The Rod Licence - For or Against?

dezza · Mar 26, 2010

Let's take a few angler's opinions regarding the rod licence. Martin Salter says that the Conservatives if they get in, might eliminate it.

I know that Ian Duncan Smith wrongly wanted to relinquish the licence some time ago when he was Leader of the Opposition.

Personally I think the licence MUST be retained. I think the licence is too cheap and would like to see the fee doubled for non-concessionary anglers. I think the licence gives us as water users an important degree of credibility regarding our integrity. We can use the licence arguement when debating issues with other water users.

But let's see what you think.

Cakey · Mar 26, 2010

For................................

Mark Hewitt · Mar 26, 2010

For......

But I can see no logical reasn for doubling the price, Ron?

dezza · Mar 26, 2010

Mark Hewitt said:
But I can see no logical reasn for doubling the price, Ron?

I believe that not enough money goes into our sport. Instead of the Environment Agency which is a typical government quango, I would like to see a National Rivers and Waterways Recreational Fisheries Authority that makes sure that all our waters are capable of giving top quality sport.

And a heck of a lot stronger Angling Trust.

Jeff Woodhouse · Mar 26, 2010

Ron The Hat Clay said:
would like to see the fee doubled for non-concessionary anglers.

Oh yeh? So not you then!!

Mind you, by next year not me either.... Good idea RON!

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

Ron The Hat Clay said:
National Rivers and Waterways Recreational Fisheries Authority

Why not just National Freshwater Recreational & Fisheries Authority?

Mark Hewitt · Mar 26, 2010

Not sure doubling the price would give the EA (or which ever governing body) a huge increase in its angling buget.

I suspect it will result in a much greater number of 'dodgers' - for various reasons - protest, personal finacial issues ect ect. The reduced sales numbers will limit any extra revenue. This of course could be over come by increasing the number of fishery inspectors carrying out licence checks. This of course will come at a cost......... Thus back to square one.

I'd like to see more money avalible to the EA, but what ever mothod used - there is only a finite amout that can be exctrated from anglers and used effectively.

Any increase should apply across the board - including consessions (pensioners)....... Cheeky old dog

Wobbly Face (As Per Ed) · Mar 26, 2010

I'm for it, including a price increase. Would like the EA to have more claught and be independant from Goverment as Ron suggests. Also to stick to their aims and objectives, to protect fisheries etc. I would like more EA officers on the bank, multiplying their force ten fold would have little effect in policing waters.

dezza · Mar 26, 2010

What about the National Recreational Waterways Administration. I am thinking of a similar type of body as in the USA such as the National Rifle Association (NFA) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Both bodies are independant of government.

In Australia, each state has an authority which looks after fish and game. In NSW for example they even have a saltwater hatchery which is just around the corner from where my son lives in Cronulla.

The saltwater fisheries are strictly controlled with bag limits for each species.

r1paul · Mar 26, 2010

I`m for the rod licence ,but not for a massive increase , money in the main is tight and as Mark has said , may increase the licence dodgers , also would they use the increase in the same way as the road tax , money spent on other projects ?

dezza · Mar 26, 2010

That's why I think that the organisation which runs the licence must be independent of government and political parties.

As I have said, the EA is a quango which is not fit for purpose, especially collecting licence money. How do we know that the money goes into fisheries?

We don't.

I don't trust politicians as far as I can throw them. And after hearing all the recent news about leading front bench politicians, my fears are growing.

richiekelly · Mar 26, 2010

Ron The Hat Clay said:
That's why I think that the organisation which runs the licence must be independent of government and political parties.

As I have said, the EA is a quango which is not fit for purpose, especially collecting licence money. How do we know that the money goes into fisheries?

We don't.

