Rod Licence Fees Not Being Spent ‘As the law requires’

[FishingMagic]

This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Rod Licence Fees Not Being Spent ‘As the law requires’

 

[thecrow]

What a surprise, NOT, the EA is to big with to many irons in different fires.

 

[chav professor]

Funding is directed towards Flood defense rather than fisheries management. Rivers do need weed removed, but not the bank-side cover!!!! This operation was carried out to make future weed removal an easier task......mg:

This was the same Bank side cover that naturally suppressed weed growth and provided shelter from predation.

I questioned why the work needed to be so extensive.....

I was informed it was to improve 'flow'......... this river suffers from drought in Summer - partially due to a pumping station..... In winter, flow was not impeded!

I dispair!!! Rivers really need a dedicated 'river keeper'......... someone who can manage and operate weir plate to manage water and oversee river projects. Not outside contractors.......

 

[Judas Priest]

There are some really good people at grass roots within the EA Fisheries who feel as helpless as the rest of us at them being led by clowns, idiots and politicos.

Let's see where the money the government has pledged for better flood defences, compensation etc comes from.

You should under freedom of information be able to get a breakdown of how the license money raised is apportioned.

 

[chav professor]

There are some really good people at grass roots within the EA Fisheries who feel as helpless as the rest of us at them being led by clowns, idiots and politicos.

Let's see where the money the government has pledged for better flood defences, compensation etc comes from.

You should under freedom of information be able to get a breakdown of how the license money raised is apportioned.

it will be used to transform rivers into an extenson of the flood water drainage system... as visualised by local councillors if they get their way

 

[thecrow]

Funding is directed towards Flood defense rather than fisheries management. Rivers do need weed removed, but not the bank-side cover!!!! This operation was carried out to make future weed removal an easier task......mg:

This was the same Bank side cover that naturally suppressed weed growth and provided shelter from predation.

I questioned why the work needed to be so extensive.....

I was informed it was to improve 'flow'......... this river suffers from drought in Summer - partially due to a pumping station..... In winter, flow was not impeded!

I dispair!!! Rivers really need a dedicated 'river keeper'......... someone who can manage and operate weir plate to manage water and oversee river projects. Not outside contractors.......

I dont understand that statement, why do rivers need to have weed removed? it should be left alone not messed with. plenty of weed in the small river I fish that doesn't thank goodness get messed with, the flow is fine.

I doubt those that fish the Hampshire Avon would agree weed needs removing.

 

[chav professor]

I dont understand that statement, why do rivers need to have weed removed? it should be left alone not messed with. plenty of weed in the small river I fish that doesn't thank goodness get messed with, the flow is fine.

I doubt those that fish the Hampshire Avon would agree weed needs removing.

different rivers.... require different types of management.........

'ere we go againmg:

I could expand... but haven't got the energy for the reposts.....

 

[thecrow]

different rivers.... require different types of management.........

'ere we go againmg:

I could expand... but haven't got the energy for the reposts.....

What do you expect when you make such a sweeping statement?

---------- Post added at 19:48 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

NO PLACE FOR NATURE OR EELS! - Bournemouth & West ...



► 3:52► 3:52


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3cgmOLu5lE]NO PLACE FOR NATURE OR EELS! - Bournemouth & West Hampshire WC (now SembCorpBW) 100% Cut. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[chav professor]

What do you expect when you make such a sweeping statement?

---------- Post added at 19:48 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

NO PLACE FOR NATURE OR EELS! - Bournemouth & West ...



► 3:52► 3:52


NO PLACE FOR NATURE OR EELS! - Bournemouth & West Hampshire WC (now SembCorpBW) 100% Cut. - YouTube

Crows are annoying creatures.... which is why they are on the pest control licence....

Read through my 'sweeping' statement it refers to river management on my river in Suffolk...... a river my Great Grandfather, Grandfather and Father managed a Mill upon.

Used to be river Keepers.... A man would operate weir plates and use judgement. Now automated.... they break down time to time.

Weed cutting was done - by hand... the river was canalised and boat traffic required passage. Its no longer navigable.....

In the summer, weed beds rise and spread. A strange weed grows out of the water to a height of around 3ft. There is little or no flow in summer... pumping station has a lot to do with that.

Without weed management of some description, this river would be all but un-fishable. Weed? it is PROLIFIC.... it was and always has been historically part of the management of this particular river.

Here comes the sweeper......

If rivers had a river keeper, they would be managed in a better way than the current situation.

Read posts..... think..... then if constructive critique is appropriate? its welcomed....

 

[thecrow]

Crows are annoying creatures.... which is why they are on the pest control licence....

Read through my 'sweeping' statement it refers to river management on my river in Suffolk...... a river my Great Grandfather, Grandfather and Father managed a Mill upon.

Used to be river Keepers.... A man would operate weir plates and use judgement. Now automated.... they break down time to time.

