no license needed on private pool?

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

I have to agree with chesters - I live in an area which you hear nothing about the EA improving fishing (Lincolnshire coast) - in fact - I'd love to know the exact amount of license money that goes back into improving fishing...truth beknown anglers still are not provided with national and regional bylaws when buying a license (bloody stupid if you ask me). You don't even get a best practices guide about how to handle pike, carp and other such species which all anglers should definitely have (and then make mishandling them a fine type offence).

 

The EA take little interest in providing proper and accurate research -For example the effects of barbed against barbless hooks - something which many fishermen would like answered but we all debate about without much scientific backing. Properly assessing the true benefits of closed season etc - it's all backward, and as I've said a proper fishery body with a remit only covering fishing is absolutely the only way to go - and ecompass both freshwater/sea angling (introduce a sea angling licence) and increase the cost of adult licences in favour of free licenses to 16yr olds and students in further education (out of work).

 

Added: And pensioners.

 

Rant over

Edited July 23, 2006 by UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk

[Steve Burke]

Copied from the other current thread on this subject:

 

The Environment Agency Fisheries Department does a tremendous job with less and less money - with it seems little thanks! Despite living with the constant threat of redundancy due to these funding cuts, the vast majority of the staff work very hard to protect our fisheries. For instance I've had a team working until 11pm doing a survey at Wingham! I was even offered free fish for restocking, but turned them down because they weren't what I wanted. Bear in mind that many of the staff are our fellow anglers and really do care about our fisheries.

 

However they're in a no win situation. If they spend our money on a publicity campaign telling us about their achievements they'll be accused of wasting resources that would be better spent on fishery improvements! Nevertheless, I'd like to see them go some way towards this, for instance on their website. It may even bring in more in licence fees, although I doubt that the effect would be anything but marginal.

 

Of course there's always room for improvement, and I don't agree with everything they do. However the plain fact of the matter is that the more money they have the better our fisheries will be.

 

Taxes are never popular, but I very much doubt that much would be raised on a voluntary basis. If so the ACA wouldn't have such a pitifully small membership!

 

One change I'd like to see is the licence fee scrapped for those under 18 rather than under 12 as at present to encourage more youngsters to go fishing. I'd also like to see a reduced fee for the few who genuinely find it hard to scrape the money together.

 

For the rest of us I'd like to see a substantial increase. I doubt that many here will agree with me, but look upon it as an investment. Compared with what we spend on bait, tackle and tickets it really is very little.

 

Or do you really think that less than 50p per week is expensive?

[Dick Dastardly]

I too have no problem with the concept of a "rod Licence" to raise money for relevant work.My biggest complaint is that I dont think the money raised is used wisely,Neither do most EA fisheries workers I speak to either!.

 

I would certainly suport more money going to the EA but would be a bit peed off to see it going on "encouraging asian women to fish" or even the money that to my mind is wasted on the publications they send out to licence holders (which it seems are rarely relevant to the area they live in!) yet they cant ensure all licence holders have a copy of the rules!

 

Ive worked closely with the Water authority/NRA/EA over the years its been mainly the same individuals just the name thats changed.Ive seen no great improvement in their service,the equipment their staff has to work with or sadly in the case of many of their baillifs.I dont really know if this is due to lack of funds or mis use of them but all the time I see stupid things Im reluctant to part with more cash.

 

Admitedly a big part of the EA's problem is that a lot of grass roots anglers dont actually see what they get for their money.The copy of "Hooked" and I quote "The magazine for anglers in the Thames Region.Summer2006" (remember I live in the Southern Region) no doubt tries to solve this "awareness problem" trouble is of course many Southern Region guys getting this will think "why am I paying for all this work in the Thames region"!! Just p1$$ poor admin.

Edited July 23, 2006 by BUDGIE

[steve17]

i dont have a problem with paying for a rod licence each year and im sure that such work does go into the fisheries, although admittedly i havent actually seen much evidence where i live. What does annoy me abit though is having to pay for a second licence to fish with one extra rod. On some of the waters round here, especially in the winter having a 3rd rod to fish with is a real advantage. Im 19 yrs old n this year have found it hard to afford to buy my 2 licences, if i go without i feel i am not fishing to the best of my ability. Bear in mind i only fish with a 3rd rod perhaps 1 in 4 sessions.

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

I agree - I'd think double the licence fee would still be excellent value for money, but I just don't think the EA can handle angling properly with the more important jobs they have to consider as well.