I don't trust politicians as far as I can throw them. And after hearing all the recent news about leading front bench politicians, my fears are growing.

i am for paying to improve / protect our fisheries but i am not in favour of the system that is in place at the moment, all cash generated from licences should be put back into things that will benifit the people that supply the cash, at the moment i dont think that it is, the EA is as you say a quango and will dance to whatever tune is called by the government of the day who in turn will promote whatever they think is popular and will get them votes, i aggre totaly that anything that takes our money should be totaly independent of the government.

dezza · Mar 26, 2010

Spot on Blanker!

Dave Burr · Mar 26, 2010

I'm totally in favour of the rod licence but I can't see any point in increasing the amount. At the moment there are only a handful of EA bailiffs out there checking and prosecuting transgressors, a price hike will mean more failing to pay and ultimately no more cash in the pot.

However, I can see big changes in the EA after the general election and I think that the will of the angler will be the last thing to be considered.

tortoise100 · Mar 26, 2010

Yes to rod licence

100% no to price increase !!

They should do a system were it decreases monthly so if you don't get it till september it would be cheaper than if you got it in june.

I think it is very dangerous even sugesting it should cost more it would be a miracle if it benifited the licence payers ,we pay enough tax as it is.

richiekelly · Mar 26, 2010

dayglowfroggy said:
Yes to rod licence

100% no to price increase !!

They should do a system were it decreases monthly so if you don't get it till september it would be cheaper than if you got it in june.

I think it is very dangerous even sugesting it should cost more it would be a miracle if it benifited the licence payers ,we pay enough tax as it is.

why cant the EA do a licence that runs for a full 12 months from the day it was purchased?

tigger · Mar 26, 2010

I'm totally against the sham of a rod licence......what a scam ! It's just another goverment stealth tax robbing yet more money off the man in the street.
The fat cats will love some of you lot on here...just the type of anglers they want !
It's funny how when I'm out and about on the banks not one person has ever said they agree with the rod licence, infact everyone has always been infatically against it.

Steve Spiller · Mar 26, 2010

I'm with you on that one Tigger, it's a poll tax on anglers!

It just goes into the Gov't coffers and a pittance is put back into angling.

Give it to the A.Tr and the revenue from it, a rod licence that is used for rods......

Am I in favour?

Yes.

But the money should be used for angling!

A rise? (you're being daft Ron)

No, no way!

Give us the true facts!
How many licences were sold? And total revenue.
Break it down, coarse and game.
How much, no bullsh!t went back into angling?
Break it down, coarse and game.

I spose that would be like asking a politician to say 'yes' or 'no' though!
No chance!!!

dezza · Mar 27, 2010

As I have said, you won't get that sort of transparency with politicians and organisations like the EA.

OK lets all become members of the AT

Peter Jacobs · Mar 27, 2010

I am totally in favour of the Rod Licence system as it is, but would not mind a reasonable increase.

I buy both Coarse and Migratory Fish licences as it allows me to fish for most species of interest to me and includes the use of upto 4 rods for Carp fishing etc.

As to the Angling Trust ever receiving the income stream for the Rod Licences I doubt that will ever happen, but, dream on if you must.

In this day and age I see little ground for a 'concessionary' price for O.A.P's to be honest.
In fact it seems somewhat contradictory that peole who have far more time to go fishing than those in employment should get their licence at a reduced fee. (twisted logic?)

The above view may change in about 5 years though . . . . . . . .

Graham Whatmore · Mar 27, 2010

I am against a rod licence because it isn't spent totally on what is best for our lakes and rivers and the creatures that inhabit them. I think we should be like Scotland and Ireland and let the people that are responsible for looking after our country (all of the country not just London) fulfill their obligations and not hide behind a quango like the EA. We already pay for our angling in the form of taxes just as any other sportsman does and can you think of any sport other than angling that needs a licence to participate?

I have often said it and I am saying it again, the EA does not have anglers interests at heart, it merely follows the instructions from various government departments and is the punch bag for those that should really be taking the responsibility, the people we pay taxes to so they can can be seen to carry out such tasks, the government.

The Rod Licence - For or Against?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Moaning Marlow Meldrew

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Senior Member