- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Multiple Rod Licencing - Is it Time for a Change?
Multiple Rod Licencing - Is it Time for a Change?
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
thecrow
Well-known member
As the Angling trust "claim" to represent all anglers why are they not alongside this asking for a reduction in licence fee's by introducing a one rod licence?
I have never been able to understand why the use of multiple rods has meant having to buy 2 licences other than being a way to get more money from anglers, do anglers with 2 licences get twice the service from the EA?
I have never been able to understand why the use of multiple rods has meant having to buy 2 licences other than being a way to get more money from anglers, do anglers with 2 licences get twice the service from the EA?
Why one licence and fee for coarse fishing but if you wish to fish for 'game' fish its a higher price yet the majority of game fishing is undertaken using only one rod.
We are all anglers and fish are fish....or are they
If it was my decision I would make it a Law for a maximum of two rods and one single licence for all forms of angling.
Id also let all disabled servicemen fish for free for their lifetime, whatever water they wish to fish and without any EA licence requirement.
.
We are all anglers and fish are fish....or are they
If it was my decision I would make it a Law for a maximum of two rods and one single licence for all forms of angling.
Id also let all disabled servicemen fish for free for their lifetime, whatever water they wish to fish and without any EA licence requirement.
.
Hhhhmmmm.
If you are only going to fish with 3 rods less than 8 times per season then you are better off simply buying a current one day license under the current schemes and pricing structure at £3.75 a day
If you are only going to fish 3 or 4 rods in a consecutive period of 8 days then it is currently cheaper to buy an additional 8 days license, at £10.00
Given that 2 licenses allow one to fish with 4 rods on any River, stream, drain, canal, reservoir, lake or pond, then who is it who decides that only 3 rods can be used at one time?
I can only assume that it is the riparian owner or the club management who make that decision - in which case might not the Angling Trust put more effort into changing the owners attitudes to be observant of, and compliant with the current licensing and payment structure?
In this way then there will be no impact whatsoever to the current EA revenue stream, and angers will benefit in the long term . . . . . . .
If you are only going to fish with 3 rods less than 8 times per season then you are better off simply buying a current one day license under the current schemes and pricing structure at £3.75 a day
If you are only going to fish 3 or 4 rods in a consecutive period of 8 days then it is currently cheaper to buy an additional 8 days license, at £10.00
Given that 2 licenses allow one to fish with 4 rods on any River, stream, drain, canal, reservoir, lake or pond, then who is it who decides that only 3 rods can be used at one time?
I can only assume that it is the riparian owner or the club management who make that decision - in which case might not the Angling Trust put more effort into changing the owners attitudes to be observant of, and compliant with the current licensing and payment structure?
In this way then there will be no impact whatsoever to the current EA revenue stream, and angers will benefit in the long term . . . . . . .
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)
Senior Member
My clubs have a 2 rod limit on any club water - as do many clubs. so, how many people will go for this new 3 rod option?
Why would a club adopt a two rod rule?
Various reasons, here's just a few:
1. an angler with 4 rods out can selfishly dominate a significant area of a lake (or river!) with 4 lines out and prevent others fishing.
2. some anglers just aren't experienced or competent enough to manage 4 rods safely.
If 4 rods then why not 10? And if its about increasing probability of catching then why not bait each line with multiple hooks while you're at it?
Why would a club adopt a two rod rule?
Various reasons, here's just a few:
1. an angler with 4 rods out can selfishly dominate a significant area of a lake (or river!) with 4 lines out and prevent others fishing.
2. some anglers just aren't experienced or competent enough to manage 4 rods safely.
If 4 rods then why not 10? And if its about increasing probability of catching then why not bait each line with multiple hooks while you're at it?
Max number of hooks rule? (9 in Welsh Byelaws)
sam vimes
Well-known member
I have no issue with a riparian owner imposing whatever restrictions they see fit. It's their water to do with as they wish. At the same time, I have no issue whatsoever with the use of four rods, where allowed and where it's reasonable to do so. There are many waters where even two rods is one too many and other waters where four may sometimes not seem enough. I regularly fish a water where, if every member turned up and fished four rods, it wouldn't be an issue.
I can understand those restricted to three rods moaning about having to licence for four. However, as a consequence of that complaint, the single rod anglers will rightly complain about being forced to buy a two rod licence when they only ever use one.
