Home | Features | Opinion | Opinion Piece - Either or Neither?

Opinion Piece - Either or Neither?

Font size:

Kevin Perkins 16/10/2009 07:03:00

Either, both or neither? Asks Kevin Perkins, referring to the Angling Trust and the Environment Agency.

And by this, I am referring to the Environment Agency and the Angling Trust. Let me kick off by saying that I have bought a current Rod Licence, (didn’t have much choice, obviously) so in effect; I am a ‘contributor’ to the EA. The question is, why? And that’s not ‘why did I buy a licence’ because there is always the fear of prosecution for not having one, but more a case of ‘why should I have to buy one?’

Now, I don’t doubt that the EA do stirling work protecting the waters and fish stocks of England and Wales, but why is it just anglers that are having to pay for that? Let’s not forget that although we have to pay for a licence, it doesn’t entitle us to fish. So the £20m per annum raised on Rod Licences just goes into the EA’s coffers, although that won’t make much of a dent in the £1000m+ per annum that this enormous and diverse government department swallows up.

Nobody asks the bird watchers, dog walkers, ramblers, canoeists and any other waterside users to cough up just for the privilege, so why pick on anglers. Surely if these are amenities that can be used by all, then everyone pays through taxation, whether national or at a local level, and if the EA needs £20m per annum to make what it does for angling pay its way, that’s about a £1 a year each for all the working population.

But consider this. Let’s say I’m into kite flying. Because of that, how would it be if I have to pay for a Park Licence because there is a park nearby. Having paid for that licence, I then have to go to the park to take up my sport, only to find that the walkers and pram pushers, kids playing football, picnickers et al all strolling about without paying a penny.

If the Park Keeper turns up and finds I haven’t got a licence, I get turned off the park and prosecuted, whilst the other carry on regardless. That would be complete madness, but it’s the situation we anglers are more than happy to put up with, apparently.

Having questioned why it is just us paying for a licence, how about asking about where that money is going, why is it channelled into the EA? Is fishing not a sport, so shouldn’t our governing body be the Department for Culture, Media and SPORT? They are awash with cash, with grants and funds coming out of their collective ears, surely we should be in line (pun intended) for a spot of that. You don’t need to be reminded about the colossal amounts of money being pumped into the 2012 Olympics, but that really is only the tip of the iceberg.

Nor are all of these funds allocated on the hope of getting a return, our last Winter Olympics team got millions thrown at them and came back with NOT ONE medal. So the good old British tradition of taking part being far more important than winning still holds true. And I bet that not one of the participants of the sports falling under the DCMS umbrella has to buy a licence just because they want to do take part in that sport.

To recap, we are paying for a licence that doesn’t entitle us to actually go and practise our chosen sport, to a government department that doesn’t actually specialise in sport at all. And now, on top of that, we are being asked to join another organisation (the Angling Trust) in order to protect out interests.

Many, far more erudite than I, members on FM have eloquently stated the case for A) the need for an organisation such as the Angling Trust and B) the overwhelming need for anglers to join up. But to many, it’s seen as just another club, which may not cater for that one individual angler’s specific needs.

Fishing is a diverse sport, which has many different disciplines and specialities, yet we seek to create one body to cover everything, how can that work? There are many sports that are played with balls, such as football, cricket, tennis, lacrosse, rugby, basketball, etc, etc, but they don’t all have one voluntary governing body (The Ball Trust?) to which they all subscribe, why should angling?

Would you not be better off spending your £20 and joining something like the Barbel Society (if that is your quarry) Now I’ve only chosen the BS as a random example, but they seem to rub along with 1000ish members paying that kind of annual subscription, and certainly do have their member’s interests at heart. Isn’t it better that we all join societies like these who will fight our particular corner, rather than supporting some national organisation that would no doubt end up with your subscriptions helping to pay for regional, area, and district levels of bureaucracy?

Opinion Piece

It's true, we all have the chance to voice an opinion on the forum, but the forum is read by only a fraction of those members who read the editorial part of the site.

If you have an interesting opinion, and want it read by the maximum number of visitors to FishingMagic, then this is the place for it. The debate will still continue on the forum just the same, but it gets a hell of a bigger kickstart when it begins life on the front page.

