Should we be paying 4 the privilege?

[ColinW]

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!!

 

The clean up of our rivers has absolutely nothing to do with the rod licence.

 

The rivers have been cleaned up because the European Union laid down a set of directives setting down quality standards for drinking water, bathing water, urban waste water, etc, which could only be met by cleaning up the rivers. The water on an estuary's bathing beaches can't be clean if untreated sewage is running into the river. The EA is the agency which has to oversee the clean up. They are not doing it for our benefit and would still be doing it if we did not exist. We were paying for rod licences long before the clean up campaign and we still had rivers like open sewers. We were paying for rod licences when the EA (or their then equivalent) was canalizing all our rivers, stripping out bankside trees and any other fish holding features that might "impede the flow". Don't fall for the new touchy feely "angler friendly" image of the EA with the glossy mags it sends out, when it comes to priorities we are right at the bottom.

 

I'll say it again because it just isn't getting through.

 

The clean up of our rivers has absolutely nothing to do with the rod licence.

Edited July 25, 2006 by ColinW

[Squiffy]

But I (and probably others) cant understand Colin, is you complaining about paying such a pewtry amount, per annum, when you would spend more than that on a night in the pub!? (most of which also gets paid out in tax btw!)

[Steve Walker]

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?

 

We're talking about 18 million quid here, mate. It's utter peanuts, as far as the government is concerned.

 

Look at how much money they've written off due to errors in the tax credits system:

 

http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/05-06/05061159.htm

 

Tax credit overpayments

 

HMRC estimates that it overpaid £1.8 billion and underpaid £556 million in tax credits in 2004-05 and that the position for 2005-06 will be similar. It cannot recover all overpayments and in 2005-06 wrote-off £397 million and made a provision of £409 million for doubtful debts. The December 2005 Pre-Budget Report announced changes to the tax credits system which were designed to provide greater certainty to claimants, particularly when families see a rise in income. HMRC’s success in managing these measures to reduce overpayments and recoveries will become apparent only in 2008 following finalisation of 2006-07 awards.

 

18 million is nowt.

 

Tax revenues from the angling industry, that's another matter, although the same argument didn't do the fox hunters any good.

[gozzer]

£18 million is, as you and Mr Daniels might say "not a lot" Steve. Put into the equation, over 4 million votes plus the revenue from all the spin offs, tackle industry, bait, transport, commercials, holiday industry etc, etc, and you have a bit more than £18 million worth off 'clout'. Add to this the 'green' factor in that it is recognised more today than ever, that anglers are the 'eyes' on the waters, and although it may seem for selfish reasons, are in the best position to see any potential problems that may arise.

 

 

Colin, as you say some of the cleaner rivers are to meet EU directives, but as I said earlier the run down of industry in the Thatcher years had a lot to do with starting the ball rolling. But the restocking and maintenance of the rivers, are done with anglers in mind, clubs and the EA working together. I too remember the canalisation of the rivers, (45 degree banks that when muddy nearly cost me my life, and plenty others I'm sure). But if I remember correctly that was in the time of the separate River Authorities, it certainly was in Yorkshire, where a Mr Parry wanted to make every river have a run of salmon. The priorities were different in those less enlightened days, and hopefully they are behind us now.

Edited July 25, 2006 by gozzer

[ColinW]

But I (and probably others) cant understand Colin, is you complaining about paying such a pewtry amount, per annum, when you would spend more than that on a night in the pub!? (most of which also gets paid out in tax btw!)

 

Have you actually read this thread Squiffy? I am NOT complaining about paying for a licence, I've been buying them for thirty odd years. I am complaining about what they spend the money on. If I went down my local waters and saw EA work parties fixing banks, sampling the water (or even checking licences!) I'd be a happy man. When I read about them installing very expensive new equipment to enable them to count the number of salmon returning from their stocking operations in the River Mersey basin then I question whether they are spending my money wisely. I'd be as happy as anyone if salmon ran up the Mersey at some time in the future (I'm probably the only angler ever to have fly-fished in the tidal part of the river) but actually paying out to stock them into it artificially before it is ready is not the way to go about it. That, to me, smacks of a publicity stunt.

