- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Revolting Anglers
Revolting Anglers
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
Came on line just in time to read this as it came up and was expecting something different.
Copyright the article quick Kevin.
A well put together article with a good argument and a constructive conclusion. Excellent.
Copyright the article quick Kevin.
A well put together article with a good argument and a constructive conclusion. Excellent.
I can't believe that no one has yet to state:
The anglers I meet are revolting enough, thanks very much . . . . . . .
dangermouse
Well-known member
Great article Kevin.
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
I think this is your best piece ever. A new perspective for a change
deleted a post that I posted before dinner!!
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)
Senior Member
How many local councils provide 'handouts' for fox hunting and train spotting?
I recon most of the non angling community sees angling as sat somewhere between the two - a bit nerdy and bit of an odd thing to do ("...and then you throw it back???") verging on cruel blood sport.
I think womens' ball sports will start to get recognition, support and mainstream media coverage before angling ever does.
I recon most of the non angling community sees angling as sat somewhere between the two - a bit nerdy and bit of an odd thing to do ("...and then you throw it back???") verging on cruel blood sport.
I think womens' ball sports will start to get recognition, support and mainstream media coverage before angling ever does.
barbelboi
Well-known member
Excellent article Kevin.
Jerry
Jerry
In the article, Kevin said "Consider the scenario that if I dig a lake in my own very private back garden, I legally have to purchase a Rod Licence to fish in it, why?"
The simple answer is because of the requirements set out in the Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The legislation is there to protect fish (from anglers and other people that exploit them), it's not about raising revenue for funding sport.
I spent a few years working with councils trying to persuade them of the benefits of investing into angling infrastructure. Part of the problem though is that the general public is not very good at managing angling facilities. Most well-maintained fisheries are in private ownership (fishing clubs, or commercial fisheries).
It is a complex issue, and I do not believe that you can draw straight parallels between angling and any other 'sport'. I'll try to explain... if you find any town that has enough residents, and build a football pitch, then people will be able to come and play football. The blueprint for a football pitch looks pretty much the same no matter where you go in the country. Same goes for a basketball court, tennis club, rowing course, martial arts studio, etc etc. Sports projects are generally easy to replicate.
However, there are many disciplines to angling, and an infinite number of types of fishery, habitat, stock composition and density, etc. That is why statistics in angling are very misleading. If you build a 'coarse match lake', then it's unlikely to appeal to fly fishermen, or specimen barbel anglers. Identify a quality public-owned salmon river beat, and not many carp anglers will be interested.
There is a further problem in that angling is greatly influenced by external 'environmental' factors. You dont tend to get issues with cormorants, otters, zebra mussels, blue-green algae, KHV or signal crayfish at a football pitch.
Compound that lot with the fact that anglers can rarely agree on anything (plenty of evidence on this site of that!) and we gradually become a difficult market to understand and cater for.
Other sports can access funding because their 'product' is easily identifiable. Invest in football pitches, and you'll get more grass roots clubs, more participation, healthier kids and maybe a knock-on effect that one of your new recruits might one day play centre-half for his country. The TV and sponsorship money at the top always trickles down and at least there's a chance it is put to good use.
Invest in a public-owned fishing lake, and the only thing I can guarantee is that you'll get a myriad of opinions about what different fish should be stocked and what the rules should be made, a pipeline full of potential environmental 'issues' that can put the whole investment in jeopardy, and not many professional people stepping forward to manage any of these problems. If you find a successful angling 'project', then every time there is a small number (often just 1) of very dedicated people, making hardly any money, at the centre of it. Doesnt sound much like football to me. How much is Carlos Tevez getting paid again?
Dont get me wrong, I think angling is a wonderful thing, be it a sport, a pass-time, an engagement tool, or a vehicle for education and well-being. It had great depth and complexity, and is worthy of far more than being labelled as just another 'sport'.
The simple answer is because of the requirements set out in the Salmon & Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. The legislation is there to protect fish (from anglers and other people that exploit them), it's not about raising revenue for funding sport.
I spent a few years working with councils trying to persuade them of the benefits of investing into angling infrastructure. Part of the problem though is that the general public is not very good at managing angling facilities. Most well-maintained fisheries are in private ownership (fishing clubs, or commercial fisheries).
It is a complex issue, and I do not believe that you can draw straight parallels between angling and any other 'sport'. I'll try to explain... if you find any town that has enough residents, and build a football pitch, then people will be able to come and play football. The blueprint for a football pitch looks pretty much the same no matter where you go in the country. Same goes for a basketball court, tennis club, rowing course, martial arts studio, etc etc. Sports projects are generally easy to replicate.
