Resenting the rod license

[Rice Crackers]

OK so I know it's taboo amongst anglers to complain about having to buy a rod license but after a few years out of the sport and in my first proper year back I'm struggling to see what it's for these days.

 

Waterways I've been to are generally badly maintained, if at all. The EA appear unable or unwilling to do anything about poaching, seemingly finding it easier to turn a blind eye and I still fail to understand why EA bailiffs have a jurisdiction over private and club fisheries even though they contribute nothing to the upkeep of such venues.

 

Also it's not as if anglers are the only people who use the waterways but we seem to be the only ones charged for it. I understand it's impossible to charge dog walkers, horseriders, cyclists etc but why should the angler foot the bill for maintenance and upkeep that generally doesn't happen? Surely that should come from central government rather than one niche group being clobbered for it?

 

When I was a teenager and we had the NRA I never begrudged them my license fee as it felt as if it was put to good use. These days it just feels like another stealth tax. An easy way to generate revenue with minimal outgoings...

 

Oh and I've had my license checked a grand total of zero times this season, so those who don't pay (and who are probably the same ones taking carp for the table) are at no kind of disadvantage at all.

 

So, shoot me down if I'm missing something here (and I'd be interested to know if I have) but this whole thing just feels like a big con to me.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Rice Crackers

[Phone]

Rice,

 

Come to the "land of opprotunity". Each state (all 50) is responsibile for fishing rights in their state. In 1972, my most prolific year, I spent $3,200.00 on fishing licenses. I don't salt water fish (a new set of licenses).

 

I'm not going to search and add them all up but conservatively the number to "Fish America" would be in excess of $5,000 annually.

 

We have F A R more poachers than the UK. The two subjects are hardly even related.

 

Phone

[Rice Crackers]

Come to the "land of opprotunity". Each state (all 50) is responsibile for fishing rights in their state. In 1972, my most prolific year, I spent $3,200.00 on fishing licenses. I don't salt water fish (a new set of licenses).

 

I'm not going to search and add them all up but conservatively the number to "Fish America" would be in excess of $5,000 annually.

 

Wow. Some perspective right there...

[Phone]

Rice,

 

The most "expensive" was Louisiana. $150.00 annual non-resident. (And it's not a very good freshwater fishing state - haha).

 

Phone

[Bobj]

Come to Queensland, an area 7.5 times the size of the UK and NO licence needed to fish in any rivers, or the sea and NO rod licences, either.

 

You only need a State Impoundment Permit to fish any of 31 dams and this costs $37 a year for husband and wife.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Bobj

[Ken L]

Add the authorisation of the stocking of destructive non-native species like carp and (in West flowing rivers) barbel, the removal of fish habitat in the mame of flood aleviation and the licencing of polouters in the form of unmanned sewage treatment works and one could be forgiven for thinking that you're paying them to destroy what fishing you do have.

[Steve Walker]

 

Wow. Some perspective right there...

But for some more perspective, the US has nine or ten states which are larger than the UK.

[Steve Burke]

The basic problem comes down to money. The license fee brings in a pittance compared with what is really needed. But at least it does get put into our fisheries.

 

I've often written that the EA does a very good job with what little revenue it gets. I've first hand experience of this as I run my own gravel pit complex at Wingham, and the local EA staff have been extremely helpful. This has even included working to 10pm.

 

By the way, we do maintenance work ourselves. It isn't usually the responsibility of the EA.

 

As for licence checking, this too costs money. Extra checking may well cost more money than it raises, so would actually be counterproductive. And even then, don't the fines go to central government?

 

Talking of central government, some say scrap the licence fee and have the work paid for out of general taxation. What do you think would be one of the first cutbacks to government spending? Yes, fisheries!

 

Some have suggested that a levy is put on tackle. That way those who fish most would pay most. The pros and cons of this have been discussed several times here on Angler's Net.

 

Maybe the answer is to raise the licence fee! That way we'll have a better service and more money spend on our fisheries.

 

I appreciate that this would be hard on the less fortunate though. For instance my brother is severely disabled and can't afford a rod licence, so goes sea fishing instead. Even then he can afford to go very rarely. I'd like to see much reduced rod licenses for such people, even if it means the rest of us pay more.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Steve Burke

[Tigger]

It's the goverments responsability to look after the enviroment anyhow so if there was no anglers what would happen then ? Also if the license fees bring in such a small amount of money why the hell bother steeling it from anglers ! I totally disagree with the rod license and I think anglers are an easy target to drain money from.

I view it in the same light as a TV license....

[Leon Roskilly]

What the EA have to say

 

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/fishing/106684.aspx