Home | News/Events | News | EA Blitz on Rod Licence Cheats

EA Blitz on Rod Licence Cheats

By

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
EA Blitz on Rod Licence Cheats

Environment Agency enforcement teams continue clamping down on rod licence cheats, notching up more than 13,000 licence checks across England in May.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Environment Agency


Of the 13,000 anglers checked for a valid licence, 965 were fishing illegally and could face a court appearance and a substantial fine. A recent penalty was more than £800 when an annual licence costs just £27.


May falls within the coarse fishing ‘close season’ – which runs from 15th March to 15th June – when coarse angling is suspended on rivers and a few canals and lakes in order to allow coarse fish to breed. While some licence cheats were also fishing rivers during the close season, the majority were caught on stillwaters where fishing is still allowed during these months.


One Environment Agency enforcement officer reported an angler for fishing with three rods on one licence (each licence covers up to two rods). The angler was particularly aggressive because he had been caught in same place for the same offence last year.


In another case an angler gave a false identity and nearly ended up being arrested. The following day the same angler was checked at a different fishery but had subsequently bought two valid rod licences. What’s more, he was fishing with several other anglers and had informed them that the bailiffs were about – his fellow anglers told the officer they had been tempted to fish without a licence but, on the advice of their friend, had bought one that morning online.


Sarah Chare, head of fisheries at the Environment Agency, said:

“The number of anglers caught red-handed is testament to the hard work of our enforcement teams. But worryingly it still shows a blatant disregard for fisheries and the environment. People who don’t buy a licence are cheating other anglers and the future of the sport. The Environment Agency relies on the income from rod licences to continue the important work we do to protect fish stocks, improve fisheries and encourage more people to take up fishing. 

If you are caught fishing without a rod licence you risk a criminal conviction and a fine. There is no excuse – it costs just £27 for a whole year and is easy to buy from the Post Office website.”


In addition to the Environment Agency’s rod licence enforcement work, which focused mainly on stillwaters, Angling Trust voluntary bailiffs were also patrolling rivers to detect and report any close season and other fisheries offences. Environment Agency officers were able to respond to their reports and all the intelligence information gathered will help inform future enforcement patrols – they will know who is likely to be fishing illegally when and where.


Last year, Environment Agency officers checked more than 70,000 licences and prosecuted more than 2,800 licence cheats. Between them, they were ordered to pay fines and costs in excess of £600,000. To help crack down on unlicensed fishing the Environment Agency urges anyone to report illegal activity by calling 0800 80 70 60.


Money raised from rod licence sales is reinvested in the environment, including a whole range of projects to improve facilities for anglers, protect stocks from illegal fishing, plus fish restocking, invasive species eradication, and working with partners to encourage people to take-up fishing for the first time.


Annual rod licences for trout and coarse fishing remain at £5 for 12 to 16 year olds, £18 for senior and disabled concessions and £27 for non-concessions. Children under 12 can fish for free.


Buying a licence online from the Post Office website saves time and administration costs, which means more of the income can be spent on improving fish stocks and fishing.

 







By the Same Author



Rate this article

0




Comments (113 posted):