 

I'm obviously wasting my time trying to make this point, as the EA have a far better publicity machine than me, so I'm off to other threads

[Steve Walker]

£18 million is, as you and Mr Daniels might say "not a lot" Steve. Put into the equation, over 4 million votes plus the revenue from all the spin offs, tackle industry, bait, transport, commercials, holiday industry etc, etc, and you have a bit more than £18 million worth off 'clout'.

 

Oh yes. I don't doubt for a moment, though, that this government would still go through with a ban if the backbenchers wanted it and it were politically expedient to give them what they wanted. However, with the exceptions of a few nutjobs, the backbenchers don't want it, and it ain't going to happen any time soon.

 

The overall economic value of angling might be a defence, though actually I doubt it. Either way, though, the 18m from the licence fee wouldn't make much difference. It sounds like a lot of money, but really it isn't. I'd have less of an objection to it if it raised a decent amount of cash, it's partly the 'back of the treasury sofa' aspect of it that irritates me; it seems a lot of petty bureaucracy for too little reward.

 

Hey, there's an idea. If we increased it to, say, 100 pounds per annum, it might start to make sense...

[Bob Bradford]

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.

 

I am not knocking it Peter, but I felt I had to point out to those that may not know , the flood defence scheme is not directly for anglers and the money (£200 million over 20 years if my memory serves me correctly) that is funding this huge project is not coming from rod licence fees.

 

Well for what it is worth Colin W ... I agree with your views on this subject mate, coarse anglers (and we pay the lions share of licence fees) do not get the same service from the EA as Salmon anglers, particularly when it comes to policing our natural fisheries. I would add, I also am not against paying for a fishing licence, I do expect the EA to do more for coarse anglers though!

[DJMCJERICO]

Four packs of fags, 10 pints, 2.5 kilo of boilies, half a football ticket................. when you think about it it's not that expensive

 

Although in the last few years it has shot up at quite a rate!

 

It's wouldn't hurt to see whats happening with our money a bit more though.

[iamlucky18]

I don't object to the license fee at all - the money is used for a good cause. Like Alan said, it's used to maintain the quality of the rivers that you may fish on. That way, your fishing experience is maintained at a high standard too.

[Mark Crame]

I buy it, but I don't agree with it. I resent it. A major part of the reason i didn't fish for years was down to the cost - not all of us have high incomes, and not all of us spend hundreds of pounds on equipment either.

 

I was kayaking on the Waveney at the weekend (my local river as well Andy) and I saw holidaymakers fishing from their hire boats. I wonder how many of them had licences? I've seen them fishing out of season too. Between Geldeston Lock and Ellingham Mill, and up to Bungay and around the Common, and most of that area - ie the local areas where there are fish - my £26 licence means absolutely nothing. I can't fish it. Why? Club waters. So, I need to fork out another £40 if I want to have the privilege of fishing for most of my local river. From the bank that is, I'll do as I please in my kayak, ta very much. And that has to be licenced to the tune of £20 a year by the Broads Authority. I can fish a bit of bank south of Geldeston Locks, but only have foot access for a short way. Then it's pretty much no access down to Beccles. becces has a long stretch of free fishing, thank you Beccles, but with that many cruisers on it it's hardly peaceful and productive in the summer. Next place I can get to is Worlingham. I can go to Burgh staithe on the opposite bank and I think that leaves me with Barnby and Oulton Broad. Of course I can go on the Haddiscoe cut and get a few eels, if I don't go up the private road. Etc etc.

 

£26 a year and I don't get the access to do what I pay for. Make that £52 if I want two bait rods and a lure rod out. Take out the areas I acn't walk or get the car to, take out the areas where clubs have the rights and what am I left with? Crowded areas that aren't good enough to be reserved by clubs. No thank you very much.