Rod Licence

[dant]

I do agree with you, but would be interested in finding out who else you thought would benefit directly from an increase in barbel numbers in a river, to quite the extent a coarse fisherman will, especially a specialist barbel fisherman?

I can't think of anyone who's recreational enjoyment depends so heavily on the welfare and bio diversity of a river system or indeed who else spends longer by the waterside than a fisherman...

[Steve Walker]

The habitat improvements are mostly to do with issues of spawning and fry survival. Is there anyone who doesn't love to see a kingfisher? I'm sure the general public would be delighted to know that the river is able to support kingfishers, herons and otters, all of which benefit from healthier fish populations. It will also lead to benefits for insect life, leading to more hatching insects for the swallows and more pretty dragonflies to look at. The habitat restoration in question will also make the river more interesting for those of the canoeing persuasion to paddle in, and for just about anyone to look at.

[corydoras]

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.

It is not often we agree Tigger, but I am with you on this issue. My solution is only to fish venues that don't require a license. BTW boaters pay much more to use a canal than an angler does.

[dant]

The habitat improvements are mostly to do with issues of spawning and fry survival. Is there anyone who doesn't love to see a kingfisher? I'm sure the general public would be delighted to know that the river is able to support kingfishers, herons and otters, all of which benefit from healthier fish populations. It will also lead to benefits for insect life, leading to more hatching insects for the swallows and more pretty dragonflies to look at. The habitat restoration in question will also make the river more interesting for those of the canoeing persuasion to paddle in, and for just about anyone to look at.

 

I do see your point and of course I can see and understand the benefits of a healthy watercourse..

 

But a dog walker observing a kingfisher whilst on a 30 minute evening stroll isn't quite the same as a fella that sets up/camps out for a day or two whilst engaging in a sport one that involves direct interference (albeit well meaning, hopefully) with the rivers inhabitants along with such things a people cutting swims out along the banks, wearing certain spots bare and all the other things associated with general angling..

The only way a fish benefits from the angling process is by the money (and the environmental improvements it hopefully brings) that anglers pay for the privilege of angling...

If anglers stop stumping up for a licence then the environment will suffer along with the grounds on whether we should be allowed to continue this fine sport... The money we contribute through licence fees is a solid rod to break the back of the anti-anglers arguement..

 

Does a canoeist have to pay for an individual licence for themselves or each boat or none at all??

[Steve Walker]

None at all.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that much of this work is only necessary to put right the damage done by 1970's river engineering and gravel extraction. The river suffers from that, from abstraction and from modern agricultural practices. All anglers truly need is a natural and unmolested river. If the river were in its natural state, it wouldn't need stocking and it wouldn't need remedial work to restore habitat.

 

It just grates a bit that I pay 40% in income tax, £35 in tax every time I fill my car up, a hundred and odd a month in council tax, God knows how much in VAT. Money which the government spends on all sorts of things, many of which I couldn't give a toss for, some of which I actively disapprove of. Then, after all that, when I want the smallest thing, it can't find £25 a year to maintain the natural environment and, in the process, improve the fishing?

[dant]

Steve, I agree with you wholeheartedly...

 

The taxation system is a 2000 year old dirty riddle..

 

The state of our environment is direct consequence of human activity and probably a lot to do with the fact that theres 60 million of us crammed onto a tiny island.

I do firmly believe that we should have to pay for our sport and therefore enable as much of the proceeds of the fees to go directly to the improvement of environment in which we enjoy it, in an attempt to re-dress the natural balance..

Some extra information from the EA on what is being done with the cash we spend would go a long way to allay perceived doubts and concerns.. An idea, for example, might be for the EA to produce a small regional/national booklet that you recieve when you purchase your licence, listing all proposed, recent and current habitat improvements and re-stocking schemes. This would at least allow anglers to feel that they were getting value for money and are in touch with whats going on...

 

I think it's seriously bad news that a canoeist dosen't have to pay a penny to use the waterways and still continue to step up their rights to roam anywhere they please campaign...

What damage would a paddle swipe do to a string of Roach or Perch eggs or indeed the weeds they're attached to? I think we all know... There should at least be a canoe close season for the more sensitive times of the year in which fish eggs remain un-hatched..or a ban on streches that have been proven to be spawning areas....

[kleinboet]

Corydoras - Can you please direct me to a coarse fishing water that does not require a licence!

 

Steve Walker - Up to a point, I totally agree with you! However, Our friend Tony has fish to fry, and to do it he needs MONEY!!!! There is a dark hole in the budget which is used to finance his two little wars!!

I would far rather pay the money and KNOW that something was being done, rather than complaining about the job not being done - just look at the condition of the "roads"!!

[Steve Walker]

Yep, Klein, that's my position too. I don't agree with it in principle, but if it's the only way to get the money to where it has to go, I will put up with it.

[Neil G]

Yet more politics

 

It's £25, not the £300 or so it costs to fish some syndicate lakes so I can't see the issue. I really don't care what 'they' do with the money either, they can wipe their a**es with it for all I care.....it's soon forgotten about when your out there doing what you love doing..fishing.

[kleinboet]

Now THERE speaks a true fisherman!