burke wrote: Fri May 03 2019 14:38 -
Kev Berry wrote: Fri May 03 2019 09:21 -
Mike J wrote: Thu May 02 2019 09:02 -
Disunity is allowing every field sport to walk blindly into oblivion, its just a matter of who goes first and when.

Probably the finest field sport organisation is the BASC that represents shooting.
Dispite its huge numbers Angling has nothing remotely like it, just count the number of angling bodies alone, is it 3 or 4, or ??

We should (must) consolidate under one single body, something like our old British Field Sports Society.
Use the BASC legal and publicity departments, anglings weight of numbers and the Trout and Salmon's high level contacts, only then we would have a bastion ready for what is coming over the horizon.

United we stand, divided.......
First they came for the split shot
and I did not speak out
because I did not use it

Then they came for the hounds
and I did not speak out
because I did not have any.

Then they came for the fox hunters
and I did not speak out
because I was not a fox hunter.

Then they came for me, an angler
and there was no one left to speak out for me


Do not ask for whom the bells toll-------


whether you like or dislike the hunting and shooting brigade is irrelevant---WE are all classed as blood sports by the Anti's, the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB, the RSPCA, PETA, etc etc

Mike is spot on united we stand.

But the typical angler will do f**k all to protect his sport if it means putting his hand in his pocket
Those meant to look after our sport are PAID by those govt bodies---they will not bite the hand that feeds them , particularly as being an angler is not part of the criteria to getting a job with the AT.
The Angling Trust has been described as the voice of angling, and joining is the way to get your voice heard by politicians, just the same way as the RSPB is for birdwatchers. The RSPB has over a million members and thus absolutely massive financial clout.

Despite their supposedly being almost 3 million anglers only some 12000 (yes, 12 thousand) are members of the Angling Trust. Think what angling could achieve if even just 10% of anglers joined the Angling Trust!

Full details are on the Angling Trust web site at www.anglingtrust.net

Some of you may not be happy with the way the Angling Trust is run. Well, why not join and vote for change?

Or are you happy to make excuses? And be the first to moan when angling gets directly attacked and we've not got the infrastructure or resources to fight back?
I am a member through several clubs---and I was an individual member

as an individual member you have NO voice---I asked them about something a while back, their first question was is this water run by a club---No it isn't---we not interested, goodbye. I asked them why they were not making it public about the true nature of our cuddly fluffy otters---they said they were not going to do anything about otter problems EVER.
End of my individual membership

RSPB have so many members for 2 reasons---retired folk joining cos they got nothing else to do---they publicise themselves at every opportunity

how do you vote for change in a body that appoints its own officials?
User avatar
davelumb
Forum Sponsor
Forum Sponsor
Posts: 42346
Joined: Sat Aug 27 2011 05:00
Location: On some faraway beach
Contact:

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by davelumb »

Steve Burke wrote: Fri May 03 2019 14:38 -
The Angling Trust has been described as the voice of angling, and joining is the way to get your voice heard by politicians, just the same way as the RSPB is for birdwatchers. The RSPB has over a million members and thus absolutely massive financial clout.

Despite their supposedly being almost 3 million anglers only some 12000 (yes, 12 thousand) are members of the Angling Trust. Think what angling could achieve if even just 10% of anglers joined the Angling Trust!

Full details are on the Angling Trust web site at www.anglingtrust.net

Some of you may not be happy with the way the Angling Trust is run. Well, why not join and vote for change?

Or are you happy to make excuses? And be the first to moan when angling gets directly attacked and we've not got the infrastructure or resources to fight back?
Why does the RSPB have soe many more members than AT? Simple.

"What do I get for me subs?"

The answer from the AT is "Representation". Which is a bit nebulous to most.

The answer from the RSPB is "Representation, FREE access to x number of reserves and a quarterly magazine."

People join the RSPB for the free parking and entrance to reserves.

As for joining AT to change it. You'll not do that as an ordinary member, and my guess is you'd struggle as a 'volunteer' on a sub-committee. Do volunteers get expenses to attend meetigs? The England lure team has to fund itself.

Sadly the AT has become the same kind of gravy train as NFA etc were.
Steve Burke
Jack Pike
Jack Pike
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Apr 29 2015 17:48

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by Steve Burke »

And sadly because so many don't support the Angling Trust nothing gets done. What's more important - people's views on the Angling Trust or the future of angling itself?

I'm not having a go at Dave or anyone else with similar views. I'm just appealing to people to think of the wider picture.

Politics is the art of the possible. We may not get the best possible solution. But we need to get the best solution possible. Note that there's a difference!

As an example of this, there's absolutely no way that the media nor the public will agree to the shooting of otters as a minority has advocated. All angling would be doing is shooting itself in the foot. It would be a public relations disaster and would alienate many would be supporters.