If you have an interesting opinion about anything to do with fish or fishing then send it to me at graham@fishingmagic.com. Make it at least 500 words and a maximum of 1500, with an image or two where appropriate.

Rate this article

Add to: Add to your del.icio.us

del.icio.us Digg this story

Digg

Technorati

Comments (38 posted):

Stealph Viper on 16/10/2009 06:45:17

You can join the AA or the RAC or Green Flag, but they will only fix your car for you at the roadside or bring your car home for you etc, they will not represent you in court etc if you are involved in an accident etc The AT will represent Angling as a whole, and not just one specific part of Angling at the highest levels and hopefully improve the fishing environment for everyone. You can still join any other organisations you wish too, if that is the specific type of angling that you wish to do. If government want to pass a law on Fishing that not only affects your organisation or type of fishing, who will lobby parliament to prevent it 1000 anglers of one organisation or 10's of thousands of unified anglers from one organisation. Why was the Rod License introduced ?

Fred Bonney on 16/10/2009 08:56:37

Too right SV, anglers can't expect to be able to defend any impositions on the right to enjoy our sport unless we have the backup of serious numbers. What surprises me more than anything, is the heads in the sand of some angling representatives who fail to see this and only ask..What's in it for ME Good points by Kevin though on the Licence, one day perhaps we will be strong enough to ask why!

Paul H on 16/10/2009 09:50:29

I too agree with the rod licence question but I still feel we need a single large representative body for angling. To steal Kevin's park and ball analogies; if 'The Ball Trust' did exist then maybe they could challenge parks who arbitrarily put up 'No Ball Games' signs. As Fred suggests - the AT would be the organisation to challenge the validity of the rod licence.

Greg Whitehead on 16/10/2009 12:14:28

Kevin Perkins on 16/10/2009 12:49:05

Jeff Woody on 16/10/2009 12:56:35

Wholeheartedly agree with your piece, Kevin, right down to halfway through the 4th from last paragraph. There, I think it went a bit wonky. I'm sure Fred would agree, you can also join the Barbel Society, if you wish, and gain soem different advantages again to the rod licence and membership of AT. The BS are there to promote the stocking and wellbeing of barbel, not much else (if I am right, Fred?) You could also join PAC if you were a serious pike angler (there's a laugh :D) or the Chub Study Group or Tench Fishers, all different, but none offering what the AT do. As had been said, maybe one day, AT will question on our behalf why we have to buy a rod licence. They may also ask why doesn't the EA Recreation Department recognise angling as a recreational activity? The EA is far from perfect and the only point I can make in their favour is that at least all of our money for rod licences goes back into the Fisheries Department and we do get a benefit from it. At least, I can see that we do, but whether it's the best value for money is a mute point. Now Road Fund Licence, pick on that one if you will! Where the hell does that money go? MP's expenses? On a personal note, I can see we'll have to drag you kicking and screaming into the AT after all. Crikey the other week we were saving you £4 and then you wanted a further £6 discount. Would you like me to stump up the £20 for you, is that it? :wh:eek: Just seen your latest post and - why do people who pay taxes like you and I choose to send their kids to rivate schools? Why do people who pay NI contributions also choose to pay to a private medical insurance? Why do people who already have jobs and pay taxes and NIs also join a union. Why, oh why?

Kevin Perkins on 16/10/2009 13:03:54

On a personal note, I can see we'll have to drag you kicking and screaming into the AT after all. Crikey the other week we were saving you £4 and then you wanted a further £6 discount. Would you like me to stump up the £20 for you, is that it? :wh:eek: Jeff You know I could never take money off you, but if all the members on FM were to send me just £1 each, I promise I will take out a lifetime subscription to the AT............;):D PS That's registered members, not just the active ones.......!!!! Jeff Not everyone who pays taxes pays to send their kids to private schools, not everyone joins BUPA (other private healthcare schemes are available) They do so by CHOICE, and I would suspect they are in about the same minority (% wise) of anglers who have or will join AT..........

