Rod Licence

[dant]

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.

 

 

I know you have to be very careful about what how you word things on potentially evocative threads such as this one. So I'll start by stating that I agree fully with what is written above..

 

A Licence is part and parcel of fishing so why would a sea licence be any different from a freshwater one?? Surely it could seem unfair to tax the Game and Coarse anglers but not the Sea??.This would bring us in-line with other EU countries... With Sea fishing it's commonly excepted within reason that if a fish is big enough, it will be brought home for the pot which could be seen as an extra reason to inccur a charge..

I realise that it's against common law to claim ownership of land below the high tide but I can also see how people might not see this as enough grounds to not charge a licence fee for sea anglers.

 

Why not have an amalgamated English fishing licence?

[Guest tigger]

At the end of the day who would pay for the upkeep of the enviroment if Angling was banned ?

Would the rivers turn to sewage filled drains?

 

Also maybe the Lisense charge should be increased to say £200 per rod therefore making it beyonde a lot of peoples financial means to go for a days fishing.

That would mean the EA would still get their Tax from the few who could pay, less people would tramp the rivers, lakes etc taking pressure off the fish and the enviroment (wildlife in general) .

That way the EA could cut down on their staff, and everyone would be happy ?

Or would they ?

[gozzer]

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 ?

 

As many as they want?

I've seen people try to use 2 float rods and seen the mess they can get into, with deep hooked fish.

I've also seen, carp and pike anglers with 6 rods out, and get two, or more takes at once. The " do I strike , or let it run, or strike both and put one down while I play the other" , which usually results in deep hooking or lost fish, is a decision I (thankfully) don't have to make.

I can understand, using multiple rods on a water where bites are going to be few and far between. But on some waters where they are used, the stocking is such, that you can keep busy catching with one rod, and the other(s) are a handicap.

The anglers who I have seen, all thought that they could cope with the multi set ups, but they soon found out they were wrong.

Anyway, we're a bit off topic, (Sorry Myster). This thread is about licences, not the rights or wrongs of multi rod set ups.

We are obviously not going to agree, but I still feel that the majority of anglers would use 2 rods max, and if they want to use more then they should pay for them.

 

John.

[ColinW]

I am convinced that the EA wastes most of the money they get off coarse fishermen on projects to get salmon back into various high profile rivers (Thames, Mersey etc) knowing that "Salmon caught in Thames/Mersey etc" will attract media attention and put them in a good light.

 

Examples

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/6495303.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4183592.stm

 

"Chub caught in Ribble" is hardly going to have BBC News editors chomping at the bit is it? So the EA do nothing while a seal scoffs its way through that river's stocks for months on end.

 

Of course I am happy that the rivers are getting cleaner, but that is no thanks to the EA. They had to be FORCED to clean them by the EU. The EA were not doing these big sewage projects prior to the threat of massive fines. The EA still regularly allows untreated sewage to flush into my local rivers (and many others) during heavy rainfall.

[Steve Walker]

A Licence is part and parcel of fishing so why would a sea licence be any different from a freshwater one??

 

Simply because there isn't much that can be bought with money which would improve sea fishing. I can accept the freshwater licence, grudgingly, because I can see that the money goes towards making things better. I just don't see what sea anglers would get for their money.

[dant]

Simply because there isn't much that can be bought with money which would improve sea fishing. I can accept the freshwater licence, grudgingly, because I can see that the money goes towards making things better. I just don't see what sea anglers would get for their money.

 

I can see your point... I sea fish regularly and would want it made very clear to me where the proceeds of the proposed licence would be going.

 

There are however, I believe a number ways extra cash from a sea licence could help..

 

A cleaner beachs campaign, work done by scientists on inshore fishery nuseries, work/extra officers to combat poaching of Samon and Sea Trout in Estuarys (therefore benefitting shore and game fishermen), sewage traetment inspections, e.t.c e.t.c, also to help prop up the costal defence systems that may help to alleviate, albeit, potentially only temporarilly the risk of saltwater incursions in low lying areas such as those on the East Coast, which have had and will continue to have serious reprocussions for coarse anglers. There are vast areas of pristine freshwater habitat in both Suffolk and Norfolk that I know of, which are only metres from the sea...

Edited April 25, 2007 by dant

[Steve Walker]

But cleaner beaches would benefit holidaymakers more than sea anglers, there's already a statutory duty to enforce the law regarding sewage discharge and the coarse, salmon and sea trout anglers are already paying to protect their interests. There's nothing there for the bloke on the beach. Better research funding? Hmm. Maybe, but I don't think it's really a good sell.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Steve Walker

[dant]

But cleaner beaches would benefit holidaymakers more than sea anglers, there's already a statutory duty to enforce the law regarding sewage discharge and the coarse, salmon and sea trout anglers are already paying to protect their interests. There's nothing there for the bloke on the beach. Better research funding? Hmm. Maybe, but I don't think it's really a good sell.

 

Cleaner beaches would have an equitable benfit for both holidaymakers and anglers. A dedicated sea angler will use the sea and shoreline with greater regularity and for longer periods than say someone who uses it for the odd swim/sunny day... Also re: Sewage e.t.c, much more needs to be done all counts.. Perhaps if everyone who fished, bought a licence in the first place there would be more cash to tackle the issues at hand, of which there are many more than the few I causually stated...

 

The health and maitenece of our entire water cycle is under increasing threat and has an impact on any water user of any type of water i.e salt or fresh, recreational or not.. If it was shown clearly that any monies gained from from charging a sea fishing licence, could help combat a few of these issues, I would happily pay.

[Kappa]

Also maybe the Lisense charge should be increased to say £200 per rod therefore making it beyonde a lot of peoples financial means to go for a days fishing.

 

This whole topic makes me laugh so much! If anyone is seriously telling me they can't afford £25 after you've paid for 2 rods reels, landing net, unhooking mat, hooks, lines, tickets, bait etc etc.

 

Tigger how much does your 3 rods, plus reels, line, bivvy, rod pod, alarms, net, unhooking mat, bedchair cost? How about your day/season ticket? How about the petrol in the car to get there? Take all this and compare it to 25 quid. If you can afford 3 rods 25 quid is nothing.

 

Finally if your water has a pollution/disease etc problem are you telling me you won't expect the EA to come and sort it out for free? Walkers don't care about the fish in the rivers just that they look pretty. Boaters have to pay a licence and correct me if I'm wrong that costs hundreds of pounds.

 

Moan all you like but if you ask me its day tickets and tackle prices which are a rip off not the rod licence.

 

I'm also sure as you feel so strongly about this you have written to your MP asking for the licence to be dropped? Perhaps you have considered running as an independent in an election to make you point? Or perhaps your are doing nothing at all but just moaning.

 

Right hard hat on! here we go!

 

Rich

[Anderoo]

It's the usual close season silliness, arguing for the sake of it

 

I reckon there'd be more licence dodgers around if one cost £200...!