smudger172 on 04/07/2014 12:39:52
avatar
Good news. Its about time they started checking people. I personally have not been asked for years and fish at least twice a week. Glad to see they are doing something about it... :)
barbelboi on 04/07/2014 12:43:14
avatar
This could ruffle a few feathers...............................:wh
sam vimes on 04/07/2014 12:49:40
avatar
Good news. Its about time they started checking people. I personally have not been asked for years and fish at least twice a week. Glad to see they are doing something about it... :) Limited resources mean that they go where the chances of finding good numbers of anglers and good numbers of unlicensed anglers. That invariably means the busiest river stretches (like Collingham on the Trent), or those with easy access (close to bridges/main roads) and heavily fished (usually the more commercial) stillwaters, especially at the busiest periods. There's not a great deal of point in them walking miles of lightly fished river only to find no one fishing. If you avoid the busy places, at peak times, the chances of being checked are very slim. The few times I've been checked have been on busy day ticket stillwaters at peak periods.
sumtime on 04/07/2014 13:02:55
avatar
I'd love for once, just once for mine to be checked, I'd do a lap of honour around Liverpool, in me undies. :)
mark brailsford 2 on 04/07/2014 13:06:32
avatar
Limited resources mean that they go where the chances of finding good numbers of anglers and good numbers of unlicensed anglers. That invariably means the busiest river stretches (like Collingham on the Trent), or those with easy access (close to bridges/main roads) and heavily fished (usually the more commercial) stillwaters, especially at the busiest periods. There's not a great deal of point in them walking miles of lightly fished river only to find no one fishing. If you avoid the busy places, at peak times, the chances of being checked are very slim. The few times I've been checked have been on busy day ticket stillwaters at peak periods. I personally have never been checked but I know someone who fishes Ladybower on opening day every year and he gets checked every year without fail, apparently because the EA know that the percentage of anglers fishing unlicenced will be great! ( I don't know the reason either!)
smudger172 on 04/07/2014 13:15:22
avatar
Limited resources mean that they go where the chances of finding good numbers of anglers and good numbers of unlicensed anglers. That invariably means the busiest river stretches (like Collingham on the Trent), or those with easy access (close to bridges/main roads) and heavily fished (usually the more commercial) stillwaters, especially at the busiest periods. There's not a great deal of point in them walking miles of lightly fished river only to find no one fishing. If you avoid the busy places, at peak times, the chances of being checked are very slim. The few times I've been checked have been on busy day ticket stillwaters at peak periods. Wilstone reservoir on a weekend perch and pike fishing.. With a lot of non english speaking people spinning. Easy pickings. Wroxham on the broads. There must be between 10 and 15 boats out most weekends. Never see anybody.
theartist on 04/07/2014 15:01:19
avatar
EA Blitz on rod licence cheats? Ouch Just fallen off my chair but that's a good one
thecrow on 04/07/2014 15:32:29
avatar
Cant catch me for a bumble bee :D:D
markg on 05/07/2014 06:52:44
avatar
Makes interesting reading. In May they found 7.42% of anglers checked not to have a license. The overall figure last year was 4% of anglers checked found without a license. The last time I looked figures for license bought was about 1250000 which means only 5.6 of licenses were checked. I would guess the 4% figure probably about right across the board i.e., 4% of anglers do not buy a license. The average fine was £214. It does not state if this included costs or costs were added on. That would be the most interesting figure, how much chasing this crime cost against the revenue collected in fines. I bet each case cost a lot more than £214 to bring to court. I still say it should have on the spot fines or scrapped altogether and the "tax" raised another way. Its probably costing the tax payer a lot of money and wasting a lot of court time. And for what, to chase approx 4% of anglers who do not have a licence and only catch 4%-7% of them.
thecrow on 05/07/2014 07:00:15
avatar
Makes interesting reading. In May they found 7.42% of anglers checked not to have a license. The overall figure last year was 4% of anglers checked found without a license. The last time I looked figures for license bought was about 1250000 which means only 5.6 of licenses were checked. I would guess the 4% figure probably about right across the board i.e., 4% of anglers do not buy a license. The average fine was £214. It does not state if this included costs or costs were added on. That would be the most interesting figure, how much chasing this crime cost against the revenue collected in fines. I bet each case cost a lot more than £214 to bring to court. I still say it should have on the spot fines or scrapped altogether and the "tax" raised another way. Its probably costing the tax payer a lot of money and wasting a lot of court time. And for what, to chase approx 4% of anglers who do not have a licence. I read somewhere that the fines for not having a licence didn't go to the EA so the money spent in checking that anglers have paid their tax is dead money, there is no return on it at all either environmentaly or financially.
markg on 05/07/2014 07:31:35
avatar
I read somewhere that the fines for not having a licence didn't go to the EA so the money spent in checking that anglers have paid their tax is dead money, there is no return on it at all either environmentally or financially. I dont know were the money goes Crow. I do know the figures do not stack up very well. They raise about £ 33 million in the licence which is small beer comparatively speaking and could be raised by putting a 1p on carrier bags or something or , some sort of environment VAT on environment goods. Whatever, there is probably a fairer, easier, less costly way of raising this money. I am sure of it. Perhaps the Government suits could look at it if they could find time from extracting their expenses, perhaps that's where the £600, 000 raised in fines goes. Correction, the £33 million licence money and the fines. Those duck houses and moats take some upkeep. I wouldn't mind but, can we fish those moats, bet there's a no fishing/no common people sign on them. ! PS, as long as you don't fly as the crows flies, in a straight line, which you don't - you should not get caught, good luck.
mick b on 05/07/2014 07:55:56
avatar
Wonderful news, hope they catch a coachfull. Dont think remote waters are not checked. My lake is well off the beaten track with no signs with access up a very long secluded road but we always receive atleast one visit every year without fail. ....... Give it a break Mr Crow. A far better way to spend your time would be to get all your fishing tackle out and give it all a through spring-clean and service, so your ready to go as soon as your health improves.
Steve Ruff on 05/07/2014 08:18:01
avatar
Why can't they simply make it the fishery owners responsibility to check that the person buying the day ticket has a valid EA licence ? Make it even easier for the fishery owner by allowing them to have a means of checking on line via the EA website whether or not the licence is valid or not (simple security checks - date of birth / address / etc). If no licence in place get them to log onto a computer at the fishery and get one if they want to fish ! No licence = no fishing .... Simples. The fishery owners will also probably end up with a better quality of fisherman (or woman) using their fishery and probably treat the fish with more care / leave less of a mess when they pack up. If someone does leave a mess / behave irresponsibly / cause any issues the fishery owner could even have a means of banning them or tracking them down if they recorded their details / licence number. For rivers the same kind of thing could apply - at least check whether or not the person actually has a licence. Spot checks would still need to be carried out by the EA or their appointed representatives but then the fishery owner/ club who manage that stretch of river would be "incentivised" to show that they have a fair and reasonable system in place to check that an EA licence is in place. If it becomes clear that the fishery owner / club really couldn't give a hoot then the EA should not just consider taking action on the individual person who was caught without a licence but also on the fishery owner / club who are effectively facilitating this offence. For day ticket venues this should work - for rivers it is more complex as I have seen people rolling up to fish at seven o'clock at night knowing that no one is going to be around at that time to check their licence. So long as there is some common sense applied this could improve the position compared to where we find ourselves today. Knowing that the chances of getting your licence checked is pretty remote isn't much of an incentive for the individual to buy one - share that incentive with the fishery / club who own the fishing rights and may be things could get better.
mick b on 05/07/2014 08:30:31
avatar
Thats okay Steve, but what about celebrity anglers fishing during the close season with the landowners consent ??? The EA bailiff teams do far more than just checking licences and Ive personally seen them catch someone spinning a Mepps for a few (out of season) Perch during a big Salmon run, and prosecute the offender even though he had his young son beside him. ....... My two syndicates have a rule that you must be in possession of a valid licence, if your caught without you have broken the rules of membership and thus are no longer a member. Trying to get two (licence holding) members to act as your referees for a new application has proved completely impossible for the two who were caught in past years. .
cg74 on 05/07/2014 08:32:45
avatar
Greater Rod Licence sales = More money for the fisheries team too improve our fisheries... ..It's a shame that so much gets squandered, with the fisheries team attempting make good the flood defence team's far from environmentally sympathetic work.. I guess statistically an angler that fishes without a licence is probably more likely to commit other offences though. So this "Blitz" should be welcomed.
Steve Ruff on 05/07/2014 08:55:50
avatar
Same simple black and white rules for everyone ... Normal anglers / celebrity anglers / from the UK / not from the UK / in season / out of season etc etc. Consequences flow from breaking the rules - if they don't what is the point of having the rules in the first place. In terms of celebrity anglers they should have more sense than to fish without a licence in the first place - the EA should take what action they need to take and ourselves / the fishing communities / the celebs sponsors should themselves come up with their own subsequent sanctions. Any "celeb" doing this would certainly loose the respect of most of us (or in certain cases has already).
thecrow on 05/07/2014 09:16:13
avatar
Wonderful news, hope they catch a coachfull. Dont think remote waters are not checked. My lake is well off the beaten track with no signs with access up a very long secluded road but we always receive atleast one visit every year without fail. ....... Give it a break Mr Crow. A far better way to spend your time would be to get all your fishing tackle out and give it all a through spring-clean and service, so your ready to go as soon as your health improves.[/QUOTE] Give what a break? how do you know I haven't been fishing already? I will decide on the best way to spend my time and my money, one things for sure I wont be seeing part of this blitz, I hardly ever see another angler never mind the EA. My previous post is valid, the EA gain nothing from the expenditure involved in checking the angling tax has been paid, Mark is correct the only way to ensure everyone pays is to come up with a system where it cannot be avoided, I am not clever enough to know what that system might be I am just a simple angler be but others probably are.
Keith Williams on 05/07/2014 10:13:24
avatar
Why can't they simply make it the fishery owners responsibility to check that the person buying the day ticket has a valid EA licence ? Make it even easier for the fishery owner by allowing them to have a means of checking on line via the EA website whether or not the licence is valid or not (simple security checks - date of birth / address / etc). If no licence in place get them to log onto a computer at the fishery and get one if they want to fish ! No licence = no fishing .... Simples. The fishery owners will also probably end up with a better quality of fisherman (or woman) using their fishery and probably treat the fish with more care / leave less of a mess when they pack up. If someone does leave a mess / behave irresponsibly / cause any issues the fishery owner could even have a means of banning them or tracking them down if they recorded their details / licence number. For rivers the same kind of thing could apply - at least check whether or not the person actually has a licence. Spot checks would still need to be carried out by the EA or their appointed representatives but then the fishery owner/ club who manage that stretch of river would be "incentivised" to show that they have a fair and reasonable system in place to check that an EA licence is in place. If it becomes clear that the fishery owner / club really couldn't give a hoot then the EA should not just consider taking action on the individual person who was caught without a licence but also on the fishery owner / club who are effectively facilitating this offence. For day ticket venues this should work - for rivers it is more complex as I have seen people rolling up to fish at seven o'clock at night knowing that no one is going to be around at that time to check their licence. So long as there is some common sense applied this could improve the position compared to where we find ourselves today. Knowing that the chances of getting your licence checked is pretty remote isn't much of an incentive for the individual to buy one - share that incentive with the fishery / club who own the fishing rights and may be things could get better. Ruffy Your comments are in some ways admirable, however the legalities of passing information from fishery to fishery regarding rule breakers. litter dumpers and those that don't have a rod licence are seriously monumental We have legislation which prevents such desires namely the " The Data Protection Act" which has very draconian penalties should lesser mortals take it upon themselves in a private or even an agreed capacity to name and shame individuals.......its a big fine or jail fodder after conviction. All it would take is a simple complaint from a maligned injured party and a fishery owners reputation and livelihood is ruined. As far as having computer terminals at a fishery to check if a angler has a licence, this is presently a non starter....the potential for electronic abuse is massive and safeguards cannot be met to ensure third parties are not taking advantage of the the facility...again a Non starter Importantly, if anglers leave litter behind at a fishery and it is a significant amount, the owners best option is to take a photograph of the incident after the fact then call the EA and make a complaint of littering within the meaning of the Litter Act! ... don't forget to ask for an incident number and ask for Full Feedback . ( do this for all fishery related incidents for suspected poaching etc ) The fishery owner can if he/she is diligent enough to have considered the means to record the identities ( name and address) of fisherfolk at their fishery at the time of a permit being purchased and a note of any vehicle used to aid the EA in identifying the offender.....I note that there is NO Offence of recording such information for the purpose of preventing or reporting a crime The ability to Ban an angler from a water is measured only by the owners/ staff long term memory...and bans do work if enforced, however the recollection of faces is very difficult over a period of time believe me, even to a trained person but the act of taking any facial records at a fishery and posting them publicly without the legal means ie a police authorised matter is likely at the time to cause both insults and injury especially if the ofenders are prone to violence and maybe cause a " Breach of the Peace" when a camera is produced...and lets not forget, there are few fisheries presently who protect their assets by means of CCTV equipment in car parks so the options are very limited. As far as Fishery owners being made responsible for checking rod licences at the time of anglers buying a private fishery permit, this can only be a voluntary act on the part of an owner as Parliament will not pass such powers down from the EA without a very good legal case being presented and after the last legal review of fishery law which started in 1999 and resulted in the latest Act , the timescales are enormous so its not likely to happen again anytime soon given the pressures on parliamentary time and more important matters to manage domestically. The checking of Rod licences on rivers is even more difficult given the lack of trained manpower within the EA, the ability of a private fishery owner is less and can only be dealt with if fish theft or poaching by means of the use of illegal equipment as defined by present fishery legislation. Poaching is often a misused word more often than not to describe fishing without a permit ie " guesting" or just simply an angler going to a fishery, knowingly fishing and trying to avoid any contact with persons/ anglers on the bankside. the best way to deal with such intruders is to call the Police on 999 and ask that the matter be referred to wildlife liason officers who do take an interest in such incidents and again always ask for later feedback This is an aspect that angling clubs and riparian owners should foster greater exploration as its my experience thsat many anglers are still very ignorant of what they must do and not do..