Rod license fees - stirring it up!

[Worms]

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.

Not quite Steve.

 

Boating licences £6.1m.

Abstraction licences £134.8m.

Environmental Protection charges £171.1m

Flood risk levies £45.4m

 

Out of £1,276m total expenditure our 25.8m equates to 2% of the total. Considering that we as anglers are entitled to fish just about any water with owner permissions I think it's a bargain.

 

As for the WFD I think we should pay a bit more anyway. We chuck all kinds of crap in the rivers as groundbait!

[Steve Walker]

Boating licences are a fair point. Aren't flood risk levies charged to councils rather than individuals? And abstraction licences and environmental protection charges are examples of the "polluter pays" principle; or perhaps a better analogy would be the medieval practice of selling indulgences to sinners!

[Anderoo]

For two licenses it's less than 15p a day over a year. Put your change in a jar and it's paid for itself

 

I think making a contribution towards national environment-related projects can only be in our long-term favour, personally. The work on the Thames and many of its major tributaries in my area over recent years simply would not have been done if it wasn't for the rod license. Who would have done the work otherwise? And where would the money have come from? In the current climate of cutting anything and everything, this will be even more true in future years.

 

EDIT: the fact that other groups no not make a similar contribution is massively in our favour.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Anderoo

[Alan Stubbs]

For two licenses it's less than 15p a day over a year. Put your change in a jar and it's paid for itself

 

I think making a contribution towards national environment-related projects can only be in our long-term favour, personally. The work on the Thames and many of its major tributaries in my area over recent years simply would not have been done if it wasn't for the rod license. Who would have done the work otherwise? And where would the money have come from? In the current climate of cutting anything and everything, this will be even more true in future years.

 

EDIT: the fact that other groups no not make a similar contribution is massively in our favour.

 

I totally agree. I set my licence fees to come out by direct debit and am grateful for their entitlements.

 

What would excercise me is any diminution of rights without consultation.

[Worms]

- 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?

Not really unfair. You did start off by having a paddy about how the EA didn't produce the document that I linked to, very transparent in my view.

 

BTW- You certainly did not get those figures from the document you highlighted.

 

Oh yes I did! Read pages 41-42

 

Figures such as 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?

I think so yes because we actively use the water and, frequently, as club members demand that the EA fix some 'problem' or other that is only relevant to anglers! Do you want jam on it?

Edited January 31, 2011 by Worms

[Guest Wilko 09]

I remember during the '70s when we needed a seperate license for each water authority and were charged something like £7 for each one.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Wilko 09

[Tigger]

Do you want jam on it?

 

 

 

My local river was polluted badly a couple of years or so back and the EA have done naff all about it...no re stocking. Oh they did get a water tanker to turn up and pump in water to so call aerate the river after the pollution incident (which in reality just stirred up the bottom and de oxygenated it further). That (aerating) seems to be their solution to anything as it's simple, cheap and people can see them doing something . Since that i've reported other incidents of pollution and they promised to give me feedback as to the tesults....never got any. I really can't be botherd to write all the negative things I know about the EA as the people who agree with the rod license will just protect them as thought they where their mother or something.

I don't mind paying the river/pond/land owner to fish on their water but I as an angler don't like being singled out by the goverment to pay for flood defences etc etc.....a total crock of sheeeeit !

[Vagabond]

I remember during the '70s when we needed a seperate license for each water authority and were charged something like £7 for each one.

Yes, happy days, each River Board made its own decisions - based on what was appropriate locally rather than blanket country-wide decisions.

....and each River Board had at least one angler on the Board, sometimes more, so there was anglers' input before any bylaws were formulated.

 

Yes, if you travelled around it was expensive, but most anglers only had to pay for one or two licences. It was better value for money - the bailiffs were much more visible then - and on first name terms with most regular anglers.

 

BTW for the umpteenth consecutive year, although I send my seatrout returns in each November, I still get a reminder each January, threatening me with prosecution if I don't comply. Muppets.

[Worms]

BTW for the umpteenth consecutive year, although I send my seatrout returns in each November, I still get a reminder each January, threatening me with prosecution if I don't comply. Muppets.

What, just the one?

[Worms]

My local river was polluted badly a couple of years or so back and the EA have done naff all about it...no re stocking. Oh they did get a water tanker to turn up and pump in water to so call aerate the river after the pollution incident (which in reality just stirred up the bottom and de oxygenated it further). That (aerating) seems to be their solution to anything as it's simple, cheap and people can see them doing something . Since that i've reported other incidents of pollution and they promised to give me feedback as to the tesults....never got any. I really can't be botherd to write all the negative things I know about the EA as the people who agree with the rod license will just protect them as thought they where their mother or something.

I don't mind paying the river/pond/land owner to fish on their water but I as an angler don't like being singled out by the goverment to pay for flood defences etc etc.....a total crock of sheeeeit !

The biggest cock-up I've seen by the EA was cutting down loads of trees and other bankside vegetation on a sandy riverbank to appease the members of a certain bewhiskered fish society to improve the feeding grounds.......more likely the sad pillocks couldn't drive their Volvos right to the water's edge or, kept getting their lines caught in that hideous bankside vegetation stuff.

 

Destroyed some excellent swims and increased the risk of bank erosion and yet more siltation of spawning grounds for a variety of species because they were vehemently pushed by a bunch of stupid anglers with no respect or knowledge for the ecology of the river as a whole

Edited January 31, 2011 by Worms