Peter Jacobs on 16/10/2009 13:10:51

The licence is an unfair tax. It provides us with no representation whatsoever. At present the Angling Trust's main competition is the EA fishery department. While people are taxed to fish they will never pay a similar amount of money to a single governing body.... So, what 'taxes' are fair then? None! I really don't see this argument, regarding one or the other, nor do I see (or hear) of anglers not paying up for the Angling Trust because they are paying for an EA license. Simple analysis is that we (all of us anglers) are quite happy to buy our annual EA license, cough up 'loads-a-dosh' for our club memberships, spend goodness knows how many hundreds or thousands of pounds on tackle, bait and the odd day tickets every year. So, methinks if one is looking for a reason why the AT has not been as successful as was hoped, albeit at this early stage, then other directions need to be investigated. We never used to get this 'disaffection' with the EA when we bought regional licenses, did we? No, and in those days it would cost us more (in real terms in today's money) than it costs today, especially if like me you had to buy 2 or 3 different licenses per year.

Fred Bonney on 16/10/2009 13:39:12

Depends Jeff, what you mean by "not much else"?

james on 16/10/2009 14:56:00

Kevin, you keep asking why you have to buy a rod licence, and yet when people (such as myself on another thread) give you the reason, you ignore it, and continue to play all kinds of tunes that all lead to money being handed over to the AT. I think I understand where you are coming from. The AT needs more funds. The EA has money.. lets have some of that. But let's be quite clear about what you get for your cash. We buy our rod licences because we exploit fish. It is a regulatory requirement, as dictated by the Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries Act. It is not a government stealth tax. The treasury doesnt see any of the money. The EA is the regulatory authority, they are regulating our rods, and how we use them to exploit fish. They use all the money to regulate fisheries and improve them. The rod licence does not buy you representation. To quote myself my reply to you on another thread.. If you want representation in industry, you join the union. If you want representation in sport, you join your governing body. So if you want representation in angling, join the AT. The rod licence has nothing to do with it.

Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 16/10/2009 15:02:56

And the canoeists exploit the rivers and pay sweet FA!

james on 16/10/2009 16:47:42

Nah, that's a poor argument Mr. C-C. What are they exploiting? They dont exploit anything. They quite possibly trespass, but not exploit. Anglers are quite capable of trespass too. Shame that landowners are savvy about charging for sporting rights and not access rights too.

Lord Paul of Sheffield on 16/10/2009 19:18:14

James How do anglers exploit fish?

Jeff Woody on 16/10/2009 20:27:48

Depends Jeff, what you mean by "not much else"? Don't want to drag the BS into this really Fred so apolgies if they do so much more now. It was just an examle of something else to pay to that isn't necessary (pardon that too) but that some people want to do because they feel they support those aims. ----------------------------------------------------- Kevin, you may well be right about those percentages, but for anglers there is more at stake than giving your kids a good education. Fishing is far more imprtant than that. :p One way or the other, even looking at your original idea (£50 tax then pay the EA bits etc.) you're still paying for AT and the EA. Both need a certain amount to operate on and at the moment, the EA wants £26 p.a. and the AT wants £20 p.a. One you must join like the road fund licence, and the other is optional like the AA. Go figure.

Fred Bonney on 16/10/2009 21:05:01

It's ok Jeff, I just wanted to make sure what to answer. I think it's fair to say, a great deal of what Pete Reading looks after is more than just Barbel. We are using the R&C funds by paying/ sharing costs for improvements to rivers in association with clubs and the EA. Pete has a very good relationships with the EA when it comes to improvements, in particular to bankside vegetation,fry safety zones and general tidying up of long defunct side streams and shallows etc. Of course restocking of barbel comes into it, but not just for the sake of it, improvements to the river and spawning grounds for all fish are a fair part of the works. Pete sows the seeds with the EA and we are open to shared partnerships with clubs whose river need a helping hand. We have another fund raising auction coming up in November, so there are and will be more funds available. If clubs have particular problems Pete is always available for guidance.