( to ensure their own personal safety) in the event of any fishery related crime being observed. I'd certainly point out that anything related to such matters need to be reported fully ie any cars involved, registration number, how many offenders are involved and what they are actually doing and later be recalled should the Police or the Ea require a Statement of Witness. Above all else...DOn't be a hero... stand back discretely, watch and report the incident...almost everyone has a mobile phone now so there's NO EXCUSE!!! :D The EA and the Angling Trust must do more to share this vital knowledge to ensure the problems facing our fisheries are shared between all agencies and that criminal intelligence ( reports of sighting and locations of offences) is shared thus bringing about greater protection of the sport and fisheries in England and Wales.
stu_the_blank on 05/07/2014 11:12:19
avatar
My previous post is valid, the EA gain nothing from the expenditure involved in checking the angling tax has been paidObviously they do Crow, if there was no checking or penalties, nobody would buy one and they'd get absolutely no income at all. Fisheries is a long way down the pecking:D order at the EA. All of the licence money goes to the fisheries dept, so if you are not participating, the word 'parasite' comes to mind, for reasons I can't fathom. Stu
Steve Ruff on 05/07/2014 11:21:14
avatar
I wasn't suggesting that info be shared from fishery to fishery. The analogy I would use would be a pub. The publican has the responsibility to ensure that he / she doesn't serve alcohol to people who are under-age - if the publican gets caught serving alcohol to under-age customers they may get a telling off the first time - if they keep on getting caught then they will face the consequences. Why can't it be the same with commercial fisheries ? In its simplist form .... No licence = no fishing - sorry about that but thems the rules .... You can go to the fishery / stretch of river a mile or so up the road but just be careful of the discarded needles and all the other rubbish which may be in your swim when you turn up. No easy answer or it would have been sorted already and we wouldn't find ourselves where we are today ... But something has got to be done for the benefit of us all.
thecrow on 05/07/2014 11:21:30
avatar
Is this still about fishing without a licence? its starting to look as if this offence is so serious its on a par with robbery with violence, its a damn pity that the EA are not so diligent when it comes to finding and prosecuting ALL polluters which they don't do at the moment. A list of polluters caught and prosecuted against caught and not prosecuted would make interesting reading.
greenie62 on 05/07/2014 11:22:13
avatar
As far as Fishery owners being made responsible for checking rod licences at the time of anglers buying a private fishery permit, this can only be a voluntary act on the part of an owner as Parliament will not pass such powers down from the EA without a very good legal case being presented ...... The checking of Rod licences on rivers is even more difficult given the lack of trained manpower within the EA, the ability of a private fishery owner is less .... Thanks Keith, You raise some good points in your post - but I'm not sure the checking of EA Licences is that difficult a power to confer. It always used to state on a licence that it must be produced if requested by an EA Officer, Police Officer, or another Licence Holder on production of their own EA Licence. When bailiffing local waters I used to use this provision when requesting to see Club Tickets and EA Licences, producing my own and displaying the relevant regulation on the licence. Unfortunately this is no longer printed on the licence, and has also disappeared from the GOV.UK website which now says: [INDENT]You must carry your rod licence with you when you’re fishing. You could be prosecuted if you don’t have your licence when an Environment Agency bailiff or a police officer asks to see it.[/INDENT] When did this disappear - and why? Re-instate it and the Licence production requests would be simplified - all you would need would be to display your own EA Rod Licence! Oh what's that? Fishery owners don't all have Rod Licences? ;):rolleyes: Simples! ;):D
Steve Ruff on 05/07/2014 12:44:33
avatar
See this as to why ... www.anglingtrust.net/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=4143 Third paragraph down ... "Section 35 of the Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 empowered anglers in possession of a rod licence to check another’s. This, however, was repealed by the Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009. Since then, only Environment Agency fishery enforcement officers and the police are empowered to demand and inspect rod licences. Fishing without a rod licence is an offence under Section 27(1) (a) (i) of the Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975." The pub anology works for me - if you want to fish show me your licence please otherwise it is my fishery who gets the grief as well as you. Still carry out spot checks but why wouldn't this go a long way to help make things better ?
markg on 05/07/2014 15:51:50
avatar
This should go down well with the Tory voters ! - train some big strapping unemployed people to go out in twos or threes to check licenses. On the spot fines of £100, £200, £300 which they use to pay back their dole money. Anything over their dole money they keep half. More licenses get checked, the unemployed get work experience, fresh air and exercise. The welfare deficit gets reduced and the unemployed get a bit richer and could lead them on to better things.
mick b on 05/07/2014 16:03:46
avatar
This should go down well with the Tory voters ! - train some big strapping unemployed people to go out in twos or threes to check licenses. On the spot fines of £100, £200, £300 which they use to pay back their dole money. Anything over their dole money they keep half. More licenses get checked, the unemployed get work experience, fresh air and exercise. The welfare deficit gets reduced and the unemployed get a bit richer and could lead them on to better things. Ha ha better things......oh yes.. I once lived in a country where the local Police could issue and collect fines for most minor offences. The policy was when asked by an officer for your ID (compulsory everywhere except our free [for all] country) to hand it over with a folded 10 note enclosed, the officer would then inspect the document and hand it back with a polite warning......and you would be on your way unhindered :wh ;)
mark brailsford 2 on 05/07/2014 16:17:51
avatar
Ha ha better things......oh yes.. I once lived in a country where the local Police could issue and collect fines for most minor offences. The policy was when asked by an officer for your ID (compulsory everywhere except our free [for all] country) to hand it over with a folded 10 note enclosed, the officer would then inspect the document and hand it back with a polite warning......and you would be on your way unhindered :wh ;) Ha, ha, Just finished reading Ray Mears' Autobiography, his dealings with the Law in Africa were really quite funny! What about ''dobbing in'' the folk you know are fishing without a licence, especially the ones that brag about it on public forums :wh:
mick b on 05/07/2014 16:34:47
avatar
What about ''dobbing in'' the folk you know are fishing without a licence, especially the ones that brag about it on public forums :wh: . You may say that Mark, but I couldn't possibly comment....... .
greenie62 on 05/07/2014 18:09:55
avatar
Ruffy Thanks for the reply and links to the Regs - I am still in a state of shock that such a simple control mechanism should have been repealed - what idiots allowed that!? :rolleyes::omg: Cheers :thumbs:
thecrow on 05/07/2014 18:27:48
avatar
Obviously they do Crow, if there was no checking or penalties, nobody would buy one and they'd get absolutely no income at all. Fisheries is a long way down the pecking:D order at the EA. All of the licence money goes to the fisheries dept, so if you are not participating, the word 'parasite' comes to mind, for reasons I can't fathom. Stu Stu, your not saying that without checks/penalties you wouldn't buy a licence are you? :D Lots of anglers buy a licence even though they know that the chances (depending on where they fish) are very small that they will be checked, I don't see that changing. ---------- Post added at 19:27 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ---------- Ha, ha, Just finished reading Ray Mears' Autobiography, his dealings with the Law in Africa were really quite funny! What about ''dobbing in'' the folk you know are fishing without a licence, especially the ones that brag about it on public forums :wh: Perhaps you would like to explain just how you would go about doing that Mark? its going over old ground but you need to be caught preparing to fish or actually fishing without a licence to be prosecuted. rather difficult unless you are an EA representative or the police as they are the only ones that can demand to see your licence and you cannot refuse, are you either of those? Who brags about not having a licence on a public forum?
barbelboi on 05/07/2014 19:29:15
avatar
"Doctor, doctor! I'm terrified of scare-crows! Does that mean I'm insane?" "Not at all, you're perfectly normal. So when did this phobia begin?" "About the same time I started believing I was a crow. AWK! AWK!"
mark brailsford 2 on 05/07/2014 19:31:18
avatar
Any law abiding angler will purchase a licence and damned the ones that don't! Thats all I am saying on the matter!
thecrow on 05/07/2014 20:08:00
avatar
"Doctor, doctor! I'm terrified of scare-crows! Does that mean I'm insane?" "Not at all, you're perfectly normal. So when did this phobia begin?" "About the same time I started believing I was a crow. AWK! AWK!" : One of the better posts :D:D:D its cawk cawk by the way, such common language. ---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:05 ---------- Any law abiding angler will purchase a licence and damned the ones that don't! Thats all I am saying on the matter! Oh dear Mark I was so looking forward to your answer, seems I will have to be satisfied with knowing you haven't one ;)
greenie62 on 05/07/2014 20:35:06
avatar
What's this, lads - someone having a pot at thecrow? CAW! :eek:
stu_the_blank on 05/07/2014 21:19:22
avatar
Stu, your not saying that without checks/penalties you wouldn't buy a licence are you? Lots of anglers buy a licence even though they know that the chances (depending on where they fish) are very small that they will be checked, I don't see that changing. Would I buy one if there was absolutely no chance of ever being checked? Almost certainly not, and neither would anybody else. At the moment, although I haven't been asked to show one for 25 years, it could happen at any time and I don't want the problem. My job would be badly affected by a criminal record and for a few quid I get total peace of mind. It's an easy calculation. It would be even easier if there was absolutely no chance of ever being caught, why would I need one? In a short space of time there would be no licence and virtually no fisheries dept. Unless another way of paying can be found. I'm not in love with having to pay fishing tax but the money is ring fenced and I get something back. In your senario, in a very short space of time the 1M would drop dramatically and those who were still paying would start to think, 'why am I subsidising all these freeloaders' and it would soon be the case that hardly anybody would. Human nature dear boy!;) Sorry Crow, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. No checking or penalties=No Licence sales. Stu
mark brailsford 2 on 05/07/2014 22:26:53
avatar
How can someone comment on a thread about ''licence evasion'' when clearly they have no intention of purchasing one themselves? And Crow, I do have an answer but I really dont want to get into an argument with you as it would be pointless!
The bad one on 06/07/2014 00:41:47
avatar
Is this still about fishing without a licence? its starting to look as if this offence is so serious its on a par with robbery with violence, its a damn pity that the EA are not so diligent when it comes to finding and prosecuting ALL polluters which they don't do at the moment. A list of polluters caught and prosecuted against caught and not prosecuted would make interesting reading. Anything you now say on the subject of licenses and the EA has no credence on here after you last admission that you fished without out a licence and have no intentions in buying one when you go fishing in the future. You have become a freeloading parasitic joke on us all who buy a licence. It's time you moved on to scavenge elsewhere Troll. ---------- Post added at 00:41 ---------- Previous post was at 00:14 ---------- On the subject of checking that all anglers hold a current licence, it's very simple the club writes it into the rules of the club that all members must produce their licence when they are checked by a club bailiff for their club card. Failure to produce a licence or payment for one and or a refusal and your club card is taken from you. Ergo you right to fish the club waters forthwith are revoked, pending a hearing meeting to explain why you refused to obey that club rule. Only an idiot would be that dogmatic not to comply if they valued their membership and the water(s) they were fishing. And don't FFS tell me it can't work because that is the rules in my club and we have 99.9% compliance of it. The .1 % that don't lose their membership end of.
thecrow on 06/07/2014 05:10:26
avatar
