Should we be paying 4 the privilege?

[Steve Walker]

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 )

 

Much of that is within the capabilities of the private sector. The only need for restocking should be after a pollution incident (in which case the polluter should pay) or at the startup of a new fishery (in which case surely it is a business expense?).

 

Disease research is carried out by various institutions mostly in academia, and funded through bodies like NERC and charitable foundations; I'm not aware of the EA doing any research work of its own, though it may just be that I've not heard of it.

 

Upholding the law (as relates to fish movement) is surely a core function of government?

 

I'm not convinced that our fees buy us any influence in Westminster. To be honest, if it did I'd call it corruption.

[Steve Walker]

Unfortunately we don't live in such an ideal world.

 

No, hence why I think it may be a system we're stuck with. I object to it on principle, in practice I just cough up, same as everyone else.

 

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?

That's where our lobbying bodies should come in. Again, we're probably stuck with the status quo.

 

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?

 

Simply that it's economically inefficient and unfair, and raises peanuts in the grand scheme of things. I'll concede that it may be the best we're going to get.

[gozzer]

Much of that is within the capabilities of the private sector. The only need for restocking should be after a pollution incident (in which case the polluter should pay) or at the startup of a new fishery (in which case surely it is a business expense?).

 

Disease research is carried out by various institutions mostly in academia, and funded through bodies like NERC and charitable foundations; I'm not aware of the EA doing any research work of its own, though it may just be that I've not heard of it.

 

Upholding the law (as relates to fish movement) is surely a core function of government?

 

I'm not convinced that our fees buy us any influence in Westminster. To be honest, if it did I'd call it corruption.

 

I know that a lot of fish put into association waters around here, were put in free by the EA, R Calder for example, when it was coming back to life after years of industrial pollution. Notice I say association waters not commercial waters. If found guilty the polluters do pay, but not enough to bring the waters back to standard (as in most industrial prosecutions). This takes work over many years, and is usually done by the club and EA working together.

 

Research is as you say, carried out by various institutions, but with the help of the EA. This is recognised by the institutions themselves.

 

You can't just lump "the law" into one group, various aspects are dealt with by different departments, the EA is one of these.

 

I am convinced that anglers money and votes do have an influence in government decisions, if not, I could see angling being in the same position as fox hunting is now.

 

The work the EA put into trying to save the fish and fishing in a local small water, made me grateful for their existence. As one of the people that reported the incident, they kept me fully informed of the work they were doing, and one chap (an angler) even hinted as to the identity of the polluter (against policy), just so we could keep an eye on them, in case of future incidents.

 

As it stands, although not perfect by any means, so far I haven't seen anyone come up with a better system.

Edited July 24, 2006 by gozzer

[Unimexsol]

For £25 (less than a night on the beers) I get a years fishing. I see it as quite a good way of saving money as it means that I'm not down the pub or shopping with the missus, or some other expensive habit and having spent my £25 on a licence I will make sure that I go fishing fairly regularly so as to get my money's worth.

 

I don't begrudge it, I just wish that it was enforced more often. I would wager a considerable amount of money that where I fish less than 10% of the other anglers hold valid licenses. Yes, I know that, in theory, I could challenge them and ask them to produce their licenses but I don't like being a) knifed or b ) thrown in rivers/canals.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Unimexsol

[MordenMike]

Yep I have no problem what so ever in paying £25 for a licence (probably be cheaper if

there wern't so many tight ar**ed dodgers about as well!)

[ColinW]

For £25 (less than a night on the beers) I get a years fishing. I see it as quite a good way of saving money as it means that I'm not down the pub or shopping with the missus, or some other expensive habit and having spent my £25 on a licence I will make sure that I go fishing fairly regularly so as to get my money's worth.

 

I don't begrudge it, I just wish that it was enforced more often. I would wager a considerable amount of money that where I fish less than 10% of the other anglers hold valid licenses. Yes, I know that, in theory, I could challenge them and ask them to produce their licenses but I don't like being a) knifed or b ) thrown in rivers/canals.

 

I don't think anyone would begrudge paying it IF we knew that every penny we spend was SPENT ON US! Why is that such an unrealistic expectation? I don't expect sea anglers to subsidise my coarse fishing so why should I be expected to subsidise someone who chooses to go salmon fishing? If there is to be a "common pot" of money, for the EA to spend on coarse and game work, then there should be a "common licence". If (as I occasionally do) I choose to go and try to catch one of the salmon my licence has paid for, then I should not have to go out and buy a weekly salmon licence for the privilege. And I'm lucky, most coarse anglers probably never even SEE a salmon river.

 

HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE!

 

If game work can't be paid for solely from game licenses then don't do it!

[Anderoo]

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.

 

We should feel proud that we contribute in this way, not resentful. Ramblers, mountain bikers, conoeists, etc. shouldn't be looken upon with envy; rather anglers should be looked upon with pride. It's a tiny fee but shows the outside world that we care and that we're prepared to help maintain our waterways.

 

If you really feel strongly don't buy one and risk being caught - but don't you dare moan if one of your waters needs help and it isn't forthcoming.

[gozzer]

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.

 

We should feel proud that we contribute in this way, not resentful. Ramblers, mountain bikers, conoeists, etc. shouldn't be looken upon with envy; rather anglers should be looked upon with pride. It's a tiny fee but shows the outside world that we care and that we're prepared to help maintain our waterways.

 

If you really feel strongly don't buy one and risk being caught - but don't you dare moan if one of your waters needs help and it isn't forthcoming.

 

Well said Anderoo, spot on

[Steve Walker]

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 that's what you think I'm about then you have missed my point. I'm concerned with fairness. I'm concerned with efficiency. I'm not concerned with selfishly keeping my 25 quid to myself; Gordon's had more than that off me so far today in NI and income tax, another 25 notes a year is hardly going to break the bank.

 

Clean rivers are an entitlement of everyone, not just anglers. Is it fair that only anglers pay for them? Is it fair that other hobbies and interests get a massive net subsidy, yet angling is expected to more than pay for itself? We pay back more than double what the government spends on the fisheries department. It simply isn't fair.

 

Raising the money from general taxation would remove the need to pay people to check licences. It would remove the need to print and distribute bits of paper and the need to run computer systems to record details. Rod licences are a very inefficient tax. Too much of the money they raise is spent administering the system.

[gozzer]

Clean rivers are the entitlement of everyone, your right Steve. But how many give a toss about the state of our rivers? A large part of the general public are only concerned with what comes out of the tap. I've even heard moans about paying for that, saying it falls freely from the sky, so why should we pay?

Who would collect the 'tax'? Surely not paid in with water rates? If it was paid in a tax to the Government, then it would be swallowed up, and doled out on a priority basis. "We need to pay out more for the NHS, Education, Immigration Policies or we've got a war somewhere to fund", so the EA gets a Government cut in it's spending. At least this way we are paying a direct contribution to the work done, and although as I've said it's not perfect, at least some is going in the right places.