Anger At Rising Cost Of Concessionary Rod Licences

[gozzer]

whinge about concessions to OAPS or the disabled - it is perhaps an indictment of modern society that such whingeing occurs today.

 

These words by Vagabond sum it up for me.

It was never questioned, by that members of the clubs I've been involved with, when a pensioner, a kid, or a disabled member got a concession, or got a 'near peg' in a match. It was just accepted that we did this to help another member out.

Isn't it part of the basis of a 'Welfare State' that the 'haves' help the 'have nots'?

 

The argument that these people can fish more often than others, is cancelled out by the fact that they are limited to where they fish. If you can fish just one day a week, but have a whole fishery to choose from, or can fish 3-4 times a week, but only have a few pegs to choose from, what's the difference?

 

John.

Edited August 27, 2007 by gozzer

[luckyjim]

Fair enough, I accept that fishing can be expensive. However, it needn't be.

 

....

 

Let me finish this long post then by asking members how they think this shortfall in government funding to angling should be made up?

 

Abolish the EA angling license regime. They should be mandated to generally maintain/preserve/improve waterways for use by the general public.

 

Introduce a tax on tackle and bait, and a further tax on commercial fisheries/syndicates. I'd suggest 10% and 25% respectively, although these are purely suggestions since I'm largely unaware of the figures. Use the proceeds for a national angling organization that imrpoves facilities and services specifically for anglers, i.e. disabled facilities, schemes for young people, educational programs, and perhaps subsidies or cooperatives for lower income anglers.

 

A funding regime resembling this would be progressive rather than retrogressive and would cut millions of pounds worth of red tape, bureacracy, and enforcement costs. It would probably stop the (roughly) 50% extra tax casual anglers now have to pay to pursue the sport, go far further towards healthy, fishable waterways, and be of direct benefit to those people who need the support of other anglers to participate.

[RobStubbs]

Abolish the EA angling license regime. They should be mandated to generally maintain/preserve/improve waterways for use by the general public.

 

Introduce a tax on tackle and bait, and a further tax on commercial fisheries/syndicates. I'd suggest 10% and 25% respectively, although these are purely suggestions since I'm largely unaware of the figures. Use the proceeds for a national angling organization that imrpoves facilities and services specifically for anglers, i.e. disabled facilities, schemes for young people, educational programs, and perhaps subsidies or cooperatives for lower income anglers.

 

A funding regime resembling this would be progressive rather than retrogressive and would cut millions of pounds worth of red tape, bureacracy, and enforcement costs. It would probably stop the (roughly) 50% extra tax casual anglers now have to pay to pursue the sport, go far further towards healthy, fishable waterways, and be of direct benefit to those people who need the support of other anglers to participate.

 

Umm that makes sense, not. So tax those people / fisheries that are syndicates so that the majority of anglers don't have to pay a licence fee ? I would suggest the opposite. People fishing syndicates don't make use of the EA so don't charge a rod licence for private fisheries. EA can charge for their services should they be required at said fisheries.

 

In the mean time all those people that fish the many lakes, rivers and canals that are open to all can pay for their free fishing and what the EA have to do on said waterways by paying a licence fee. That can be used to maintain those open waters and be used for improvements in access and stocking etc.

 

Rob.

[Vagabond]

Perhaps?

 

Well perhaps you could delete "perhaps" if you are more certain than I

 

and as for Blue Zulu's question "why should he pay more?"- the answer is simple. Its nothing to do with what anglers want, what the OAPS and the disabled want, nothing to do with justice, logic, reasoned argument, common sense, or even a desire to help those less well off (financially or healthwise).

 

The answer is "Because you are bl**dy well told to"

 

It is a political decision, made by faceless bureaucrats who know nothing and care less about anglers, fit, disabled, young, old, or otherwise - the strings pulled by a parsimonious government that nevertheless wants to appear caring. It would be bad for its image to charge full rate to the disabled, and possibly vote-losing to charge full rate for pensioners and kids. Concessions are given grudgingly, however much the spin doctors trumpet otherwise - and of course pushing the rates up whenever the powers-that-be think no-one will notice (Note the lack of consultation with either the Disabled Anglers association or OAP groups)

 

In this life, we have to accept those things that we cannot change, or are too much trouble to change - so I shan't be complaining about the increase in my OAP's concessionary licence price - I will be too busy arranging my next fishing trip.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Vagabond

[kleinboet]

Bluezulus question can no more be answered be answered by a disabled person than the question "how long is a piece of string!" No matter how much a disabled person tries to explain to a disabled person who just can't take in disabilities tries to explain. These are not just something we are able to turn on or off - we have them 24/7 365 days a year!

 

I would suggest that non-disabled sceptics get hold of a wheel chair and CHAIN themselves into it for 12 hours. You will have to chain yourself into it as you will want to cheat when going to the loo, maneuvering through tight places etc. Or put a blindfold on for 24 hours, or have a splint restricting your movement.

