Putting the magic back into fishing!

[Weirdoh]

Should the government make people purchase the rod license PRIOR (before) they can purchase the rod incase they wish to use it for the purpose it was made for?

For firearms you need the certificate before you can purchase the gun...

When you buy a TV you are expected to have your "details" forwarded onto the BBC and TV licensing incase you take it home and plug it in.

If you intend on using roads you need to give ownership of your car to the dvla and be given the priviledge of becoming its registered keeper.

It might prevent ALL poaching or Tresspassing where a rod was the weapon of choice.

So with fishing rods only being useful for fishing, should the government make everyone who buys a fishing rod prove at the point of sale that they can prove they are licensed to use it or be made to purchase the license and perhaps give some account of what the intentions of using it are or perhaps where they intend to use it and for how long? Thus extending it to ALL fishing equipment over an extended period? (what else is a rod or hooks or the reel actually made for?)

Some shops can legally track your purchases using rfid technology and that is perfectly lawful in the UK so what could delay in having 100% revenue and crime deterant ??
The alternative could be to simply TAX fishing to improve it.

 

[108831]

The system works just fine,unless the choice is made not to buy a rod licence,a bit like illegal firearms,knives used specifically as weapons etc,every home needs knives,in fact certain hobbies/interests couldn't be done without them,also as fishing rods are not used as weapons it would be unfair to stop non-anglers buying rods being given as gifts.

There you are Weirdoh,it wasn't that hard was it,even though there was the obvious underlying link to your dislike of rod licencing... With also a thread title with no relationship with the post that opened it...

 

[Weirdoh]

The system works just fine,unless the choice is made not to buy a rod licence,a bit like illegal firearms,knives used specifically as weapons etc,every home needs knives,in fact certain hobbies/interests couldn't be done without them,also as fishing rods are not used as weapons it would be unfair to stop non-anglers buying rods being given as gifts.

There you are Weirdoh,it wasn't that hard was it,even though there was the obvious underlying link to your dislike of rod licencing... With also a thread title with no relationship with the post that opened it...

Yes, so we have both covered the first base = intent.
So if you owned a pond with Carp in it, gave me permission to fish the pond (after we agree t&c's ie barbless hooks no keepnets etc..) and you got £10 for my presence, I got to be photographed with "massive girl", but no license was asked to be seen nor was anyone in possession of one, who has suffered loss of revenue or been harmed by the intentions of fishing with a fishing rod? My intentions to fish your pond were reasoned out between both of us and amicably and friendly, where is the offence commited and to whom is it committed (..."it is an offence to fish using a rod without a license"..)

?

I still fail to see who is going to complain or report a crime in this scenario?
Primarily because my intentions were made available before hand in an open and honest way between two parties.
The license man becomes a third party interloper to two men making a business deal? The issuer of the license has no other intention but to limit our freedom to do business and creates a financial loss by its presence. Or I am missing the point here. A crime is a crime.
A soldier who carries a gun and kills someone because that is what he intended to do is not being accused of murder because the state has immunized his crime (killing someone with intent is murder).
So if everyone was allowed to carry a gun for the intentions of protecting his family from an intruder but had no certificate his intentions are not changed by that.
A poacher with a EA license in his pocket is not going to avoid a criminal complaint once caught with fish he had no permission to take (theft) or not be seen as a tresspasser (civil complaint) once on land he had not gained permission to enter onto. The license changes nothing of the outcome nor the offenders intent.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I have several vintage split cane rods that were purchased with no intention of using them other than to adorn the walls of my study.

You are arguing the the number of angels on a pin head inasmuch as the law states that a licence is required in order to fish. End of.

While you might not like the idea of having to buy a licence to fish is really non sequitur, and remember that no riparian owner has the right to over ruke, or ignore the laws of the land.

 

[rich66]

To be perfectly honest, for £30 a year I fail to see any gripe about paying for a license.

 

[chrissh]

A rod license at £30 a year for two rods that works out at just over 8p or 4p a rod a day if you cannot be bothered to pay do not go fishing it is as simple as that.