Anything you now say on the subject of licenses and the EA has no credence on here after you last admission that you fished without out a licence and have no intentions in buying one when you go fishing in the future. You have become a freeloading parasitic joke on us all who buy a licence. It's time you moved on to scavenge elsewhere Troll. ---------- Post added at 00:41 ---------- Previous post was at 00:14 ---------- On the subject of checking that all anglers hold a current licence, it's very simple the club writes it into the rules of the club that all members must produce their licence when they are checked by a club bailiff for their club card. Failure to produce a licence or payment for one and or a refusal and your club card is taken from you. Ergo you right to fish the club waters forthwith are revoked, pending a hearing meeting to explain why you refused to obey that club rule. Only an idiot would be that dogmatic not to comply if they valued their membership and the water(s) they were fishing. And don't FFS tell me it can't work because that is the rules in my club and we have 99.9% compliance of it. The .1 % that don't lose their membership end of.# Ha Ha, you obviously never read my post on the thread what if along with brailsford, jumping to conclusions mr bad one, I wont be moving on anywhere or doing anything else to suit you or anyone else, call me all the names you want at least I will stick to my principles unlike others on this thread that think police corruption is ok or that only buy a licence because they might get caught, so the jokes on you, and what a joke you and brailsford are.
stu_the_blank on 06/07/2014 06:05:46
avatar
There is always the ignore list:wh Stu
markg on 06/07/2014 06:12:15
avatar
Well, I have no more ideas, someone mentioned corruption, how do we know that does not go on anyway. Someone mentioned finding another way of collecting the money. I still believe a kind on environment VAT tax on environment goods the answer. Its only about £34 million quid after all that's collected, a pittance really; there are better ways of collecting it. . The more I think about it the more I think this is a stupid license given all that goes on to collect it. The naming shaming, the criminality, the court time, the waste of taxpayers money, the admin costs etc, all for £34 million quid, stupid nonsense. PS-I once watched a Green Wood-PECKER fly out of a tree followed by a Sparrow Hawk. That Wood-PECKER out-flew and out smarted that Sparrow Hawk. they are also expert peckers---That crow is in disguise! ---adios.
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 06/07/2014 06:58:18
avatar
If I can put those in the picture that missed it, the crow went fishing recently with his grand kids, using nets and jam jars. None of them needed a licences to do so... For some reason the believes this is a great big joke. Jokes are usually funny, but that's when they are delivered by funny people. Btw, I still haven't worked out whether the crow is a hen bird or a cock.
Steve Ruff on 06/07/2014 07:27:08
avatar
Is everyone getting the banner add at the top of their screens to the site below ? Get rid of Crows | Crow Deterrent Problems | Crow Away
Peter Jacobs on 06/07/2014 08:01:01
avatar
Moderation note: No names, no pack drill but: Please review the T&C's of this Site, particularly 6.1 the final paragraph as follows: "Persistent posting of an irrelevant, disruptive or fragmented nature may result in the expulsion of any member, and the decision as to what may or may not be deemed irrelevant, disruptive or fragmented will be that of the administrators." Thanks.
stu_the_blank on 06/07/2014 11:25:58
avatar
Mark, It goes back a long way, the current system is an amalgamation of previous systems, when I started you needed a local river board licence, dozens of them, they followed County lines in my part of the world, (except the free sections of the lower Thames and probably a few other places), this morphed into a system where you needed a separate licence for each Water Board area (Thames, Severn/Trent, Wessex etc), and ended up where we are, a universal licence to fund the fisheriesdept of the EA. It has followed the various ways the Govt paid for the service. The main flaw in your plan is how you define what is taxed and how you decide how to divvy the money out. I'm sure a lot of non anglers would object to paying a tax to fund us. Agree that the current system isn't perfect but be careful what you wish for. The numbers of licences sold has plumetted in recent years, not so long ago there were supposedly 4M of us. Now 1.25M licences! that is a massive drop. If we still had 4M licence holders, that would equate to over £100M. Even for the Govt. that would be a significant amount of money. Chumley, thanks, I thought that it was probably along these lines. Funny? It's bordering on pathetic. Steve, yes, it's down the side on my screen! Do I believe in coincidence? Not usually. Does it work?:D Pete, I hope that this doesn't fall foul of your rules! Over and out! Stu
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 06/07/2014 11:26:21
avatar
Well you can all go on and on about Licence dodgers, it won't change a thing. For far to long the EA have failed to check anglers for a licence, having this blitz may catch one or two out, but at what cost ?? I think that angling all round has to do more to help. 1, You can't join any club, syndicate, etc etc, unless you show your licence first. 2, You should have to produce your licence when buying tackle bait etc etc. Once your local shop has seen your licence you wouldn't need it again until it's time to buy a new one. 3, Day ticket waters ask to see the licence before you fish, or before you get a ticket. As some waters your fishing and get the ticket on the bank. 4, No Angler can take part in a match without showing his licence at the draw, before fishing. My licence is in my wallet, so i am never without it, its not rocket science. Those who don't buy a licence, fail to do so at their own risk. Until angling does more for itself as above, the dodgers will carry on getting away with it. For the EA to do more, we have to help, the trade want our cash, they need us, they also need to help. If these few simple steps are to much, then angling is going no where, and not one of them cost a penny to Implement.
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 06/07/2014 11:51:38
avatar
Ray How does no 3 work on a 117 acre reservoir with one serve yourself ticket machine and a bailiff that checks tickets on the bank on his walk round. Ie he is not sat at one point selling tickets and able to check licenses before.
nicepix on 06/07/2014 12:02:22
avatar
The only time I had my rod licence checked in the UK was on Dam Flask. The bailiff asked for proof of my having a licence. I told him if he could prove there were fish in Dam Flask I'd show him my licence. Otherwise I couldn't possibly be fishing :D Over here in France the Guard de Peche regularly are out checking for anglers fishing without a licence. And as Sam has described, they tend to frequent the popular spots, not the remote areas.
Steve Ruff on 06/07/2014 13:01:05
avatar
No axe to grind or hidden agenda here (and parking any side issues for the moment) but if an organisation such as the Angling Trust were to work with fisheries / clubs etc to make it compulsory for licences to be properly verified before you can fish would that make you more likely to join that organisation ? It needs sorting but no matter how strong we as individuals feel about it without there being a a group who can make it happen things almost certainly won't change - it is a real shame that we even have to debate how to manage this issue but that is where we are at. I am on the fence at the moment about joining the Angling Trust .... If they could sort this I would join. I really don't want this turning into a full on debate / slanging match on the pro's and con's of the Angling Trust but if an organisation has the required weight to make a difference here why wouldn't they get our support ? (Kevlar helmet now on by the way)
stu_the_blank on 06/07/2014 13:46:55
avatar
Steve, They can only work with clubs who are members. Only the Govt (EA) can make it compulsory. I suppose you would have to make the owners and clubs responsible for putting robust systems in place to ensure compliance. This would require everybody to buy into it. In return, I would like to see access to the licence database made available to owners/clubs etc who would be responsible. Please don't mention data protection, the Govt can get around this when they want to, otherwise DVLA wouldn't be selling your details! As a representative of an ATr member syndicate, we have been consulted on this issue amongst others, I believe that they are working with the EA on this. We do need a more efficient way of achieving compliance. As I stated before (may have been on on the other recent licence thread) I think that more policing by owners, clubs etc will be the eventual way forward. Ray's post covers most of the likely scenario's. A bar code on the licence and a reader on the ticket machine would be one way around Chumley's point but these are detail. There are way's around most problem's, if not all. The current system is expensive and hit and miss and speaking for my water, unless they turned up with bolt cutters (if they can find us!) the EA will never check a licence unanounced! Sorry, I didn't mean to come back onto this thread. Stu
thecrow on 06/07/2014 17:27:25
avatar
If I can put those in the picture that missed it, the crow went fishing recently with his grand kids, using nets and jam jars. None of them needed a licences to do so... For some reason the believes this is a great big joke. Jokes are usually funny, but that's when they are delivered by funny people. Btw, I still haven't worked out whether the crow is a hen bird or a cock. No jam jars were mentioned, yes I think its funny, fools on here jumping to the wrong conclusion, sorry for the late reply been out all day doing well I wont tell you what I have been doing might upset some on here. :wh ---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:23 ---------- Is everyone getting the banner add at the top of their screens to the site below ? Get rid of Crows | Crow Deterrent Problems | Crow Away Oh dear more ruff treatment, :wh ---------- Post added at 18:27 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ---------- No axe to grind or hidden agenda here (and parking any side issues for the moment) but if an organisation such as the Angling Trust were to work with fisheries / clubs etc to make it compulsory for licences to be properly verified before you can fish would that make you more likely to join that organisation ? It needs sorting but no matter how strong we as individuals feel about it without there being a a group who can make it happen things almost certainly won't change - it is a real shame that we even have to debate how to manage this issue but that is where we are at. I am on the fence at the moment about joining the Angling Trust .... If they could sort this I would join. I really don't want this turning into a full on debate / slanging match on the pro's and con's of the Angling Trust but if an organisation has the required weight to make a difference here why wouldn't they get our support ? (Kevlar helmet now on by the way) Wont get majority support, jobs for the boys. Well I am so glad that I have been on the minds of some on here while I have been out today, its been a very successful day all in all one I shall repeat very soon. seems some are having problems with things sticking in their craw, must be awful cause theres nowt you can do about it
black kettle on 06/07/2014 17:43:12
avatar
Some years ago, perhaps 12 years ago maybe more, I knew this guy who would travel to the Lincolnshire fens to fish for pike. Many of us who have fished there know what the fens are like. Mile after mile of featureless landscape punctuated with the odd cottage and rows of telegraph poles all leaning to the South. This particular chap was used to isolation and it was rare for him to see another soul out fishing along the drains that he fished. Perhaps the passing of the postman going by in his van or the odd tractor was about the only form of human contact he would experience as he went about his pike fishing adventures in the depths of winter. Then one day in January with a light scattering of snow all around he heard a vehicle draw up. The chap got out of his car and approached him as he sat watching his collection of rods strung out along the bank. "Hello there", said the stranger. "Can you tell me why you are using five rods for your fishing?" At this point the intrepid pike angler known for his sense of dry humour replied, "I'm only using five because that's all I could carry", he said with a smile. He wasn't smiling for long however when the chap produced his EA warrant card. The pike angler had a fishing license but not one that covered the use of five rods! Subsequently when appearing before the magistrates he was fined together with costs totaling £840. This guy thought he was safe miles from anywhere with no other anglers around.
Steve Ruff on 06/07/2014 17:47:00
avatar
There is always the ignore list:wh Stu Seems to work as well.
stu_the_blank on 06/07/2014 18:01:33
avatar
Seems to work as well. It does. A nice warm feeling knowing he's crawing to himself. Stu
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 06/07/2014 22:31:06
avatar
Ray How does no 3 work on a 117 acre reservoir with one serve yourself ticket machine and a bailiff that checks tickets on the bank on his walk round. Ie he is not sat at one point selling tickets and able to check licenses before. It works when the bailiff gets to him/her, if they haven't a valid licence they are off, day ticket paid for or not. If tackle shops check, then it's harder for anglers to get some baits, it's about the whole of angling working together with the EA, after all, it's us that are losing out also remember. As for anglers buying on line, all rod licences have a 9 digit number on them. To buy on line, you would have to enter your 9 digit number, just as you do with your card details to buy on line, it's simple, and wouldn't cost the trade a penny to have on their web sites. All i ever hear from the trade is how bad things are, but they are quick enough to take your money, quick enough to put up prices, but slow or do nothing to help angling as a whole. Don't talk about sponsorship, thats just marketing their products, and brings in far more money than they pay out. If the EA could make it law so that every club, syndicate, tackle shop, etc etc, took part, then your on the way to winning the war, without it, you've lost, and it is pointless ever talking about it again. I think you should also have to show your licence when going to tackle shows, as it one i forgot :)
binka on 06/07/2014 22:34:32
avatar
No jam jars were mentioned, yes I think its funny, fools on here jumping to the wrong conclusion, sorry for the late reply been out all day doing well I wont tell you what I have been doing might upset some on here. I hope this doesn't fall foul Peter, i'll stick to the facts... I won't refer to this person as he has others in his post above but I think that, for balance, it should be noted and emphasised that in the thread he refers to Crow was sussed out regarding having a legitimate reason for fishing without a valid rod licence well before he was eventually backed into the corner where he had to resort to not disclosing what it actually was when asked directly... the posts are there to prove it without having to quote them or make this a cross thread issue but Crow has mentioned it and so I think it's only fair to respond in a constructive and factual, non-derogatory manner particularly considering his above reference to other forum members. This in my mind then turned the thread into a pantomime as the subject related to fishing without a valid rod licence and to offer the select information which he once again did, knowing full well that he wasn't using a rod (if that was indeed the case) was in my opinion nothing less than deliberately misleading and took the thread off course in relation to it's intended context. To make matters worse it wasn't the first time that he had attempted the same thing in that particular thread and it wasn't the first time he failed albeit in the latter instance after being pushed to the last common denominator. I think the fact that he states he thinks it's "funny" really just sums it all up and interesting too to note that in the said thread Crow made an earlier comment in relation to not being a Troll (following the first incidence) before any mention of the word that I can recall from anyone else. A guilty conscience perhaps? Crow has fooled no one in my opinion except himself... He is however under no obligation to see it that way. It does though make a mockery of, and ruin threads, if people set out to deliberately mislead and that's without even mentioning the quality and integrity of the forums... I for one hope that the practice ceases, personal amusement or not. End of.