Weed cutting was done - by hand... the river was canalised and boat traffic required passage. Its no longer navigable.....

In the summer, weed beds rise and spread. A strange weed grows out of the water to a height of around 3ft. There is little or no flow in summer... pumping station has a lot to do with that.

Without weed management of some description, this river would be all but un-fishable. Weed? it is PROLIFIC.... it was and always has been historically part of the management of this particular river.

Here comes the sweeper......

If rivers had a river keeper, they would be managed in a better way than the current situation.

Read posts..... think..... then if constructive critique is appropriate? its welcomed....

I don't know who you think you are but your sarcasm nor your lecturing are welcome. I am not one of your pupils to be impressed.

I care not about your family history, I did read your post and it said that rivers need weed removing, not some rivers not the river you fish ( it isn't your river by the way no matter how many times you call it that)

So before you post, think and then think again and only then make your post and be clear about what you mean.

---------- Post added at 21:46 ---------- Previous post was at 21:44 ----------

Funding is directed towards Flood defense rather than fisheries management. Rivers do need weed removed, but not the bank-side cover!!!! This operation was carried out to make future weed removal an easier task......mg:

This was the same Bank side cover that naturally suppressed weed growth and provided shelter from predation.

I questioned why the work needed to be so extensive.....

I was informed it was to improve 'flow'......... this river suffers from drought in Summer - partially due to a pumping station..... In winter, flow was not impeded!

I dispair!!! Rivers really need a dedicated 'river keeper'......... someone who can manage and operate weir plate to manage water and oversee river projects. Not outside contractors.......

Point proven.

 

[peter crabtree]

Peck peck peck..
I found this signature quite amusing at first but.....
Everyone has the right to debate stuff on this forum and do but....
How about using your apparent expertise in angling by joining in with some of the other threads on this forum like helping beginners and reporting your own fishing results?

 

[stu_the_blank]

Gents,

The real point on weed removal is that you can't trust the EA to carry out weed removal in a way that is sympathetic to the river, it's ecology or fish stocks. Chav, have you ever seen them in action with their 'kill all' wirly gigs? There is an old post about the damage caused to the Avon with a video somewhere on here.

I have seen this first hand on a section of the Kentish Stour that I fish. A chalk stream, streamer weed, ranunculus etc. Our club tries to carry out enough weed removal (by hand) to keep the EA off our waters but every other year they turn up and masacre the river. Huge lengths of river with no fish whatsoever in it after they've finished. It never gets long enough without them to recover. We are left with the sections that they can't get their machines into.

Fishery management? We are talking about a Govt. Dept here, you're lucky if they are just incompetant!

Chav, you are making these sweeping statements again! I won't use the 'D' word but...............:wh By the way, you seem to be agreeing with me about local management of our waters, I don't suppose that this might go as far as managing the close season?

Back to the thread, why would anybody be surprised if the Govt. are not spending our Tax money (fishing tax in this case) in the way it was intended? It just goes into the pot and we get thrown a few trinkets to keep us plebs quiet.

Stu

 

[thecrow]

Peck peck peck..
I found this signature quite amusing at first but.....
Everyone has the right to debate stuff on this forum and do but....
How about using your apparent expertise in angling by joining in with some of the other threads on this forum like helping beginners and reporting your own fishing results?

The second thing you ask for will never happen, what I catch is kept to myself and close trusted friends, the helping beginners part hmm good idea and when I have something to add to the excellent advice that has already been given I will, I see no point in replicating what has already been said.

My signature probably reflects my character in that I keep at things until they work in my fishing and my life.

 

[chav professor]

Posting etiquette deteriorated recently!

Quickest way to kill a thread.......

For the record.... Looked up Dogmatic.... As it was personally directed and not addressing the issue. No Didn't appreciate it! You didn't imply that both standpoints were dogmatic - only the opinion you disagree with.

Regarding sweeping statement.... Pick apart a post... take quote out of context... and then take a cheap pop. Avian corvid has reason to pick, pick, pick at my bones?

Keep to the issue.....

Don't get personal.....

Pedantry? goes without saying.


Making 'sweeping statements' implies a level of ignorance..... perhaps the 'know it all' teacher lecturing? that's me then....

Whirly gigs, mechanical weed removal, Hampshire Avon........ All very relevant for sure. Points that can be made through the personal experiences and view point of the poster.

The crucial point is, due to cut backs.... less and less is spent on quality river management. Once funding has been cut..... its not going to get reinstated. Why is rod licence money not ring fenced?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Whirly gigs, mechanical weed removal, Hampshire Avon........ All very relevant for sure. Points that can be made through the personal experiences and view point of the poster.

Those things are disgusting and indiscriminatley destroy anything and everything in their path. The only reaosn they are used is entirely due to economics and nothing to do with conservation.

The crucial point is, due to cut backs.... less and less is spent on quality river management. Once funding has been cut..... its not going to get reinstated. Why is rod licence money not ring fenced?

