The future of angling?

[Molehill]

Following the "otter thread", which is now getting nowhere, I thought perhaps we should think about where angling is going for the next generation. All agree there are problems (especially river quality etc.), but nobody has any suggestions other than, somebody is to blame and somebody must do something. Who and How?

Thinking long term, here's a few very radical ideas I'm chucking about in my head - many of you won't like them, but lets try and think of positives for the future without getting abusive in any way.

1) Otters are here to stay and the public will never allow us to cull in any way. Stillwaters that have problems will have to fence and accept the cost and we shall have to fish inside fences - if that's what we want. Some research may come up with acceptable methods to discourage otters from waters?

2) The EA should do away with the split licence (migratory and non migratory), EA are there to protect and improve all waters and should not discriminate between species, I've always felt the migratory licence is purely an excuse to squeeze a bit more cash from rich salmon anglers. That doesn't stand today.
Possible argument for different still or running water licences?

3) Anglers will have to accept we share waterways with all other outdoor sports, that is how it will be, we are no longer special guardians of the waters, Canoes, kayaks, sailing boats, swimmers, jet skis, water skis and all other users.

4) Every single person who uses a water requires a licence from the EA (or whatever body it becomes), this will be the same cost as a fishing licence and all revenue goes towards water quality and improvements. Any of the above sports require a national licence, whether a day ticket to paddle down the Wye or a season ticket to go water jet skiing on a reservoir.

Although only we probably appreciate what goes on underneath the water surface, if every canoeist is paying for good water, they will soon start to pay attention if they see pollution etc.

There's a start, just some basic bare bones thoughts for the long term. I doubt it will happen in my remaining fishing years, but I think that anglers battles will start to be lost against other causes and maybe we should be thinking ahead with ideas rather than clinging onto a sinking ship and moaning like hell.

 

[john step]

I cannot find fault with anything in this post. Some good ideas particularly making everyone pay their fair share as long as that doesn't open the door to giving the right to do their particular activity on any water. They would still need permission to access just like anglers do now.

 

[mikench]

Some good ideas there! If most taxes( the licence fee is a tax) were hypothecated we would be happier to pay them but they are not and government is criminally wasteful! I for one would pay more if the amount involved went to improving water quality, our roads, the NHS and so on!

As an aside if all diesel cars are to be removed by 2030 and replaced by electric ones, where is the replacement revenue going to come from quite apart from all the charging points, increases in amperage in our homes! Er electric and hybrid cars!

The point is our taxes are not spent as we would like most of the time and that includes the fishing licence!

 

[thecrow]

3) Anglers will have to accept we share waterways with all other outdoor sports, that is how it will be, we are no longer special guardians of the waters, Canoes, kayaks, sailing boats, swimmers, jet skis, water skis and all other users.

Cant agree with this one, there are stretches of river that have no PRN and as such it is illegal to paddle on them to enable them to do so would require a change in the law after a court case had taken place showing what the law is as it stands because paddlers have an entirely different view on what it is to what anglers think it is.

Neither the paddlers nor the Trust are prepared to pay for this court case, indeed as was posted on another thread communications between the Trust and members complaining to them about illegal paddlers has ceased as there was "to much communication taking place" that to me shows 2 things the first that illegal paddling is a huge problem and secondly that the trust are not serving their paying members as they should be.

The trust spent a lot of money on a barristers advice on the law which basically backed up the anglers view of the law but nothing was done with that advice other than publicising it, a waste of money imo.

 

[thecrow]

Although only we probably appreciate what goes on underneath the water surface, if every canoeist is paying for good water, they will soon start to pay attention if they see pollution etc.

I did a search on "song of the paddle" and cant find one thread about pollution although there might be some that I haven't found it.

 

[108831]

Following the "otter thread", which is now getting nowhere, I thought perhaps we should think about where angling is going for the next generation. All agree there are problems (especially river quality etc.), but nobody has any suggestions other than, somebody is to blame and somebody must do something. Who and How?

Thinking long term, here's a few very radical ideas I'm chucking about in my head - many of you won't like them, but lets try and think of positives for the future without getting abusive in any way.

1) Otters are here to stay and the public will never allow us to cull in any way. Stillwaters that have problems will have to fence and accept the cost and we shall have to fish inside fences - if that's what we want. Some research may come up with acceptable methods to discourage otters from waters?

