Would you pay a licence fee?

[Jim Roper]

from the EA

Rod licence checks and salmon anti poaching 31%

 

Sounds a bit like a certain cancer charity that spends 65% of it's collections on advertising for for.

[Leon Roskilly]

Above, the EA have said they get £15.2 from the sale of licences, but BB thinks it's higher!

 

 

See:

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=20...hing#g138880.q0

[thedogs]

It seems that a lot of sea anglers wouldnt poke up with a licence at all. I would pay a license fee if my catch rate from the shore was to inprove to what it used to be.

We need more carrot and less stick!

[Ken Davison South Wales]

It seems that a lot of sea anglers wouldnt poke up with a licence at all. I would pay a license fee if my catch rate from the shore was to inprove to what it used to be.

We need more carrot and less stick!

 

I would agree 100% with that, a mile long carrot

[Leon Roskilly]

Seems that anglers in Northern Ireland can breathe a sigh of relief:

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2007-...=angling#g5.133

 

 

(but read the last paragraph again and you can see why 'the industry' doesn't want anything to do with a sea angling licence!)

[steve pitts]

I've just had one of those 'it popped into my head' thoughts about the proposed RSA licence.

 

It went something like this -

 

Sea Anglers are recognised stakeholders - right?

 

The government introduced Stakeholder Pensions a few years ago and has recently made its intentions known that it intends to introduce a range of Stakeholder savings products, to encourage us all to save.

 

So that the 'Stakeholders' hard earned savings aren't erroded by greedy insurance companies and financial advisers, these products will have to be run on a maximum Annual Management Charge (AMC) of 1.5% for the first 10 years of the plan and then reducing to 1% AMC for the remainder of the life of the plan e.g. Personal Pension, Child's Trust Fund, Individual Savings Account (ISA).

It's all here - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/200...ps_amd_regs.pdf on page 6.

 

Bear in mind that the insurance companies have to foot the bill for printing brochures, administration involved in setting up the plan and on-going running costs like training staff, running offices, managing funds and sending out statements etc. from this maximum 1.5% charge.

 

Now -

If one Government department (The Dept. of Work and Pensions) considers it reasonable and expects the world of finance to run long-term savings and pension schemes on a management charge of 1.5% per year, is it not unreasonable for RSA to expect another Government department (Defra) to expend no more than 1.5% of any revenues raised from an RSA licence on managing the licence scheme itself, with the remainder going straight back into RSA related project funding?

 

Personally - I don't see why not

 

Cheers

Steve

Edited June 14, 2007 by steve pitts

[barry luxton]

I've just had one of those 'it popped into my head' thoughts about the proposed RSA licence.

 

It went something like this -

 

Sea Anglers are recognised stakeholders - right?

 

The government introduced Stakeholder Pensions a few years ago and has recently made its intentions known that it intends to introduce a range of Stakeholder savings products, to encourage us all to save.

 

So that the 'Stakeholders' hard earned savings aren't erroded by greedy insurance companies and financial advisers, these products will have to be run on a maximum Annual Management Charge (AMC) of 1.5% for the first 10 years of the plan and then reducing to 1% AMC for the remainder of the life of the plan e.g. Personal Pension, Child's Trust Fund, Individual Savings Account (ISA).

It's all here - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/200...ps_amd_regs.pdf on page 6.

 

Bear in mind that the insurance companies have to foot the bill for printing brochures, administration involved in setting up the plan and on-going running costs like training staff, running offices, managing funds and sending out statements etc. from this maximum 1.5% charge.

 

Now -

If the Dept. of Work and Pensions considers it reasonable and expects the world of finance to run long-term savings and pension schemes on a charge of 1.5% per year, is it therefore not unreasonable for RSA to expect Defra to expend no more than 1.5% of any revenues raised from an RSA licence on managing the licence scheme itself, with the remainder going straight back into RSA related project funding?

 

Personally - I don't see why not

 

Cheers

Steve

 

The only problem with the pension scam is that our mr brown has been helping himself or so called creaming to approximatly 5 bill per year, so that means that whatever way you cut it uk gov is gonna win win win and the rsa is gonna pay pay pay.

[CLICKER]

The faster licencing of anglers and all fishermen are here the better ,its time to recognise we are all responsable for catching stocks of fish. We all contribute to the amount of fish taken from the sea regardless of fishing tackle used. I would be willing to pay, record, and return any species that are under threat.Faster we get our act together the better, time some people woke up to the fact. T

regards

[clem]

Clicker you really do seem to have joined us from another far off planet. Do you have eyes, ears and a head?

[barry luxton]

The faster licencing of anglers and all fishermen are here the better ,its time to recognise we are all responsable for catching stocks of fish. We all contribute to the amount of fish taken from the sea regardless of fishing tackle used. I would be willing to pay, record, and return any species that are under threat.Faster we get our act together the better, time some people woke up to the fact. T

regards

 

How could you set up a licence system that is fair for all. During the course of a year, i would be lucky to land a dozen codling, half to be returned. Cod, only now and again as i target other species.

If i was to pay 30 quid per year for that, how much should a trawler pay. Within a sence of fairness, how much would a 'hobby' netter pay and how would you police that. If it was the more you take the more you pay, i might be interested. If i was asked to provide detail of what i caught, i would happily provide that at no cost, if they who wanted it paid for my expence.