My biggest issue is why we are paying for a rod licence at all. I can't accept the "logic" of it and have never seen any benefit from it on the waters I fish regularly. There are an awful lot of anglers dutifully paying their money and seeing zero benefit to their angling. Whilst I accept that tax systems are generally for the greater good, and individuals may not see any benefits, licencing isn't actually supposed to be a tax.
If and when there's a golf club licence imposed on all golfers, private courses or not, which sees the revenue plowed back into municipal courses that they never set foot on, I might just get it.
There is nothing comparable to rod licencing in this country. Despite it being suggested regularly, shotgun and firearms certificates are not at all similar.
I can understand those restricted to three rods moaning about having to licence for four. However, as a consequence of that complaint, the single rod anglers will rightly complain about being forced to buy a two rod licence when they only ever use one.
My biggest issue is why we are paying for a rod licence at all. I can't accept the "logic" of it and have never seen any benefit from it on the waters I fish regularly. There are an awful lot of anglers dutifully paying their money and seeing zero benefit to their angling. Whilst I accept that tax systems are generally for the greater good, and individuals may not see any benefits, licencing isn't actually supposed to be a tax.
If and when there's a golf club licence imposed on all golfers, private courses or not, which sees the revenue plowed back into municipal courses that they never set foot on, I might just get it.
There is nothing comparable to rod licencing in this country. Despite it being suggested regularly, shotgun and firearms certificates are not at all similar.
Annual Licence changes?
Buried in the FM article in thread: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/fm-news-feature-comments/354029-multiple-rod-licencing-time-change.html was an additional item:
I've some sympathy with people who get hooked into Angling in the New Year and get told they need to buy an Annual Licence which will be redundant in a couple of months and they'll have to buy a new one! A 12-month licence would get round this possible excuse/problem.
What say the forum - is it a change that should be supported?
Buried in the FM article in thread: http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/fm-news-feature-comments/354029-multiple-rod-licencing-time-change.html was an additional item:
I've got used to the 'season start' ritual of getting my licence but with the recent push to attract new anglers perhaps we should move to a "12-month" licence where it's not due for renewal for a year after buying it.
I've some sympathy with people who get hooked into Angling in the New Year and get told they need to buy an Annual Licence which will be redundant in a couple of months and they'll have to buy a new one! A 12-month licence would get round this possible excuse/problem.
What say the forum - is it a change that should be supported?
sam vimes
Well-known member
Re: Annual Licence changes?
Yes, if only for no other reason than avoiding the annual mad rush, website crashes, printer breakages and general chaos that seems to ensue every year without fail.
Yes, if only for no other reason than avoiding the annual mad rush, website crashes, printer breakages and general chaos that seems to ensue every year without fail.
Also in that article was the proposal to give free licences to youngsters (under 16) - raising the current problem for youngsters - when do they 'transition' between licensing provisions if their birthday is in the season?
A 12-month licence would be easier for dealing with this - 16th birthday present = EA Licence - then same again each year?!
A 12-month licence would be easier for dealing with this - 16th birthday present = EA Licence - then same again each year?!
thecrow
Well-known member
The EA have long told anglers that a "rolling 12 month" licence was impracticable to deliver, I suspect it had more to do with the extra income gained from anglers buying late licences and then again before a new season than anything else, it should have been a rolling licence long ago, imagine if road fund licences were all valid from just date.
The bad one
Well-known member
God don’t we get our knickers in a twist over this issue. Keep the two rods licence it’s established and the number of anglers using one rod is so small it’s an irrelevance. Walk round any water that allows with out payment per rod two or more and most will be using two. Oh the match anglers only use one. Not in the main they don’t, only on the dammed matches, most when pleasure fishing will be using two. Usually a sleeper for carp whilst they pole fish with the other one!
So the answer is payment of half the two rod rule per extra rod used So 3 rods would be 1 ½ of the two rod licence, 4 would be 2 rod licence.
So how do we stop the chancers from paying a two rod licence and fishing 3 rods. Simple bring in a fixed penalty system for those caught of 5 times the amount of the extra rod they are caught with. Payable within a month of the offence or it doubles with every passing month its not paid.
After 3 months of none payment, it’s referred to the courts in the usual way with a standard fixed tariff of £1000 for none payment plus court costs.
All monies raised other than court costs going to the EA Fisheries Dept not the Chancellor’s pot.
Now some will say they never see an EA bailiff so they still get away with it. True, and that happens now, but the deterrent is the relatively high known costs if they are caught that is the dissuading factor here.
