C
Cakey
Guest
do you think this was enough .....or to high ?
Mark Hewitt
Senior Member
Not enough.
Neneman Nick
Well-known member
Just read the piece by the "E A".....they say that this sends out a clear message to those who think they can fish when and where they please,without a rod liscence etc...... unfortunately it doesn`t because people continually try it on all the time!!!
Perhaps there should be a minimum starting fine set down in law,depending on the circumstances you were caught.....a fine for fishing rivers or lake for coarse fish,one for poaching trout or salmon and one for illegal netting etc.....
That way you know what the minimum fine will be should you decide to flount the law and get caught....hook,line and sinker!!!
Perhaps there should be a minimum starting fine set down in law,depending on the circumstances you were caught.....a fine for fishing rivers or lake for coarse fish,one for poaching trout or salmon and one for illegal netting etc.....
That way you know what the minimum fine will be should you decide to flount the law and get caught....hook,line and sinker!!!
I agree, not enough by a long way compared to the maximum fine of ?2,500.
However, as this is a Summary Offence and is heard in a Magistrate's Court usually the culprit will get off with a lot less than the maximum fine. Sad, but nonetheless true.
However, as this is a Summary Offence and is heard in a Magistrate's Court usually the culprit will get off with a lot less than the maximum fine. Sad, but nonetheless true.
Someone may know better but didn’t the guy catch it from a boat moored in a marina? …I am a bit out of touch with the current scene but I am sure fishing from boat allowed you to get round the “No fishing” or "need permisson" rule on some of the Thames marinas in the past...
As forno Rod license…yep he should be fined…and £290 sounds too low..but does it mean he did not catch the biggest Perch ever caught on rod and line in the uk…
As forno Rod license…yep he should be fined…and £290 sounds too low..but does it mean he did not catch the biggest Perch ever caught on rod and line in the uk…
Mark Hewitt
Senior Member
I think fishing from a boat/no permission rule only applies to tidal stretches of river, and dates way back to the magna carta. Someone on here should know more details.
It doesn't however excuse the lack of rod licence, and also questions have been raised about the weight of the fish??? As far as I'm aware to be accepted as record the fish must be weighed on dry land, not in a boat.
It's a huge perch no doubt, and I always keep an open mind on these subjects but I think I'd be surprised if it really was as heavy as claimed. I guess we will never know.
Too many question marks for my liking, hopefully it will encourage more people to target large perch, as I can't remember a better time for them...... who knows what may turn up.
It doesn't however excuse the lack of rod licence, and also questions have been raised about the weight of the fish??? As far as I'm aware to be accepted as record the fish must be weighed on dry land, not in a boat.
It's a huge perch no doubt, and I always keep an open mind on these subjects but I think I'd be surprised if it really was as heavy as claimed. I guess we will never know.
Too many question marks for my liking, hopefully it will encourage more people to target large perch, as I can't remember a better time for them...... who knows what may turn up.
B
Baz (Angel of the North)
Guest
One local angler bought his E.A. licence for twelve months in January (From the post office).
The post office neglected to tell him that it would not cover him for the next twelve months. It was a genuine oversight or mistake by the angler, he had only just taken up the sport. But the E.A. bailiff came along in the first week in April, and he has now recieved a summons to appear in court for fishing with an invalid/out of date rod licecence.
Surely something like this needs a further and full investigation? If the post office are going to sell E.A. licences, surely they have a duty to train their staff to let people know when the licence runs to and from?
In the eyes of the E.A. ignorance is no excuse. And to a great extent I would agree with it.
But in this instance I would say that the post office are partly responsible. Personally, if this man does get prosecuted, I think it is a massive injustice
The post office neglected to tell him that it would not cover him for the next twelve months. It was a genuine oversight or mistake by the angler, he had only just taken up the sport. But the E.A. bailiff came along in the first week in April, and he has now recieved a summons to appear in court for fishing with an invalid/out of date rod licecence.
Surely something like this needs a further and full investigation? If the post office are going to sell E.A. licences, surely they have a duty to train their staff to let people know when the licence runs to and from?
In the eyes of the E.A. ignorance is no excuse. And to a great extent I would agree with it.
But in this instance I would say that the post office are partly responsible. Personally, if this man does get prosecuted, I think it is a massive injustice
Bryan Baron 2
Well-known member
I am never sure on this one. Regarding theMagna Carta which states nobody ownes the land between high and low water. If this applies to rivers then the next question id were does the river start and the sea end. No rod licence and close season for the sea.
