Angler caught without a licence reels in £1850 penalty

[Kirsty Hewitt]

An illegal angler was fined £220 with £1638.41 costs on 11 January 2017 after being found guilty of fishing without a licence at Nottingham Magistrates’ court.

The 47 year old from Hull was challenged by a fisheries enforcement officer while he was fishing at Cromwell Carp Lake in Newark on 24 April 2016. He failed to produce a valid licence to the officer.

He pleaded “not guilty” to the charge of fishing without a licence, but he subsequently failed to appear in Court for the legal proceedings. He has now been ordered to pay a total of £1858.41.

Peter Haslock, Enforcement Team Leader at the Environment Agency said:

Our officers work hard on a day-to-day basis to check that anglers are licenced. We invest the money raised from rod licences in the protection of our rivers as well as improvements to fishing facilities, which is vital for the future of the sport.

The vast majority of anglers fish with the appropriate licence. We do not hesitate to take legal action against the minority of anglers who fish illegally. This case demonstrates once again that fishing without a licence is not a profitable offence: Mr Newton could have fished legally for 68 years for the price of the fine he has been ordered to pay.

Anglers fishing without a licence should expect to be prosecuted. Anyone caught fishing illegally can face a fine up to £2,500, and up to £50,000 for any byelaw offences. In 2015 the Environment Agency checked over 62,000 rod licences. 1,900 anglers were prosecuted resulting in fines and costs of over £500,000.

An annual fishing licence is available for just £27. Information about rod licences and byelaws is freely available on the Environment Agency website. The Environment Agency encourages anyone who witnesses or has information regarding illegal fishing to report it to its Incident Hotline on 0800 80 70 60.

 

[flightliner]

I had mine checked in the same area some few weeks ago. The enforcement officer told me their numbers had magnified fourfold and they were also doing nightime checks in company with the police .
Best of luck to anyone not buying a liscence -- me ? Not worth going without .

 

[ken more]

Why do these enforcement officer's target mainly ponds and lakes if they work so hard trying to catch people without a licence?

 

[thecrow]

Why do these enforcement officer's target mainly ponds and lakes if they work so hard trying to catch people without a licence?

Easier pickings, as lots on here know I hate paying this tax, I notice the job title has changed from bailiff to enforcement officer.

This from the article annoyed me because its a lie just more EA bullshine.

Our officers work hard on a day-to-day basis to check that anglers are licenced. We invest the money raised from rod licences in the protection of our rivers

Not according to information I received from the EA through an FOI request wanting to know how many of the illegal fishing reports they received they actually attended, turns out it was very few.

 

[ken more]

Easier pickings, as lots on here know I hate paying this tax, I notice the job title has changed from bailiff to enforcement officer.

This from the article annoyed me because its a lie just more EA bullshine.

Our officers work hard on a day-to-day basis to check that anglers are licenced. We invest the money raised from rod licences in the protection of our rivers

Not according to information I received from the EA through an FOI request wanting to know how many of the illegal fishing reports they received they actually attended, turns out it was very few.

Agree Crow, just another sound bite from them. "protection of our Rivers", then why always target lakes and ponds Easy pickings for them as you say, and a bullsh1t answer from them

 

[sam vimes]

Why do these enforcement officer's target mainly ponds and lakes if they work so hard trying to catch people without a licence?

It's far easier and cost effective to target busy commercial waters. They are likely to check far more anglers at much lower cost than they'd be able to by searching miles and miles of river. Quite sensibly, they'll only tend to hit the accessible and popular river stretches and big river matches.

The harsh reality is that you have to be pretty stupid to get caught without a licence. If you really want to avoid buying one and not get caught, there are plenty of places to go and minimise the chances. Turning up at Cromwell (and the adjoining river) wouldn't be the top of my list for such nefarious angling. If I were that way inclined, I reckon I could fish for years without any fear of being caught. However, I'd have to give up on my occasional commie session and I'd avoid day ticket stretches of the Trent too.

 

[flightliner]

I was on the river when I was asked to produce my license, a not to easy to get to strech as it turned out but once the guy hit the riverbank he went for some mile and a half downstream looking for other anglers.
He told me that he had been out on a boat with police officers at nightime and nabbed four guys moored up against a midriver structure.
The boat was motorised so they were breathelysed and were over the limit.
lots of other transgressions apparently --- all to answer for !.

 

[ken more]

It's far easier and cost effective to target busy commercial waters. They are likely to check far more anglers at much lower cost than they'd be able to by searching miles and miles of river. Quite sensibly, they'll only tend to hit the accessible and popular river stretches and big river matches.

The harsh reality is that you have to be pretty stupid to get caught without a licence. If you really want to avoid buying one and not get caught, there are plenty of places to go and minimise the chances. Turning up at Cromwell (and the adjoining river) wouldn't be the top of my list for such nefarious angling. If I were that way inclined, I reckon I could fish for years without any fear of being caught. However, I'd have to give up on my occasional commie session and I'd avoid day ticket stretches of the Trent too.