So the answer is payment of half the two rod rule per extra rod used So 3 rods would be 1 ½ of the two rod licence, 4 would be 2 rod licence.
So how do we stop the chancers from paying a two rod licence and fishing 3 rods. Simple bring in a fixed penalty system for those caught of 5 times the amount of the extra rod they are caught with. Payable within a month of the offence or it doubles with every passing month its not paid.
After 3 months of none payment, it’s referred to the courts in the usual way with a standard fixed tariff of £1000 for none payment plus court costs.
All monies raised other than court costs going to the EA Fisheries Dept not the Chancellor’s pot.
Now some will say they never see an EA bailiff so they still get away with it. True, and that happens now, but the deterrent is the relatively high known costs if they are caught that is the dissuading factor here.
thecrow
Well-known member
There are waters near me where other than the carp anglers 99% of anglers use one rod even though they could use 2 without paying more, why should they have to pay for two ?
To say that the numbers that use one rod are irrelevant is just an insult to those anglers, they are just as relevant as any other angler.
To say that the numbers that use one rod are irrelevant is just an insult to those anglers, they are just as relevant as any other angler.
The bad one
Well-known member
Since the introduction of the two rod licence there has never been any ground swell for a move back to a single rod licence from these you accuse me of insulting. The outcry has always come from the paying for two licenses for 3 rods.
If they were taking umbridge at it, then we'd see it showing up in surveys, websites and at club level and it just isn't. The only one on here making a noise about it is you. But what could one expect from a guy who said sometime ago he wouldn't buy a licence.
So those who fish with one rod (coarse anglers) are either happy with the way things are, as they do like to flirt out the extra rod their licence allows them, contrary to what you claim or the numbers are so small that they are irrelevant.
The ones that should be making a noise about it are nonmigratory trout anglers, but they are not because compared to the cost of what it use to be back in the old days, they are getting a good deal, so are keeping quite. But unlike coarse anglers (tight gits) they accept higher costs for their fishing anyway.
If they were taking umbridge at it, then we'd see it showing up in surveys, websites and at club level and it just isn't. The only one on here making a noise about it is you. But what could one expect from a guy who said sometime ago he wouldn't buy a licence.
So those who fish with one rod (coarse anglers) are either happy with the way things are, as they do like to flirt out the extra rod their licence allows them, contrary to what you claim or the numbers are so small that they are irrelevant.
The ones that should be making a noise about it are nonmigratory trout anglers, but they are not because compared to the cost of what it use to be back in the old days, they are getting a good deal, so are keeping quite. But unlike coarse anglers (tight gits) they accept higher costs for their fishing anyway.
Last edited:
Absolute garbage. Very few match anglers I know fish with 2 rods when pleasure fishing and apart from specimen anglers I suggest that the vast majority of anglers fish with a single rod. Most commercial stocking levels make it unnecessary and problematic to use a second rod. I think you need to visit a few other waters to get a true picture before making such sweeping statements about the number of anglers using a single rod.
stu_the_blank
Well-known member
It's a tax gents, the purpose is to raise revenue. Since when were taxes designed to be fair?
I can live with the current system (it's a lot better than it used to be) if you're allowed to fish with three rods and you want to, buy another licence. I suppose an extra rod top up would be one way to deal with it but why would the Govt. want to lose revenue?
Stu
---------- Post added at 07:33 ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 ----------
Stu
I can live with the current system (it's a lot better than it used to be) if you're allowed to fish with three rods and you want to, buy another licence. I suppose an extra rod top up would be one way to deal with it but why would the Govt. want to lose revenue?
Stu
---------- Post added at 07:33 ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 ----------
Steve, that's a bit of a sweeping statement too. I don't know (because I haven't seen any data on the subject) but in my experience most use two rods at least on occasion, which would mean a two rod licence.
Stu
sam vimes
Well-known member
I suspect that whether you believe that rather depends on the places you frequent and the type of angler you mix with. I've heard plenty of match and "pleasure" (hate the word when used this way) types grumble about only paying for only one rod. I'll happily concede that it's usually in response to talk of a three rod licence, but it does happen. Most don't care, but there are more than the odd one or two that, if changes are going to be made, would happily see a single rod licence introduced.
The Maggotdrowners Forum - Rod Licences
thecrow
Well-known member
Nothing more than i would expect from someone that thinks other anglers are an irevelance, IMO thats an insult along with saying that coarse anglers are tight gits.What a rude and arrogant person you must be.
