Should we be paying 4 the privilege?

[Steve Walker]

I'm still of the opinion that the fishing tax is a nonsense, but one which we may be stuck with in the absence of the correct solution. The correct solution is for the maintenance of the health of freshwater ecosystems to be recognised as a correct function of government, and properly funded out of general taxation. As anglers, we do not need anything beyond healthy ecosystems. Self-perpetuating fish populations in healthy ecosystems do not need restocking.

 

The rod licence raises, what, somewhere in the region of 18 million pounds a year? Something around 30p per annum per head for a population of 60 million? I think we can stretch to that. That's small change down the back of the treasury sofa. Think how much money could be saved were it not necessary to distribute and police licences.

 

I've dug out figures before for how much government subsidy football gets, how much other sports and the arts get. Frankly, I think it's obscene that Britain's largest participant sport is expected to pay its own way when minority pursuits get larger grants than the rod licence raises.

 

Here's a radical suggestion; if English National Opera stood on its own two feet (and was paid for by, erm, the people who go to the opera) that would free up 16.5 million pounds. Without the costs of licence enforcement, I reckon that would cover most of what the rod licence raises. How does it feel buying a rod licence in order to subsidise someone else's night out? Quite likely someone wealthier than you?

[Guest tigger]

I'm still of the opinion that the fishing tax is a nonsense, but one which we may be stuck with in the absence of the correct solution. The correct solution is for the maintenance of the health of freshwater ecosystems to be recognised as a correct function of government, and properly funded out of general taxation. As anglers, we do not need anything beyond healthy ecosystems. Self-perpetuating fish populations in healthy ecosystems do not need restocking.

 

The rod licence raises, what, somewhere in the region of 18 million pounds a year? Something around 30p per annum per head for a population of 60 million? I think we can stretch to that. That's small change down the back of the treasury sofa. Think how much money could be saved were it not necessary to distribute and police licences.

 

I've dug out figures before for how much government subsidy football gets, how much other sports and the arts get. Frankly, I think it's obscene that Britain's largest participant sport is expected to pay its own way when minority pursuits get larger grants than the rod licence raises.

 

Here's a radical suggestion; if English National Opera stood on its own two feet (and was paid for by, erm, the people who go to the opera) that would free up 16.5 million pounds. Without the costs of licence enforcement, I reckon that would cover most of what the rod licence raises. How does it feel buying a rod licence in order to subsidise someone else's night out? Quite likely someone wealthier than you?

 

 

Good Post

[Steve Burke]

I'm still of the opinion that the fishing tax is a nonsense, but one which we may be stuck with in the absence of the correct solution. The correct solution is for the maintenance of the health of freshwater ecosystems to be recognised as a correct function of government, and properly funded out of general taxation.

 

Unfortunately we don't live in such an ideal world. As soon as government spending needs cutting the amount put into fisheries by the government gets cut. Do we really want to rely on politicians?

 

Politics isn't about what's best for the country or the environment, it's about what's best for the politicians and their parties (I'm sure Chesters would agree with that!). In other words it's votes that count - period!

 

Surely it's much better and safer that we fund the fisheries work ourselves? What better way than a rod licence that gets spent just on fisheries?

Edited July 23, 2006 by Steve Burke

[Leon Roskilly]

Fisheries are maintained by the EA with a balance of fish, and access which suits anglers.

 

Because the EA get a large slice of their revenue directly from anglers, they are keen to promote angling, and produced reports, attend meetings etc where they promote the interests of anglers.

 

see http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subje.../subjects/fish/

 

for an example of that.

 

In today's world, where many that are concerned with the maintenance of freshwater habitat would prefer to see no anglers on the banks, just clean waters, with a healthy aquatic environment for the benefit of the creatures that live there, it is very useful to have a government department onside to put the case for angling and anglers.

 

Yes we could have a healthy aquatic environment without any input from or for anglers, but without directing the management of that environment for the benefit of anglers, it would probably be quite different to what we expect today.

