Rod Licences - Do we need them?

Mark Wintle · Nov 25, 2004

I reckon it's time that the EA stopped chasing people for bits of paper and got on with something far more useful.

I've had my say - what do you reckon?

Would there be more anglers if the licence was abolished and replaced with a bigger grant?

Fred Bonney · Nov 25, 2004

In answer to your final question,no,on both counts.
Why? there wouldn't be a bigger grant.
As our club is a new tenant of a farmers reservoir, I contacted the EA for info. on how to arrange a fish count.
Free of charge they are to spend a day to net the fish,measure them,test their growth rate, test the water quality and give us a written report and recomendations.
Now,my guess is without the licence money,we wouldn't even get a sniff at such a service,without paying a substantial fee.
30 members at ?19(?)a year, each,not bad value.
It's been said before,but,most of you would spend that much for a days fishing.
What else do they do with our licence fee,read their literature and see their website!

Fred Bonney · Nov 25, 2004

oops,I'll now go away and read your article,to see if you have changed my views!

Mel Crighton · Nov 25, 2004

Mark, an interesting read and very enlightening, and I go along with some of your views, why is it that the oldest sport in civilised generations, has to pay for the pleasure of what was naturally acepted as free, yet modern sports such as the dreaded leather ball kicking brigade get a bigger share just because more people watch or take part in it, looking at sport on the whole angling seems to be the only sport that is not widely displayed as a sport, we have the Olympics and what is the governments bid ?20 billion to stage the 2012 games, how much did they put into the Angling World Championships,I think I have said enough, I could say more but lack of time or space prevails.

Baz · Nov 25, 2004

The E.A. have made good fish stockings on at least three rivers in my area, Mersey, Ribble, and Dee. Plus chased poluters through the courts.
I would say we need them.

Ged · Nov 28, 2004

I had an Asian colleague ask me about fishing the local canal. I was willing to show him the ropes, lend him tackle etc. I also told him that he would need a liscence for the day etc. He's never again mentioned fishing to me! I'm all for the present EA setup, one liscnce for England and Whales. Unlike the old days, one liscance to buy in each area that you fished. As regards to the Ea policing our waters, the only thing they police is that anglers have a liscence. Though I haven't been asked in years.

Andy Stafford · Nov 28, 2004

Generally I'm supportive of a fishing licence so long as the money collected is collected efficiently and fairly, and the money raised spent sensibly for the benefit of the sport and the aquatic environment. Whether or not those objectives are met by the current system is debatable IMO.
Personally I've always struggled with the notion of a "rod" licence. Surely a "rod" doesn't fish for itself (unless you're a carp angler anyway!); it's the angler who fishes and it should be the angler that is licensed. A change in thinking in this direction would surely result in the current nonesense with regard to being required to buy 2 licences if you fish on a 3 rod rule carp fishery, being consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

Graham Whatmore · Nov 28, 2004

Interesting Mark and in the main I agree with your principles but ask yourself this question.

Are the EA doing all the work on our waterways for the benefit of fisherman or because they are used to abstract water for drinking and as flood relief channels? If all fishing were banned (perish the thought) do you think the EA would cease to exist?

Wolfman Woody · Nov 28, 2004

Yes, I agree with you in lots of ways Mark. It's like a lot of things in life where it would be cheaper to do away with the charge than to keep it, you rightly refered to dog licences. I have written so many times to the EA politicos in Bristol in the past over year on year increases, which were and still are higher than the rate of inflation, and each time I received the standard letter back that simply explained why I should have a licence (or we'll prosecute you).

I have asked them to be more accountable, explain where our money is spent. Not just in general terms, but ?s on admin, ?'s on fish stocks, ?s on fisheries staff, ?s on upkeep of premises, ?s on bailiffing, ?s on prosecutions and so on. NOTHING!!!!! and it's infuriating.

So I would agree with you, it's simply a tax - SCRAP IT NOW.

Except that - I buy a licence and I feel it not only gives me a say, it gives me a RIGHT to a say. Bit like the cyclist should keep his gob shut until he pays Road Fund - see my point? And I do know that in our area, we get very good value for money from the Fisheries Department.

So I will disagree with you - KEEP IT - until such time as we live in a fairer world.

PS Graham, the EA would continue to exist if fishing were banned, but it wouldn't be the size it presently is. There would be no need for Fisheries, Polutions, River levels (yes someone does check them), or Waste Disposals. The rivers would become Britain's main sewerage system.