I would like one of these crystal balls that you must have to enable you to know who is thinking what and knowing what they should be doing, where can i get one from?
Yes thats right i said i wouldnt buy a licence, what an outcry that caused, perhaps if others didnt we would get some change in the way anglers are treated by the EA, it must be nice to go through life thinking everyone can have an opinion as long as its the same as yours.
Ray Wood 1
Well-known member
How much it costs
Prices are to 31 March 2015.
Licence type Non-migratory trout and coarse Salmon and sea trout
Full £27.00 £72.00
Senior (over 65) concession £18.00 £48.00
Disabled concession £18.00 £48.00
Junior (12 to 16) concession £5.00 £5.00
8-day licence £10.00 £23.00
1-day licence £3.75 £8.00
So if the EA are not to lose revenue just how will the AT propose that a single license for carp anglers be priced? At present they have to buy two at £27 = £54 if the AT propose that the two rod license £27 be used as the guideline that means £13.50 per rod = £40.50 for three rods that's a difference of £13.50.
If implemented in such a way just how do the AT propose the EA make up the deficit? Would it be fair for the anglers amongst us who only ever use a maxim of two rods to pay more to make up this short fall so that carp anglers get a better deal?
The AT say "The moves by the Angling Trust and the Environment Agency have been welcomed by leading figures in the carp world." Well what about the rest of us anglers have the AT consulted us?
Is this another " River Close Season-Is It Time For A Rethink?" type exercise driven by a few names in the Carp World? As the AT do NOT represent all anglers in the UK are we all being stitched up by the unelected bunch of interfering busy bodies?
They have around 17,000 individual members but claim to represent some 400,000 of us by way of club membership. Best they stick to water pollution and other major things like predation and other things that are affecting angling.
The current license system suits most of us (in my opinion) it appears that the multi rod users are being panda to at the expense of the rest of us.
Perhaps Martin Salter or Mark Lloyd would like to tell us just what proposals on license pricing the AT are putting before the EA regarding what our licenses should cost in future.
Perhaps it would have been fairer to have polled the AT membership and non members to see just what they would be prepared to pay for a rod license before entering into talks with the EA. Of course the AT don't work that way do they!
Regards
Ray
Prices are to 31 March 2015.
Licence type Non-migratory trout and coarse Salmon and sea trout
Full £27.00 £72.00
Senior (over 65) concession £18.00 £48.00
Disabled concession £18.00 £48.00
Junior (12 to 16) concession £5.00 £5.00
8-day licence £10.00 £23.00
1-day licence £3.75 £8.00
So if the EA are not to lose revenue just how will the AT propose that a single license for carp anglers be priced? At present they have to buy two at £27 = £54 if the AT propose that the two rod license £27 be used as the guideline that means £13.50 per rod = £40.50 for three rods that's a difference of £13.50.
If implemented in such a way just how do the AT propose the EA make up the deficit? Would it be fair for the anglers amongst us who only ever use a maxim of two rods to pay more to make up this short fall so that carp anglers get a better deal?
The AT say "The moves by the Angling Trust and the Environment Agency have been welcomed by leading figures in the carp world." Well what about the rest of us anglers have the AT consulted us?
Is this another " River Close Season-Is It Time For A Rethink?" type exercise driven by a few names in the Carp World? As the AT do NOT represent all anglers in the UK are we all being stitched up by the unelected bunch of interfering busy bodies?
They have around 17,000 individual members but claim to represent some 400,000 of us by way of club membership. Best they stick to water pollution and other major things like predation and other things that are affecting angling.
The current license system suits most of us (in my opinion) it appears that the multi rod users are being panda to at the expense of the rest of us.
Perhaps Martin Salter or Mark Lloyd would like to tell us just what proposals on license pricing the AT are putting before the EA regarding what our licenses should cost in future.
Perhaps it would have been fairer to have polled the AT membership and non members to see just what they would be prepared to pay for a rod license before entering into talks with the EA. Of course the AT don't work that way do they!
Regards
Ray
martinsalter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2011
- Messages
- 108
- Reaction score
- 0
Ray. You know perfectly well that the Trust is constantly receiving and listening to the views of thousands of anglers. I seem to recall we gave your views on the Close Season a good airing on our website, along with many others of different persuasions. And we will be doing the same on the review of rod licences. We are currently in the middle of a national angling survey the results of which help us formulate our approach to issues like this and many others. It is never possible to please all anglers all of the time particularly when there is such a divergence of opinions.