sam vimes on 06/07/2014 22:44:54
avatar
If tackle shops check, then it's harder for anglers to get some baits, it's about the whole of angling working together with the EA, after all, it's us that are losing out also remember. As for anglers buying on line, all rod licences have a 9 digit number on them. To buy on line, you would have to enter your 9 digit number, just as you do with your card details to buy on line, it's simple, and wouldn't cost the trade a penny to have on their web sites. I can't see that being workable and it would cost the trade. It would cost them in sales and web site alterations aren't usually free. To have any meaning, and stop people entering any old nine digit number, there would need to be some tie in to the reality of what makes for a valid number. That would also add further to website costs. Plenty of non-licence holders legitimately buy fishing gear for others. It would also be impossible for a legitimately non-licence holding youngster (under the age of a licence being a requirement) to have their non-angling parents buy them any gear or bait. As the only angler in a family, it would also make my birthdays and Christmases an endless round of stuff I don't really want!;):D
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 06/07/2014 23:38:44
avatar
The EA check list for licence numbers could be down loaded to shops websites, so you couldn't add any old number, that wouldn't cost anything. To add the licence number to a website shouldn't cost anything, as most website have to have updates weekly to keep up with offers etc etc. You would still get your goodies for your birthday and christmas, just put the number on every wall around the house a few weeks before the event ;) As for kids, they say never work with kids, BLOODY KIDS :omg:, i will think of something.
sam vimes on 07/07/2014 00:24:38
avatar
The EA check list for licence numbers could be down loaded to shops websites, so you couldn't add any old number, that wouldn't cost anything. To add the licence number to a website shouldn't cost anything, as most website have to have updates weekly to keep up with offers etc etc. The EA are unlikely to allow the necessary link to their database to any Tom Dick or Harry simply because they are in the tackle trade. Even if a shop does their own web site, there are costs involved. For argument's sake I'll take it that the EA would allow a link. To allow a cross reference isn't as simple as adding a few blank boxes. It'll take time to do and whoever does it is being paid for that time. If, as many shops will do, much of the technical stuff is outsourced, they'll end up paying through the nose for what seems like an easy addition. Besides the purely hypothetical, buying fishing gear is perfectly allowable without a licence. Only when it's used in England/Wales is a licence required. A change in the law would be necessary to force anything else. If that came about the trade would suffer in a multitude of ways (no sales from outside of England/Wales, no present buying by non-anglers). It could also lead to a ridiculous scenario of someone with no licence being able to buy from Europe, the USA etc and even Scotland (no licencing in Scotland) but not from his local shop. Then there are private sales to consider. If they weren't to make a mockery of the new system, individual sellers would somehow have to check that a buyer had a licence. I can't see that happening somehow. It may initially seem a good idea but it really is a non-starter for a multitude of reasons.
markg on 07/07/2014 06:54:02
avatar
Last Monday and yesterday I followed a river for a mile on the bus and fished. Its free fishing, nice grassy banks, lovely weather and lays between two small towns. Last Monday I saw two other anglers fishing together and yesterday not one on all this wonderful free fishing. Once upon a time there would have been family's fishing and picnicking. Two years ago the EA put red signs up all over the place warning about fishing the close season with I think it was £50,000 max fines. Yesterday I noticed more signs about licenses and the close season with I think it was £25,000 for license. There are other reasons for lack of anglers I know but, this does give off a bad vibe for local people and family's who may want to fish and picnic on a nice Sunday afternoon. Stu the bank says licenses are down from 4 million to 1.25 million. If right, that's pretty damning. Instead of looking for more draconian measures to check licenses, increase fines and punishments, more rules etc. We should be looking for the opposite. Just my opinion. Years ago there were several licenses, and the national one was a good move. I am sure in that easier, less draconian era, if you were found not to have a license for the first time by the local policeman or owner, you would be told to clear off and come back when you had one. Now we have court cases, naming and shaming, £50, 000 max fines, crackdowns and cant buy a packet of hooks without being policed. I have respect for the latter's intentions but, its not progress in my opinion, more like regress. Nobody took these things so seriously once upon a time, crackdowns were reserved for serious crimes and the river Thames of my childhood would be packed with family's on a sunny Sunday afternoon fishing and having fun. Yep, fun, that's not a word I find easy to associate with fishing these days; nor do I think erstwhile prospective new comers to the hobby.
thecrow on 07/07/2014 07:37:15
avatar
It works when the bailiff gets to him/her, if they haven't a valid licence they are off, day ticket paid for or not. If tackle shops check, then it's harder for anglers to get some baits, it's about the whole of angling working together with the EA, after all, it's us that are losing out also remember. As for anglers buying on line, all rod licences have a 9 digit number on them. To buy on line, you would have to enter your 9 digit number, just as you do with your card details to buy on line, it's simple, and wouldn't cost the trade a penny to have on their web sites. All i ever hear from the trade is how bad things are, but they are quick enough to take your money, quick enough to put up prices, but slow or do nothing to help angling as a whole. Don't talk about sponsorship, thats just marketing their products, and brings in far more money than they pay out. If the EA could make it law so that every club, syndicate, tackle shop, etc etc, took part, then your on the way to winning the war, without it, you've lost, and it is pointless ever talking about it again. I think you should also have to show your licence when going to tackle shows, as it one i forgot :) That's the only way that would work, nothing else will. ---------- Post added at 08:24 ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 ---------- I hope this doesn't fall foul Peter, i'll stick to the facts... I won't refer to this person as he has others in his post above but I think that, for balance, it should be noted and emphasised that in the thread he refers to Crow was sussed out regarding having a legitimate reason for fishing without a valid rod licence well before he was eventually backed into the corner where he had to resort to not disclosing what it actually was when asked directly... the posts are there to prove it without having to quote them or make this a cross thread issue but Crow has mentioned it and so I think it's only fair to respond in a constructive and factual, non-derogatory manner particularly considering his above reference to other forum members. This in my mind then turned the thread into a pantomime as the subject related to fishing without a valid rod licence and to offer the select information which he once again did, knowing full well that he wasn't using a rod (if that was indeed the case) was in my opinion nothing less than deliberately misleading and took the thread off course in relation to it's intended context. To make matters worse it wasn't the first time that he had attempted the same thing in that particular thread and it wasn't the first time he failed albeit in the latter instance after being pushed to the last common denominator. I think the fact that he states he thinks it's "funny" really just sums it all up and interesting too to note that in the said thread Crow made an earlier comment in relation to not being a Troll (following the first incidence) before any mention of the word that I can recall from anyone else. A guilty conscience perhaps? Crow has fooled no one in my opinion except himself... He is however under no obligation to see it that way. It does though make a mockery of, and ruin threads, if people set out to deliberately mislead and that's without even mentioning the quality and integrity of the forums... I for one hope that the practice ceases, personal amusement or not. End of. Binka you really are taking this far to seriously, its fishing that's all, lots of things will happen today that are far worse than not having a rod licence, and not all of them will result in a prosecution. you yourself might exceed the speed limit and not get caught. Tell you what I will buy a rod licence when the EA start doing their job correctly, I will not give them my money until then and even if I do get caught and fined I will pay up happy in the knowledgr that the EA wont be getting it. ---------- Post added at 08:32 ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 ---------- Last Monday and yesterday I followed a river for a mile on the bus and fished. Its free fishing, nice grassy banks, lovely weather and lays between two small towns. Last Monday I saw two other anglers fishing together and yesterday not one on all this wonderful free fishing. Once upon a time there would have been family's fishing and picnicking. Two years ago the EA put red signs up all over the place warning about fishing the close season with I think it was £50,000 max fines. Yesterday I noticed more signs about licenses and the close season with I think it was £25,000 for license. There are other reasons for lack of anglers I know but, this does give off a bad vibe for local people and family's who may want to fish and picnic on a nice Sunday afternoon. Stu the bank says licenses are down from 4 million to 1.25 million. If right, that's pretty damning. Instead of looking for more draconian measures to check licenses, increase fines and punishments, more rules etc. We should be looking for the opposite. Just my opinion. Years ago there were several licenses, and the national one was a good move. I am sure in that easier, less draconian era, if you were found not to have a license for the first time by the local policeman or owner, you would be told to clear off and come back when you had one. Now we have court cases, naming and shaming, £50, 000 max fines, crackdowns and cant buy a packet of hooks without being policed. I have respect for the latter's intentions but, its not progress in my opinion, more like regress. Nobody took these things so seriously once upon a time, crackdowns were reserved for serious crimes and the river Thames of my childhood would be packed with family's on a sunny Sunday afternoon fishing and having fun. Yep, fun, that's not a word I find easy to associate with fishing these days; nor do I think erstwhile prospective new comers to the hobby. What they are doing isn't working then is it? you may be correct that other ways should be looked at. ---------- Post added at 08:37 ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 ---------- Seems to work as well. No peeking ....:D
Ray Wood 1 on 07/07/2014 10:14:19
avatar
Morning All, Interesting topic, how do we eradicate license dodgers? Simple answer is you won’t, not until the EA. have enough funding to have enough staff on the ground out there checking. The last time I had my license checked was by Anglian Water when you needed a license for every water authority in the UK. I have never ever seen an EA. bailiff let alone be checked by one so license dodging will I’m afraid just go on. Should the tackle shops and fishing clubs be made responsible, absolutely not why should they do the EA’s job? Do you seriously think such a scheme could work, do you think that a tackle shop owner or a member of staff will have the time to checked through a list if one was made available by the EA.? Such a list would be updating all the time as not everyone buys their license at the same time. A friend of mine owns a very busy tackle shop in East London, I put it to him would he be prepared to only sell bait and tackle to persons producing a rod license or if he would be prepared to do a check of any list of valid licenses if the EA. provided such a list. I won’t use the expletives he used to tell me just what he thought of that idea, he was adamant that he would not do either. I run a business for myself and I am not prepared to be an unpaid skivvy for the EA. they need to get their own house in order regarding license dodging. While these suggestions might sound go ideas they really are not workable and I’m afraid that license dodging is a symptom of the society we now find ourselves living in. This sort of thing goes on in all sorts of ways, drivers uninsured and untaxed fare dodgers on trains and busses are just a few examples. Not things the law abiding among us like, but something we have to reluctantly accept and pay the price for via increase insurance premiums and fares. Perhaps we should be living in George Orwell's 1984 where we would all be chip implanted to never break the rules for fear of being erased from the human race. That might very well suit some, but not this free spirit.:ohno: Kind regards Ray
sam vimes on 07/07/2014 11:04:01
avatar
how do we eradicate license dodgers? Simple answer is you won’t, not until the EA. have enough funding to have enough staff on the ground out there checking. You could eradicate licence dodgers quite easily, do away with licences completely. Much as it annoys me that so many seem to get away without paying, it also happens to irritate me that I have to pay it at all. I can't think of any other remotely similar activity that requires a licence (shotgun licences/firearms certificates aren't a good comparison). The prospect of seeing a golf club or cricket bat licence amuses me no end. Neither would be any more a ridiculous concept. I'm afraid that I'm also sceptical that I've ever really seen any benefit to my fishing from the EA fisheries funding I've contributed to. I don't recall any of the stillwater fisheries I've frequented ever requiring or receiving EA help. Rivers to the north (Skerne, Tees, Wear, Tyne) and south (Aire, Calder, Don, Foss, Nidd) of me seem to get a massively disproportionate amount of money thrown at them compared to my more local Swale and Ure. Much as I understand that taxes generally work this way (for the greater good etc), and that's exactly what the rod licence is, it doesn't necessarily make it any more palatable. In some instances it seems to be good money thrown after bad, particularly in the case of the Skerne. Despite all the money thrown at them, you generally find the Swale and Ure chock full of anglers from places closer to the other rivers that do seem to have cash thrown at them.
