Breaking news from the government!!

[Leon Roskilly]

Jim Roper:

Jim Roper:

Interesting figures Jim. Where do they come from?

 

TL - leon

1.1 million sea anglers in 1 million households paying £22.00 a year each.

 

Less the £3m that you said will be left for conservation.

The 'official' figures, from the consultation document are:

 

Annexe 17

 

Recreational sea angling licence fee

 

A17.13 Paragraph 8.5 discusses a ‘realistic Revenue’ of between £3-5m from a recreational sea

angling licence fee.

 

It is estimated that around 1m households are involved in recreational sea angling, but many of them are occasional.

 

Based on the Environment Agency’s current fees of £22 for an annual licence and £8 for a week licence we can estimate the following potential revenue:-

 

£22 x 150,000 + £8 x 500,000 = £7m

 

But this is discounted because of the costs of collection, and to err on the side of caution."

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Earlier in the document it states:

 

8.5 In return for these benefits and in accordance with the beneficiary pays principle,

consideration should be given to introducing licensing for marine angling analogous to that

for inland angling, the net income from which would go to inshore fisheries managers.

 

These funds could be utilised to support research and enforcement as well as habitat creation and protection.

 

The EA receives some £17m in licence fees from inland anglers, costing some £2m to collect.

 

Compliance with these licences is estimated by the EA to be high; the scheme is regarded as acceptable in principle and anglers as a whole consider that they receive reasonable value for money.

 

36

Section 8

 

8.6 The introduction of a new fee where none exists raises particular issues of acceptability.

Points to consider include:

 

• licences could be available, possibly under a single national scheme, both annually and

for shorter periods, in particular to meet the needs of holiday anglers. The EA charges

£22 for an annual licence and £8 for a week.

 

Anglers spend an average of around £500

p.a. on their sport, but of course with a wide range of spending.

 

Licences could sensibly be linked with the EA’s scheme since many sea anglers fish inland as well.

 

The EA has a distribution arrangement with the Post Office, is exploring other methods of sales, and has experience of promoting the benefits of the licences;

 

• angling is carried out both from the shore and from boats, the latter divided between the 10000 owner anglers and charter skippers who take out anglers.

 

There is not a clear-cut distinction between the different groups, for example in the amount of their catch, and it is likely to be too difficult in practice to impose limits on catches. It would therefore probably be preferable to licence any sea angling, distinguishing only by the period of the licence as above.

 

Charter skippers would be required to ensure their angling passengers had a current licence.

 

• enforcement is clearly a major issue. Compliance must be high if a licence is to be

acceptable; it must not become a tax on honesty.

 

Enforcement would be for the in-shore fisheries managers drawing on the experience of the EA.

 

This suggests that licences should be widely available, for example through the Post Office and online, and that enforcement should be through part-time “wardens”, who would patrol on-shore in a targeted but equitable way, as well as through patrol vessels etc already used for

commercial fishing work.

 

The effectiveness of on-shore enforcement would be

particularly critical, given the potential length of coastline to be covered, and this may determine whether a licensing scheme is practicable;

 

• subject to the questions above, a licensing scheme could realistically raise £3-5m; possibly

more. Figures are discussed further in Annex 17.

 

There is plenty else of interest in the full document (which is open for responses to the consultation until 29th September). It can be downloaded from here:

 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/...onsultation.pdf

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

(ps I agree with you Jim, that they have vastly underestimated the amount that can be collected based upon 1.1 million households that have at least on person who goes angling, and the PMSU study which said that 2 million people went sea angling in 2002.)

 

[ 01. September 2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[jaffa6938]

ok so all this talk about 12 mile limits and foreign boats what happened to the 200 mile limit we used to have

besides who gave the government the power to tax a natural resource that has been free from any licence or taxation for pleasure anglers or is it just anouther job creation scheme to make them look good

[jaffa6938]

ok so all this talk about 12 mile limits and foreign boats what happened to the 200 mile limit we used to have

besides who gave the government the power to tax a natural resource that has been free from any licence or taxation for pleasure anglers or is it just anouther job creation scheme to make them look good

[Guest jay_con]

is there an echoe in here?

[jaffa6938]

restocking

why pay for restocking how do you gurantee those fish are going to be there when you want to go fishing its ok for closed lakes and rivers

but seems to me all we will be paying for is to restock the sea using our money for all the other foreign commercial boats/Anglers to take the fish when they migrate the sea is not a closed area so would restocking work ? think again mr Blair

[Jim Roper]

One observation on 'occasional anglers'.

 

Most 'occasional anglers' would be fishing on their holidays. With so much holiday entitlement nowadays, I don't think they would buy the weekly license more than once. They would probably go for a yearly one the next time. They will most likely have more than one holiday a year or one that lasts more than a week.