Steve Spiller on 16/10/2009 21:13:06

Come on! The E.A do naff all for us, it's just another tax that we the anglers have to pay and have accepted for donkey's years! The A.T which I have recently joined (head out of the sand) should get the income from our rod licences, that way it would be put to good use in our favour. At the moment the licence revenue gets swallowed up into the gargantuan pot of the E.A. and only a pittance of it goes back into angling. It stinks! Give it to the A.T.! Yeah right! No chance! 'They' the E.A. aint gonna give up that little earner without a huge fight! Cos we're the only mugs willing to cough up something for nothing!!! James, have you got a vested interest in the E.A? ---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ---------- I'm angry now! :mad: What do the E.A do for angling/anglers??? I pay for a licence that allows me to fish, but where does it go and what do they do with it??? Do they prosecute polluters? Do they catch and prosecute poachers? What do they do with my money???

Jeff Woody on 16/10/2009 22:02:59

Come on! The E.A do naff all for us, This shows how little you know Steve, because you'd never get involved other than enjoying the fruits of everyone else's labours. True? From where I stand, I get good value out of them, more would be welcome of course. it's just another tax that we the anglers have to pay and have accepted for donkey's years! As I've already said, I concur, but it's law. ---------- Post added at 23:02 ---------- Previous post was at 23:00 ---------- Do they prosecute polluters? Do they catch and prosecute poachers? What do they do with my money??? Yes, yes, and 'give it to me'.

Fred Bonney on 16/10/2009 22:24:59

Sorry Steve ,over the years both as an ordinary pub club with waters and now the Barbel Society, I've seen the work that the EA put in first hand. Part of the EA works for angling,it just needs a little steering in the right direction some of the time.

james on 17/10/2009 07:12:23

At the moment the licence revenue gets swallowed up into the gargantuan pot of the E.A. and only a pittance of it goes back into angling. You're wrong Steve. I think there are rules that mean that the rod licence money is only spent on Fisheries work. It cant be spent on flood defence, air pollution or any of the other stuff the EA does. James, have you got a vested interest in the E.A?. Absolutely. Dont we all? I hand over my hard-earned money and buy a rod licence every year. So, I make sure I know what I am getting for my money. Dont think for one minute that I am satisfied with it either, but at least I take the time to find out what I am paying for and understand it. To me mate, you are sounding just a little bit "but what have the romans ever done for us?!" I am also a member of the Angling Trust, and I know what I get for that too. For what it's worth, I am also in the S&TA, because I dont think that the AT will spend too much time lobbying to protect my trout fishing interests. On top of all that, I pay to be a member of 3 different fishing clubs, so my annual 'fishing bill' is well into the hundreds of pounds. And you know what?.. for the enjoyment I get from it, it is worth every single penny. I've posted on here because sometimes I think we need a little perpsective, not cruising for an argument. The costs to just go fishing are still relatively very cheap. I mean, have you been to a football match lately? and look what golfers pay for green fees. They'd laugh you out of the pub moaning about handing over a few £20 notes to go fishing all year. Any other country sports cost a hell of a lot more. I dont think we've got it bad.

Stealph Viper on 17/10/2009 07:45:25

Hi james, Can i ask were you source your information from please as to what the EA spend our Rod License money on, it may help others research the EA themselves and put some minds at ease. I myself would be interested to see what my Rod License money is being spent on. Perhaps this will do as a start -: http://www.onlinefishing.tv/channel/feature/your-licence-your-money/low/ Thanks.

james on 17/10/2009 08:36:32

Stealph, Some of my mates are EA bailiffs, so I guess I've got a head start. But dont you get that magazine through the post that tells you what they are doing in your area? I found some links here: [url=http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/fishing/106684.aspx]http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/fishing/106684.aspx By the way, that video seems to do the trick! nice find.

Stealph Viper on 17/10/2009 08:48:38

I haven't had a magazine from the EA through the post for what seems like ages, i had even forgot all about them to be honest.

klik2change on 17/10/2009 08:58:06

the environment agency and the angling trust have absolutely nothing to do with each other apart from the fact that both are paid for, in whole [not enough] or in [very small] part, by anglers. The rod licence means we are regulated by the EA but the EA also provides services which cater for or protect anglers, in return for the money. They have no choice other than to consider us. Money paid to the Angling trust is in no way a tax nor should it be in any way presented as one. Money paid to the AT is used purely to protect us from outside forces - including the EA. If you see the rod licence as a tax, then it's still a hypothecated tax with distinct purposes. Going back to the original rather pointless piece, dog owners buy dog licences, just as anglers buy ROD licences. A rod licence does not entitle someone to fish, just as a dog licence does not entitle a dog owner to walk their dog.