Maybe if the license money were to be ring-fenced then they wouldn't have to employ such haphazerdous automated cheap alternative methods.

There is absolutely no substitute for the experienced river keeper, he may have taken a lot longer to cut the weed but he left all else in tact.

 

[thecrow]

Posting etiquette deteriorated recently!

Quickest way to kill a thread.......

For the record.... Looked up Dogmatic.... As it was personally directed and not addressing the issue. No Didn't appreciate it! You didn't imply that both standpoints were dogmatic - only the opinion you disagree with.

Regarding sweeping statement.... Pick apart a post... take quote out of context... and then take a cheap pop. Avian corvid has reason to pick, pick, pick at my bones?

Keep to the issue.....

Don't get personal.....

Pedantry? goes without saying.


Making 'sweeping statements' implies a level of ignorance..... perhaps the 'know it all' teacher lecturing? that's me then....

Whirly gigs, mechanical weed removal, Hampshire Avon........ All very relevant for sure. Points that can be made through the personal experiences and view point of the poster.

The crucial point is, due to cut backs.... less and less is spent on quality river management. Once funding has been cut..... its not going to get reinstated. Why is rod licence money not ring fenced?

Chav I have no reason to pick at your bones, its simply the fact that you didn't make it clear that you were talking about the river that you fish when it comes to needing weed to be removed, you know the river you fish very well but what that river needs is/can be vastly different to what others need or more to the point don't need.


As for quality river management by the EA I have yet to see any in this neck of the woods although I am sure that it has happened somewhere.

Despite what the EA have been telling anglers for years I doubt that all licence fee income has ever been spent on just angling related things.

As for the rest of the stuff you didn't like and commented on, just water off a crows back, wont bother me but I will not be lectured by anyone.

 

[rollingpinboy]

The EA's 'Legal Destruction of The Hampshire Avon'...or 'How to Murder a River'... and get away with it.
Cost was around £330,000 a year to kill the river 3 times a year in spring (spawning and wildlife and wildfowl breeding times), summer and autumn continuously for 57 years....and they wonder why populations of fish, wildfowl and all riverine life forms have declined over the same period of time. This covert vid was only the part of it, as they did not want to be photographed or filmed in what they were doing. Generally, if you pointed a camera at them, they would not cut at that time. I was threatened with the police being called on occasions and did get into a few arguments with them of which one was one was recorded with the vid accidently left on.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeIvqo9rDhg

 

[The bad one]

Errr you did read what the complaint was from the IFM? It was about career development and up-skilling of the workforce left after the cuts, which is due in part to the loss of skilled staff in the cuts.
Now I’m a cynical old sod I know, but having been a member of the IFM (now lapsed) for many years, some things need pointing out.
The IFM run courses up to PhD level for its members, many of which are EA staff past and present. Courses mean funding/revenue for it.
Now could it be being used as Trojan horse in someway by raising the issues it has? I’ll leave you to make judgement on that!

It would seem Dr Spilletts final comment “much fisheries work appeared to be directed at “mitigating and preventing” damage caused by others, including other agency functions such as flood defence.” Is what’s got everyone exercised on here and the true meaning and context of his statement has been lost.

Or could it just be self-interest on the part of the IFM?

 

[rollingpinboy]

It has always been the EA/NRA Flood Defence teams (often the same personal EA as fisheries section staff) to kill or allow the killing of a river and its life forms with one hand, and then go about repairing the destruction with the other. The EA also charge, (via another license fee), to allow polluters to ‘legally’ pollute and downgrade our rivers. This is ‘before’ any polluting discharges commence. Basically, the Polluter pays for the legal right to pollute our rivers…’Beforehand’…and not necessarily ‘After’ a wipe out!
The EA also profiteer from another licence to allow the killing for profit of a critically endangered species…Eels! This EA license is issued to Commercial Eel Trappers (usually members of the Un-Sustainable Eel Group who deceptively pose as an eel conservation group.) With this license, the Eel trappers can trap and kill as many eels as they like and sell them on the open market for profit!
However, to protect the ailing eel populations and help recovery of the species, a ‘Coarse Angler’ who pays for a rod licence (was more expensive) can and will be prosecuted and fined up to £2,000 if he is caught killing a single eel.
These are just a couple of EA licenses which give income to the EA coffers.

Do you see any ‘Conflict of Interest’ in what the EA are doing against/towards Coarse Anglers, Coarse/Salmon fishing/Eel Conservation/Population Recovery initiatives and Riverine Habitat Protection?

 

[stu_the_blank]

The crucial point is, due to cut backs.... less and less is spent on quality river management. Once funding has been cut..... its not going to get reinstated. Why is rod licence money not ring fenced?

Chav, you're not really a teacher are you?

The point is that it's already supposed to be ring fenced.

You need that Desparado, desparately.

Stu