Unfortunately there is nothing you can do to replicate the pain!

 

Maybe then you will understand!

[Dick Dastardly]

Just caught up on this thread.

 

Re the EA its not that they havnt worded it correctly its that they are running two different sites! One that is out of date and says concessions are only available for "Blue badge" holders (the old system) and the current up to date one that gives the correct information!

 

Incidently on the subject of the EA I have still not recieved a reply and to be honest dont/have never really expected one.

 

Blue,I dont think you should pay more! in fact you arnt paying more! you are paying the fee that has been decided as the set level.Concessions are just that ie LESS than the set level.

Also I dont think that just because you are dissabled means you should get a cheaper anything.It must be down to eacg individuals financial situation (and of course whether they are responsible for that situation).

 

In fact my main bitch about the concession system wasnt with the able paying more and disabled paying less but the fact that dissabled people on a high level of benifit (due to their dissability) got a concession and people on a much lower income (once again due to their dissability) had to pay? I could never see the logic behind this (please explain if I have missed something obvious)

 

Dissabled benifits/concessions should surely not be regarded as a form of "compensation"? ie the more you are dissabled the more you should be let off paying things? Surely the idea is to try and "level the playing feild" for all? Life may not be fair but surely in a civilised society we should try and make it as "fair" as we can?

 

Lastly it doesnt matter how many days you can go fishing or cant because no one can go without the COMPULSOREY Rod Licence.Shame on all you who begrudge less fortunate the same quality of life as your selves.

 

Damn good job all the guys who gave their lives in the various wars and conflicts weve had didnt have the same selfish "F---k you Jack Im all right attitudes" isnt it.

 

Or maybe the real blame lays with the people who have allowed the whole ideal of the "Welfare State" to become so abused that people become alieanated to the whole idea.

[Sportsman]

I think the answer to Blue Zulu's question is quite simple. Able bodied anglers do not pay more, disabled anglers pay less.

In other words, able bodied anglers pay what they pay, which is the amount laid down by whatever statute. This is not affected by what others pay, so it doesn't go up because of concessions to disabled anglers.

Disabled, ot other qualifying anglers get to pay less, but this does not affect what Blue Zulu pays, so I don't really see his problem.

I still don,t agree with the concept that disabled anglers should pay less because they can't access all fishing waters. Most of tha anglers in the UK, for one reason or another, possibly age, poor levels of fitness or just plain laziness, can't access all waters either. I think that disabled anglers should get concessions because that just seems to be the right thing to do.

[corydoras]

Bluezulus question can no more be answered be answered by a disabled person than the question "how long is a piece of string!" No matter how much a disabled person tries to explain to a disabled person who just can't take in disabilities tries to explain. These are not just something we are able to turn on or off - we have them 24/7 365 days a year!

 

I would suggest that non-disabled sceptics get hold of a wheel chair and CHAIN themselves into it for 12 hours. You will have to chain yourself into it as you will want to cheat when going to the loo, maneuvering through tight places etc. Or put a blindfold on for 24 hours, or have a splint restricting your movement.

Unfortunately there is nothing you can do to replicate the pain!

 

Maybe then you will understand!

Well said KB. As for the pain, one could always hammer an eight inch nail up through the seat of the wheelchair before they got strapped in.

[luckyjim]

Umm that makes sense, not. So tax those people / fisheries that are syndicates so that the majority of anglers don't have to pay a licence fee ? I would suggest the opposite. People fishing syndicates don't make use of the EA so don't charge a rod licence for private fisheries. EA can charge for their services should they be required at said fisheries.

 

In the mean time all those people that fish the many lakes, rivers and canals that are open to all can pay for their free fishing and what the EA have to do on said waterways by paying a licence fee. That can be used to maintain those open waters and be used for improvements in access and stocking etc.

 

Rob.

 

Such a potential tax should be charged on commercial lakes because thats what they are: profit making businesses. They restrict public access so that they can make money. That makes charging them a tax to be spent on general improvement of fishing facilities and services for all entirely legitimate to me. Its more equitable, and more progressive; i.e. it will improve public, open access fisheries and charge those who participate to a greater extent in fishing (and have more money to spend on tackle) more than those who casually participate. It would also give anglers some kind of organizational focus, and ensure that revenues were actually spent on improving/maintaining fishing, rather than maintaining the waterway for everyone with anglers money, not forgetting the enforcement costs of the licensing regime.

[bluezulu]

quote by sportsman" I think that disabled anglers should get concessions because that just seems to be the right thing to do."...................errrrrrrrrrr why?

i know i sound very selfish but i know of dozens of so called disabled anglers who fish up to three matches a week! why should i pay more than those anglers.ok people in wheel chairs,blind people etc are special cases but for each of these genuine cases there are two non genuine who pay less than i do. why?