Rod license fees - stirring it up!

[Anderoo]

However you view it, it's a very valuable (and much valued) contribution to government coffers. As such, we as a (pretty large) group are on fairly safe ground. Let's not spoil that for the sake of a few quid.

 

The EA have been working very hard around here creating spawning sites and general habitat restoration, followed by restocking of various species. Trout are spawning in the Thames again, and barbel are expected/hoped to make a bit of a comeback. I expect there are similar positive stories in most areas of the country if you do a little digging. High profile expensive mistakes will naturally grab the headlines, but that isn't the whole story.

 

I'm happy to buy 2 licenses each year.

[Emma two]

I think that the rod licence is cheap. Be careful what you complain about.

 

I agree, perhaps being influenced by having worked for the organisations which evolved into the EA.

 

What I resent more are club fees. I am a member of only one, purley to have access to a local tarn. It's a water which we used to fish as children, catching modes pike, perch, trout and eels. No one charged for the fishing. Somewhere along the years while I was away, an angling club took the riperian rights and now charge me £30 a year to do exactly what we did as klids for nothing. One of our larger lakes, which is a reservoir was until a couple of years ago free to fish for unstocked pike, perch. char and trout. Now an angling club have the rights and charge money for day tickets to fish it. Significantly neither club use any of the money they charge to improve the fishing in these waters. I will soon be stumping up my annual season ticket £70 to the national park, to give me freedom to fish my local lake, they do nothing to improve the fishing, but employ a warden who is woefully awful in dealing with people, and his salary is misuse of honest anglesrs hard earned! The EA on the other had do at least something.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Emma two

[Ed Matysiak]

Knew there was something i forgot to buy!

[Steve Walker]

In principle, I don't like it. I pay tens of thousands in tax a year, but you want another twenty odd quid if I want to go fishing? That's like staying in a five star hotel and finding that they charge for towels. It's an inefficient tax to administer and enforce. A lot of what is good for fisheries is good for birds and otters and other wildlife which the general public care about too. Other sports and pastimes get government subsidy, we are expected to pay for the privilege. Basically, unfair.

 

On the other hand, the EA fisheries department does some very good work which would probably would not get done at all if we were not paying for it directly. I would rather that the money came from general taxation, but that is subject to political whim. So on the whole, I accept it as a neccessary evil. Just keep the AT's sticky mitts off it!

[Tigger]

However you view it, it's a very valuable (and much valued) contribution to government coffers. As such, we as a (pretty large) group are on fairly safe ground. Let's not spoil that for the sake of a few quid.

 

The EA have been working very hard around here creating spawning sites and general habitat restoration, followed by restocking of various species. Trout are spawning in the Thames again, and barbel are expected/hoped to make a bit of a comeback. I expect there are similar positive stories in most areas of the country if you do a little digging. High profile expensive mistakes will naturally grab the headlines, but that isn't the whole story.

 

I'm happy to buy 2 licenses each year.

 

 

 

A valued contribution !

Most of the waters I know with good fish in them had the fish illegally introduced by anglers not by the EA.

I ain't happy buying one license let alone two.

I know people/friends who work closely with the EA and they tell me their a bunch of plonkers and waste money hand over fist.

[the real steady eddie]

A valued contribution !

Most of the waters I know with good fish in them had the fish illegally introduced by anglers not by the EA.

I ain't happy buying one license let alone two.

I know people/friends who work closely with the EA and they tell me their a bunch of plonkers and waste money hand over fist.

If your people/friends work closely with the EA and think that they are a bunch of plonkers i would suggest they distance themselves from them.Putting that aside i'm more than happy enough to purchase my two licenses each season in pursuit of my passion

[tony tinca]

However you view it, it's a very valuable (and much valued) contribution to government coffers. As such, we as a (pretty large) group are on fairly safe ground. Let's not spoil that for the sake of a few quid.

 

The EA have been working very hard around here creating spawning sites and general habitat restoration, followed by restocking of various species. Trout are spawning in the Thames again, and barbel are expected/hoped to make a bit of a comeback. I expect there are similar positive stories in most areas of the country if you do a little digging. High profile expensive mistakes will naturally grab the headlines, but that isn't the whole story.

 

I'm happy to buy 2 licenses each year.

 

 

I agree, until last year i was paying 2000 pounds per year to play golf on one coarse , I think paying 27 a year to fish anywhere in the country is pretty damn reasonable and shouldnt be moaned at. I realise a lot of places you have to join a club, but thats not much to pay either and with all the exchange books available at most clubs you get real value for money . then theres all the day ticket waters which again are normally only between 7 or 10 pounds a day.

 

And like you say if we didnt pay license fees then the government wouldnt have our back and we would be treading on eggshells .

 

So do we really have it hard , i for one dont think so

[Vagabond]

When I fish in the USA it costs me $45 per annum for each state I want to fish in.

 

No concessions for age - "you'm a furriner"

 

However, there are at least signs that the money is spent on facilities (boat ramps, fishing piers, etc) and on some basic research on fish populations - there are size limits, bag limits and slot limits, different for each water, and often notices explaining just why the regulations are as they are. It does help anglers' acceptance of rules if there are indications that at least some scientific thought has been put into the restrictions. .....and they do accept that humans eating fish is part of the natural order of things.

 

There is, alas, no sign of that in this country - the rules are apparently formulated by bigots seeking popularity and control.

 

Wonder what the penalty is for fish-eating ? Will the punishment fit the "crime" ? We might yet see Worms in the stocks with bait-sized roach being thrown at him

[Tigger]

Wonder what the penalty is for fish-eating ? Will the punishment fit the "crime" ? We might yet see Worms in the stocks with bait-sized roach being thrown at him

 

 

[Hopinc]

I think paying £27 a year to fish anywhere in the country is pretty damn reasonable and shouldnt be moaned at.

 

Have you considered that you are paying a government department for a resource that does not belong to them, i.e. the rain that falls from the sky?

 

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying the that EA does not do some good. Quite the contrary, but what I want to see is where my license fees are actually being spent.

 

How much is going on administration, how much (if any) is being syphoned off for other things, what projects it is being spent on, and how efficiently the money is being used. Currently you cannot do this, this information is kept from you as member of the public. Why is this?

 

Anyone reading this from the U.S., please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you have a right to this type of data under the freedom of information act. Yes? And just out of interest, how many of the waters that you fish do you also have to be a member of an angling club ?

Edited January 31, 2011 by Hopinc