|
|
Post by iknowagoodplaice on Jan 27, 2015 17:26:19 GMT
£1.1 m of the AT income for the 15 months ending 31/03/2014 was derived from grants received from NE and SE. DEFRA is a branch of NE . total income for the period was £1.6m coincidently , the AT wages bill for the same period was a similar amount . £1.1m) Been hunting rare fish off Rochester these past days? You'd better say who you mean by NE, SE. DEFRA's a govt dept, not a branch of anything. Presumably you can post a link to support those figures. Anyway, we should all be glad the govt is stumping up some cash to support angling. i'm still waiting for you to back up your claims of c/fs among the mods on wsf ................. anyway , i'm bored now .i'll pop back in a day or two Along with some evidence that the sky is blue? Not surprised you're bored - you've been spouting the same rubbish for years now. PS Anyone have any proof that the pope is Catholic? |
|
bleth
crew member
Posts: 84
|
Post by bleth on Jan 29, 2015 19:50:35 GMT
INCOME P/E 31.03.2014 Y/E 31.12.2012 Membership - Individual £215,560 £168,074 Membership - Organisations £245,532 £154,677 Membership - Other £22,337 £16,994 Donations £59,458 £56,424 Raffles £43,992 £53,915 Auctions £0 £4,628 Environmental campaigns funding £282 £3,611 Contribution from Fish Legal £14,995 £0 Competitions - freshwater £262,631 £194,326 Competitions - marine £24,549 £38,683 Competitions - game £87,446 £53,108 ADB contribution to services £0 £9,515 Misc. income £26,293 £11,436 Marine Campaigns funding £2,975 £19,000 EA funding £711,360 £390,678 Sponsorship and advertising £1,990 £2,700 Campaigns co-ordinator funding £10,000 £31,500 Sport England funding & programmes £590,958 £319,349 Coaching courses and licensing £179,264 £69,065 Deposit account interest £970 £732 Goodwill amortisation £31,978 £95,934 Total Income £2,532,570 £1,694,349 EXPENDITURE Gross pay, NI & Pensions £1,086,929 £818,023 Property costs £37,264 £34,860 Computer costs £16,382 £6,051 Staff & Volunteers Travelling Expenses £192,481 £134,091 Membership costs £14,661 £14,893 Postage £45,150 £36,032 Promotional Printing £35,814 £64,956 Website costs £16,232 £14,889 Exhibitions £26,335 £7,233 Telephone £15,054 £12,917 General Office Expenses £32,956 £24,552 Sundry Expenses £14,405 £13,463 Legal Fees £2,427 £2,150 Accountancy and Auditors £7,300 £7,665 Depreciation of tangible fixed assets £9,192 £15,430 Raffles £9,633 £8,251 Competitions - freshwater £217,419 £150,401 Competititons - marine £26,821 £38,550 Competitions - game £87,446 £52,327 Eurpean Anglers Alliance £18,221 £10,238 Organisation insurance £5,697 £8,881 Staff training & recruitment £4,234 £5,512 Meeting fees and room hire £13,454 £9,429 Campaigns co-ordinator costs £43,473 £32,053 ADB regional, research and talent pathway £0 £24,269 Sport England projects £273,928 £0 EA direct non-staff project costs £57,065 £37,301 Coaching courses and licensing £72,711 £46,707 VAT Partial Exemption add back £63,664 £44,617 Bank charges £8,312 £5,773 Total £2,454,660 £1,681,514 SURPLUS FOR THE PERIOD £77,910 £12,835
RESERVES £223,542 £132,874
not an ideal presentation .but the relevant info is there .this is for 15 months ending 31/3/2014
EA £711K SE£591K =£1.3m for the 15 mths .
stop keeping on about me and Rochester . if I had been he ,you would have been shredded by now
|
|
|
|
Post by iknowagoodplaice on Jan 30, 2015 15:50:00 GMT
Ok post us the link to the accounts then so we can read more clearly. I see the EA figure - I already mentioned that. What is the mysterious SE you mention (you called it NE before)? Sport England? What is wrong with them contributing to angling interests? It's a good thing the govt put something towards our sport. Are you not actually interested in angling then? EA £711K SE£591K =£1.3m for the 15 mths . stop keeping on about me and Rochester . if I had been he ,you would have been shredded by now Hahahaha. That rather suggests you are from Rochester - the self delusion is typical: couldn't shred carrot, let alone an argument.  Not a very good disguise. |
|
|
|
Post by iknowagoodplaice on Jan 31, 2015 16:35:51 GMT
On the matter of bass take limits for anglers, it seems the latest proposal is a 3 fish limit. Over on the dark site there are claims that anglers' take is miniscule compared to commercial fishing, but the report posted here by tomstevo a few months ago suggests that is not true. Even if discards increase the mortality rate significantly above the recorded catch, anglers still have to play their part. Not that many will get even 3 keeper bass from the shore on one visit. |
|
|
|
Post by Purple on Jan 31, 2015 19:54:53 GMT
From memory, RSA's account for 5% of the take - the shore angler is going to be less than that .... (just don't ask me to find that link again with the figures)
The larger RSA impact is going to be on the breeding stocks - as unless Bass have started to breed in the open sea, they'll be reachable from the shore, probably while heading for all those Bass nurseries in the harbours and estuaries.