 

[103841]

We have to face the fact that there are a minority that hate to pay for anything they think they can duck, tv licence, poll tax, imcome tax and of course the EA licence. Funny thing is many of this minority are more than happy to accept benefits from the state that others have paid their dues for, there’s a name for people like this but not on this forum.

 

[108831]

Nobody likes to pay,for anything,but that's the way it is and has been for as long as I've fished...

 

[108831]

Re: Putting the magic back into fishing!c.f.

Yes, so we have both covered the first base = intent.
So if you owned a pond with Carp in it, gave me permission to fish the pond (after we agree t&c's ie barbless hooks no keepnets etc..) and you got £10 for my presence, I got to be photographed with "massive girl", but no license was asked to be seen nor was anyone in possession of one, who has suffered loss of revenue or been harmed by the intentions of fishing with a fishing rod? My intentions to fish your pond were reasoned out between both of us and amicably and friendly, where is the offence commited and to whom is it committed (..."it is an offence to fish using a rod without a license"..)

?

I still fail to see who is going to complain or report a crime in this scenario?
Primarily because my intentions were made available before hand in an open and honest way between two parties.
The license man becomes a third party interloper to two men making a business deal? The issuer of the license has no other intention but to limit our freedom to do business and creates a financial loss by its presence. Or I am missing the point here. A crime is a crime.
A soldier who carries a gun and kills someone because that is what he intended to do is not being accused of murder because the state has immunized his crime (killing someone with intent is murder).
So if everyone was allowed to carry a gun for the intentions of protecting his family from an intruder but had no certificate his intentions are not changed by that.
A poacher with a EA license in his pocket is not going to avoid a criminal complaint once caught with fish he had no permission to take (theft) or not be seen as a tresspasser (civil complaint) once on land he had not gained permission to enter onto. The license changes nothing of the outcome nor the offenders intent.

LOLgiving the rear end a chance would be nice.

I don't feel too good so repetitive claptrap is irksome to me.:attention:

 

[mikench]

The ROD licence is a bargain at £30 for two rods! Weirdoh you have to have one whether you fish a river, stream, lake or even your neighbours garden pond! It has nothing to do with the water owners permission or payment for a dayticket!

Its the law and someone who flagrantly breaches it isn't deserving of being a member of this forum. It's called Fishing Magic not Fishing Illegal!

 

[Weirdoh]

I have several vintage split cane rods that were purchased with no intention of using them other than to adorn the walls of my study.

You are arguing the the number of angels on a pin head inasmuch as the law states that a licence is required in order to fish. End of.

While you might not like the idea of having to buy a licence to fish is really non sequitur, and remember that no riparian owner has the right to over ruke, or ignore the laws of the land.

How can something be "End of" when it cannot be enforced in my above scenario though? Both parties are happy.

To be perfectly honest, for £30 a year I fail to see any gripe about paying for a license.

£30 could be better spent on to many things I would be hard pressed to name them all. Living expenses towards mine or another persons well being seems further up the list than a rod license, what would you choose with terrible toothache and down to your last £50..keep it real at least.

A rod license at £30 a year for two rods that works out at just over 8p or 4p a rod a day if you cannot be bothered to pay do not go fishing it is as simple as that.

Could you be bothered to pay for someone elses if it is not that much?

We have to face the fact that there are a minority that hate to pay for anything they think they can duck, tv licence, poll tax, imcome tax and of course the EA licence. Funny thing is many of this minority are more than happy to accept benefits from the state that others have paid their dues for, there’s a name for people like this but not on this forum.

Some people will happily pay towards the increased competition for services, infastructure and commodities that are essential for the future survival of their own kin, others go without and live within their means, others still pay what they owe, no TV no TV license, no car no car tax etc etc... Hate is a strong word s63.

Nobody likes to pay,for anything,but that's the way it is and has been for as long as I've fished...

If your happy to pay and you lawfully owe you will likely keep paying.

The ROD licence is a bargain at £30 for two rods! Weirdoh you have to have one whether you fish a river, stream, lake or even your neighbours garden pond! It has nothing to do with the water owners permission or payment for a dayticket!