Mark Wintle · Nov 29, 2004

Jeff,

Without the fisheries dept. wouldn't there still be a need for river levels checking, pollution monitoring, abstraction licencing because these all affect our drinking water supplies and flood prevention? At least the EA are taking the oestrogen pollution seriously at last.

I see little chance of any of the points raised ever happening; I forgot about the 2/3 rods item mainly because I rarely fish with 2 rods and never with 3.

Wolfman Woody · Nov 29, 2004

Well perhaps there would still be some of these other departments, Mark, but Fisheries are the driving force behind most other river control legislation. They look after the life in the river and without them I think it would become a free-for-all until the "Great Stink" hit Westminster once more.

If you want me to summarise my views differently - I think we should keep the licence to give us a right to a say and at the same time I think the EA should be more accountable to us for the money we give them.

Kyle Tonks · Nov 29, 2004

if the money is actually going towards maintaining our rivers condition and keeping stock levels high then i can see them as good.

James Skinner · Nov 30, 2004

i beleive that their prices are to high to give us the privilige to fish. if they put down the price more people would buy licenses

Baz · Nov 30, 2004

A good many anglers already get a concession on their licence, oap's, disabled. Could the E.A. afford to charge any less?
In less than ten years time, there will be an even larger percentage of anglers getting cheaper licences (oap's) This is a growing problem for this country throughout which could reach epedemic like proportions. Going cheaper will only mean more cutbacks, and that is the last thing we want.

MaNick · Nov 30, 2004

I disagree.... (high prices)

The liscence does give you the RIGHT to voice an opinion, as Jeff says.

As for the "high Prices" to fish...

?21 for a rod
?15 local club membership
?35 Local Association Membership

That total of 70 odd quid gives you an AWFUL lot of fishing!!!!!...

in fact, if you go just ONCE a week, it's less than ?1.50 a session..
Come on, there arnt many sports for you can participate in for that much!

I do think the 2 liscence for 3 rod rule is out of order.

Laurie Harper · Nov 30, 2004

MaNick. Spot on. Fishing is cheap as chips, when compared with most sports. What can you usefully buy for 20 quid? Also, it's not the licence that we buy, but what it confers on us (the right to fish) and the fact that at least some of the money goes into fisheries management and conservation work. I'm happy to pay such a small sum for the right to enjoy and to help look after my pleasures.

Ergo · Nov 30, 2004

I think that the EA do a good job but take a lot of flack. It is the Environment Agency, not a fishing agency and they have all sorts of considerations to take into account from all water users.

As for the 2/3 rod thing. I think the licence could be a little cheaper, but you should have one for each rod. This would make a lot of carp angler happy as they could use as many rods as they like. I personally will only use one rod or pole at a time.

I am going to have to move up to where Mallick fishes. Here our annual membership is ?50.00. We do have a lot of waters though.

BTW Kyle when you just voiced a sensible opinion, did you notice that noboby bit you?

Graham Whatmore · Nov 30, 2004

Off the subject a bit I know, but I think Keith Arthur has it about right as regards extra rods. One licence covers you for two rods and you pay an additional amount, say ?10 for each additional rod.

I only use one myself but I know the carp boys use more and providing they are sensible about it, as most lads are, I've no problem with it.

Graham Whatmore · Nov 30, 2004

Funny how things change isn't it. Its not that long ago we were discussing on here the merits of paying extra for our licence to set up a professional body to represent angling and now here we are discussing whether we should pay anything at all.

"No pay no say" is the popular response to licence charges and mebbe thats true enough, as the sea anglers are starting to realise but if Ireland is a yardstick then its not the only way.

My opinion is that we pay for our fishing as a form of tax in much the same way as we pay for the use of our cars. It bears no relation to the cost of fishing no more than road tax covers the cost of roads.

The Monk · Nov 30, 2004

It doesnt seem that long ago that we didnt need any sort of licence for fishing still waters, that was under the River Board Systems (Pre NRA), maybe thing should have been kept that way?

Rod Licences - Do we need them?

Well-known member

Fred Bonney

Guest

Fred Bonney

Guest

Mel Crighton

Guest

Banned

Ged

Guest

New member

Senior Member

Wolfman Woody

Guest

Well-known member

Wolfman Woody

Guest

Kyle Tonks

Guest

New member

Banned

MaNick

Guest

Laurie Harper

Guest

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

The Monk

Guest