Should we be paying 4 the privilege?

[andy_youngs]

You wouldn't object if it was your favourite water that was cleaned up/reduced/saved after pollution or low oxygen levels .... if you think the government is going to spend revenue on improving waters solely for the benefit of anglers with the current NHS and school funding crisis you're in cloud cukoo land.

Rich

Richard,

I wouldnt object to having my favourite water cleaned up / reduced / saved after pollution or low oxygen. In fact, if I was fortunate enough to have a few spare quid at the time I'd probably offer to contribute to the cost.

Also, I don't expect the government to improve waters soley for the benifit of anglers. I expect them to improve waters for the benifit of everyone.

[jedibond]

I work hard. I earn money. I pay an excessively high proportion of it over to the government in tax.

 

I go home and try to relax by going fishing in my local river. But I gotta get a license first, otherwise I'm deemed to be having fun without consent.

 

Personally, I object .

 

I, to a certain level, agree with Andy, it does seem, as has been pointed out by Leo, that we are being singled out purely because we already pay a licence fee. Other aquatic sports/pastimes do not pay any such fee and this is where I agree with Andy. If one has to pay then surely all do ???

 

I appreciate that we are the most popular participation sport in the country but feel that it should be recognised that we are not the only users of Britains waterways, etc. I know this sounds like cloud cuckoo land/eutopia but if all users of the waterways contributed, surely the system would be fairer ???

[Guest Jan of the 2 Ghillies]

Definitely happy to pay the license over here. $18 for residential angling license, $12 for the trout stamp, one year of happy memories. The Department of Natural Resources does a good job of monitoring the fish populations in the lakes, rivers and streams in my state as well as sending out conservation officers to make sure people are abiding by the regulations.

 

Dave D.

Also, here in the States a fishing license ONLY covers the state in which you purchased the license. Newt and I have had 3 licenses at a time: North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. Minnesota is one beautiful state in which to fish, and you sure are lucky for that.

 

AND, when we visited the UK in May, we most cheerfully bought 2 temporary licenses for each of us to cover the 14 days we were there fishing. No objection on our part for that, either.

Edited July 23, 2006 by Jan of the 2 Ghillies

[Bobj]

Also, here in the States a fishing license ONLY covers the state in which you purchased the license. Newt and I have had 3 licenses at a time: North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. Minnesota is one beautiful state in which to fish, and you sure are lucky for that.

 

AND, when we visited the UK in May, we most cheerfully bought 2 temporary licenses for each of us to cover the 14 days we were there fishing. No objection on our part for that, either.

Qld only has 1 licence for fishing any of 29 freshwater dams at AUS$35/year, no licence for any rivers, or sea and, Qld is 2.7 times the size of Texas. I feel for people who have to pay through the nose for a basic right to fish; having said that, our licence covers all the stocking and boat ramps for the 29 dams.

[Steve Burke]

The Environment Agency Fisheries Department does a tremendous job with less and less money - with it seems little thanks! Despite living with the constant threat of redundancy due to these funding cuts, the vast majority of the staff work very hard to protect our fisheries. For instance I've had a team working until 11pm doing a survey at Wingham! I was even offered free fish for restocking, but turned them down because they weren't what I wanted. Bear in mind that many of the staff are our fellow anglers and really do care about our fisheries.

 

However they're in a no win situation. If they spend our money on a publicity campaign telling us about their achievements they'll be accused of wasting resources that would be better spent on fishery improvements! Nevertheless, I'd like to see them go some way towards this, for instance on their website. It may even bring in more in licence fees, although I doubt that the effect would be anything but marginal.

 

Of course there's always room for improvement, and I don't agree with everything they do. However the plain fact of the matter is that the more money they have the better our fisheries will be.

 

Taxes are never popular, but I very much doubt that much would be raised on a voluntary basis. If so the ACA wouldn't have such a pitifully small membership!

 

One change I'd like to see is the licence fee scrapped for those under 18 rather than under 12 as at present to encourage more youngsters to go fishing. I'd also like to see a reduced fee for the few who genuinely find it hard to scrape the money together.

 

For the rest of us I'd like to see a substantial increase. I doubt that many here will agree with me, but look upon it as an investment. Compared with what we spend on bait, tackle and tickets it really is very little.

 

Or do you really think that less than 50p per week is expensive?

[gozzer]

It never fails to amaze, me that people will pay hundreds on the latest tackle, 'magic' bait, and a fortune to fish overstocked puddles, and yet moan about 50p a week on a license.

 

There was recently a thread about boating access on rivers, one of the main arguments in anglers favour was that we payed for the upkeep of the rivers. If the rivers were a public resource and open to anybody, I'd like to see they're reaction to the amount of increased access by canoeists etc.

[Chris Goddard]

The Environment Agency Fisheries Department does a tremendous job with less and less money - with it seems little thanks! Despite living with the constant threat of redundancy due to these funding cuts, the vast majority of the staff work very hard to protect our fisheries. For instance I've had a team working until 11pm doing a survey at Wingham! I was even offered free fish for restocking, but turned them down because they weren't what I wanted. Bear in mind that many of the staff are our fellow anglers and really do care about our fisheries.

 

However they're in a no win situation. If they spend our money on a publicity campaign telling us about their achievements they'll be accused of wasting resources that would be better spent on fishery improvements! Nevertheless, I'd like to see them go some way towards this, for instance on their website. It may even bring in more in licence fees, although I doubt that the effect would be anything but marginal.

 

Of course there's always room for improvement, and I don't agree with everything they do. However the plain fact of the matter is that the more money they have the better our fisheries will be.

 

Taxes are never popular, but I very much doubt that much would be raised on a voluntary basis. If so the ACA wouldn't have such a pitifully small membership!

 

One change I'd like to see is the licence fee scrapped for those under 18 rather than under 12 as at present to encourage more youngsters to go fishing. I'd also like to see a reduced fee for the few who genuinely find it hard to scrape the money together.

 

For the rest of us I'd like to see a substantial increase. I doubt that many here will agree with me, but look upon it as an investment. Compared with what we spend on bait, tackle and tickets it really is very little.

 

Or do you really think that less than 50p per week is expensive?

 

Et tu Steve!! As usual a well written and honest piece!! And one as usual I can totally agree with...... Well apart from the fish stocking bit, but I take your lead

[kleinboet]

Andy. You as an angler could NOT keep the rivers clean the way the EA can. If, for instance, a large company either accidentally or purposely allowed effluent to pollute the river you fish. You would be ignored, however the EA are big enough to take them on and win (which they have done, unfortunately, often) The EA also keep the farmers on their toes, keeping the bankside accessable.

I pay my licence gladly, and am extremely grateful that it helps keep our waters fishable!

[Steve Burke]

There was recently a thread about boating access on rivers, one of the main arguments in anglers favour was that we payed for the upkeep of the rivers. If the rivers were a public resource and open to anybody, I'd like to see they're reaction to the amount of increased access by canoeists etc.

 

A very good point! The fact that unlike some other water users we directly contribute to the upkeep, even if it's just a small amount, gives us some clout and influence plus good PR.

[Steve Burke]

Et tu Steve!! As usual a well written and honest piece!! And one as usual I can totally agree with...... Well apart from the fish stocking bit, but I take your lead

 

At face value it may seem strange to turn down free fish. However the ones I was offered were mature fish but not specimens. Yes, they would have enabled me to have some income on the Coarse Lake, rather than allowing free fishing for several years. However, they would have much reduced the prospects of growing record bream and monsters of other species.

 

It's nice to see that several posters already agree with my view - I very much expected to be in the minority!