Ray Wood 1 on 07/07/2014 11:16:34
avatar
You could eradicate licence dodgers quite easily, do away with licences completely. What are you suggesting then Sam? To do away with the rod license and replace it with what or nothing as the case my be? If the rod license was scrapped and the revenue not raised in some other way the EA. would have even less funding for the many projects they undertake so in the long run all our waters be they still or flowing suffer. Is that really an option, not in my book no way José. While I agree that having to have a rod license is a pain and that some other activities do not require a license, but I do not see any other working option on the horizon. So Sam what do you see happening if the rod license was scrapped? Regards Ray
Steve Ruff on 07/07/2014 11:32:52
avatar
Really no need to over egg the omelette here – try and keep things as simple as possible. When you go fishing you need to take along with you evidence that you have a valid rod licence - ideally the actual licence itself. It’s like going fishing but not actually taking your rod along with you : It is just part of what you need to take along when you go fishing – if you forget your rod you go home and get it ... Why not the same with the fishing licence. I know it’s likely to be a bit of a pain for the fishery to administer but I think they need to play their part and, as mentioned before, it will almost certainly improve the quality of who actually uses their fishery. The fishery would have a fair and reasonable system in place to demonstrate that they are actually doing checks to see if the person who wants to fish actually has a licence. If a person is found fishing who has not got a licence there are potential consequences for that person – If a fishery owner cannot demonstrate that they have a fair and reasonable system in place to check licences those consequences could impact them as well as they are effectively allowing the person to fish without a licence. Or we could do nothing and still be debating this in five years’ time.
sam vimes on 07/07/2014 11:33:17
avatar
What are you suggesting then Sam? To do away with the rod license and replace it with what or nothing as the case my be? If the rod license was scrapped and the revenue not raised in some other way the EA. would have even less funding for the many projects they undertake so in the long run all our waters be they still or flowing suffer. Is that really an option, not in my book no way José. While I agree that having to have a rod license is a pain and that some other activities do not require a license, but I do not see any other working option on the horizon. So Sam what do you see happening if the rod license was scrapped? Regards Ray In the same way as my rod licence money seems to be distributed away from the places I'm bothered about, normal governmental tax revenue could easily fund the EA Fisheries department. The thirty odd million quid it supposedly amounts to is, in reality, a drop in the ocean. Then you could consider the massive savings to be made by not administering and enforcing a licencing system. I appreciate that some tax payers would moan, but, as I noted earlier, tax distribution is supposedly about the greater good, not even and equitable redistribution. Alternatively, just as they have to on a stillwater, river landowners (or their agents, clubs, syndicates etc) fund fisheries work themselves. It's a very strange situation to have a govermnent/angler (the customer) funded department trying to improve something that belongs to and financially benefits private individuals. It's akin to me going to a pub and not liking the decor, so refusing to go back, only to find that a government department, using public money, has paid for a renovation. That may be for the greater good, but no one would stand for it.
thecrow on 07/07/2014 13:27:18
avatar
If the licence tax was abolished the revenue could be easily recouped by not sending overseas aid to countries that harbour terrorists or plan to send a rocket to Mars.
Ray Wood 1 on 07/07/2014 15:32:18
avatar
In the same way as my rod licence money seems to be distributed away from the places I'm bothered about, normal governmental tax revenue could easily fund the EA Fisheries department. The thirty odd million quid it supposedly amounts to is, in reality, a drop in the ocean. Then you could consider the massive savings to be made by not administering and enforcing a licencing system. I appreciate that some tax payers would moan, but, as I noted earlier, tax distribution is supposedly about the greater good, not even and equitable redistribution. So Sam, your answer to the problem is to place the burden on the tax payers in the UK for you and I to enjoy our passion for angling. Central Government raised tax seems to me to be already struggling to pay for our NHS and many other services we all enjoy. Why should anyone expect the already over taxed workers of this country to subsidise a pass time most don’t participate in? Angling is already viewed by most as a worm at one end and a fool at the other end. So I recon there would be more than a few disgruntled tax payers out there if they found themselves paying more tax due to angling. In my honest opinion the license fee should be doubled at least, £27.00 for a years fishing is a pittance, I would wager that many amongst us (those who know how to enjoy themselves) spend more than that a week on cigarettes or in the pub on a Friday or Saturday night. If you expect a better license checking service from the EA be prepared to pay for it. Regards Ray
bennygesserit on 07/07/2014 15:49:52
avatar
The license fee paid by anglers is protected income destined to be of "benefit" to anglers and anglers alone , mostly , if we don't pay it no one else will. That said , elite canoeing gets 21 million and I dread to think what the Arts Council gets , so maybe there is a case for no self funding - its a risk though. The license itself relies on people wanting to be honest , I do , I want to relax and enjoy my fishing , more bailiffs means an ever diminishing set of returns, syndicates and clubs that force evidence of a license are the route to go I think - for the greater good of angling.
sam vimes on 07/07/2014 16:04:40
avatar
So Sam, your answer to the problem is to place the burden on the tax payers in the UK for you and I to enjoy our passion for angling. Central Government raised tax seems to me to be already struggling to pay for our NHS and many other services we all enjoy. Why should anyone expect the already over taxed workers of this country to subsidise a pass time most don’t participate in? Angling is already viewed by most as a worm at one end and a fool at the other end. So I recon there would be more than a few disgruntled tax payers out there if they found themselves paying more tax due to angling. In my honest opinion the license fee should be doubled at least, £27.00 for a years fishing is a pittance, I would wager that many amongst us (those who know how to enjoy themselves) spend more than that a week on cigarettes or in the pub on a Friday or Saturday night. If you expect a better license checking service from the EA be prepared to pay for it. Regards Ray No, you've not read it properly. As it stands, the EA do virtually nothing to enhance my fishing. My licence money disappears and I essentially get nothing, other than a couple of bits of paper, for it. Whilst I see little real issue in central taxes paying the pittance that the EA fisheries get (other things get plenty of government tax money thrown at them), particularly if there were no ongoing licence admin and enforcement costs, I don't see why the landowners that benefit financially from our largesse shouldn't foot the bill. If the EA improve a fishery, it's the landowners that ultimately benefit by ending up with a better fishery that they can then extract more money from us to fish. In effect we are paying to improve their capability to extract more money from us. An absolute farce of a situation. If all waters that the EA help were open access, it would be an entirely different prospect. The reality is that only tiny fraction of water has free access. If, as the EA often try to claim, their work is about wider environmental improvements, there's no reason whatsoever why it shouldn't be centrally funded. The only reason that people tolerate the licence system is because we've always had it. Logically, as a system, it doesn't actually hold much water. If it had never existed, and were to be introduced now, based on the bizarre reasoning for it, limited monetary return, difficulties in policing it and costs of administering, no one would stand for it. ---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ---------- The license fee paid by anglers is protected income destined to be of "benefit" to anglers and anglers alone. I understand this to be the case. Unfortunately, there have been a few suggestions recently that this may not actually be what's happening. It looks a distinct possibility that anglers may have helped fund dredging and flood defence work on the Somerset levels.
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 07/07/2014 16:11:26
avatar
Well Ray Wood, you have all the this won't work, but none of the what may work. Why should club, syndicates etc etc check for a licence?? very simple, because it benefits angling, and stops anglers from fishing without a licence. It isn't just doing the work of the EA, it's keeping anglers who haven't got a licence from fishing club waters when others have got a licence. The tackle shops may be a step to far, but i don't see you coming up with anything any better.:omg: The EA are never going to get the funding to check all waters, so clubs etc etc could help by doing their bit, members turn up to pay their fee's, not hard to take your licence along at the same time is it. I have no idea where people get 4 million anglers from, who ever gave that figure out, must be on something that the drug Baron's don't know about. Tackle shops selling the rod licence and other outlets ?? been done before, it seems that since the post office only selling the licence, has given us more Licence dodgers. You can buy tackle from over seas now, and more anglers are, so showing a licence in a tackle shop won't change that at all.
Ray Wood 1 on 07/07/2014 16:23:36
avatar
No, you've not read it properly. Funny, I saw that one coming. I don't think I misread anything, you want central government raised taxes to cover the EA. I don’t think that is the way to go. I have given my honest opinion, the fee should be increased not abolished with the burden placed on tax payers who don’t participate in angling. Until a workable solution to license dodging is found I along with every other honest angler will pay my licence fee even though the money is spread over many areas and not just where I fish and hope that the greater good of angling benefits. Regards Ray
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 07/07/2014 16:30:27
avatar
the fee should be increased not abolished with the burden placed on tax payers who don’t participate in angling. Anyone paying taxes in the UK contributes to services that they don't use. Working people with no kids pay taxes that contribute to education, child benefit, nhs care, etc. If the EA was funded by the big tax pot rather than anglers then it would be 'richer' and better resourced. Perhaps it is time to scrap the rod license...and the close season while they're at it. But then again, perhaps we have the upper hand against canoeists because we pay and they don't (the otters and the seals don't pay either).
bennygesserit on 07/07/2014 16:35:20
avatar
Anyone paying taxes in the UK contributes to services that they don't use. Working people with no kids pay taxes that contribute to education, child benefit, nhs care, etc. If the EA was funded by the big tax pot rather than anglers then it would be 'richer' and better resourced. Perhaps it is time to scrap the rod license...and the close season while they're at it. But then again, perhaps we have the upper hand against canoeists because we pay and they don't (the otters and the seals don't pay either). Yes but the canoeists get more money
Ray Wood 1 on 07/07/2014 16:45:04
avatar
Anyone paying taxes in the UK contributes to services that they don't use. Working people with no kids pay taxes that contribute to education, child benefit, nhs care, etc. If the EA was funded by the big tax pot rather than anglers then it would be 'richer' and better resourced. Perhaps it is time to scrap the rod license...and the close season while they're at it. But then again, perhaps we have the upper hand against canoeists because we pay and they don't (the otters and the seals don't pay either). Why don’t we scrap all forms of licensing then, lets start with the farcical TV license paid to the BBC who show only repeats then there’s the driving license that many don’t posses. Don’t start about the close season again:):ohno: Regards Ray
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 07/07/2014 16:54:37
avatar
Maybe they should scrap the license for normal fishing, to encourage more people to go fishing, but then introduce special licenses for barbel and carp anglers.
thecrow on 07/07/2014 16:55:13
avatar
No, you've not read it properly. As it stands, the EA do virtually nothing to enhance my fishing. My licence money disappears and I essentially get nothing, other than a couple of bits of paper, for it. Whilst I see little real issue in central taxes paying the pittance that the EA fisheries get (other things get plenty of government tax money thrown at them), particularly if there were no ongoing licence admin and enforcement costs, I don't see why the landowners that benefit financially from our largesse shouldn't foot the bill. If the EA improve a fishery, it's the landowners that ultimately benefit by ending up with a better fishery that they can then extract more money from us to fish. In effect we are paying to improve their capability to extract more money from us. An absolute farce of a situation. If all waters that the EA help were open access, it would be an entirely different prospect. The reality is that only tiny fraction of water has free access. If, as the EA often try to claim, their work is about wider environmental improvements, there's no reason whatsoever why it shouldn't be centrally funded. The only reason that people tolerate the licence system is because we've always had it. Logically, as a system, it doesn't actually hold much water. If it had never existed, and were to be introduced now, based on the bizarre reasoning for it, limited monetary return, difficulties in policing it and costs of administering, no one would stand for it. ---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ---------- I understand this to be the case. Unfortunately, there have been a few suggestions recently that this may not actually be what's happening. It looks a distinct possibility that anglers may have helped fund dredging and flood defence work on the Somerset levels.[/QUOTE] And previously the reintroduction of otters!!!
Ray Daywalker Clarke on 07/07/2014 17:02:48
avatar
Scrap the rod licence ??? then have the tax payer pay, your having a laugh. You would have every tom dick and harry fishing where and when they want, and there would be no control what so ever. People would just fish club waters etc etc, members or not, because they pay tax, and thats just how many would see it, just as the licence dodger does now. Putting the cost up wouldn't make more anglers buy a licence, more like less will buy a licence. If the fine was the same for all dodgers, £2000, as is stated that's what it could be, then they would think twice about buying a licence next time if caught without one. This is another go round and round threads.
The bad one on 07/07/2014 17:04:44
avatar