2) The EA should do away with the split licence (migratory and non migratory), EA are there to protect and improve all waters and should not discriminate between species, I've always felt the migratory licence is purely an excuse to squeeze a bit more cash from rich salmon anglers. That doesn't stand today.
Possible argument for different still or running water licences?

3) Anglers will have to accept we share waterways with all other outdoor sports, that is how it will be, we are no longer special guardians of the waters, Canoes, kayaks, sailing boats, swimmers, jet skis, water skis and all other users.

4) Every single person who uses a water requires a licence from the EA (or whatever body it becomes), this will be the same cost as a fishing licence and all revenue goes towards water quality and improvements. Any of the above sports require a national licence, whether a day ticket to paddle down the Wye or a season ticket to go water jet skiing on a reservoir.

Although only we probably appreciate what goes on underneath the water surface, if every canoeist is paying for good water, they will soon start to pay attention if they see pollution etc.

There's a start, just some basic bare bones thoughts for the long term. I doubt it will happen in my remaining fishing years, but I think that anglers battles will start to be lost against other causes and maybe we should be thinking ahead with ideas rather than clinging onto a sinking ship and moaning like hell.

Mmmmm,as I said on the otter thread,badgers are being culled in spite of public opinion,therefore it is an option(not one that would taste too good for me),as for everyone paying for waterways quality management,that would be great until the government dipped into it for other things,boat users(ie cruisers,barges etc)I believe pay some form of levy/licence,but looking at the Thames it doesn't do a lot to benefit the river itself as bank erosion is destroying much of the river....

 

[lutra]

A tax on clean water is a joke to me. It will be a tax on clean air next. We have a right to all that and them that pollute it should be the ones paying (big time).

What would you think if you payed someone to get shut of your rubbish and they took your money and just chucked the rubbish over your back fence killing half the wildlife?

What would you think if you payed extra to someone else to make sure that didn't happen and they just took your money and let it happen?

The only reason I buy an EA rod licence is because I have to, to go fishing. Not because I think I am getting anything for paying it.

Make the polluters pay, big time I say. Even if it means bigger water bills.

 

[mikench]

Governments will tax anything including taxes! I kid you not! Look up window tax prevalent in the 18th century! Lost tax revenue has to be replaced!

 

[maggot_dangler]

Following the "otter thread", which is now getting nowhere, I thought perhaps we should think about where angling is going for the next generation. All agree there are problems (especially river quality etc.), but nobody has any suggestions other than, somebody is to blame and somebody must do something. Who and How?

Thinking long term, here's a few very radical ideas I'm chucking about in my head - many of you won't like them, but lets try and think of positives for the future without getting abusive in any way.


3) Anglers will have to accept we share waterways with all other outdoor sports, that is how it will be, we are no longer special guardians of the waters, Canoes, kayaks, sailing boats, swimmers, jet skis, water skis and all other users.


There's a start, just some basic bare bones thoughts for the long term. I doubt it will happen in my remaining fishing years, but I think that anglers battles will start to be lost against other causes and maybe we should be thinking ahead with ideas rather than clinging onto a sinking ship and moaning like hell.

I cant aggree with 3 we may have been FORCED to share the waters with Kayaks canoes ect all the modern gizmos like jet skis ( should only be allowed in satl water) but none of the rest of the users give a HOOT about the water as is proven by their attitudes to everyone else using it mo0rons in Kayaks that come along and start slapping the water in your swim doing gawd knows what to the fish along with sacring them off the same for canoists and as for jet skis nuff said

 

[maggot_dangler]

Governments will tax anything including taxes! I kid you not! Look up window tax prevalent in the 18th century! Lost tax revenue has to be replaced!

Just look into how Fuel is taxed joke or what i could not believe it at first ..


PG ...

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The problem, as I see it with the idea of making all water users pay a licence fee is that then you will have to open all waters to all users(?)


Furthermore, what about waterways where no PRN exists? Would simple paying a licence fee mean that everywhere is open to al; and regardless of public right of way?


Then, what about rivers or private syndicate venues that cost us angler a small fortune to fish, for example the Test or the Itchen?
Would we be prepared to pay thousands of pounds per season to fish a hitherto exclusive venue that is now open to all and sundry; paddlers, dog walkers etc?

