Anger At Rising Cost Of Concessionary Rod Licences

[Vagabond]

.

My disability does mean that I am unable to fish probably 90% of the wild fishing available up here. That is just a fact of life I am afraid, and I don't see why someone else should have to make any concessions because of it. ....

 

........Find something within your ability and enjoy it. When you get to my age the saying "life is too short" takes on a particular significance

 

Exactly... at age 73 I am still fortunate enough to be able to yomp a set of fishing tackle a couple of miles up my local streams. Common sense tells me that situation will not last for ever, but I intend to enjoy it as long as I can.

 

I have never asked ANYONE for concessions, but take full advantage of any on offer. Like a concessionary coarse/trout licence, and a concessionary seatrout/salmon licence. Like a free TV licence in two year's time!!!

 

My local tackle dealer also offers concessions for Salmon and Trout Association members!

 

Most of my angling clubs and syndicates charge me a concessionary rate, and two clubs have granted me free membership for life - and before anyone wants to know why I should fish those waters for nothing, it is because the members voted that I should, and voted me a life vice-presidency to boot. (Appropriate, my mates said, after a life of vice )

 

As for those whose disability limits their fishing, I have no problems in agreeing they should have any concession anyone is prepared to grant them - it seems pretty mean-minded to think otherwise. So it costs full-licence payers more...so what? I paid for a full licence for years (and before that, as Budgie says, multiple licences for multiple river boards). Never once did it even occur to me to whinge about concessions to OAPS or the disabled - it is perhaps an indictment of modern society that such whingeing occurs today.

 

BTW One of the meanest "concessions" I have heard of is the half-price TV licence for the blind. It really beggars belief - like Victor Meldrum's shoe-mender who lost Victor's left shoe but offered to halve the cost of repairing the pair.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Vagabond

[Ken L]

BTW One of the meanest "concessions" I have heard of is the half-price TV licence for the blind.

 

Just checked this, and it says.

Who qualifies to receive a blind concession?

 

If you or someone you live with is blind, you qualify to receive a 50% concession on the cost of your TV Licence. If the person who is blind isn't the current licence holder for your address, you first need to transfer the licence into their name. To do this, call us on 0870 241 6468 and we'll talk you through what you need to do.

 

OK, so every one else in the household benefits from the same cocession but to be "Registered Blind", it required a pretty severe level of visual impairment and watching the telly is going to be pretty well out of the question.

[Vagabond]

..........to be "Registered Blind", it required a pretty severe level of visual impairment and watching the telly is going to be pretty well out of the question.

 

Well, yeh, makes my point - so it looks as if the TV licencing authority begrudge a blind person even the chance of at least listening to some of the programmes and perhaps having someone fill them in on what's happening visually.

 

..and as for their worry that others in the household might get a free look at TV - well that contrasts oddly with the fact that I will get a free TV licence in two years time (cos I will be 75) and presumably my family can watch too.

[Dick Dastardly]

so someone who suffers from lets say depression should not pay as much as me, why?

 

Blue Zulu what point is it your trying to make as I cant get it? You know what the reason is.The same reason Ive given for any body on a low level of benifits due to them being unable to work/work full time.

[bluezulu]

Blue Zulu what point is it your trying to make as I cant get it? You know what the reason is.The same reason Ive given for any body on a low level of benifits due to them being unable to work/work full time.

my point is budgie 'WHY' should i pay more for my licence than a disabled person who can fish everyday of the week if they like ,while people in full time employment can normally only fish at weekends?

and like i said earlier i know lots of disabled anglers from my time working as a mod on a disabled site who are out fishing most days of the week.so i ask again why should people who have less opportunities to fish pay more than people who can fish every day of the week if they want?

am i wrong or are people 'NOT' on benefits paying more for less!

Edited August 27, 2007 by bluezulu

[obe1]

my point is budgie 'WHY' should i pay more for my licence than a disabled person who can fish everyday of the week if they like ,while people in full time employment can normally only fish at weekends?

and like i said earlier i know lots of disabled anglers from my time working as a mod on a disabled site who are out fishing most days of the week.so i ask again why should people who have less opportunities to fish pay more than people who can fish every day of the week if they want?

am i wrong or are people 'NOT' on benefits paying more for less!