 

In a local set of drains around here (these are proper marshland drains as big as good rivers), the locals claim the EA netted miles and miles of drain for the silver fish about three years ago - leaving everything but the pike. You now have a situation whereby there are pike eating pike in the river and they are that bloody hungry you are almost guaranteed one very good fish on deadbaits every session. Meanwhile some river near Peterborough was the supposed beneficiary - I don't know the full facts of the matter, and can only tell you what people tell us, but if it's true then they systematically knackered excellent free fishing (i.e. that was ideal for grass roots - no days tickets etc).

 

I suspect the majority of the money is spent on inner city projects etc which the EA will tell us is important, but doesn't really wash with country folk who truthfully see little to nothing of the EA. I live in Lincolnshire and like another poster said I've had bloody leaflets about fishing in Wales and Devon which frankly are not particularly relevant.

 

The argument that the EA cannot be seen to spend money on advertising their work can be dismissed. A website ran by one guy part time could show you what money was being spent on major and minor projects (that would be a start - HND/Degree IT students would probably manage it for free!).

 

I've spent hundreds of days fishing and seen three baliffs in my entire life, never seen an EA guy at a pond or local river. Never read about any licence enforcement in our local rag. It's just rubbish - I don't know how many people buy a licence but if it was just a couple of million thats 50million a year they have to patrol England and Wales.

 

It ought to work like coppers - a traffic cop essentially pays his own wages these days giving out fixed penalty notices (3 or 4 a day covers the car and his wages). If a baliff cannot nick three people a day for dodging licences then he is doing something wrong - that said though, what use is a bloody baliff since if he visits you ten miles from the nearest town then he has no rights to enforce you to stay whilst awaiting the police - I am not even sure if taking a reg plate of a fleeing culprit would suffice without a photo since it's essentially the baliffs word against the suspect (the baliff might have got the registration wrong after all!).

 

No all in it's just a completely unmanageable system which needs a rethink. I don't know how you could fix it - one method would be to introduce a compulsory general licence on all private/commercial lakes. That would then mean ALL anglers fishing a venue get licensed (effectively) so the EA don't have to patrol a shitload of venues since that matter has been taken care of. It would put the price of a day ticket up a quid or two, but it means you could fish without a licence and the EA can just write that venue off and take their cut each week or month

 

Rename the rod licence to a rivers and canals licence - price it accordingly and patrol just those.

 

Offer a discount on licences for direct debit payment - which encourages people to put it on DD - allow monthly payments - yes you lose a small amount in charges but for the amount of transactions they'd be able to get a pretty good rate with any commercial bank. Who is going to ever waste their time cancelling a £3 a month direct debit - however - a couple of million of those soon adds up!

 

I don't want to start an argument about fishing with three or four rods, but in truth I personally think the EA should review that policy altogether. I am not sure any angler can have four rods under control......

Edited July 23, 2006 by UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk

[Dick Dastardly]

Other than your last paragraph Ian I much agree with your post.

 

Im not sure which would be the best way to run it but the present one certainly isnt working.

[Elton]

Just got the official line from the EA:

 

Hi Elton,

 

A General Licence can be purchased by the owner/manager of a fishery to

cover any 'customers' who may want to fish in their water but don't

possess a rod licence.

 

Valid for 12 months over the normal April-March period, the General

Licence fee is based on the estimated number of non-rod-licence holding

anglers that will attend the fishery over that year multiplied by the

cost of purchasing a 1-day rod licence.

 

The Environment Agency then do an audit of that fishery during the year

to ensure estimated figures are fair and accurate.

 

Having a General Licence also saves the Environment Agency from having

to do rod-licence enforcement in that fishery.

 

Regards

 

 

Stuart Brennan

National Press Office

Environment Agency

[RobStubbs]

I don't want to start an argument about fishing with three or four rods, but in truth I personally think the EA should review that policy altogether. I am not sure any angler can have four rods under control......

 

Which is precisiely why the licence allows up to 4 rods (not 4). It is then up to the discretion of the water owner. On some waters one or two rods is ample, other waters where you might catch just one fish a season 4 rods are ok. But as you say, this isn't the thread for that

 

Rob.

[flank0]

well thx for the opinions guys....i guess my friend was wrong, so i did warn him.....that on private pool such as pool hall,holt pools,furnace mill, for examples you need a licence, but i do believe you need a licence for even fishing a pond in your own garden. he says no need as he can get a post office owner who he knows to backdate a license if he's caught.....lololol then he just sends it off... i think he said something about only being asked for a license once in 4 years....so he has saved like 60 quid...lol

 

well anyways....im sticking with my license ,he can do what he likes. ordered mine from the online enviroment for 24 quid.

[Newt]

flank0 - you can also tell your friend, if you wish, that at least one person things his method of dealing with the license issue makes him a thief, albeit one who hasn't been caught at it yet.