However, there are many disciplines to angling, and an infinite number of types of fishery, habitat, stock composition and density, etc. That is why statistics in angling are very misleading. If you build a 'coarse match lake', then it's unlikely to appeal to fly fishermen, or specimen barbel anglers. Identify a quality public-owned salmon river beat, and not many carp anglers will be interested.
There is a further problem in that angling is greatly influenced by external 'environmental' factors. You dont tend to get issues with cormorants, otters, zebra mussels, blue-green algae, KHV or signal crayfish at a football pitch.
Compound that lot with the fact that anglers can rarely agree on anything (plenty of evidence on this site of that!) and we gradually become a difficult market to understand and cater for.
Other sports can access funding because their 'product' is easily identifiable. Invest in football pitches, and you'll get more grass roots clubs, more participation, healthier kids and maybe a knock-on effect that one of your new recruits might one day play centre-half for his country. The TV and sponsorship money at the top always trickles down and at least there's a chance it is put to good use.
Invest in a public-owned fishing lake, and the only thing I can guarantee is that you'll get a myriad of opinions about what different fish should be stocked and what the rules should be made, a pipeline full of potential environmental 'issues' that can put the whole investment in jeopardy, and not many professional people stepping forward to manage any of these problems. If you find a successful angling 'project', then every time there is a small number (often just 1) of very dedicated people, making hardly any money, at the centre of it. Doesnt sound much like football to me. How much is Carlos Tevez getting paid again?
Dont get me wrong, I think angling is a wonderful thing, be it a sport, a pass-time, an engagement tool, or a vehicle for education and well-being. It had great depth and complexity, and is worthy of far more than being labelled as just another 'sport'.
I like it...I like it, a well constructed response .
beerweasel
Well-known member
Nice article, although I'm in favour of keeping the rod license.
I would rather tax people like cyclists (yes I'm a cyclist) say £5 a year, after all car owners pay road tax.
Also bring back the dog license.
I would rather tax people like cyclists (yes I'm a cyclist) say £5 a year, after all car owners pay road tax.
Also bring back the dog license.
Merv Harrison
Senior Member
An excellent, well thought, well crafted article Kevin, and very valid points made.
Re the quoits issue, "Councillors giving nervous looks at each other", may just be that they had already awarded a grant, but it had been used by councillors, to pay for 'Cruise tickets' to assess viability.
Re the quoits issue, "Councillors giving nervous looks at each other", may just be that they had already awarded a grant, but it had been used by councillors, to pay for 'Cruise tickets' to assess viability.
Lord Paul of Sheffield
Well-known member
good arguement Kevin
will you raise it with your local mp?
will you raise it with your local mp?
Morespiders
Senior Member
Very good Perkins, I owe you a pint next time we meet
Mad isnt it?
Mad isnt it?
S-Kippy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 14,517
- Reaction score
- 5,855
Excellent article Kevin...I'd love to see a politician try to explain that.
no-one in particular
Well-known member
A well run council fishery offering intuition, a carp lake, a fly lake and a coarse lake. It would provide jobs and could be free or a small charge levied. sounds good to me.
Not paying the license. If everyone did so it would have an effect but, getting everyone to do so would be impossible I would imagine. Is there an anglers union?
Not paying the license. If everyone did so it would have an effect but, getting everyone to do so would be impossible I would imagine. Is there an anglers union?
Last edited:
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
Goor piece and so many good points.
First thing to do is ask the Environment Agency's Recreation Department what Angling is not recognised as a recreation. Reason given is usually, well you have a fisheries department looking after you. WRONG - the fisheries department are there to see that all waters, rivers, canals and lakes, are good successful thriving areas for holding fish - not all necessarily open to angling or angling opportunites. We do though, in most cases, benefit.
Back in the 70s our District Council near Manchester set up a Local Sports Council, following the lines of the national Sports Council created by Government. We had three areas, I was Chairman of North, and after assessing and discussing applications for grants we put them forward to the central body made up up two representatives (usually chair and secy) from each of the three areas, a central Secretary and Treasurer (both elected by the areas) and two unelected members of the Council who held vetos.
We were given £10,000 per year (quite a sum in the 70s) and gave out most of it to deserving causes. We also had another tap via advice given by the Assistant Recreation Officer (ARO) who had knowledge of other sources of funding from such as County Councils etc. and other means of getting work done. We did have a local angling group, Hyde Fed, apply who had £500 to improve the local canal and after approval we added a further £500. We then took their case to County and got them a further £4000. What £4,500 of grant would be worth today I have no idea, possibly x 10, £45,000?