Graham Whatmore on 17/10/2009 09:27:25

Here we go again, I like the article Kevin it makes us (well me anyway) think and also points out the seeming injustice of a rod licence but I have been thinking and saying that for bloomin yonks. The thinking about the AT is that it is a pressure organisation to try and make up for the quite obvious failings of the EA. Lets face the hard fact that the EA is here to stay regardless of all its shortcomings, they will never abandon the licence fee and we the angler need a voice to speak for us, something we havn't got right now and never have had. A fishing licence (tax) is an injustice when matched against all other river and lake users or other sports or pastimes and Scotland or Ireland don't feel the need to employ one yet their waterways are in a better state than ours.

Steve Spiller on 17/10/2009 10:12:13

"A rod licence does not entitle someone to fish" I don't understand that statement Klik? If I'm fishing a free stretch of river I have to have a rod licence, I can't fish without one!

klik2change on 17/10/2009 15:46:34

I don't understand that statement Klik? If I'm fishing a free stretch of river I have to have a rod licence, I can't fish without one! You need the permission of the owner of the fishing rights, perhaps via a club or what ever. The rod licence on its own is not enough. Your free stretch of river is maintained to some extent, perhaps pitfully, by the EA - in return for the rod licence fee. No free lunches, remember? Somebody always pays.

upnorth on 17/10/2009 20:37:18

I read this "discussion" piece with some trepidity, the "Rod License" has always been a contentious issue after all, but I think that one cannot quite call it an "unjustified tax" because the funds do not go to either National or Local government, it is a levy imposed by the Enironment Agency upon anglers to help them pay the salaries of the workforce that has over the last fifty years that I've been fishing, cleaned up our rivers until they are now amongst the cleanest in Europe. Anyone who wants proof, come up to my local rive, the Rother, which was an open sewer only 20 years ago and now abounds with barbel, grayling and dace, amongst other species! Twenty two quid or so is not a lot today, as others have already stated, so why bemoan the EA who do a great deal for angling and anglers, if only one takes the time or make the effort to find out! Stop whinging, although as a breed of sportsmen anglers seem very adept at this and examine what the real cost of the work of the EA is to you and I.

geoffmaynard on 17/10/2009 21:32:36

... it is a levy imposed by the Enironment Agency upon anglers to help them pay the salaries of the workforce that has over the last fifty years that I've been fishing, cleaned up our rivers until they are now amongst the cleanest in Europe. Ah. There's that quote again. 'cleanest in Europe' :wh The Ebro is one of the dirtiest rivers in Europe but it has some of the best fishing. The Canadian river Fraser is one of the dirtiest rivers in the northern hemisphere but has more fish (inc salmon) than every river and lake in this country put together. Clean does not always mean healthy.

Steve Spiller on 17/10/2009 21:34:07

I'm amazed! Why shouldn't we be allowed to question and moan about where our rod licence (tax) is going? People have talked about 'trust'......'they know best'....... That's bo**ocks! Politicians know best, they run our country, do you trust them? The E.A do what they can on a limited budget. If I heard the video correctly it was around 36 million per annum, with 500 staff? 36 million pounds!!! What could the A.T do with that if they took charge of rod licences? Too much 'red tape' and beaurocracy stands in the way of that ever happening! We have no choice! If we want to fish we have to pay for a rod licence. The video and website is great, lets see the real figures that are submitted to the tax man. How much goes where? What are the salaries? Real questions and answers that I would like to see the E.A publish! I totally agree Geoff, are our rivers too clean? If nature had its way what would they look like?

