Resenting the rod license

[Anderoo]

I'm happy to pay the rod license if only so we have firmer ground to stand on should recreational angling ever come under serious threat (touch wood). Leon's link shows what the money is spent on.

 

Having said that, it is nice that I only need to buy one these days, and not two as in previous years!

[gozzer]

I've got a foot in both camps. On a local level, I have had no problems with the EA fisheries dept, and what with the research into disease, (much needed with the current stocking policy), I think they are well worth the money. On a national level, I feel that they have failed on their remit to protect our waters, and the fish in them. The amount of stocking with non indigenous, invasive species, done legally, as well as that done illegally, has ruined many waters. Although I have to admit that anglers themselves have played a large part in that.

 

I sometimes wonder what anglers want, I recently had an argument with a guy who blamed the EA because the riverside vegetation was overgrown, and he had difficulty getting to a swim. This was on a day ticket water owned by a farmer!

 

John.

[Tigger]

What the EA have to say

 

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

 

 

Personaly I'm not interested in anything the EA have to say. Imo they're just another set of politicians and just talk the talk till everyone belives them or gets bored and goes away.

[Steve Burke]

EA staff numbers to drop by 10% due to Government spending cuts. Whether it will affect fisheries staff hasn't yet been announced.

 

http://waterbriefing.org/home/water-issues/item/8269-environment-agency-to-lose-around-1400-jobs-over-10-of-its-staff

[Dales]

I don't mind paying for a licence in fact I buy 2 but I do mind the fact that I get them checked every year on some private commercial waters. Now that does peeves me to think they can find the time and effort to annoy anglers on private waters but can not on natural waters that need the protection. Every year I get my licences checked at BH, I have 3 predator rods out and along with all the other dreadful 3 rod anglers I am top of the hit list for checks. Is Bury Hill that important that the EA needs to take the time and expense to check licences at that water? Surely their time is better spent patroling more natural waters.

 

I had my licence checked a few years back along with another Pike angler fishing on the syndicate side of a river with one other Piker, when we pointed out we had seen a group of lads bag a large Pike earlier further down from us on the other side (We lied it was small and most likely legal) he asked us did we report it and when we said no but we are telling you now and he got narky. We even enquired was he going to check the other bank and to his credit he did not white wash it and said no, he was due at another water. So he had come on to a syndicate water to check licences but was not interested in the public access bank. Unfortunatly this is not unique and it does get the back up of decent law abiding anglers. If resources are limited then it should be targeted towards those who pose the most potential threat not to those who offer an easy target and tick boxs for the number of checks that are performed.

[Ken L]

What the EA have to say

 

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

Quite apart from my beef with barbel stocking, the restocking figures speak volumes.

Total number of coarse fish stocked - 341,044.

Total number of migratory salmonid fish stocked - 1,019,000.

 

Rod licence sales generate £24 million revenue for the EA, of which only £1 million comes from Salmon and Sea Trout licences. Can anyone see a disparity here ?

 

Salmon and Sea Trout anglers conribite 4% of the revenue but benefit from 75% of total stockings.

You can bet your bottom dollar that migratory salmonids come front of the que in every other area of EA ependiture too, whether it's desilting highland streams so that Salmon can breed or constructing fish passes on weirs.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Ken L

[Vagabond]

peeves me to think they can find the time and effort to annoy anglers on private waters but can not on natural waters that need the protection.

Checking 53 licences at BH just involves ticking boxes - the likelihood of a defaulter there is miniscule.

A gentle stroll around the lakes, minimum paperwork, little confrontation, and "53 licences checked" looks good on your report.

 

Checking natural waters may mean a long walk/scramble, few anglers encountered, likelihood of confrontation if illegal fishers are encountered, lots of paperwork if a prosecution is made, and at the end of the day your report says "2 licences checked, I case of no licence, who refused to give his name and address (his three mates ran away). Checked in at local A &E to have facial injuries attended to"

 

Not defending anyone Dales, but human nature being what it is..........

[Leon Roskilly]

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/other-sport/angling/angling-coarse-stocks-to-be-boosted-by-a-new-ea-scheme-1-6192747

 

No comment.

[Steve Walker]

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/other-sport/angling/angling-coarse-stocks-to-be-boosted-by-a-new-ea-scheme-1-6192747

 

No comment.

"It has already started in the South West where thousands of fish from an unfishable stretch of the Wiltshire canal have been transferred to a council-owned lake in Swindon."

 

If that's the case I think it is, the fish have been taken out of the canal purely to prevent angling (which is not allowed). The object of the exercise is to ruin the fishing, on behalf of the council, for the benefit of the dog walkers who have been complaining about it. Which is fine, but actually I don't really care to spend my rod licence money on it.

 

Stocking is, in my opinion, not a particularly good indicator of whether the EA is delivering value for money. I want to see waters with good enough natural recruitment and protection from disaster that it is never needed.

[Anderoo]

I agree Steve - I think the best indicator of a successful environment (not fishing!) agency is that no restocking or movement of fish is needed.