No, you've not read it properly. As it stands, the EA do virtually nothing to enhance my fishing. My licence money disappears and I essentially get nothing, other than a couple of bits of paper, for it. Whilst I see little real issue in central taxes paying the pittance that the EA fisheries get (other things get plenty of government tax money thrown at them), particularly if there were no ongoing licence admin and enforcement costs, I don't see why the landowners that benefit financially from our largesse shouldn't foot the bill. If the EA improve a fishery, it's the landowners that ultimately benefit by ending up with a better fishery that they can then extract more money from us to fish. In effect we are paying to improve their capability to extract more money from us. An absolute farce of a situation. If all waters that the EA help were open access, it would be an entirely different prospect. The reality is that only tiny fraction of water has free access. If, as the EA often try to claim, their work is about wider environmental improvements, there's no reason whatsoever why it shouldn't be centrally funded. The only reason that people tolerate the licence system is because we've always had it. Logically, as a system, it doesn't actually hold much water. If it had never existed, and were to be introduced now, based on the bizarre reasoning for it, limited monetary return, difficulties in policing it and costs of administering, no one would stand for it. ---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ---------- I understand this to be the case. Unfortunately, there have been a few suggestions recently that this may not actually be what's happening. It looks a distinct possibility that anglers may have helped fund dredging and flood defence work on the Somerset levels.[/QUOTE] And previously the reintroduction of otters!!! And neither of which there's any evidence of, it's pure speculation on the part of the posters.
stu_the_blank on 07/07/2014 19:18:19
avatar
Maybe they should scrap the license for normal fishing, to encourage more people to go fishing, but then introduce special licenses for barbel and carp anglers. But Chumley, I always fish with two hair rigged 20mm boilies for Roach:D:omg: My this thread has improved since I 'ignored' Corvidae. If you guys could refrain from quoting him, I wouldn't have a clue what the latest peck (troll) was. Bliss;) I believe that moves are afoot to pass some of the responsibility for checking to clubs and landownwers, if properly balanced, IMO a good thing. Stu
cg74 on 07/07/2014 19:36:19
avatar
All this talk of increases in Rod Licence fees is the only way things will improve is a joke. If the EA were more proactive in their duties by charging more for abstraction licences, more for discharge licences and fined or prosecuted ALL cases of pollution! There would be little need for anglers to contribute any money towards upkeep of fisheries! As most, if not all, issues involving rivers are not caused by anglers/angling! Apart from the early spring and hot summer call outs to overstocked (predominantly privately owned) fisheries, there should be no need for a separate Fisheries team, it should be a small section of the Ecological team, one that charges businesses for their services. Here's a few of the EA's pledges: "To manage, maintain and improve fisheries." "Protection of the environment relates to threats such as flood and pollution." "To protect and enhance the environment." "The vision of the Agency is of a rich, healthy and diverse environment for present and future generations." So why should anglers pay anything to right the wrongs of others?
Ray Wood 1 on 07/07/2014 19:38:58
avatar
Maybe they should scrap the license for normal fishing, to encourage more people to go fishing, but then introduce special licenses for barbel and carp anglers. That's a good idea Mr CC, what about a levy on barbel angling guides who charge to guide on club or syndicate waters now that's an even better idea:) I don't have the answers to this problem, which has been going on since the license system was introduced. Scarping the license system is not the answer to the problem. If making it mandatory for clubs and sydicates to check that a prospective member has one is the answer why havent the EA or government implemented such a law? Most fishing clubs can be joined via the internet these days and if you have the time to check I doubt many will be asking for your license details. Regards Ray
black kettle on 07/07/2014 20:02:12
avatar
Condition of fishing club membership that all applicants either new or renewing have to be in possession of an up to date rod license cures this issue once and for all and effective bailiffing ensures a checking procedure is in place. The question is, would all fishing clubs comply? A lot of the clubs I belong to already do with no fuss or bother at all. So why not all? I have worked with EA Fisheries on numerous occasions and they do a fantastic job. Does the revenue raised from rod licenses cover the expenditure for all their work and work that they would like to do? Absolutely not. Getting everyone to buy their rod license would help towards that but I would ask everyone to look back at what has been happening over the last three decades when successive governments have all preached about spending more money on the environment in their election run up manifesto's but once in power have continued their ongoing policies of slashing funding for the environment agency. Its not just fisheries, its the whole organisation that has seen its funding slashed. The future that the EA face is appalling as the organisation gets pushed further and further in between a rock and a hard place. The EA have been warning governments for a long time about the threats coming via global warming. Eminent scientists have been warning of climate change where we will probably see a dramatic rise in rainfall year upon year. Politicians do nothing and merely wait to see if the rivers rise and burst their banks before assuming their now familiar role. One of reaction not pro-action. And still they do nothing apart from leaving the EA to do what they can on the shoe string funding that successive governments have given them.
Judas Priest on 07/07/2014 20:02:27
avatar
Personal view is to increase the price to allow for a decent percentage cut for the outlet/seller, every fishery, tackle outlet etc to be able to sell licences. This way it becomes viable income for those same to put the effort into selling the licenses. Contentious bit is that those fisheries/clubs that are caught allowing members to fish without a current license are fined and repeat performances see them fined and their ability to sell licenses withdrawn. After that they are regularly fined for each breach. This way it ensures they don't sell a ticket to anyone until a valid license is produced.
nicepix on 07/07/2014 20:15:07
avatar
My view is that making retailers police the rod licence issue is not feasible. The tackle trade cannot be held responsible for checking the rod licences of buyers. In my opinion the only feasible way is for EA officers to get out there on the banks and meet some anglers.
barbelboi on 07/07/2014 20:29:53
avatar
My view is that making retailers police the rod licence issue is not feasible. The tackle trade cannot be held responsible for checking the rod licences of buyers. In my opinion the only feasible way is for EA officers to get out there on the banks and meet some anglers. Makes sense to me, as far as my understanding of the law goes I don't believe you need a licence to buy tackle................
sam vimes on 07/07/2014 20:32:23
avatar
And neither of which there's any evidence of, it's pure speculation on the part of the posters. If there's any speculation involved, you'd best get onto The Angler's Mail. They ran a piece on it.
The bad one on 08/07/2014 00:24:17
avatar
Read it! And it was bollox then and bollox now! It made, as the comics always do, unsubstantiated claims.
cg74 on 08/07/2014 06:33:44
avatar
Read it! And it was bollox then and bollox now! It made, as the comics always do, unsubstantiated claims. And do you have evidence to prove your (currently) unsubstantiated claim?
thecrow on 08/07/2014 06:58:28
avatar
All this talk of increases in Rod Licence fees is the only way things will improve is a joke. If the EA were more proactive in their duties by charging more for abstraction licences, more for discharge licences and fined or prosecuted ALL cases of pollution! There would be little need for anglers to contribute any money towards upkeep of fisheries! As most, if not all, issues involving rivers are not caused by anglers/angling! Apart from the early spring and hot summer call outs to overstocked (predominantly privately owned) fisheries, there should be no need for a separate Fisheries team, it should be a small section of the Ecological team, one that charges businesses for their services. Here's a few of the EA's pledges: "To manage, maintain and improve fisheries." "Protection of the environment relates to threats such as flood and pollution." "To protect and enhance the environment." "The vision of the Agency is of a rich, healthy and diverse environment for present and future generations." So why should anglers pay anything to right the wrongs of others? Pledges made by the EA are much like politicians promises they are easily made and just as easily broken, they are worthless. I notice you have yet to receive an answer to your question.
markg on 08/07/2014 07:43:37
avatar
Reading the previous posts since yesterday, all those that want the license scrapped, don't think the EA get enough, rather it was placed on general taxation etc. I still think a VAT environment tax on environment on goods would be the answer. It would include all those who use the environment more than average or harm the environment. Boats, canoes, fishing gear, camping, horse equipment etc. It would probably raise more money for the EA, they would not have to worry about policing. Nor would any one else. No one can dodge it. It would be fair, the more you use/harm the environment -the more you pay. It could be raised or lowered accordingly. I think it could be politically sold as well, given the flooding and other environment problems that most people understand and say they are concerned about these days. Sorry to go on about it but, it just seems to solve everyone's concerns to me.
nicepix on 08/07/2014 08:27:04
avatar
Markg, Why do you think that those who use fishing gear cause more harm to the environment than those who don't?
sam vimes on 08/07/2014 09:44:54
avatar
Reading the previous posts since yesterday, all those that want the license scrapped, don't think the EA get enough, rather it was placed on general taxation etc. I still think a VAT environment tax on environment on goods would be the answer. It would include all those who use the environment more than average or harm the environment. Boats, canoes, fishing gear, camping, horse equipment etc. It would probably raise more money for the EA, they would not have to worry about policing. Nor would any one else. No one can dodge it. It would be fair, the more you use/harm the environment -the more you pay. It could be raised or lowered accordingly. I think it could be politically sold as well, given the flooding and other environment problems that most people understand and say they are concerned about these days. Sorry to go on about it but, it just seems to solve everyone's concerns to me. You don't need an overly complicated extra tax. The government already get the VAT on such goods. You can bet your bottom dollar that the tax raked in from tackle sales far exceeds anything spent by the EA fisheries department. That's before you even consider the taxes that the UK based tackle companies cough up. Plenty of other things see bigger government subsidies without having to pay an extra tax, be it direct taxation or in the form of a licence. I notice that no one is attempting to tackle the suggestion that paying a landowner to fish, whilst at the same time paying a government department to improve the landowners asset, is the most ridiculous situation. I don't blame anyone for not tackling it. As far as I'm concerned, it simply can't be justified. The daft thing is that anglers will generally be happy to see the improvement they've just paid for. They'll also not be surprised when the rents go up, after all, the fishing is so much better than it was!:omg:
nicepix on 08/07/2014 10:33:10
avatar
Interesting last point Sam. The French example is that you need only a rod licence for any river or any lake that has a water course running in and out of it unless that lake has been legally defined as private following the owner applying for such status. You don't need a rod licence (Carte de Peche) to fish private waters. The monies received via anglers buying their Carte de Peche only goes to improving the public waters. Not the private ones. You seem to get more for your money over here. There seems to be more Gardes de Peche, the equivalent of EA bailiffs, and more money being put into improving waters. Also, some of the €90 annual licence fee goes into stocking all the trout rivers every season.
thecrow on 08/07/2014 10:38:14
avatar
When did the fishing tax start? was it one of the old NRA's if it was does anyone know which one?
markg on 08/07/2014 10:51:40
avatar
Markg, Why do you think that those who use fishing gear cause more harm to the environment than those who don't? I thought someone would comment on that, you get to pass go Nicepix. Only joking mate. It was a bit of a throwaway comment. Just thought of all the hobbyist, sportists that use the "environment" over and above "normal people" and maybe do a bit more damage than most. The wash from boats and jet skis erode bank sides which the Ea have to repair. Horses tear up the land scape. Campers also do some minor erosion. Anglers walk the country paths, leave line and rubbish in trees, cause a few fish deaths, pollute the water with excessive ground bait, harm crows etc. Basically anyone who causes the EA extra expense """or just cause more wear and tear on the environment than normal""" could be liable for a special VAT on the goods they buy. Who and what would have to be looked at carefully of course, I am just thinking in general terms. Don't get me wrong, I would hate another tax but, then I save the licence fee and every other country side user is brought into line with anglers. It just seems to tick a lot of boxes whereas the fishing licence doesn't.. Other boxes ticked in no particular order:- Gets rid of a crime Unavoidable, no dodging No worries about forgetting/ finding the licence fee Maybe more funds for the EA No policing costs, inconvenience to anyone, tackle shops, clubs etc. More court time available for more serious crimes. Its fair, the more you use/do, the more you pay. Could be adjusted easily to suit the needs. Personally I wouldn't mind general Vat reduced by 5% and added on to this VAT. Just direct more money to the EA and use it on the environment. Not sure about that one yet, just thought of it.
nicepix on 08/07/2014 11:09:35
avatar
You could add a lot of other hobbies - birdwatching and the illegal off-road motorbikes, neither of which contribute or would contribute to an environmental tax yet both impact on the environment. And taking a wider view; who impacts most on the environment- the couch potato with his 72" plasma TV shipped in from China or the angler walking out of the shop with a Chinese made rod?
The bad one on 08/07/2014 11:50:27
avatar
And do you have evidence to prove your (currently) unsubstantiated claim? Yes the EA and the officers I speak to state all licence money is spent on "fisheries related matters." That I'm willing to accept until proven otherwise and the onus of proof is on those accusing them of not doing by producing evidence to contrary. So if you or any of the others have it produce it! Chinese whispers, speculation by comics and internet title-tackle is not evidence. As the saying goes “the more the untruth it repeated, still doesn’t make it true!" ---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 ---------- When did the fishing tax start? was it one of the old NRA's if it was does anyone know which one? As someone who comes across with such claimed knowledge I'd have expected you know that.