The Angling Trust has pressured the government to provide grants towards otter fencing. This money comes directly out of EA licence money. For some lake owners it's covered the entire cost, for others it's been a just a small fraction but it's always helped. That said, for rivers I don't pretend to know the answer.

Talking of support, I've been a supporter of the Angling Trust and it's predecessor the ACA for decades. Indeed, Peter Rogers and I donated 100% of the profits on The Book of the Perch to the ACA.

The Angling Trust also fights actual and potential pollution through its Fish Legal arm. They take on big business and the government, and their success rate is outstanding.

Apathy meant that the old ACA struggled for support just as the Angling Trust does now. So I don't accept that disagreeing with what the Angling Trust has done is the whole reason for the lack of membership.

And they have done a lot! Just visit anglingtrust.net to see for yourself. They just haven't got their successes out to most anglers, and that badly needs to change. The only ones who really know are members!

I completely agree that the Angling Trust is by no means perfect. But it's all we've got and, like it or not, it does represent angling as a whole.

I'd once again appeal to all of you to think of the wider picture.

You may not care much for the Angling Trust. But how much do you care for angling?
Last edited by Steve Burke on Fri May 03 2019 18:29, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
davelumb
Forum Sponsor
Forum Sponsor
Posts: 42346
Joined: Sat Aug 27 2011 05:00
Location: On some faraway beach
Contact:

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by davelumb »

The trouble is it doesn't look like AT cares much for angling. politics might be the art of the possible, but growing memberships is the art of positive promotion to your target demographic. That's where AT fails big time.

When I was a member (I dropped out for a number of reasons, one being their inability to attend the PAC convention - something Alan Edwards did every year with ACA) I got loads of e-mails from them. Almost all about how brilliant the competitions squads were. Little about anything else. I still get emails about regional AT meetings!

Fish Legal seems to be carrying on the good work of the ACA, but you can't support them directly. AT seems to be toothless.

And there it is again, AT is perceived as rubbish. It needs a good PR job.
juttle
Perch
Perch
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun Feb 19 2012 06:00

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by juttle »

Very well put Steve, you might not be in agreement with the AT, but it’s already an organised body to support anglers and angling and it’s all we’ve got. As it seems likely that we’ll need someone to fight angling’s corner in the near future it would make sense for all anglers to back the AT. I’m on the way over there right now!

“My enemy’s enemy is my friend”


Bob
Bob
Kev Berry

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by Kev Berry »

Steve Burke wrote: Fri May 03 2019 16:10 -
And sadly because so many don't support the Angling Trust nothing gets done. What's more important - people's views on the Angling Trust or the future of angling itself?

I'm not having a go at Dave or anyone else with similar views. I'm just appealing to people to think of the wider picture.

Politics is the art of the possible. We may not get the best possible solution. But we need to get the best solution possible. Note that there's a difference!

As an example of this, there's absolutely no way that the media nor the public will agree to the shooting of otters as a minority has advocated. All angling would be doing is shooting itself in the foot. It would be a public relations disaster and would alienate many would be supporters.

The Angling Trust has pressured the government to provide grants towards otter fencing. This money comes directly out of EA licence money. For some lake owners it's covered the entire cost, for others it's been a just a small fraction but it's always helped. That said, for rivers I don't pretend to know the answer.

Talking of support, I've been a supporter of the Angling Trust and it's predecessor the ACA for decades. Indeed, Peter Rogers and I donated 100% of the profits on The Book of the Perch to the ACA.

The Angling Trust also fights actual and potential pollution through its Fish Legal arm. They take on big business and the government, and their success rate is outstanding.

Apathy meant that the old ACA struggled for support just as the Angling Trust does now. So I don't accept that disagreeing with what the Angling Trust has done is the whole reason for the lack of membership.

And they have done a lot! Just visit anglingtrust.net to see for yourself. They just haven't got their successes out to most anglers, and that badly needs to change. The only ones who really know are members!

I completely agree that the Angling Trust is by no means perfect. But it's all we've got and, like it or not, it does represent angling as a whole.

I'd once again appeal to all of you to think of the wider picture.

You may not care much for the Angling Trust. But how much do you care for angling?
Ok we cant legally shoot otters....but the AT have had ample opportunity to show the otter in it's TRUE colours and to rubbish the disneyfied image people have. I would say most of the public haven't got a clue about otters other than watching Tarka the otter or Wind in the Willows. I know I got a very astonished response when I put a post on Facebook wildlife forum about what the murdering feckers get up to
User avatar
Mike J
Ferox Trout
Ferox Trout
Posts: 11094
Joined: Wed Nov 09 2016 09:26
Location: Wessex

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by Mike J »

Steve Burke wrote: Fri May 03 2019 16:10 -
And sadly because so many don't support the Angling Trust nothing gets done. What's more important - people's views on the Angling Trust or the future of angling itself?

I'm not having a go at Dave or anyone else with similar views. I'm just appealing to people to think of the wider picture.

