Jump to content

Should we be paying 4 the privilege?


andy_youngs

Recommended Posts

A very good point, and one I hadn't considered before. Club waters and syndicates would no doubt cap the number of rods you can use, but free water (yes, there is some still out there!) would be pretty lawless.

 

The two don't seem to me to be directly related; there's the law that you can't fish for coarse fish with more than four rods, and the law that you need a licence for each pair. I don't see that the licence requirement is directly related to the rod limit.

 

Actually, not being an angler who uses multiple rods I've never given this any thought, but what's the justification for requiring two licences for three/four rods? Does the water need to be twice as clean? Does the EA have to spend twice as much per head? Or is it just that it kind of makes sense to people if they don't think too hard about it, so they blithely swallow it without complaint?

 

I suspect that it's an administrative convenience, to do with proving that two people aren't sharing one license to fish four rods, but then surely they would have the same issue with two people, two rods, one licence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't personally see how anybody can fish with 4 rods effectively or safely regardless of how many licences they need/have (but I guess thats for another topic!). But I would still like to know what the alternative to a rod licence is ?

It seems a lot of people are skeptical about the use of the licence money but even if they use as little

as some people think for the anglers benefit, its still got to be better than none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I would still like to know what the alternative to a rod licence is ?

 

The 18 million collected from licence sales comes from out of general taxation instead, and the 2.5 million which is currently spent collecting and enforcing the licence fee is instead spent on improving the aquatic environment?

 

We pay tax to provide sports and arts facilities for other people, why shouldn't it be spent on angling instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 18 million collected from licence sales comes from out of general taxation instead, and the 2.5 million which is currently spent collecting and enforcing the licence fee is instead spent on improving the aquatic environment?

 

We pay tax to provide sports and arts facilities for other people, why shouldn't it be spent on angling instead?

 

In a perfect world I would agree with you Steve, but as we know it's far from perfect. I would like to see every penny paid in road tax used to improve the transport system, but we all know it isn't. As I said before, any money paid through central government, gets swallowed up in red tape, then paid out according to the priorities of the government of the day. How far up a list of priorities do you think the needs of anglers would come?

Edited by gozzer

Angling is more than just catching fish, if it wasn't it would just be called 'catching'......... John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gozzer,

 

yes, I accept that. When I said at the beginning that I think we may be stuck with it, that was pretty much my reasoning. I still think that it's fundamentally wrong, though, and I'm happy to point out how, ideally, it ought to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.