bennygesserit on 08/07/2014 12:05:59
avatar
Pledges made by the EA are much like politicians promises they are easily made and just as easily broken, they are worthless. The EA are an organisation led by politicians
thecrow on 08/07/2014 12:39:02
avatar
Yes the EA and the officers I speak to state all licence money is spent on "fisheries related matters." That I'm willing to accept until proven otherwise and the onus of proof is on those accusing them of not doing by producing evidence to contrary. So if you or any of the others have it produce it! Chinese whispers, speculation by comics and internet title-tackle is not evidence. As the saying goes “the more the untruth it repeated, still doesn’t make it true!" ---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 ---------- As someone who comes across with such claimed knowledge I'd have expected you know that. Blind faith then? I don't claim any knowledge, its you that's bestowing that on me, I must say this mornings sarcasm is of a very low standard, its normally much better ;) ---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ---------- The EA are an organisation led by politicians That's the reason the EA can be trusted as much as politicians :)
The bad one on 08/07/2014 14:45:20
avatar
Blind faith then? I don't claim any knowledge, its you that's bestowing that on me, I must say this mornings sarcasm is of a very low standard, its normally much better ;) ---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ---------- That's the reason the EA can be trusted as much as politicians :) Nope, the balance of probability. But I wait to be corrected on that but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming :rolleyes:
sam vimes on 08/07/2014 14:59:50
avatar
Yes the EA and the officers I speak to state all licence money is spent on "fisheries related matters." That I'm willing to accept until proven otherwise and the onus of proof is on those accusing them of not doing by producing evidence to contrary. So if you or any of the others have it produce it! Chinese whispers, speculation by comics and internet title-tackle is not evidence. As the saying goes “the more the untruth it repeated, still doesn’t make it true!" I've no doubt that the lower management and footsoldiers may well believe it to be the case and tell that to anyone that asks. Ask the majority of soldiers, sailors and airmen why we were in Iraq, Afgahnistan, Kosovo etc and they'll invariably paraphrase party lines, regardless of whether they even believe it to be the truth of the matter. So will the higher echelons, their careers depend on it. I fully accept that revenue from licences is supposed to be ring fenced for angling. However, I don't trust governments (of whatever colour) and the higher management of government institutions to actually keep to that promise. In no way, shape or form is that decrying the efforts and integrity of the actual fisheries departments. Do I have any proof that money has been diverted, of course I don't. Actually getting any proof is highly unlikely, even if it has/is happening. Unfortunately, your final sentence is equally applicable to the opposite possiblity to the one you propose.
thecrow on 08/07/2014 15:27:10
avatar
Nope, the balance of probability. But I wait to be corrected on that but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming :rolleyes: There is no balance other than there is no evidence only anecdotal for whether licence money has been used outside of what its meant for or not. There you are I always try to answer if I can sorry it took so long I was putting my fishing tackle into the car ready for tomorrow. ;)
nicepix on 08/07/2014 15:33:37
avatar
There is no balance other than there is no evidence only anecdotal for whether licence money has been used outside of what its meant for or not. There you are I always try to answer if I can sorry it took so long I was putting my fishing tackle into the car ready for tomorrow. ;) Don't forget your jam jar ;)
thecrow on 08/07/2014 15:35:58
avatar
Don't forget your jam jar ;) Brilliant, that really made me laugh out loud, :D:D:D
The bad one on 08/07/2014 15:48:17
avatar
So here the challenge for you both ask for all the financial breakdown of monies spent by fisheries on what and where under the FOI. Read understand them and find the definitive proof you believe is there and publish on here. And don’t give me any of that its too difficult, you don’t have the time malarkey. The onus is on you to find and publish the evidence, you are the accusers. Otherwise you’re just speculating, pontificating and using unsubstantiated claims. ---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ---------- Don't forget your jam jar ;) May be you lend him a milk bottle instead ;)
thecrow on 08/07/2014 15:55:16
avatar
So here the challenge for you both ask for all the financial breakdown of monies spent by fisheries on what and where under the FOI. Read understand them and find the definitive proof you believe is there and publish on here. And don’t give me any of that its too difficult, you don’t have the time malarkey. The onus is on you to find and publish the evidence, you are the accusers. Otherwise you’re just speculating, pontificating and using unsubstantiated claims. ---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ---------- May be you lend him a milk bottle instead ;) I told you I am going fishing tomorrow, its my first time out this season with rod and line, much more important than what you suggest.;) As you seem to know a lot about the workings of the EA ( that's not sarcasm by the way) can you tell me why when buying a licence on line the EA want to give your details to other organisations? do they receive payment for passing them on?
sam vimes on 08/07/2014 16:02:03
avatar
So here the challenge for you both ask for all the financial breakdown of monies spent by fisheries on what and where under the FOI. Read understand them and find the definitive proof you believe is there and publish on here. And don’t give me any of that its too difficult, you don’t have the time malarkey. The onus is on you to find and publish the evidence, you are the accusers. Otherwise you’re just speculating, pontificating and using unsubstantiated claims. I've made no accusations or claims whatsoever, simply reported what's been suggested elsewhere. I understand this to be the case. Unfortunately, there have been a few suggestions recently that this may not actually be what's happening. It looks a distinct possibility that anglers may have helped fund dredging and flood defence work on the Somerset levels. It's quite nice that you have total faith. In some ways, I wish I could share it. However, I'm am quite surprised at your complete faith in the powers that be (and I don't mean the fisheries teams themselves). The track records of various governments and government departments is hardly as bastions of truth. I've no desire to make an FOI request. I've no faith that, if they bothered to respond, the whole truth, whatever it may be, would be divulged. Having had some small involvement in FOI requests from the other side, I've no faith in them whatsoever. The law can be complied with without resorting to the whole truth. Try sending an FOI request to the MoD as to the justifications for being in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo. I've a fair idea that what you'd get back would be the party line. Would anyone actually believe it? I know I wouldn't.
black kettle on 08/07/2014 16:34:52
avatar
My personal party line is that whilst the members of our armed forces are placed in harms way, I along with the vast majority of our country support them. I certainly would not use or infer their brave participation as some sort of leverage in an argument on a fishing thread about the EA and license dodgers! The very bad man suggests you obtain the relevant proof of your obvious discontent via the FOI act to ease your mind. Trust me, the EA are duty bound by law to furnish you with the truthful documents in this regard. I have myself in the past obtained other documentation of the same nature no problem. The MOD however and the conflicts you choose to highlight do not as they, and information pertained within them, comes under different laws and acts of parliament. You might however try thumping on the ministry doors in London to demand this information but don't be surprised if two very large gentlemen whisk you away with your feet dangling for your trouble. I thought this was a debate about license dodgers?
The bad one on 08/07/2014 16:45:00
avatar
More frothy coffee from both of you! Oh the FOI system doesn’t work, I’m going fishing with rod and line tomorrow. To the first should have read the exceptions re MoD and National Security. I would have given you credit before this statement that you’d have worked that one out that they use the National Security Exception Clause. It’s a no brainer and you should have known that. And I’m the one with “Total Faith!” The EA can’t pull the NSEC one! So you quoting what has been said elsewhere are you? Emmm as I said earlier it’s unsubstantiated Bollox! But don’t let me stop you believing in the God Delusion. To the second, hope you’ve bought a licence to do this. You have haven’t you? If not, hope the manure falls on you from the greatest height possible and the end result is you have to pay many of these ££££££££££££ through it. Really couldn’t think of a nicer person that could happen to.
sam vimes on 08/07/2014 16:47:39
avatar
My personal party line is that whilst the members of our armed forces are placed in harms way, I along with the vast majority of our country support them. I certainly would not use or infer their brave participation as some sort of leverage in an argument on a fishing thread about the EA and license dodgers! The very bad man suggests you obtain the relevant proof of your obvious discontent via the FOI act to ease your mind. Trust me, the EA are duty bound by law to furnish you with the truthful documents in this regard. I have myself in the past obtained other documentation of the same nature no problem. The MOD however and the conflicts you choose to highlight do not as they, and information pertained within them, comes under different laws and acts of parliament. You might however try thumping on the ministry doors in London to demand this information but don't be surprised if two very large gentlemen whisk you away with your feet dangling for your trouble. I thought this was a debate about license dodgers? Black Kettle, think whatever you like. All I can offer as a defence, of my supposed crime, is that, until fairly recently, I was one of their number. I cite the example, because it's something I have first hand experience of. In no way is it a slight on my former brothers in arms.
black kettle on 08/07/2014 17:04:16
avatar
Where does the overall majority of coarse anglers in this county obtain their fishing? Answer? Our fishing clubs. So, without access to the waters that our fishing clubs control the vast majority would have no where to fish? It makes perfect sense then to have the license checking done at source which is right at the waters edge? Club bailiffs do this when checking membership permits or issuing day tickets. No rod license? No fishing. Seeing as some of you enjoy pointless comparisons here's a few; No license. No wedding. No license. No shooting. No License. No driving. No license. No watching telly. No Booze license. No selling booze. Same with tobacco. Then there are the, let me see now? Oh yes,. the 33 licenses that government issue for all sorts that I am aware of. And the God knows how many that I'm not aware of. We are surrounded by licensing that touches all of our lives more than we realise every single day. What is the big deal about rod licenses and getting them checked at source where they are going to be used at club venues. It makes perfect sense to me. No license no fishing period. For God sake will someone wake up someone in the Angling Trust??!! At least they could throw in some suggestions better than mine??? Especially as they were quite happy to use this particular site for their close season argument? ---------- Post added at 10:04 ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 ---------- Then choose your words more carefully next time because that is what it looked like. Respect though to a brother in arms.
nicepix on 08/07/2014 17:15:58
avatar
Black Kettle, think whatever you like. All I can offer as a defence, of my supposed crime, is that, until fairly recently, I was one of their number. I cite the example, because it's something I have first hand experience of. In no way is it a slight on my former brothers in arms. Respect! ..............
thecrow on 08/07/2014 17:51:03
avatar
More frothy coffee from both of you! Oh the FOI system doesn’t work, I’m going fishing with rod and line tomorrow. To the first should have read the exceptions re MoD and National Security. I would have given you credit before this statement that you’d have worked that one out that they use the National Security Exception Clause. It’s a no brainer and you should have known that. And I’m the one with “Total Faith!” The EA can’t pull the NSEC one! So you quoting what has been said elsewhere are you? Emmm as I said earlier it’s unsubstantiated Bollox! But don’t let me stop you believing in the God Delusion. To the second, hope you’ve bought a licence to do this. You have haven’t you? If not, hope the manure falls on you from the greatest height possible and the end result is you have to pay many of these ££££££££££££ through it. Really couldn’t think of a nicer person that could happen to.[/QUOTE] In answer to your first question, I believe that I posted earlier in this thread that if I purchased a licence I would not be broadcasting it on here, sorry it may not be the answer you wanted but that is the only answer I will give. As to the second, being in the manure would be nothing new to me its part of life, you make your choices and if there are consequences you take them and get on with it. ;) ---------- Post added at 18:51 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ---------- Black Kettle, think whatever you like. All I can offer as a defence, of my supposed crime, is that, until fairly recently, I was one of their number. I cite the example, because it's something I have first hand experience of. In no way is it a slight on my former brothers in arms. Big respect Sam and thanks to you and all the others in our armed forces.
markg on 09/07/2014 06:22:45
avatar
I doubt any licence dodgers belong to clubs, they cannot belong to clubs because they have to show they have a licence before joining. They fish free waters, day ticket waters where no one comes round and some commercials were the owners are not bothered if you have a licence. I fish these myself and I have found plenty of water which are right out of the way, in the middle of nowhere, on marshes, far up rivers and no one knows they hardly exist , I am the only one who fishes them virtually and I never see a EA official or any other angler. Some I have fished for 20 years and could count the anglers on two hands in all that time. I have never been asked to produce a licence in all my life. I buy a licence by the way however-I would feel pretty confident I could not buy one, fish away for ever and get away with it. I am not a licence dodger, I am a club dodger. They cost a lot more than the licence fee. I just have doubts having clubs policing licences would stop licence dodging, a small bit maybe but, I doubt it would make much difference to the licence dodger. They would become club dodgers which they probably already are..And I expect they fish there club waters anyway without joining. Certainly on rivers. My observations are that these river club waters never get fished by members ever-or checked by anyone year after year after year.


Add a comment

  • Email to a friend Email to a friend
  • Print version Print version
  • Plain text Plain text

Tagged as:

Environment Agency, Rod licence

Follow FishingMagic!