 

If a license were to be introduced, one of my workmates thought that enforcement could be by tackle shops having to see the license before selling bait to anybody.

 

£3M is nothing nowadays. The average cost (in lottery money) of each Olympic medal won by the British team was well above that.

The money is already there. No need to collect any more!

 

[ 28. September 2004, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Jim Roper ]

[jaffa6938]

spasor:

Slow down you load of MUPPETS!!!!!!

This is only a government proposal. To gauge the feeling of sea anglers.

I just hope no-one in power has read some of the postings on this thread.

Magna Carta, Magna Chartae. However you want to spell it. Was introduced into british law by a wastrel named Richard I. A man that spent this countries wealth fighting a personal crusade!!

It only affects us fishermen, insofar, that we can scrounge along the shoreline, between high and low water mark? (Anyone that had the audacity to kill one of the `Kings` deer, still got hung!).

I agree 100% with the folk that have pointed out the obvious. If you`ve paid for a license, then the licensing authority (ie the government), owes you a service.

Coarse anglers and game fishers have paid for years. What have they recieved in return?

Just look at the number of prosecutions against water polluters by the E.A. Waters all over the UK are being cleaned up and being re-stocked.

For my part, I can only think that a license is the only sensible way forward? If, we want our government to take sea anglers seriously, then we must be prepared to act as serious individuals.

A tad less of the "Why should we pay". And a little more of "We`ll pay. But you must give us a decent service". Would be nearer the mark?

How many of the "I don`t want to pay brigade", have paid fot a TV license. Then subscribed to SKY or a cable tv company. Only to watch BBC most of the time? Yet we all moan about a TV license, but pay much more for a service that we hardly use.

OK. If you pay out good money for something that you can`t hold in your hand or see. Then maybe folk would think it a waste of time. But if it slowly improved sea angling. Would you still consider it `Another of Gordon Browns stealth taxes`?

ok so lets all pay now they owe us a service HA HA

excuse me for laughing

 

it will go the same way as the council tax increased every year and services cut back just like ours in southampton

 

example : refuse collections used to be weekly now fortnightly but we still pay the same price along with the increase every year

 

as i said tax increased yearly -- services cut yearly do you expect anything different from this revenue raiser

[Satchmo]

This topic's made up of the 40% of anglers who are willing to consider anything that might ensure a good future for recreational angling even if it's not a perfect solution and the other 60% who can only pick holes, moan and bury their heads in the sand while their sport gets slowly strangled. If you're going to complain about this proposal and why it won't work, at least suggest something that will!!

[Smart]

Guys,

I can't believe the negativity about this post. We are screwed week in and week out for everything in life - food & heating bills, petrol, wage rises, new laws etc etc, and £22 is a drop in the ocean compared to this - thats less than 50p a week to follow our beloved sport. I have been beach angling for 27 yrs, and moaned about the state of the fishing for 26 of them, whilst fishing for free. We need to be proactive now, and welcome the new scheme, as long as certain criteria are met. Getting on board early, will mean the chance of suggesting policies which will increase fish stocks and reduce pollution, after all, the politicians are not anglers, so hopefully will be seeking ideas from the NFSA and BASS etc. Currently, fish stocks are peaking and troughing, like they have for years - once it becomes not commercially viable to fish for a species - ie the boats have decimated yet another species, then that species is left alone, and hey presto, a couple of years later, there crawling up the line. The cod seem to go in a ten year cycle, and have done so, since the sixties. However, each year the fleet becomes more efficient, and stocks are wiped out that little bit nearer to extinction, before they get a respite. Look at the Bass, since the measures brought in with the nursey areas, they have definately increased in numbers - it's still flawed, but a step in the right direction. Given a chance, the cod population could explode, left as it is, they could become extinct. Put into perspective, how many fags, pints of beer etc etc can you get with £22. Enough said. Most of us are by definition, quiet folk, who appreciate the peacefullness, remoteness, and beauty of our surroundings. We are not newsworthy, unlike extremists, or activists, so get little publicity. 90% of Joe public are oblivious to our sport, and concerns of fish welfare - fish are mostly unnoticed, and aren't cuddly or covered in feathers. The public can't witness a fish drown in a gillnet, or suffocate in pollutants, so lets pay up, and let someone fight for our sport. Anyone who believes money isn't the only thing that talks, should take another big breath, before shoving their head back in the sand.

Smart.

[Jim Roper]

Pay up by all means, but there are more efficient ways of collecting it, so employing people to sustain the fish populations rather than pestering the people (anglers) it is supposed to benefit.

 

If Sport GB is willing to spend over £7M per Olympic swimming medal ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/olympics_...004/3608158.stm ) then it should be willing to find £3M for fisheries protection.

 

Like somebody said, a sea angling license just another tax!

 

[ 03. September 2004, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Jim Roper ]