Would You Support a Levy on the Rod Licence?

[bingo]

Sorry about my little rant. Just getting a few things off my chest. I admit to being very ignorant about what the EA does.

 

Like I said, I don't have any problem in paying for a licence. I would just like to see where and how the money gets spent in each region. The fact that anglers contribute so much to the well being of our waterways is one of our strongest assets.

 

Sorry for taking this off topic.

[Waveney One]

Mr Mathew, you make a valid point. We don't want the extra money going to the EA though as it would just get lost.

 

Bingo, I would certainly like to see where and how the money is spent laid out a lot more clearrly. There is info there, but the accounts are 100 pages long and full of information that is totally irrelevant to most of us!

[Steve Walker]

Quite simply, no pay no say as Keith Arthur has said. Apart from which, the EA are responsible for checking the outfalls into the sea just as much as they are for rivers. They are responsible for water quality of the inshore waters.

 

They are, but I think it's a mistake to overplay the water quality issue in a "what have the EA ever done for us" discussion. We aren't the only beneficiaries of clean water, and if we all packed in fishing tomorrow the EA would still have a statutory duty to maintain water quality. By and large, natural fisheries don't need intervention. It's only when there's a need to regulate and repair human interference that intervention is needed, and I think the lion's share of that money should be allocated using the "polluter pays" principle.

[Leon Roskilly]

OOOPs! Wrong thread

Edited October 31, 2006 by Leon Roskilly

[Waveney One]

Steve, the water quality survey costs aren't coming out of the fisheries budget as far as I am aware. I was just giving an instance where the EA do something for sea anglers. I fully agree that the polluter should pay, but they don't unless the ACA takes up the case. What we want is a sitution where the potential polluter has to pay to prevent the pollution in the first place.

 

I certainly wouldn't want to see a situation where if you paid enough you could pollute as much as you wanted. This appears to be what is happening globally where countries can effectively buy extra carbon emmission allownces.

[Steve Burke]

Guys, are we losing sight of the objective here?

 

Put simply, that objective is an improvement in our fishing. Clearly the current set-up isn't working, and an injection of cash will make a huge difference.

 

Equally clearly, this government has shown by cutting grant in aid to the EA that its pre-election promises to support angling are worthless. However I suspect the same would also be true of the opposition parties. So don't blame the overstretched EA, blame the government!

 

In other words we can't rely on politicians to find the money angling so badly needs. And even if they did once, who's to say they or another party wouldn't reverse the decision in the future? Do you trust politicians that much?

 

Wouldn't it be better and less risky if we found the money ourselves?

 

The most practical way is probably a levy on the rod license as is being suggested. Unlike any other levy (such as on the tackle trade), this can't be got round without risking a heavy fine and a criminal record. And it wouldn't be voluntary - going by the posts here something I seriously doubt would work!

 

So rather than crying "Foul!" and "Not fair!", why don't we accept the reality of the situation? It may not be a perfect solution. It may not be the fairest solution. But it's likely to be best we're going to get.

 

And either way it's a damn sight better than we've got now!

Edited October 31, 2006 by Steve Burke

[Waveney One]

Sums it all up nicely Steve. Well said mate.

[pulledinbyafish]

no becasue it will only end up in someones back pocket and get put inot something else, not fishing.

just an example of this

what happens tot he "climate change levy" on your electricity bill?

[Grandma]

no becasue it will only end up in someones back pocket and get put inot something else, not fishing.

just an example of this

what happens tot he "climate change levy" on your electricity bill?

 

 

The point is to raise funds for the SAA, the ACA was subsequently mentioned, i.e. organisations that are dedicated to the interests of angler's.

[Steve Walker]

My main concern remains accountability, particularly if, as Steve says, this levy would have to be compulsory. From the SAA article, the objectives of this million pound a year quango will be:

 

"developing new anglers and bringing older anglers back into the sport"

 

"monitoring legislation for negative impacts on angling"

 

"representing the needs and aspirations of English anglers in Europe"

 

"creating a professional image for the sport to encourage commercial sponsorship of our incredibly successful national teams."

 

On those objectives listed, encouraging anglers is a grass roots thing, not a national talking shop kind of thing. It's angling clubs and tackle shops and individuals setting up schemes and small lottery grants. It's something those who make a living off the back of angling should be dipping into their marketing budgets to help out with (I'm thinking of tackle manufacturers and print media here). Monitoring legislation is what we have MPs for, and should be the responsibility of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Angling. I don't understand the third objective and I don't give a damn about the fourth.

 

I'm not sure that, if you went out on the bankside and asked people, these would be identified as people's biggest concerns. I think you might hear people talk about cormorants, about fish theft, about abstraction, for example, but lack of PR for the sponsorship of semi-professionals? Hmm. So, how will the agenda be set? How much say will the man on the wicker basket get? If it comes down on one side or the other on one of the issues which divide angling (livebaiting or keepnets, for example), or if it acquires the sort of chairman who favours fishing with de-hooked flies, to whom is it accountable? To what extent will it be independent of government policy? Will it be allowed to disagree with the government, or will it be expected to tow the party line? Will there be any accountability on the selection of members? What's to stop a hostile government deciding that it needs to have representatives from the RSPB, RSPCA and PETA on board? What's to stop the money being funnelled into swan sanctuaries?

 

So, my issues are; what do we need the money for, who decides what it's spent on, who appoints the board, to whom is the board accountable.