With regards to the fine . It was not enough and never is.When ever i see these published. I always laugh. I have only ever been checked once on the river and that's going back quite a few years. So if i did not pay i would have saved nearly as much as the fine. The minimum should be at least half of the maximum otherwise its never going to be a deterrent just a inconvenience.
With regards to the record i believe it was weighed in a boat then on land but when asked it was not dry land but a pontoon. So still clased as afloat. Otherwise it should have stood as the list is for fish caught on rod and line. I think there is no need for the names of the captures on the list just the fish and weight. Location is even a bit irelavant as they are nearly all from the south of the country. As it stands at the momment so are named some are not.
With regards to the fine . It was not enough and never is.When ever i see these published. I always laugh. I have only ever been checked once on the river and that's going back quite a few years. So if i did not pay i would have saved nearly as much as the fine. The minimum should be at least half of the maximum otherwise its never going to be a deterrent just a inconvenience.
With regards to the record i believe it was weighed in a boat then on land but when asked it was not dry land but a pontoon. So still clased as afloat. Otherwise it should have stood as the list is for fish caught on rod and line. I think there is no need for the names of the captures on the list just the fish and weight. Location is even a bit irelavant as they are nearly all from the south of the country. As it stands at the momment so are named some are not.
Yes Brian that’s pretty much my point…did he even need permission or a license? ...Did he deserve to get a fine ? …probably yes to both… but it does raise a few questions….
As for the record...tbh..I would not accept it as there were too many other variables -Pontoon as you mention.. Weighing procedure etc. I am also the world’s biggest skeptic when it comes to claimed fish weights but the photos here looked like it could be the real deal…big bloke too…but again I know it’s easy to be fooled. Also maybe some of the doubts raised were by a jealous few who wanted to fish the Marina but didn’t have a boat…it would not be the first time…
I like you point about not really needing names on a record list…although its nice to have and of course gives merit to the captor but it reminded me some what of the Barbel “record” that never was as two guys touched the same rod…stupid…it was still the biggest barbel caught on rod and line.
As for the record...tbh..I would not accept it as there were too many other variables -Pontoon as you mention.. Weighing procedure etc. I am also the world’s biggest skeptic when it comes to claimed fish weights but the photos here looked like it could be the real deal…big bloke too…but again I know it’s easy to be fooled. Also maybe some of the doubts raised were by a jealous few who wanted to fish the Marina but didn’t have a boat…it would not be the first time…
I like you point about not really needing names on a record list…although its nice to have and of course gives merit to the captor but it reminded me some what of the Barbel “record” that never was as two guys touched the same rod…stupid…it was still the biggest barbel caught on rod and line.
Bryan Baron 2
Well-known member
I also remeber that. One held the rod while the captor went to the other bank to release the fish from a snag. Its meant to be a rod and line caught record. Indicating what is the biggest fish caught.
But also does the fish have to caught on rod and line. I keep getting told its to show how big a fish can grow in this country. So why does it only count if caught on rod and line. If a water is being netted for some reason and a fish turns up it should also be included.
But also does the fish have to caught on rod and line. I keep getting told its to show how big a fish can grow in this country. So why does it only count if caught on rod and line. If a water is being netted for some reason and a fish turns up it should also be included.
Yes that’s the one. I guess it depends on if we are talking about an angling record or simply a natural history record of how big a species can grow…I think both have a place.
Actually I quite like the stories of netted monsters over the current angling records as it helps to add to the unknown/mystery side of angling which I really enjoy.
I remember meeting an EA guy who said he had netted 2 chub over the then record from a stretch of river I was fishing..small venue too...I still have no idea if it was a load of cobblers but there was a jaunty spring in my stride the next time I trotted down that bank I can tell you!
Actually I quite like the stories of netted monsters over the current angling records as it helps to add to the unknown/mystery side of angling which I really enjoy.
I remember meeting an EA guy who said he had netted 2 chub over the then record from a stretch of river I was fishing..small venue too...I still have no idea if it was a load of cobblers but there was a jaunty spring in my stride the next time I trotted down that bank I can tell you!
Ray Daywalker Clarke
Well-known member
The fish has to be caught with rod and line, more to the point you have to land the fish on your own, nobody can help in any way. If everything had been in the correct order, ie licence etc, the fish would not have become a record as his friend helped him get it from a snag.
The fines are never enough, start at a grand for first time, and up it by a grand everytime that person doe's it again.