Jeff Woody on 17/10/2009 21:55:27

Why shouldn't we be allowed to question and moan about where our rod licence (tax) is going? Of course you should question, Steve. My point has always been that you (Steve) and everyone else complaining should take the trouble to find out what the EA do with it and not just rely on little PR videos. Get your hands dirty and join a group along the lines that we have in Thames Region. I will confess though, we don't find out where EVERY penny has gone or who is on the best salaries and given the biggest cars and not be worth it! But as far as I am concerned, the guys on the ground that I deal with ARE worth every penny. 36 million pounds!!! What could the A.T do with that if they took charge of rod licences? Perhaps about the same. A lot of the costs, building, furniture, some if not most equipment, is provided generally for the EA and Fisheries, the poeple who get your £26, just get the benefit from it. If AT had to do the same, they would have to pay for a lot of that from our money. Real questions and answers that I would like to see the E.A publish! For years now I have been asking the top brass at Fisheries (not the guys on the ground) to publish a set of accounts just stating in round thousands how much is received, where it is spread to, and what projects it is spent on (ie. enforcement, renewal of fisheries, landscaping, restocking, etc.) I am NOT holding my breath. In answer to Upnorth as well, by dent of the fact that an angler MUST purchase a licence it therefore is a TAX and, because not all people/sports using the river as an amenity have to pay, it is to a large extent unjustified. Were it justified, then the others would have to pay something also as they get benefits too. In the grand scheme of total EA things, what they collect from anglers is a pitance and hardly worth the effort of collecting it. However, I don't mind paying so long as our EA boys keep looking after my little bits of river. :)

Kevin Perkins on 19/10/2009 12:59:56

Sorry, I thought there would be a bit more mileage in this discussion, so I'll give it one more little push. James makes the statement that anglers exploit fish. I'll admit that if the fish weren't there, then the anglers wouldn't be either, but surely the EA haven't stocked every fish that swims in our waters. But aren't the EA culpable for exploiting fish in the manner of coal mine canaries when it comes to pollution incidents? If the fish weren't in the water to go belly up, how many 'accidental' dischages or illegal dumpings would show up? Maybe the constant water quality monitoring by the EA of every piece of freshwater in England and Wales would have spotted it....... 'Klik' is of the opinion that it was a pointles piece. Now, while I am the first to admit that the way the article was constructed may have been as poor as my usual standard, and the reasoning in the arguements I was trying to put across may have failed to hit their targets, it was at least well meant 'Pointless' is a bit harsh. Why the EA and the AT was the main thrust of the article. It can only be that we anglers feel we don't get enough representation from the EA. Then how about suggesting an increase in the Rod Licence that will give us our own 'Publicity' office at the EA and another 200 of so bailiffs would be handy. An extra £10 a year should do it How about that...???

Jeff Woody on 19/10/2009 13:23:17

An extra £10 a year should do it Crikey, now you're increasing it further still? :D:D:D Your piece wasn't pointless, Kevin. Like I said, I would agree with much of the first part, but you must understand that the Environment Agency isn't one animal with one head. It's a bit like Medusa's hair in that it's full of snakes. The Fisheries Department that receives our licence fee is, for me at least, a brilliant organisation. However, in the case of a pollution, another body takes over and Fisheries are only consulted to assess the likely damage to fish life (no mention yet of other animals or insect life). The offenders are then prosecuted by the EA Legal Department. Sometimes, it all comes unstuck and as I've said many times, the EA is one of the biggest disorganisations in the country. There's much that I can find fault with it and I wished that we had retained the National Rivers Authority, at least we might have excluded ourselves from air, ground, environmental and other things it gets its sticky fingers into. --------------------------------------------------------- What I don't get and where I think your case fell apart to some extent, would be achieved by answering this - what do you want? You argued for a £50 licence to go to the AT and then soem of that to go to the EA. Apart from the fact that it's never going to happen for political as well as logistical reeasons, what is the difference is buying a rod licence now for £26 and joining AT for £20, other than it's £4 cheaper? I think that's the point you need to make clearer because it went over my head. I'm happy buying a rod licence from the EA and having them spend it on rivers, research, environmental projects in my area (and a lot of our area's cash goes to other regions anyway, bear in mind). I'm also very happy paying the AT £20 per year so that a national organisation speaking as one voice on behalf of all anglers can lobby and protest Parliament and fight battles against the antis and other things, that I can't on my own. I'm also very happy that a good proportion of that £20 goes to Fish Legal who will also fight the polluters on behalf of my friends (anglers) in other parts of the country. I honestly wouldn't wish to have a pollution like that on the Trent to affect our lovely Thames. It's like I pay £24 per annum towards Cancer Research to help others and carry out research to find preventative cures, but I sure as hell don't want the bl**dy disease myself just so I know I get value for money. I hope you see my point Kevin. Perhaps if you made yours a little clearer....