Very true Sam, what is annoying is that they always use the "protection of rivers" when trying to justify what they are all about.

 

[sam vimes]

Very true Sam, what is annoying is that they always use the "protection of rivers" when trying to justify what they are all about.

Well, I suppose that they could argue that the majority of their re-stocking efforts are targeted at the rivers. The fact that enforcement doesn't seem to contribute a penny towards re-stocking may make that a bit of a moot point, at least with regards to licence enforcement.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Had my reminder today....it's gone up to £30.00.

 

[thecrow]

Had my reminder today....it's gone up to £30.00.

Blame the interfering trust for that Cliff, they have once again kicked a section of anglers in the goolies (1 rod anglers) it was pretty obvious when it emerged that they were once again in talks with their masters the EA that prices were going to rise, question is will anglers get more from the EA for paying more?

 

[tigger]

Had my reminder today....it's gone up to £30.00.

Sad in'it, I wouldn't blame anyone for opting out of buying one!
I know loads of fantastic places on both running and still waters where you'd never see a EA pleb moochin about!

 

[ken more]

Sad in'it, I wouldn't blame anyone for opting out of buying one!
I know loads of fantastic places on both running and still waters where you'd never see a EA pleb moochin about!

P.M. will do trigger I just feel we are being asked to pay money for a return that looks good in other peoples eye's. as if someone is using anglers to,at least subsidise, a "look what we are doing" and it's nothing more than a political guessture. Who else can they ask for money from? Cyclists? Canoeist's? Doubt it very much

 

[thecrow]

P.M. will do trigger I just feel we are being asked to pay money for a return that looks good in other peoples eye's. as if someone is using anglers to,at least subsidise, a "look what we are doing" and it's nothing more than a political guessture. Who else can they ask for money from? Cyclists? Canoeist's? Doubt it very much

There used to be a cycling permit for canal towpaths iirc it cost £1 but according to the C&R Trust one is no longer needed.

 

[binka]

There used to be a cycling permit for canal towpaths iirc it cost £1 but according to the C&R Trust one is no longer needed.

You're right Graham there did, I can't remember the cost though.

The lycra terrorists can now race along for free instead

 

[theartist]

Can someone tell me what these so called EA folk look like? Just that I haven't seen one in decades. You sure you lot are not imagining them?

 

[binka]

He pleaded “not guilty” to the charge of fishing without a licence, but he subsequently failed to appear in Court for the legal proceedings.

I can't help wondering if the scale of the fine was as much to do with the offender's apparent contempt for proceedings or whether the courts are really taking a tougher line on the matter?

 

[theartist]

I can't help wondering if the scale of the fine was as much to do with the offender's apparent contempt for proceedings or whether the courts are really taking a tougher line on the matter?

Correct me if i'm wrong but don't we usually get one or two cases a year like this which is very well publicised to act as a deterrant to anyone who is thinking of not getting a license? It would be better if we saw headlines that read how illegal fishing has been erradicated in certain areas with a zero tolerance approach, other areas are following suit.

 

[greenie62]

I can't help wondering if the scale of the fine was as much to do with the offender's apparent contempt for proceedings or whether the courts are really taking a tougher line on the matter?

Could be both!

A couple of years ago the EA paid a visit to a local commercial and tried to do one of the anglers for no Licence - the clever sod said he'd phone the missus at home to get her to check the reference number on-line - wondered off deep in conversation out of earshot - and told her how to get his licence on-line. Unfortunately his credit card payment failed and subsequently wasn't issued with a licence! This was recorded on the system, timestamped and reported to the court as part of the circumstances of the case!
He was fined £1400 - one can't help but feel this was partly due to him trying to be a smartarse! mg:

 

[thecrow]

It would be better if we saw headlines that read how illegal fishing has been erradicated in certain areas with a zero tolerance approach, other areas are following suit.

Maybe but I don't believe that the EA are serious about stamping out illegal fishing, what we get fed by the EA and their servant the Angling Trust about illegal fishing is just PR to keep the underlings happy, report illegal fishing and the chances are that nothing will be done about it, carry out any illegal fishing and the chances are you wont get caught, we are being treated like mushrooms.

The size of the fines handed out for not paying your rod tax are completely out of proportion with the act, the reason imo is that the courts are trying to do the EAs job on the cheap, far easier to publicise a big fine such as this one in the hope it will scare would be illegal fishers into changing their ways than getting staff out on the banks checking and responding to allreports of illegal fishing.

Its no good the EA moaning that they don't have the staff to carry out these duties, that's not the anglers fault they pay the EA through the fishing tax to protect their fishing but in truth they do not protect it as they should.

The EA along with the Angling Trusts collaboration have increased the fishing tax that anglers have to pay, I have to ask why when anglers are not getting anywhere near the service they pay for before the rise and I doubt very much that the increase in price will see an increase in the quality of service received by anglers.