Politics is the art of the possible. We may not get the best possible solution. But we need to get the best solution possible. Note that there's a difference!

As an example of this, there's absolutely no way that the media nor the public will agree to the shooting of otters as a minority has advocated. All angling would be doing is shooting itself in the foot. It would be a public relations disaster and would alienate many would be supporters.

The Angling Trust has pressured the government to provide grants towards otter fencing. This money comes directly out of EA licence money. For some lake owners it's covered the entire cost, for others it's been a just a small fraction but it's always helped. That said, for rivers I don't pretend to know the answer.

Talking of support, I've been a supporter of the Angling Trust and it's predecessor the ACA for decades. Indeed, Peter Rogers and I donated 100% of the profits on The Book of the Perch to the ACA.

The Angling Trust also fights actual and potential pollution through its Fish Legal arm. They take on big business and the government, and their success rate is outstanding.

Apathy meant that the old ACA struggled for support just as the Angling Trust does now. So I don't accept that disagreeing with what the Angling Trust has done is the whole reason for the lack of membership.

And they have done a lot! Just visit anglingtrust.net to see for yourself. They just haven't got their successes out to most anglers, and that badly needs to change. The only ones who really know are members!

I completely agree that the Angling Trust is by no means perfect. But it's all we've got and, like it or not, it does represent angling as a whole.

I'd once again appeal to all of you to think of the wider picture.

You may not care much for the Angling Trust. But how much do you care for angling?

Steve,
Firsly I applaud your donation of the Perch book profits.
Second, I am a member of three syndicates all who support the AT, Im also a Life Member of my regional Rivers Trust. I was also a member of Wildlife Trusts from 1974 until 2016 and an ACA member until it merged and would join again tomorrow if it were independent of the Angling Trust.

Formally I was a member of WAGBI, which slowly grew into the BASC, an Association which blossomed simply because it did what it said on the tin, Shooting as a healthy outdoor pursuit and Conservation because the members understood the value of their resource to the wider environment.
The added bonus of BASC Individual membership was its insurance scheme for each member 'well worth the membership fee alone' became the catchall when shooters mixed.
To the BASC individual members are its core that is why they sent ballot papers with a CV of candidates, each member is treated a valued asset.

Whichever way you look at it with a £2.8m income and 10+ millions of anglers nationwide the Angling Trust is failing, yes FAILING, there is no other word for it.
Failure is a result of poor management, it either has the wrong people in post, has no clear direction, or both.

The Angling Trust should follow the BASC formulae, it is proven to work and the template is well established.
If it cannot or the will not then it should seek advice from successful businessmen involved in our sport.
If it doesn't change it will remain as is, going nowhere and overtaken by events.

Regards, Mike.
'No Man Ever Fishes The Same River Twice, .... For It Is Not The Same River, .... And He Is Not The Same Man' Heraclitus of Ephesus
piker al
Barbel
Barbel
Posts: 3323
Joined: Fri Dec 28 2012 06:00

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by piker al »

Read an article today in the paper, packham wants more deer shot to preserve the nightingale population
User avatar
Nobby C
Chub
Chub
Posts: 2217
Joined: Wed Nov 23 2011 06:00

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by Nobby C »

He sounds very mixed up.
User avatar
davelumb
Forum Sponsor
Forum Sponsor
Posts: 42346
Joined: Sat Aug 27 2011 05:00
Location: On some faraway beach
Contact:

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by davelumb »

Perhaps someone will hang a deer carcase on his gates tomorrow.
Stewlaws
Barbel
Barbel
Posts: 2597
Joined: Thu Dec 28 2017 16:49

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by Stewlaws »

Warped logic...though would agree too many deer populate this small island and it's detrimental but we don't manage woods like we use to, deer are one aspect in many.
Kev Berry

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by Kev Berry »

Stewlaws wrote: Thu May 23 2019 07:39 -
Warped logic...though would agree too many deer populate this small island and it's detrimental but we don't manage woods like we use to, deer are one aspect in many.
Lynx---we need some lynx re introduced, they eat roe deer and they are their preferred prey, but the hand wringing namby pambys are frightened they will attack kids and dogs and eat whole cows and sheep in one bite.
piker al
Barbel
Barbel
Posts: 3323
Joined: Fri Dec 28 2012 06:00

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by piker al »

Over 40000 have signed a counter petition to save packham a job at bbc
User avatar
Mike J
Ferox Trout
Ferox Trout
Posts: 11094
Joined: Wed Nov 09 2016 09:26
Location: Wessex

Re: That Packham pest again.

Post by Mike J »

piker al wrote: Sat May 25 2019 16:46 -
Over 40000 have signed a counter petition to save packham a job at bbc
No surprise there Al.
Joe Public only see the smiling 'conservationist' not the devious publicity seeker.
'No Man Ever Fishes The Same River Twice, .... For It Is Not The Same River, .... And He Is Not The Same Man' Heraclitus of Ephesus
Post Reply