 

 

Er NO my disability only allows me to fish no more than half a dozen times a year (4 times last season), granted some disabled anglers do seem to be able to do as much as able bodied anglers but that certainly is not the case for all of us, it annoys me when people assume that just because you are disabled that you have sod all to do all day and can do whatever you want whenever you want. The situation is not ideal but a concession is needed for those that cannot access most of the waters in the UK and cannot fish most of the time.

 

Joe

[obe1]

In Kens defence I have just checked the EA site and it does still say what he reports.So as I cant remember exactly where I first learned of this much needed and correct change and have actually got a consessionary licence I have sent the following to the EA-

 

Dear sir , Ive just read the information on your Website re Concessionary Rod Licences.I was under the impression that at long last this year you had ditched the "Blue Badge" system and as I was in reciept of DLA (Dissabled Living Allowance) I was now at last entitled to a concessionary licence.Indeed I was sold such on production of proof of such at a local Post Office.Can you please clear up this issue for me?

 

S D Burgess

 

Come on Ken you know how incompetent these people are? They cant even send out the right area magazine to the correct areas,check licences full stop yet alone some thing as technical as up dating a website! When I get (if they can be bothered lets wait and see eh?) a reply I will post it here and also the scathing reply along the lines of "yet another example of **** poor performance/misleading advice/ are they going to refund all the people who were mis lead etcetc" I intend to send.

 

 

Budgie, it isn't worded very well but the rules are that if you are in receipt of DLA or are entitled to a blue badge then you qualify for a concessionary licence. you don't need both.

 

Joe

[obe1]

I often talk a load of "C**P" but here's the guidance on the blue badge scheme http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople...port/DG_4001061

 

Here are the qualifying conditions for DLA http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople...ort/DG_10011816

 

and just in case you missed it, here are the requirements for getting a rod licence concession http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subje...n=1&lang=_e

 

 

No I don't get DLA, I make entitlement decisions on it for a living.

 

 

LOL that's OK then

 

A blue badge is issued by your local county council and in no way is it dependant on benefits, in fact all you need is a reference from your doctor.

 

I don't know anything about DLA so I won't comment.

 

I know the EA have worded it wrongly but you need to be in receipt of DLA OR have a blue badge to qualify for a concessionary rod licence.

 

Joe

[obe1]

That would make more sense.

 

Alternately, perhaps we could properly fund the EA's fisheries activities out of general taxation and abolish the whole licensing scheme.

 

(I understand and accept the realpolitik arguments about why direct funding is better, but there's no doubt in my mind that funding from general taxation would be both fairer and more efficient)

 

The thing is we already do in a way. Coarse anglers contribute an estimated £1.3 billion into the UK economy, that's over 50 times the money raised by the rod licence, admittedly the majority of that will come from able bodied anglers but disabled anglers do contribute to that amount.

 

Joe

[obe1]

Trouble is, certainly in the case of opera, you do pay. If I remember rightly, the amount of money the government was putting into "grass roots football", whatever that is, was more than the amount it collected from anglers. We are the only people being asked to pay our own way, and frankly that stinks. Additionally, by and large, we do not require anything beyond the maintenance of a healthy aquatic environment. In other words, the work of the EA's fisheries division ought to be done whether there are anglers to benefit or not. In the same way that bird watchers should not be expected to fund the care of the natural environment which facilitates their hobby, I do not think that we ought to be responsible for the care a side effect of which is improving our sport. So if the primary work of the EA was installing facilities specifically for anglers (dunno, toilets? hard landscaped pegs?) I could see that anglers alone should pay for it. When the work is largely to do with the maintenance of a healthy environment, I think everyone benefits and everyone should pay. Plus, it's a tiny amount of money in the grand scheme of things. Looking at the deductions on my payslip every month it seems ludicrous that the government then says "ah, but that pays for everything else, we need an extra 25 quid a year from you to pay for your fishing".

 

 

 

Very well said mate

 

Joe