Rod license fees - stirring it up!

[Worms]

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 used 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?

 

Unfortunately, all government departments are inefficient one way or another. We can't seem to do much about that no matter how hard we try, but in the case of the rod license we are being targeted specifically, and I for one think we have a right to ask for accountability of where our money goes.

 

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?

Oops, you must have missed this then It should answer all of the above questions and, interestingly enough it goes to show how much is spent on fisheries over and above what anglers put in!

http://publications.environment-agency.gov...710BSVK-e-e.pdf

[Worms]

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

Funny you should bring that up!

 

I've been developing elastic muscles in my mouth and throat a la pelican so I can catch the tiny roach and regurgitate them at a later date for a good old fry up

[Hopinc]

Thanks Worms,

 

I have just waded through that EA document , the question is have you?

 

Regarding anything relating to fishing there is a lot of general "we have met our targets" and "we have done this, that and the other" but there are NO specific details of the financial expenditure on these "improvements" to our resources.

 

Nor is their, as I have pointed out before, any information whatsoever about exactly how the rod license fees are being spent.

 

There is one heck of a lot of vague rhetoric, but no susbstance.

 

As the rod license is aimed only at people that fish, wouldn't you like to know that your money is being spent on improving your sport and not being used as a stealth tax for something else?

 

Whilst I am not saying that this is the case, what I am asking for is transparency, so I can see that it is or isn't. You only have to consider examples like the old "road fund license" which had to be renamed because it was being used for anything but improving transport infrastructure.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Hopinc

[larsagi2010]

I think Rod licenses are a little expensive considering I have never had mine checked! But to be honest fishing is a very enjoyable passion of mine and I don't mind spending a few quid here and there to enjoy it.

 

I think if they put the prices up any more, there would be a huge jump in people simply not purchasing them.

[gozzer]

You might want to look on this link.

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homea...ing/106684.aspx

 

and if you've got a half hour to spare you might want to watch this,

 

http://www.onlinefishing.tv/channel/featur...your-money/low/

 

 

 

They should help answer some of your questions.

 

John.

[Hopinc]

Hi John,

 

I will read the article when I have some spare time.

 

Thanks for the video link, that was most informative and has helped to answer a lot of my questions.

 

The one thing I did find surprising is the £6M spent on policing fishing. I must admit that I had not visualised the problem as being so extensive or expensive. In 40+ years of angling I have never so much as come across a water bailiff, and I think I have only been asked to produce my documents just once in that time.

 

I feel somewhat better about my license fee now

Edited January 31, 2011 by Hopinc

[Steve Walker]

The one thing I did find surprising is the £6M spent on policing fishing.

 

That's what I meant about it being an expensive tax to collect and enforce.

[Worms]

Thanks Worms,

 

I have just waded through that EA document , the question is have you?

 

Regarding anything relating to fishing there is a lot of general "we have met our targets" and "we have done this, that and the other" but there are NO specific details of the financial expenditure on these "improvements" to our resources.

 

Nor is their, as I have pointed out before, any information whatsoever about exactly how the rod license fees are being spent.

 

There is one heck of a lot of vague rhetoric, but no susbstance.

 

As the rod license is aimed only at people that fish, wouldn't you like to know that your money is being spent on improving your sport and not being used as a stealth tax for something else?

 

Whilst I am not saying that this is the case, what I am asking for is transparency, so I can see that it is or isn't. You only have to consider examples like the old "road fund license" which had to be renamed because it was being used for anything but improving transport infrastructure.

£25.8m received in licence duties.

£38.6m spent on fisheries.

£65.4m spent on water quality.

 

Seems like a good deal to me. We pay for a quarter of what we want and the rest is split between everyone. Do you want jam on it?

[Steve Walker]

£25.8m received in licence duties.

£38.6m spent on fisheries.

£65.4m spent on water quality.

 

Seems like a good deal to me. We pay for a quarter of what we want and the rest is split between everyone. Do you want jam on it?

 

The question I would ask, though, is how much of that fisheries and water quality work would be required by the Water Framework Directive, even if anglers were not funding it, even if there were no anglers? We are not the only stakeholders benefiting, but we are the only stakeholders singled out to make a contribution.

[Hopinc]

Do you want jam on it?

- Worms, I think this comment was a little unnecessary! Like I have pointed out so many times, I just want to know how my money is spent. Is that so difficult a concept to grasp?

 

BTW- You certainly did not get those figures from the document you highlighted. I haven't yet had time to asorb all the figures quoted in the video, but I will.

 

Figures such as

£65.4m spent on water quality.

whilst undoubtedly of benefit to anglers and the general public in the long run, is more to do with effluent from sewage works, industrial polution and run off from farmers fields. Effluent that should not be going into our rivers in the first place. We already pay towards dealing with that in our taxes, should we really be expected to pay more because were are anglers? Edited January 31, 2011 by Hopinc