 

[Molehill]

I did a search on "song of the paddle" and cant find one thread about pollution although there might be some that I haven't found it.

I think people(other than anglers) would care about pollution and water quality if they were paying for it, which is sort of the point.
As soon as people have to buy a licence, which they would be told was to improve standards, they start looking and wanting some return for their money. They may actually notice and report agricultural pollution, or the fact a river is covered in slime or blocked by weed due to agricultural run off of fertilizers, or sprays.
The money raised goes towards enforcement, its fine to say it's our right to clean water but who has the finances and power to tackle run off from roads, upland drainage and all manner of other problems?
I simply don't think the angling world will have the clout and that other sports and recreations will become top of the tree and us forgotten. We will be side lined to stillwater commercials etc. whilst canoes play on the rivers.

This is only random thoughts to see if anyone has ideas, other than carry on regardless.

 

[108831]

The environment agency are one of the mail polluters of our rivers,so when they are fined,its us that pay,crackers to me,the government have no cares as to what anyone does,as long as they don't pay anything out it seems to me....they wouldn't want to charge businesses for keeping our country clean,they might go elsewhere.I liken it to the government telling us we eat too much sugar and fizzy drink,ban the sale of it then,after all they are in power...

 

[thecrow]

I think people(other than anglers) would care about pollution and water quality if they were paying for it

Anglers pay twice once through the rod tax and then again in the bills they pay to the water companies that are allowed by government to pump raw swage into our rivers (legally) It could help if the public were aware of what goes into our rivers and what remains in it when it reaches their tap, the EA, government or the public don't care the first 2 because of money the 3rd because they don't know, unless the water that paddlers were paddling on was obviously polluted which isn't always obvious I doubt they would want to be paying twice as we do to get no improvements.

 

[thecrow]

and us forgotten.

I think thathas already happened apart from the EA for whom we are just a cash cow.

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

The problem, as I see it with the idea of making all water users pay a licence fee is that then you will have to open all waters to all users(?)


Furthermore, what about waterways where no PRN exists? Would simple paying a licence fee mean that everywhere is open to al; and regardless of public right of way?


Then, what about rivers or private syndicate venues that cost us angler a small fortune to fish, for example the Test or the Itchen?
Would we be prepared to pay thousands of pounds per season to fish a hitherto exclusive venue that is now open to all and sundry; paddlers, dog walkers etc?

I think, as is the case, there will still be restrictions - just because a person pays to use a waterway shouldn’t mean they have the right to use all of them. I.e. I have an EA rod license but I can’t just fish anywhere. Other water uses should also pay their way, not just angling.

 

[Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)]

I think I have a solution for the Otter v Barbel problem.

First ensure that more still waters are protected by otter fences to safeguard the fish stocks.

Then remove all the barbel from the rivers and put them into still waters. Many of the barbel are not indigenous anyway, so should not be in many of our rivers.

To avoid being called ‘speciesist’ I suggest that the carp, zander and catfish are also removed from the rivers and stocked into the same still waters.

I think it’s safe to say that you will all agree with this simple and obvious solution. What I don’t have is an implementation plan, so I’m not sure how to dot his or how long it would take.

The other day I say some footage of a railway station being built from scratch, along with track laying, all in 9 hours- it took a lot of Chinese people to pull together. Our problem just needs the same approach.

Maybe we should go on Dragon’s Den.

Matt

 

[bullet]

I really don't see why anyone who isn't angling has any business being near a river at all, they are just wasting time, which can be done anywhere.

 

[sam vimes]

The EA should do away with the split licence (migratory and non migratory), EA are there to protect and improve all waters and should not discriminate between species, I've always felt the migratory licence is purely an excuse to squeeze a bit more cash from rich salmon anglers. That doesn't stand today. Possible argument for different still or running water licences?

The only way that I would support that is if game angling has strict catch and release imposed on them. I can understand why game anglers might feel that the licencing fees are disproportionate, but, as far as I'm aware, so is the amount of money ploughed back into game angling. Many well heeled game anglers are only too happy to flex their financial muscle at the expense of coarse angling, so, as far as I'm concerned, they can't expect to have their cake and eat it.

 

[mikench]

Look at the rise in road tax in the last few years and the penal rates which apply to some vehicles and consider the poor state of our roads ! So much for road tax! The same applies to the licence!

Remember whoever you vote for the government always gets in!