So - total take possibly only 5% - but impact on breeding Bass - somewhat more .......
(And bleth is the Pope - and I claim my prize) ......
|
|
|
|
Post by iknowagoodplaice on Feb 1, 2015 12:19:58 GMT
The figures are quite hard to pin down. Some for cod suggest the 5% figure is broadly right, though it could be considerable larger (quite a lot of uncertainty in estimates). For bass on the other hand the figure is much larger - something like 30% of total is taken by anglers. Not a trivial figure. Cod are obviously the major commercial species. With bass the commercial fishing effort is presumably not so intense, and since it is so valued for its "sporting" value, it is fished for by many anglers. Hence anglers have a greater relative impact.
I would guess that anglers have a substantial relative impact on mackerel too.
|
|
bleth
crew member
Posts: 84
|
Post by bleth on Feb 19, 2015 22:24:23 GMT
Ok post us the link to the accounts then so we can read more clearly. I see the EA figure - I already mentioned that. What is the mysterious SE you mention (you called it NE before)? Sport England? What is wrong with them contributing to angling interests? It's a good thing the govt put something towards our sport. Are you not actually interested in angling then? EA £711K SE£591K =£1.3m for the 15 mths . stop keeping on about me and Rochester . if I had been he ,you would have been shredded by now Hahahaha. That rather suggests you are from Rochester - the self delusion is typical: couldn't shred carrot, let alone an argument. Not a very good disguise. the info is there not that hard to read . wages bill seems to take out almost exactly the tax payers contribution ,so not much going on the sport the AT still maintains it is the representative body for all angling . patently it is not . 800,000 rsa , give or take , less than 4000 rsa members of AT . hardly a mandate is it . so they "advise "the govt. on bass bag limits . start by offering 1 then 2 and then 3 fish per day , per angler , followed by no limit . strange way to set about a negotiation . and as I said without a mandate . fyi the a/c info was posted by Leon , on RAP as a sticky .follow the link at the bottom . the black bream campaign they ran last year which they expected would gain easy publicity has gone badly wrong . there is now a real danger that the bream fishery will be closed to all as a result of their misguided campaign . any word yet on the names of wsf mods of a commercial persuasion . ? its not a difficult question for you to answer surely. at least there is more substance in my rubbish than the claptrap coming from you |
|
|
|
Post by iknowagoodplaice on Feb 20, 2015 21:42:23 GMT
fyi the a/c info was posted by Leon , on RAP as a sticky .follow the link at the bottom . Same old bleth/barry/bumbler/fantasist. Why not actually give us the link instead of vague references that no one here can follow? (I know the answer to that of course.) Happy bumbling. |
|
|
|
Post by Sunny on Feb 28, 2015 7:59:47 GMT
Seems that I have not been keeping pace with events on WSF. In fact I have not been on there for a year or so.
I attended the Mullet Club AGM last weekend and the news there was that Mike has kicked them all out and closed the (falsely named) C&P area; concerned about his reputation and being associated with them. I can feel the tears welling-up now....those poor commies where will they go now to peddle their lies and internet bullying !
I am curious why you did not convey this to us Bleth ?
There is apparently another forum been set up, in which they can stew in their own bile. I have no details and do not care to know.
Interestingly we had a presentation from the new Southern ICFA....nice guys and they said some very positive things about legislation on inshore netting.
I should point out that the NMC has a single membership to the AT; which belies the whole club membership. The NMC also contribute annually to the AT. Money very well spent, which is raised from our conservation fund and - well supported - raffles.
I take Bleth's point that the AT only represents 4,000 anglers; although that only shows the actual membership numbers. I suspect that this is due to annual membership fees.
No other body holds a greater membership for sea anglers.....so they are the most representative; per se !
Also I suspect that there are many angling clubs with membership - one single title - that belies their full club number. The NMC and BASS are the obvious two.