The EA should print on the Licence when it runs out, it's not down to the post office they have to write on the start date but the EA should print on the expiry date, it's the same each year.
The fines are never enough, start at a grand for first time, and up it by a grand everytime that person doe's it again.
The EA should print on the Licence when it runs out, it's not down to the post office they have to write on the start date but the EA should print on the expiry date, it's the same each year.
C
Cakey
Guest
its about time it was changed to a year from when you buy it !
The Sogster
Well-known member
Don't know where every body else gets their licence from but mine clearly states the start and end dates as well as the time and date of purchase.
Cakey, I buy mine as soon as they are ready for renewal (last week of March) - I always get 12 months.
Cakey, I buy mine as soon as they are ready for renewal (last week of March) - I always get 12 months.
Geoff Brown
New member
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
The EAs excuse it that that it would be too hard to administer licences running a full 12 months from date of purchase. They could however have a pro-rata rate so that one could buy a cheap (e.g.) 1 month licence ending March 31st very easily.
slime monster
Senior Member
if you will forgive the pun the chap that claimed the record without a licence was obviously not quite the ticket looking at his photo.
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC)
Senior Member
<blockquote class=quoteheader>CAKEY ........ wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>its about time it was changed to a year from when you buy it !</blockquote>
Good point Cakey. How this is "...too hard to administer..." beyond my imagination??? Surely it's a case of 'stamping ' the license with teh valid from and to dates. What's so difficult/costly about that?
As for the fine - too low in my opinion. If it was set at £2500 ish then there is more of a deterant (for those aware they need a license in teh first place).
As a comparison, considera few other fines:
How much is the fine if you don't have a TV license these days?
You could face a fine of £250 or more if your dog does a dump in the park and you don't scoop it.
How much is the fine if you drop a fag but in the street (in a zero tolerance town)
Good point Cakey. How this is "...too hard to administer..." beyond my imagination??? Surely it's a case of 'stamping ' the license with teh valid from and to dates. What's so difficult/costly about that?
As for the fine - too low in my opinion. If it was set at £2500 ish then there is more of a deterant (for those aware they need a license in teh first place).
As a comparison, considera few other fines:
How much is the fine if you don't have a TV license these days?
You could face a fine of £250 or more if your dog does a dump in the park and you don't scoop it.
How much is the fine if you drop a fag but in the street (in a zero tolerance town)
Claudia Crowther
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,707
- Reaction score
- 1
Definitely not enough IMHO, the thought of paying a fine of £1000 or above would make people think more carefully to fish without a licence.
Avon Aquatics - Ryan
New member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 0
Surely if he can afford a rod and reel and in this case a boat, he cannot get away with a fine that low, the minimum for seniors (Adults) should be at least ?500 with the fine for juniors starting at around ?65.
licenses will for the time being stay ending in march the EA says, do i agree with this, well i don't find it a problem, and if you are that desperate to go fishing in the last month of the license you can always by 1 day licenses or even 5 ??? day ones.
What would be an idea (and one i would be happy to pay more for) is for the licenses not to be made out of paper (yes i do keep it in a waterproof wallet (laminating them is not allowed.) but wouldn't it be good if they were made out of a redit card material or be self sealing (sealed back with a sticky back plastic front that you unpeel once your details have been printed on. ( a local angling club uses this system and is is an amazing success (Chippenham AA)
Ryan
licenses will for the time being stay ending in march the EA says, do i agree with this, well i don't find it a problem, and if you are that desperate to go fishing in the last month of the license you can always by 1 day licenses or even 5 ??? day ones.
What would be an idea (and one i would be happy to pay more for) is for the licenses not to be made out of paper (yes i do keep it in a waterproof wallet (laminating them is not allowed.) but wouldn't it be good if they were made out of a redit card material or be self sealing (sealed back with a sticky back plastic front that you unpeel once your details have been printed on. ( a local angling club uses this system and is is an amazing success (Chippenham AA)
Ryan
Mithrandir
Well-known member
I have a big problem with the whole fine thing, it means if you are wealthy enough you can flout the law.
How about putting licence dodgers onto work parties to improve rivers and banks, like community service. Then the punishment is equal in value for all, 100 hours clearing river banks is as hard if you are rich or poor.
How about putting licence dodgers onto work parties to improve rivers and banks, like community service. Then the punishment is equal in value for all, 100 hours clearing river banks is as hard if you are rich or poor.