 

Manmade interference in the erection of fishing platforms, the clearing of swims, both the bankside and water margin for the benefit of anglers, the dredging of silted areas etc possibly banned in favour of more natural and largely unfishable conditions.

 

But fortunately we do have a government department onside that sees a value in angling, and in maintaining the environment not only for wildlife and the enjoyment of birdwatchers and ramblers, but in ways that suit anglers, and is prepared to collect money from anglers so that it can be invested in benefits for anglers.

[Bob Bradford]

Alan's point is well made. If I go to Spain I pay a 'visitors' tax to help maintain the environment out there. Right and proper, the same should apply to ramblers etc. Granted that ramblers pay their taxes, but then, so do I.

 

The anglers licence gives us a voice, and the licence fee is spent on angling.

 

Being involved with the Environment Agency does give me an insight as to how they work. Our licence fee does go to angling, it does not go on footpath maintenance miles from the river.

 

People happily lob hundreds of pounds worth of bait into the water to fatten up someone elses already obese fish, yet they object to paying the EA for the thankless task that they do. Strange world!

 

Andy, I note that you live on the Norfolk/Suffolk border. The EA is spending considerably more than your licence fee on angling within the Broads. The Broads Flood Aleviation Scheme, EA money, is doing considerable work of benfit to anglers, and some of it purely for anglers. Granted it is on the back of flood aleviation but we are seeing a benefit.

 

That money Peter, was awarded to the EA from DEFRA, not from rod licence fee's, and anglers are benefiting from better banks as a by- product of the work being carried out but that is just a bonus for the angler not a real commitment from the EA.

[Peter Waller]

There is a very real commitment from bot the EA and the BA on angling matters with relation to the flood work, Bob. Okay, so it is a by-product, but lets not knock it. EA money is EA money, however it is sourced.

[ColinW]

The EA HAS to make the rivers cleaner, they don't do it for us, they do it to comply with EU directives. Most of the money obained from coarse fishing licenses is NOT spent on coarse fisheries. The majority is spent on enforcement and much of what is left is used to subsidise game fisheries, in particular to encourage the appearance of salmon. These can then be held up in photographs in the tabloids to "prove" that the Thames, the Mersey or wherever are getting cleaner. So, in effect, our coarse angling licence money is then being used to show that the EA is performing the clean-up work that it has to do by law. This has nothing directly to do with fishing at all! Obviously having cleaner rivers is to our benefit but to pretend that they are cleaned FOR US is just ridiculous. People will come on here and say the EA "saved our fshery" by providing a pump or whatever to oxygenate the water in an emergency but I seriously doubt that if you added up the cost of all such operations in a summer it would come to more than ten thousand pounds. How much do they take off us?

[rich]

I have no objection to paying the rod licence. What I do object to is that ramblers, mountain bikers, climbers et al who get to use the countryside paths and facilities that are maintained by the Environment Agency at least partly with our licence fees pay nothing. Why should we subsidise their hobby? They should be subject to some form of licencing as well.

 

As a mountain biker I just thoght I'd let you know that most of the trails ridden in enclosed forests are built by and maintained by bikers. A lot of time and effort goes in to sustainable trails that will last.

 

http://www.chasetrails.co.uk

 

Admittedly, not all trails are looked after this way and there are several 'pay to ride' trails around the UK as well as sponsored ones.

 

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/ourwood...rCentreKarrimor

 

With regard to the rod licence, I do not object to paying £25 a year.

[gozzer]

What about the work the EA do towards breeding, restocking (with disease free fish), fish movement, fish rescue, advise on fisheries, disease research (needed with today's trend of stocking alien species) along with the other things mentioned so far? This along with the fact that contributing to the costs, does give angling more 'clout' than some other watersports.

 

 

(It's beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch )

[gorton]

Well done Steve, superbly put, I could not agree more.