Stealph Viper on 19/10/2009 13:49:51

The problem arises when you look at it as me, mine etc I know i did the same with the Angling Trust debate, yes, it's my money, but i quickly realised that it is to benefit the fishing in England as a whole. When i was 21 we had moved house 19 times, from England to Scotland to England and then back to Scotland. Now in the next 21 years i could move again, it could because of work, coming in to money, but then i would want my money re routed to were i was then fishing, it's not practical. There should be more information available to anglers from there county's on reports from the EA, but to do that they would have to either find more money to fund it, or use the money they are currently using and redirect the funds from them to fund it. I know which i would rather happen, more money for fishing and less info about what they are doing in my area. You could write to the Angling Trust to see if they have any info about the Bristol Avon.

Peter Jacobs on 19/10/2009 13:50:05

I'm also very happy paying the AT £20 per year so that a national organisation speaking as one voice on behalf of all anglers can lobby and protest Parliament and fight battles against the antis and other things, that I can't on my own. I'm also very happy that a good proportion of that £20 goes to Fish Legal who will also fight the polluters on behalf of my friends (anglers) in other parts of the country. Let me repeat what I have said before: at 20 pounds for AT Individual Membership we are nowhere near to getting the right sort of money into the AT in order for them to carry out their full remit. Prior to January this year we paid the same 20 pounds to the ACA alone, and then more to each of the constituent bodies as and if we wanted that membership. I'd like to see the EA license increased slightly each year to account for inflation etc., but also to see the AT Individual membership increased to a meaningful amount - 40 pounds should do it for the first year.

Stealph Viper on 19/10/2009 13:55:59

I'd like to see the EA license increased slightly each year to account for inflation etc., but also to see the AT Individual membership increased to a meaningful amount - 40 pounds should do it for the first year. The only problem about paying £40.00p to the Angling Trust is, a lot of Anglers already think that paying £20.00p is to much, yes, i agree, it isn't a great deal of money if you have it available to you and you believe in their cause, but, if you double it you just risk alienating even more anglers from joining the Angling Trust. The EA license goes up every year, i am not sure whether it reflects inflation, but it has risen every year for the last 10 years or so.

Graham Whatmore on 19/10/2009 14:08:06

Peter, £40 a year now is it? I think a spell on the naughty chair for you mate, cor! forty quid he says, just like that. :p

Kevin Perkins on 19/10/2009 14:15:32

The Fisheries Department that receives our licence fee is, for me at least, a brilliant organisation. QUOTE] Then if that is the case, why aren't we all demanding that this department (already set up, so no start-up costs) look after our interests in the manner we are expecting the AT to do? A £10 ramp up of the compulsory licence fee paid directly to this department (which must already have significant expertise and contacts in all things piscatorial) would seem far more logical that trying to set up another organisation to help and support anglers......

Jeff Woody on 19/10/2009 14:35:02

Then if that is the case, why aren't we all demanding that this department (already set up, so no start-up costs) look after our interests in the manner we are expecting the AT to do? It's different Kevin. The EA is a QUANGO, basically, and part of teh Government. No Government in its right mind (even a foolish Labour one) would have a large section of one of its QUANGOs speaking out against its (Government) own policy. They MUST be separate. Way of the world..... Oh, and I wouldn't go around suggesting the EA increase the licence fee by £10 because some silly a**e is going to do it, but you won't get any more for it. :rolleyes:

Comment on this article

Email to a friend

To:

Bcc:

Your email address:

Message:
Print version
Plain text