Its the law and someone who flagrantly breaches it isn't deserving of being a member of this forum. It's called Fishing Magic not Fishing Illegal!

Again ..how can this be enforced when both parties in my analogy above regarding Whitty's lake are in full agreement, who actually suffers harm to themselves or is at a loss of any tangible or material assets (livelyhood, property, physical wellbeing? If it is the EA then they put no money on the table nor own or have any right to two peoples privacy, property or know their intentions either.

No EA employee, government civil servant, police or anyone with any vested interest in the revenue stream of license issuing would know or hear of any complaints. Surely if a crime has been commited there needs to be a complaint raised and witnesses to give evidence of a crime? Police are not going to do door to door canvassing on houses asking if they have seen or heard of any unlawful fishing activities unless they are acting on a complaint being raised? If the riparian rights owner grasses on the very person who ensures his own income or livelyhood he would lose his livelihood quite quickly I would assume.

 

[rich66]

£30 could be better spent on to many things I would be hard pressed to name them all. Living expenses towards mine or another persons well being seems further up the list than a rod license, what would you choose with terrible toothache and down to your last £50..keep it real at least.

Possibly but it’s a personal choice thing and personally I tend to try to avoid doing anything illegal. For me a rod license gives me an immense amount of personal well-being.
But then there are those who are caught are sometimes in possession of £100’s if not £1000’s of kit. That I really don’t understand!

Either way £30 well spent in my mind & if you don’t pay don’t fish simples.

 

[Weirdoh]

Possibly but it’s a personal choice thing and personally I tend to try to avoid doing anything illegal. For me a rod license gives me an immense amount of personal well-being.
But then there are those who are caught are sometimes in possession of £100’s if not £1000’s of kit. That I really don’t understand!

Either way £30 well spent in my mind & if you don’t pay don’t fish simples.

I still have no idea what I would be paying £30 for though. If you set out not knowing if you can fish somewhere and get caught by the land owner who you are inciting or provoking to call the EA or Police then I 100% totally agree with you. What everyone is avoiding is the specific scenario I gave by where both parties have agreed to the fishing (one asks for use or permission and the other agrees to use his right to give freely or demand a fee). The fisherman has permission, no grievance, no contraversy, no trespass, no intention to steal another mans property and no complaint made by the land owner or riparian rights owner, how can there be a crime? No one has yet explained without just parroting "you must" "you have to.." "everyone else has" "it says.." "they tell you that.." etc Zzzzzz. A crime starts with someone reporting one or a civil complaint is raised in the case of tresspass, this is how protocol is evidenced in the UK.
If you are welcomed onto or invited onto someones land like I often find I am to do something by letting my intentions of which be known and agreed, without resistance from the land owner then no crime is being committed, so it follows no crime will be reportedl. Simple fact everyone is intentionally missing, also the only offense people keep telling me is not having a license, but the person whos land I am on is not offended nor claiming or reporting to anyone else that I am committing a crime means the EA are simply making a crime up (no complaint or witnesses) and using legal sophistry to seek or gain ownership of another mans property (which can be money or fishing equipment or in this case a mans freedom, but all are assets none the less) none of which explains why a license is needed, because my example clearly shows no crime has been committed, reported, witnessed, proven or beyond all reasonable doubt. Rules of society are by consent of the governed, I do not carry a license because I simply have no intention of committing a crime and all the egos and brains cannot fathom this simple maxim out. Pay what you owe (if you do not owe you do not need to pay.)

 

[rich66]

I still have no idea what I would be paying £30 for though. If you set out not knowing if you can fish somewhere and get caught by the land owner who you are inciting or provoking to call the EA or Police then I 100% totally agree with you. What everyone is avoiding is the specific scenario I gave by where both parties have agreed to the fishing, one asks for the other gives permission, no grievance, no contraversy, no trespass, no intention to steal a mans property and no complaint made, how can there be a crime? No one has yet explained without just parroting "you must" "you have to.." "everyone else has" etc.
If you are welcomed onto or invited onto someones land like I often find I am to do something by letting my intentions of which be known and agreed without resistance no crime is being committed, the only offense people keep telling me is not having a license, but the person whos land I am on is not offended nor claiming or reporting to anyone else that I am committing a crime means the EA are simply making a crime up (no complaint or witnesses) and using legal sophistry seek to gain ownership of another mans property (which can be money or fishing equipment or in this case or a mans freedom but all are assets none the less).

