Would You Support a Levy on the Rod Licence?

[Anderoo]

If it's optional then yes, I would support this. We're always bemoaning the apathy of anglers and this seems like a way of providing us with an effortless way of making a small extra contribution. And if you don't want to, you don't have to.

[Elton]

No, for much the same reasons that I don't think political parties should be funded out of taxation. To have any credibility such a body has to be voluntarily funded by members, I feel. Otherwise it's just another unrepresentative quango. If a body is to represent me, I need to retain the option of tearing up my card and withdrawing my funding. I would object to the possibility of being forced to pay for a talking shop I didn't agree with.

 

You won't like this report, Steve

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6063328.stm

[Steve Walker]

You won't like this report, Steve

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6063328.stm

 

Hah! Although, to be fair, state funding is only one of the options being considered. There were quite a few Labour party membership cards posted back in bits over the Gulf war, and some of the unions have been making noises about withholding their donation if they don't get their way. Government funding would make Ms Blears' job easier in the face of unpopular policies.

[Leon Roskilly]

ROD LICENCE LEVY

 

Salter seeks views

Labour’s Parliamentary Spokesman for Angling, Martin Salter MP, has published the attached paper setting out the case for a stronger and more professional national body to speak up for angling.

 

He has also suggested that one way of raising funds would be through a £1 voluntary levy on the rod licence and is asking for anglers to contact him with their views.

 

Martin Salter said:

 

“There are a number of ways to raise funds and a voluntary levy on the rod licence, of say £1 is one option worthy of consideration.

 

I want to know what anglers think which is why I am encouraging this debate.

 

Please email me your views to salterm@parliament.uk.

 

A full copy of this paper is also available on my website www.martinsalter.com/news.asp.”

 

 

THE GOVERNANCE OF ANGLING – RAISING OUR GAME

 

 

Some thoughts:

 

For a long time I have believed that angling in this country needs a strong and powerful voice to speak up on the issues that affect our sport.

 

I also want to see a more professional approach to the structure and governance of angling to enable Britain’s most popular participant sport to properly punch its weight.

 

At the moment we are the poor relations when compared to countries such as France, Holland or America.

 

 

However, all of this will cost money and it is high time that we had a thorough debate within angling on how we raise sufficient funds to pay for the services we need.

 

Currently we have just a handful of paid staff working for organisations such as the N.F.A, S&T.A, N.F.S.A, A.C.A and the umbrella body, F.A.C.T.

 

Just take a look at the equivalent body for shooting, B.A.S.C which has nearly 100 paid staff looking after the interests of less than one million shooters in Britain.

 

How on earth can we compete with the likes of the R.S.P.B or the British Canoe Union on issues such as cormorant predations or river access if we haven’t got the people or resources to properly make the case to the government, the media and the public at large?

 

Last month I organised an important stakeholders meeting with DEFRA on the subject of KHV and was struck by how many of angling’s representatives sat round the table were volunteers taking the day off work and travelling to London at their own expense.

 

This is simply ridiculous for a sport that claims 3.5 million participants.

 

I’ve set out some of the work that could benefit from an increased funding stream.

 

This is not an exhaustive list and I would welcome other suggestions.

 

What could be achieved:

 

• A single powerful voice with the Government, Parliament, the Environment Agency, NGOs and other stakeholders

 

• Positive recognition of the fact that 3.5 million people enjoy recreational fishing and its contribution to a social and healthy lifestyle

 

• Positive recognition of the £3.5 billion contribution angling makes to the English and Welsh economy each year and how this could grow with a more professional approach to its development

 

• Professional advice on accessing funding opportunities for angling projects

 

• Efficient use of the funding which goes into angling representation, enabling the creation of a thoroughly professional influencing organization

 

• An improved aquatic environment; what is good for fish is also good for other life forms

 

• Stronger leadership and accountability within angling and fisheries

 

• Promotion of angling and fisheries

 

• Professional support for angling organisations

 

• Legal advice

 

 

It is perfectly true to state that as yet there are no plans to introduce a levy, either voluntary or compulsory.

 

There are also a range of practical issues that need addressing, including the role of existing angling governing bodies, legal status, and lines of accountability.

 

However, I firmly believe that the time is right to ask these questions and find out what anglers really think.

 

Are they prepared to pay less than the cost of half a pint of maggots to help improve the prospects for their sport? Let’s have the debate.

 

 

MARTIN SALTER MP

Edited October 26, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Jim Roper]

Perhaps Martin Salter is expecting to lose his parliamentary seat next time and is hoping to become a well-paid angling rep!

[jimpy0]

have just emailed a big no to him

[Waveney One]

I would but I know how tight anglers are so I would expect to be in the minority.