NMC and BASS have active conservation campaign teams that work closely with AT, ICFAs and the Ministry. This represents the views of concerned anglers.
Bleth, if you were truly informed and truly concerned then why not join AT and seek to involve yourself at committee level. Make a difference, rather than being like the vast bulk of sea anglers; apathetic, angry and just witnesses to the abject destruction of our maritime heritage by the greed of the water-pikeys.
Stop demanding facts and figures; you have no more right to be given evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' than I have, or the next guy sat on the beach waiting for that monster bass that doesn't any longer exist. If you have some real facts about how great sea angling has become then please enlighten us where and how.
This side-show of sniping at the AT is pointless.
What I don't see, read or hear is an army of RSA stating that the AT should go.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Sunny on Feb 28, 2015 8:18:45 GMT
The figures are quite hard to pin down. Some for cod suggest the 5% figure is broadly right, though it could be considerable larger (quite a lot of uncertainty in estimates). For bass on the other hand the figure is much larger - something like 30% of total is taken by anglers. Not a trivial figure. Cod are obviously the major commercial species. With bass the commercial fishing effort is presumably not so intense, and since it is so valued for its "sporting" value, it is fished for by many anglers. Hence anglers have a greater relative impact. I would guess that anglers have a substantial relative impact on mackerel too. We need to treat with some scepticism claims about RSA catch rates (kill rates) of fish species. They are often based around imprecise data gathering techniques and even at a superficial level of maths are easily shown to be flawed. Commercial effort far outstrips RSA. At worst RSA will be unlikely to account for a fraction of 1% of catches. We must always remember that Commercial Landing figures are always false. Black-Landings are endemic within the industry. Add to that vile state, the weekend-water-pikeys, who have purchased a dirt-cheap net from ebay, sell their catch through back doors of restaurants and hey-presto.....no bass left. Ask an angler how many Bass he caught, don't round up the weight....as the surveys do....ask the true weight and then try and map that to realistic net caught fish numbers. Of course you will need to instantly double, treble, or more (!), the declared commercial catch (to achieve their true landing figure); then add a guestimate of completely undeclared catch for the weekend beer-money crowd. RSA - bless them for their innocent honesty - do not catch 30% of anything. Sorry to be so negative about catch figures. Its just that I see it as the biggest lie being peddled in the whole subject of sea stock |
|
|
|
Post by Sunny on Feb 28, 2015 8:41:20 GMT
Sunny , the examples yo offer for black fish landings are 10 years old . things have changed -a lot. there will allways be illegal activity where there is money to be made ,but to paint a picture where c/fs are a bunch of rogues is arrant nonsense the dates on those reports are for the 25 February 2012.....I make that 3 years.....you are sounding like an apologist for the criminals !!! They are still illegally landing fish today....it has never stopped; never. We simply need to sit back, wait for a short period until the next headline. The sad fact is that they are virtually un-policed and so the number of times they are caught is worse even than Rotherham's conviction rate for paedophiles. I suspect - if one could be bothered to do so - that research of court cases throughout the UK of illegal fishing cases would be pitiful; so under-resourced is the Environment Agency and RN fishery protection. Even when caught the RN only issue notices; rarely prosecuting ....its a bit sham ! |
|
|
|
Post by iknowagoodplaice on Feb 28, 2015 15:37:50 GMT
Interesting posts Sunny. I'm only surprised it took MT so long to deal with the louts on WSF. Actually there is a post up listing the new mods - don't recognise any of them - plus a polite thank you to one of the biggest thugs on there who used to deputise. A display of tact? It may actually be a civil place now. Might just explain why Barry - er, Bleth - has appeared here.
The point about AT membership numbers is fair. I think the majority of members are through clubs. As for representation, by the same token this country would never be governed if bleth's principle of a mandate were applied. Anglers are notorious non-joiners anyway.
I must admit I was surprised at the claim in the Govt survey of the numbers of fish kept by anglers. I've just had a quick look at the report again and it states a figure of between 430 and 820t cod killed (shore and boat), quite a range of uncertainty but large figures. The report also says there are 840,000 sea anglers in the UK. The 430t figure therefore equates to just under 2kg of cod killed by each angler. True there are those - e.g. me - who never even catch a cod, let alone consider hitting it on the head, but the figure is of the right order of magnitude.
There are around 1000 commercial vessels (over 10m) in the UK. They catch a lot of fish but one can see how the figures for commercial landings end up around the same order of magnitude (1500t for cod in 2012 according to that report). There will be hidden catches of course and quite large uncertainties in all the figures, but the surprisingly high figure for anglers' catches may not be far off the mark.
|
|
Not a very good disguise.