I understand what your saying, I go to a few lakes where the owners have said their not interested in seeing a rod license when I’ve offered to show them. They just want their cut. Doesn’t mean it’s right, the landowner can’t simply ignore the law and isn’t above the law, but I’m damn sure next time they get hit by thieves or vandals they will want the law !

However we look at it there is a legal obligation to have a rod license, it was apparently first introduced 150+ years ago to discourage poachers ( article I found in the telegraph)
Whether it’s still fit for purpose is debatable but without it the money that the EA put into fishing, whole simply not exist and fishing as a sport would not be what it is today. Look at Wales for instance the coarse fishing is apparently falling off because the Welsh bods won’t pay into the EA so the EA won’t help restock the Welsh rivers and quite rightly so. The EA have put huge amounts of fish into the rivers and canals near me so as I’ve said before £30 really is not worth griping about. And if you really truly love fishing why would you not invest £30 back into it ?
If you are really totally committed to not having to pay a license fee then start a petition on the Gov website, publicise it, post it on Facebook get the Angling press in on it and see what happens at least you can say you tried. Rather than being a devils advocate on a forum somewhere on the internet.
Well might go bed now that got my brain out of work mode, thanks Weirdoh

 

[Weirdoh]

If the lake owner is targeted by actual thieves and has evidence and witnesses then a real crime has been committed and he can truthfully claim he has been a victim of a crime and report that crime to the police service, theft of fish has not been immunized by the government, the thing is though if he has lived in the UK long enough the likelihood is he has probably paid upfront to use the police service anyway, paying years of weekly tax for 1hrs worth of service in retrospect of the crime already having happened, that suggests two things, first is the police are no deterrent for committed theives, secondly the man without the license fishing on his property is the better of the clients to visit his land, this is because of his intent. So the chap who has no intention of stealing fish or fishing rights has already paid for use of the lake and therefor helped the owner pay his bills and towards the tax that pays for the police, some people pay for this service and rarely ever if at all use it, all hoping they never have too, but that is like paying insurance you never make a claim against, in terms of value for money makes the service incredibly expensive or simply put a total waste of money if compared to paying what you lawfully owe (...I wont go into that though).
Goodnight rich66

 

[108831]

We pay many taxes without actually knowing what we pay them for,car tax for one,looking at the state's of our roads...

 

[Weirdoh]

We pay many taxes without actually knowing what we pay them for,car tax for one,looking at the state's of our roads...

Does not sound good does it. If a car sales man did not fully inform you of the car you was considering paying money towards you might run a mile.

 

[108831]

Not with all my tackle,lol....

Besides at present I pay £20 per annum for mine,still don't know where it goes though...

 

[Weirdoh]

I wrongly assumed most of the members here would of been ok with just about anyone who had no intent to cause anyone any harm or cause them loss in some form or another. Sadly people have no faith in the law: "do unto others as you would do unto yourself". Societal rules dressed up as "law of the land" (which changes with the wind) is a failing concept that will cost this country in the very worst possible way.

 

[rich66]

I wrongly assumed most of the members here would of been ok with just about anyone who had no intent to cause anyone any harm or cause them loss in some form or another. Sadly people have no faith in the law: "do unto others as you would do unto yourself". Societal rules dressed up as "law of the land" (which changes with the wind) is a failing concept that will cost this country in the very worst possible way.

I don’t think you are wrong. Most of the people I’ve had dealings on here seem very nice people, who go out of their way to give advice or just chat about what they love.
I just think your idea hypothetically or not that we don’t need a license is not well received. And is bound to agitate people especially when most pay and a few don’t.
Some people say what harm is it not paying the license fee, but are they the same people who say what harm having a couple of pints and driving, or what harm in not paying for my shopping and so on ? And where does that stop ??

Undoubtedly everyone has a choice and I’m happy with my choice of buying a license if nothing else simply because it’s the right thing to do.