 

Not only are anglers tight, they live with their heads in the sand that Bob Bradford was talking about!

 

Don't you think that a group representing all anglers would have a greater say than one representing game anglers, or one representing match anglers or one representing the minnow specimen group?

 

Why does anyone think 'one group' would be 'dominent to the detriment of others'? surely there is little other than the odd spat where all anglers are united?

 

Don't you think that a well run organisation using professionals would give a boost to angling? I know that some disagree with the majority of aspects of the countryside Alliance but even they couldn't disagree with the fact that they are a thriving, well publisiced and professionally run organisation.

 

Don't you think that the prospect of schoolchildren being introduced to angling is a good thing? Who do you think would do that, Joe bloggs sitting on a river bank minding his own business or a truly representative umbrella organisation that is listened to by the Sports Council and the Government?

 

Or are you all going to sit on your *rses again saying what has the NFA, NFSA, S&TA etc etc done for us?

[jimpy0]

Or are you all going to sit on your *rses again saying what has the NFA, NFSA, S&TA etc etc done for us?

 

why do we need another so called umbrella body to be the voice of angling nobody listens to a word we say so why should we then have to pay for the privellige albeit only £1.00. why is it that it always costs the rank and file.

i propose that i be made the voice of angling and all anglers send me £1.00 with their comments and request then i will lobby on their behalf.

 

did you hear that "no" well it was the sound of me putting on my tin hat flak jacket and closing the bunker door behind me

[bingo]

I think the idea of an umbrella organisation is good but do we not pay enough already? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

I don't actually have any issues in paying for a rod licence. Coarse angling is still incredibley cheap imo. But I wish that each region of the EA published how much they get from angling and how much they spend on angling. Maybe they already do this but I haven't seen such a thing.

 

How many other people who participate in sports have to buy a national licence? What about canoeists? Do they pay to use the waterways? Or are we (anglers) paying for the actual fish? The same fish that we return. The same fish that our clubs have paid for? I just don't know.

 

When the EA carries out dredging or flood relief work whose money are they spending? Gordon Brown's or ours (anglers)?

 

I'm sure the EA does a lot of great work that they never get credit for but I just don't know. I know it's an old cliché but I've never seen an EA officer. I've never seen them carrying out any work on any of my local waterways. Where are they?

 

We're all taxed to the hilt and a lot of our tax money gets spent on things we have no interest in or things we never use but we just accept it. That's life. Yet it seems as though anglers have to pay for everything themselves. Maybe this is fair enough but the opera argument is quite a compelling one.

 

Some anglers never fish rivers and only fish private 'commercials' yet they are expected to pay the same licence as those who fish only rivers. Is it fair?

 

When I fish my local canal I see hundreds of walkers, cyclists, rowers and canoeists. Yet not one of them has had to pay anything extra to be there apart from me. I would be fascinated to know how much money the EA spends on this canal each year. The local council owns it. The local angling club controls the fishing. Where do the EA fit in? I pay the same tax as all the above users but I still have to pay for a licence on top of this.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Sorry for all that. A lot of it was actually a bit off-topic but in short I can't see many people paying extra for an umbrella organisation. Yes we probably need one but I think that many people feel that they pay enough as it is. If there was transparency in where exactly their money went then maybe people will be more willing to spend more. I know it's only £1 but where do you draw the line?

 

Perhaps this new organisation could lobby the EA to ask exactly where our money got spent?! If so, here's £1!

[Waveney One]

bingo, cyclists and canoeists are obliged to be paying a licence if they use a canal towpath or the canal itself. In fact the conoe club of GB have an agreement with the BWB whereby the canoe club pay for a licence for all their members. Cyclists are supposed to have a licence although it is free. Towpaths are footpaths and there is no charge.

 

The government partly fund the fisheries work of the EA. The government have just reduced the grant in aid money they supply to the EA.

 

The EA do a lot of work in fishery management and take daily water samples from sewerage outfalls etc to check the water quality. They check stock levels in rivers by electro fishing and check growth rates of fish. Their fisheries department also do a lot of research including research into the effects of estrogen from the pill entering our waterways and literally changing the sex of fish.

 

They also prosecute polluters on your behalf although they don't seek damages, that is left to the ACA a voluntary organisation that is funded by subscriptions from individuals and clubs. Every angler ought to subscribe to them.

 

In addition of course they are responsible for ensuring that fishery laws are abided by and that people fishing have a licence. One area where I get annoyed is that a larger proportion of their budget is spent on salmon fisheries and protection than is spent on coarse fish, totally out of line with income from the two sets of rod licences.

 

I can assure you that more money is spent by the EA on fisheries than is ever recovered from licence sales.