Should we be paying 4 the privilege?

[ColinW]

There are various opinions offered as to why we shouldn't pay for a licence. They all boil down to selfishness of one flavour or another. If the money I contribute to the EA via my licence purchase goes to help salmon in a river I'll never fish, or helps a lake in trouble on the other side of the country, that's fine by me.

 

It is not selfish to expect money you pay as a form of taxation to be spent for your benefit, it is common sense. "No taxation without representation" as the Yanks quite rightly said! Money spent by the EA on midnight patrols with highly expensive night vision equipment etc., looking for illegal salmon netsmen, is money which cannot be spent policing coarse fisheries. YOU CAN'T SPEND THE SAME POUND TWICE!

The fact is that (latest figures I could find) the EA sells approximately 17,000 annual salmon licences and 780,000 annual coarse/trout licenses (plus about 50% of each figure for short term licences), a ratio of about 40 to 1 in favour of coarse/trout anglers. Anyone who believes that the EA's expenditure in any way reflects this is living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

Keep in mind at all times that the money the EA spends from general taxation on water improvements, flood control etc. vastly exceeds the small amount of income derived from fishing licences. I don't at all begrudge THAT money being spent on whatever projects the EA see fit, but if they are going to levy a specific extra tax upon me for indulging in a specific activity, then I expect that money to be spent to my benefit.

[Anderoo]

The EA spends money where it's needed. It doesn't matter what the ratios are. In the scheme of things, which is more important to the environment - policing salmon beats to deter or catch poachers or walking up and down a river asking to see licences? Of course, it would be great if we didn't have to choose - but we do.

 

Saying 'it is not selfish to expect money you pay as a form of taxation to be spent for your benefit, it is common sense' doesn't explain why my income tax is spent on things I disapprove of. Is it for my benefit we attacked Iraq? I have no say on how my tax is spent. Some is for my benefit, some is for other people's benefit, and some is in my opinion for no benefit at all.

 

Everyone wants something for nothing. Why not feel good about making a contribution?

 

Steve, I understand your point, and I would also like other groups who benefit from clean waterways to contribute. But that doesn't mean that if they don't we shouldn't either. Let's be a good example.

[ColinW]

The EA spends money where it's needed. It doesn't matter what the ratios are. In the scheme of things, which is more important to the environment - policing salmon beats to deter or catch poachers or walking up and down a river asking to see licences? Of course, it would be great if we didn't have to choose - but we do.

 

Saying 'it is not selfish to expect money you pay as a form of taxation to be spent for your benefit, it is common sense' doesn't explain why my income tax is spent on things I disapprove of. Is it for my benefit we attacked Iraq? I have no say on how my tax is spent. Some is for my benefit, some is for other people's benefit, and some is in my opinion for no benefit at all.

 

Everyone wants something for nothing. Why not feel good about making a contribution?

 

Steve, I understand your point, and I would also like other groups who benefit from clean waterways to contribute. But that doesn't mean that if they don't we shouldn't either. Let's be a good example.

 

Which is more important, protecting the sport of 17,000 salmon anglers or 780,000 coarse anglers? Do you seriously expect me to say the former? As they say in Star Trek "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few!" especially when the many are paying for those needs to be fulfilled.

 

My income tax is spent on what MY GOVERNMENT (ie. my elected representatives) choose to spend it on. If I don't like it I can vote them out. As I have said, I am quite happy for them to spend some of it on environmental causes.

My coarse fishing licence is frittered away in a vain attempt to protect the "king of fish" (or perhaps more appropriately the "fish of kings"). If ever there was a clearer case of throwing good money after bad than trying to protect salmon, I don't know what it is. I wholeheartedly agree with Kieth Arthur's idea that the EA use salmon like miners used canaries, as long as salmon are there the government think they are doing a good job.

 

PS. If "making a contribution" makes you feel better, then feel free to send me as much money as the pleasure centres of your brain can handle!

[Anderoo]

'Which is more important, protecting the sport of 17,000 salmon anglers or 780,000 coarse anglers?'

 

Neither. Protecting the environment is more important than anyone's sport. Money should be spent where it's needed.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Colin. Contributing to the upkeep of the environment does make me feel better, yes. As I said before, no-one forces you to buy a licence, so if it makes you feel better don't buy one and send the money to your local fishery owner/manager instead. Keep some aside in case you get caught and fined though

[ColinW]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Colin.

 

I think you are right about that

 

My final comment. As I said, the amount the EA (and the Water companies) spend on things like sewage work replacement, flood control etc etc is an order of magnitude greater than their fisheries spending. I am very happy about this and this is something we all benefit from. I would even approve of them protecting salmon using this "general taxation" type expenditure. What I can't agree with is using money obtained from coarse anglers to do this work without their expressed consent.

Either salmon fishing can stand on its own, financed by salmon licences, or not. At present, due to abysmal stocks, I suspect it can't. This has very little to do with the EA, the problems causing the low stocks are mainly happening outside their jurisdiction, at sea. Catching the odd river poacher is like putting a band aid on a broken leg.

What I argue is that coarse fishing in this country has never (not in my lifetime anyway) been better and this is where they should be spending their licence revenue.

It's not as if there is nothing to spend it on. For example, I am not disabled and I don't know the figures, but I would not be surprised if there were more disabled coarse fishermen in this country than salmon anglers. Spend the money, now spent on salmon, on access improvements and I won't moan, even though I hope I'll never benefit for some considerable time.

[MordenMike]

As has been said before its only anglers , as far as I know, that actually care about whats IN the water.

The other groups of water users (boaters, canoists , dog walkers, ramblers et al) probably only care

that there actually is water and with a few fluffy ducks bobbing about on top to make it look pretty.

This is why that providing a good chunk of the money goes towards maintaining the water quality

and fish stocks, I don't mind paying for a licence regardless of the type of fish and fishing it helps

to maintain/preserve.

[Leon Roskilly]

Most of the money obained from coarse fishing licenses is NOT spent on coarse fisheries. The majority is spent on enforcement

 

Not sure where you get that from but it is completely untrue!

 

Of the £18million collected only £2.5million is spent on collecting the licence fee and enforcement of the licence.

[Squiffy]

I am all for the Rod Licence!

It is one thing that keeps the antis' at bay!

Can anyone honestly say, that the government would not consider backing down to pressure from the antieverythings, if the country didnt earn so much from fishing?

 

I know it isnt a major issue, but without Licence fees, waters would fall into disrepair, people would have far less patience with anglers, and the rout would begin!

 

I bet you happily spend the yearly licence fee down the boozer in one evening!...So I dont see the anti-argument personaly!

 

Now a TV License?...There is a REAL rip-off!!!

Edited July 25, 2006 by Squiffy

[kleinboet]

Let's take one example - the river Thames!!

Some 25years ago the river was, (as the Ozzies say) "too thick to drink - too thin to plough!

The water now has Salmon and Trout in it, for goodness sake!! AND how many of you have fished it and found that it fishes quite well. The EA used it's clout and money to get it all cleared up, and has done a wonderful job! And you lot say why pay a licence!? Just think of ALL the rivers in England as running cesspools with no fish, and then you realise what the EA do!!

Edited July 25, 2006 by kleinboet

[gozzer]

Sorry Kleinboet, but although I am very much in favour of the license. The EA have had only a small part to play in the industrial rivers clean up, they certainly helped once it started. But, not wanting to get too political, the demise of the industrial base of the country, in the late 70s and through the 80s, was the main reason for these rivers improving, especially in the North. (even the darkest cloud has a silver lining it seems)