The local Sports Council was a good model and should have been rolled out to other areas, but we started to suffer when the Council said that in the next year they would only give us the amount we would give away and not just another £10,000. That year many of the projects we put forward were vetoed by the two (Labour) Councillors and we only gave away just over £2,000. In effect, the idea was quashed by the parsimonious behavour of the Council's representatives. Shortly after I left the area for Lincolnshire anyway.
I will mention one other project that I did get through, which started off as a group of veteran (elderly, OAPs) bowlers who wanted to do up an old disused council garage and make it a tea rooms. The Council refused, but the ARO suggested we apply, along with two other worthwhile cases, for a Government scheme whereby the Council bought the materials and the Government paid for the labour for unemployed tradesmen to build three brand new spanking bowling huts together with kitchen facilities. This went through and my hand has never been so severely shaken before or since by the secretary of the veteran bowlers thanking me for what was a 'palace' of a job. Perhaps we could do with schemes like this one now to make use of unemployed tradespeople!
As for what else the EA Fisheries does, you'd have to get closely involved with them. Presently, our area are planning to spend soem money improving access for anglers to weirpools on the Thames. That's why I don't mind paying my £27 per year for a rod licence, I see where most of it is going.
First thing to do is ask the Environment Agency's Recreation Department what Angling is not recognised as a recreation. Reason given is usually, well you have a fisheries department looking after you. WRONG - the fisheries department are there to see that all waters, rivers, canals and lakes, are good successful thriving areas for holding fish - not all necessarily open to angling or angling opportunites. We do though, in most cases, benefit.
Back in the 70s our District Council near Manchester set up a Local Sports Council, following the lines of the national Sports Council created by Government. We had three areas, I was Chairman of North, and after assessing and discussing applications for grants we put them forward to the central body made up up two representatives (usually chair and secy) from each of the three areas, a central Secretary and Treasurer (both elected by the areas) and two unelected members of the Council who held vetos.
We were given £10,000 per year (quite a sum in the 70s) and gave out most of it to deserving causes. We also had another tap via advice given by the Assistant Recreation Officer (ARO) who had knowledge of other sources of funding from such as County Councils etc. and other means of getting work done. We did have a local angling group, Hyde Fed, apply who had £500 to improve the local canal and after approval we added a further £500. We then took their case to County and got them a further £4000. What £4,500 of grant would be worth today I have no idea, possibly x 10, £45,000?
The local Sports Council was a good model and should have been rolled out to other areas, but we started to suffer when the Council said that in the next year they would only give us the amount we would give away and not just another £10,000. That year many of the projects we put forward were vetoed by the two (Labour) Councillors and we only gave away just over £2,000. In effect, the idea was quashed by the parsimonious behavour of the Council's representatives. Shortly after I left the area for Lincolnshire anyway.
I will mention one other project that I did get through, which started off as a group of veteran (elderly, OAPs) bowlers who wanted to do up an old disused council garage and make it a tea rooms. The Council refused, but the ARO suggested we apply, along with two other worthwhile cases, for a Government scheme whereby the Council bought the materials and the Government paid for the labour for unemployed tradesmen to build three brand new spanking bowling huts together with kitchen facilities. This went through and my hand has never been so severely shaken before or since by the secretary of the veteran bowlers thanking me for what was a 'palace' of a job. Perhaps we could do with schemes like this one now to make use of unemployed tradespeople!
As for what else the EA Fisheries does, you'd have to get closely involved with them. Presently, our area are planning to spend soem money improving access for anglers to weirpools on the Thames. That's why I don't mind paying my £27 per year for a rod licence, I see where most of it is going.
dezza
Well-known member
First of all I am in favour of keeping the rod licence. It gives us respectablity, credibility, and provides funds for our sport, or it should.
It also gives us a reason to defend ourselves against other water users who pay nothing.
Some years ago, I think it was Ian Duncan Smith, suggested that the rod licence be abolished. This was obviously a ploy to win votes. However there was a big outcry against the idea, and it was quickly forgotten.
It also gives us a reason to defend ourselves against other water users who pay nothing.
Some years ago, I think it was Ian Duncan Smith, suggested that the rod licence be abolished. This was obviously a ploy to win votes. However there was a big outcry against the idea, and it was quickly forgotten.