Rod Licence

[Anderoo]

No offence old chap, just pointing out that all of these are breaking the law and you shouldn't be able to choose which laws you uphold. If you go coarse fishing in the UK you are required by law to buy a rod licence, the money from which DOES go back into maintaining our waterways. Simple really!

[chelmerpaul]

I havn't got a problem with paying for a day ticket/club ticket and haven't said that as I haven't mentioned breaking the speed limit, drink driving, or sneakin about, so "Anderoo" don't make up words I haven't said.

 

I think the point that Anderoo was making is that it is just as illegal to fish without a licence as it is to do any of the other things he mentioned. Do you think it is worth risking a big fine or worse still, an angling ban, for the sake of twenty-odd quid a year?

[Guest tigger]

Waterways are not there "for all", no more than land is there "for all". .

 

PS I've never found a need to use more than 2 rods, (I prefer just the one).

 

 

I don't think you understood what I meant I will try to make it clearer for you.

When i said free for all ...most canals and waterways have some sort of public access for Joe public such as Birdwatchers, dogwalkers, ramblers, boaters etc etc, the list goes on and they all have use of this environment.

So why is it just the Anglers who are forced to pay the environment agency?

 

Reguarding the use of rods...just because your ok with two rods, what about other people who use three?

I only use one or two rods but to make people pay for an additional lisense just to put anther rod out is just greed on the part of the EA.

[gozzer]

I don't think you understood what I meant I will try to make it clearer for you.

When i said free for all ...most canals and waterways have some sort of public access for Joe public such as Birdwatchers, dogwalkers, ramblers, boaters etc etc, the list goes on and they all have use of this environment.

So why is it just the Anglers who are forced to pay the environment agency?

 

Reguarding the use of rods...just because your ok with two rods, what about other people who use three?

I only use one or two rods but to make people pay for an additional lisense just to put anther rod out is just greed on the part of the EA.

 

Anglers pay because we fish. Boaters pay as well. But they haven't got round to taxing walking and looking yet, (Do you think that they should?)

 

The rod statement was just a 'throw away' comment, on my behalf. If someone feels the need to use more rods, then so long as it's legal, then that's their right.

But what I meant was, that the old licence only allowed you to use one rod, this one allows two. If you want to use more, OK you have to pay. Why shouldn't you?

What would you consider a reasonable number of rods allowed on one licence? (others might have a different number in mind). 4, 6, 10, 20? How many can be used safely? Why not, say, a dozen baited hooks on one rod? How much bank space do you think an individual angler should use? To keep within a yard of your rod, should you use multi layered rod rests, with say, 4 rods on each layer, and 4 rods high? I know this sounds stupid, but I've been in this game for long enough to know that some would try it, if they thought it would improve their catch rate.

If you think that using 3,4 + rods is going to increase your chances of catching, then you should pay for the extra rods and extra chances you have. (A bit like the Lotto, more tickets, more chances to win. ).

 

John.

[Myster]

Sorry, didn't know my question would've cause so much outburst

[Guest tigger]

Anglers pay because we fish. Boaters pay as well. But they haven't got round to taxing walking and looking yet, (Do you think that they should?)

 

The rod statement was just a 'throw away' comment, on my behalf. If someone feels the need to use more rods, then so long as it's legal, then that's their right.

But what I meant was, that the old licence only allowed you to use one rod, this one allows two. If you want to use more, OK you have to pay. Why shouldn't you?

What would you consider a reasonable number of rods allowed on one licence? (others might have a different number in mind). 4, 6, 10, 20? How many can be used safely? Why not, say, a dozen baited hooks on one rod? How much bank space do you think an individual angler should use? To keep within a yard of your rod, should you use multi layered rod rests, with say, 4 rods on each layer, and 4 rods high? I know this sounds stupid, but I've been in this game for long enough to know that some would try it, if they thought it would improve their catch rate.

If you think that using 3,4 + rods is going to increase your chances of catching, then you should pay for the extra rods and extra chances you have. (A bit like the Lotto, more tickets, more chances to win. ).

 

John.

 

 

 

 

 

Your just spouting rubbish now.

[Steve Walker]

I really don't like the rod licence in principle. It's not a very efficient tax to collect or enforce, for one thing. More importantly, the work that the EA funds with licence money is important and much of it, in my opinion, ought still to be done if we all packed up fishing tomorrow. Habitat improvements which are good for fish are good for the ecology of the whole river. In principle, I'd like to see the EA's fishery people getting a much larger budget than they currently get from central government and licence receipts, and I'd like to see all of that money coming from general taxation. I've posted figures before showing the huge disparity between the contribution angling is expected to make and the subsidy that other sports and interests get. For instance, the amount of taxpayers money given to English National Opera (16.5 million a year) is fairly close to the amount of angler's money going into the EA (~ 20 million, less after enforcement and collection costs). I'm not even going to think about what the Olympics are costing, other than to say that it would pay all our licence fees for the next 450 years.

 

That's in principle. In practice, there is merit in the argument that licence income is ring-fenced, and I accept that it may be the only way of ensuring the continued funding of essential EA fisheries work. I'll tell you what I would like to see, though; EA publicity on fisheries is aimed mostly at telling anglers what good work their money pays for. Where we are funding the improvement of wildlife habitat, I'd like the general public to know about it too. Could just be as simple as a notice on the information boards you get on country park walking routes; "These enhancements to the natural environment were carried out by the Environment Agency and paid for by the nation's anglers".

 

Anyway, I'm willing to accept that the freshwater licence is a necessary evil, and that so long as it's law that we have to pass the hat round, we should (morally) all chuck in our 25 notes. The money is spent on things that need doing. It's absolutely wrong that we should have to foot the bill, but if we don't, they won't get done.

 

Don't get me onto the proposed sea licence, though.

[gozzer]

Sorry, didn't know my question would've cause so much outburst

 

Don't worry about it mate. it's the close season and time for buying licences, so it always crops up.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of heathy discussion.

 

John.

[gozzer]

Your just spouting rubbish now.

 

Which part, Tigger?

How many rods do you think the licence should allow you to use?

 

John.

[Guest tigger]

Which part, Tigger?

How many rods do you think the licence should allow you to use?

 

John.

 

As many as a person wants to use so long as they are in not interfering with other peoples swims/ pegs. Also so long as they can cope with the ammount of rods ok.

 

You only have to look at Carp Anglers, a lot of them have three or four rods set up on rod pods and cope well with that amount. Why should they be penalised for that so long as they only take up one peg on a water ?