Abolish the Fishing Licence?

The main news in AT this week is that Iain Duncan Smith, if elected, would abolish the fishing licence.

Having read up a little of what this may entail, I must admit there are plus points to the whol idea. It's also nice to see a leader of a major political party publically supporting our sport. something Blair has never done.

I think IDSs comments are worthy of serious debate on this website.

What do you think?

I think Graham mentioned your point about the leader of a major political party publicly supporting our sport on another thread, but worded differently. I echo that view. I do not get AT so I have not read what this may entail. Can you illustrate what points were made Ron.

Yes Dave, I'll do that tonight when I get home.

I think this issue has a seriousness that demands a separate thread.

Hang on for about 10 minutes before any more debate on here. I've just had a press release from Labour MP Martin Salter which I'm just coding which is well worth reading before any further debate on the forum.

Here it is: <a href=http://www.fishingmagic.com/news/article.asp?UAN=2604&SP=&v=1>'Rod Licence Proposals Slammed by MP'</a>

Very detailed Graham. I agree that IDS should say where the funding is coming from if the licence were abolished. The money would have to come from somewhere but, as long as the funding was made available, I don't think it matters where from. From a personal point of view I have no problem with paying my licence fee as it represents only a small percentage of the total I spend on fishing. A licence costs about the same as a good night down the pub down our way. I doubt if the proposal was made just to win votes, as votes gained would be countered by votes lost to anti's, but I would like to hear where the funding would come from. We should at least give IDS the benefit of the doubt regarding his motives as at least he is pro angling.

To me,to scrap the rod licence by ANY political party would be seen as a gimmick.
"also fishermen have a seat at the table when expenditure of that money is discussed,
canoeist`s,by comparison,dont pay a fee so their voice is far less loud"
This to me,cover`s a lot of grey area i.e.
No licence,and we are downgraded as a body.
No licence,and we are a loose cannon,to be lumped together with hunting,wide open to the anti`s.
No licence,mean`s that all the people that get caught now,without a licence,who in the main, only go on the spur of the moment,"for something to do"no regard for the fish they catch,or the sport itself, would increase.
We all have a crack at the E/A and about the
increase in fee`s,but to scrap them would be a step backward`s.

Not sure about canoeist's voice being far less loud Les. They seem to think they can do what they like.

Dave,yes Iknow what you mean,a pain in the butt!

Gimmick or not, I cannot see any benefit to angling by abolishing the licence.
The only people who would benefit would be those people who go fishing just once in a while and usually without a licence anyway.
These people would then feel free to fish anywhere they fancy as the threat of being asked to produce a licence would be removed.
As things stand, these people can be asked by any licemce holder to show their licence and if they haven't got one, they can then be told to p*ss off.
A valuable deterrent would be removed and poaching would increase enormously I feel.
The often used excuse of "I didn't know I needed a licence to fish" is nonsense.
The licence has been in existance for many years and however much people try to look innocent when being questioned, they all 'know' they should be in posession of one.

Firstly, let me say that I have no affiliation with any political party in the UK.

I buy my licenses every year and am very happy to do so because I believe that whatever the EA do on my behalf, as an angler, is better than the alternative, being little or nothing!

In an average year I will fish anything from 30 to 50 days a year, and in all that time I have never seen an EA bailif. Indeed, I have never been asked to show my licences by anyone at all!

I do agree with the very valid points that were made by both Les and Richard, but I have a basic problem with some of the statistics from the press clippings and the EA interview.
Unless I am missing something the EA representative said "we check around 200,000 licenses a year and from that we see a 5% evasion index" (paraphrased, but valid)

To check that number over a 365 day period means that only approx. 550 per day are being checked up and down the land. If this is true then there should be about 9,800 cases per year of evasion.
Now, I visit the EA site very regularly and typically they will show about half a dozen cases per month of evasion cases and the result of the same.

If the EA are really only checking 550 per day (nationwide) then it is little wonder that I have never in my life been asked to show my licenses.

Rather than see the license abolished I would personally prefer to pay double the amount if it were to result in; effective bailifing, increased prosecutions of those who evade the license fee and an increase in the number of pollution cases brought in any one year.

As to using the EA license fee as a policitcal vote "catcher" then I think that Mr. Ian Duncan Smith is either very badly advised, or is in need of a huge injection of reality.

Peter,
I am surprised you have never seen an EA bailiff. I have been asked for my rod licence four times this year, each time at a different venue. Must just be luck of the draw. Also I am not sure IDS was using this idea as a vote catcher. Even a politician would not be stupid enough for that.

Dave,

Nope, honestly never been asked to show one, ever, strange really as I think I fish a few of the venues that you do as well?

As I said I have no affiliation with any political party, unless you count the time I joined the Young Conservatives. (but that was only because they had the best looking young ladies around at the time

From what I have read it would appear that the whole idea was;
a) badly conceived,
b) ill thought through and . . . . .
c) neither fully costed nor consulted - Sounds just like a vote catcher to me.

But then you must have gathered by now that I am totally cynical when it comes to any politicians from any party at any time.

Whenever I think that (generically) politicians have reached the heights of collective stupidity, they then go on to prove that those heights were simply false ceilings!

PS - who is the new "face"?

The Unabomber Peter. I downloaded the photo from Yahoo news a few weeks ago as I thought he looked like a carp angler after a long session.
I am inclined to agree with you about politicians. We haven't had a good one since Adolph Hitler.

Or Maggie Thatcher!

Me thinks Salter has been reading this site and threads (Tories abolish rod license!!) before making his comments.
But being a forked tongued politician that he is would never admit that?
His advancement is not that of angling, but his own political career and ego. As is the case of all politicians in the house of fun and ridicule.

I truly wish it wasn't like that Phil. I truly wish our public representatives really had the welfare of the ordinary people at heart.

Maybe we all get the sort of leaders we deserve. Maybe come next election we should all think very carefully before making our cross.

There are still many people in this country who vote for one party without thinking just because they have alway voted for that one party and just because their parents did the same.

The worst amongst us are those who don't even bother to vote. They are nearly always the biggest moaners. What they don't understand is that millions of people in many countries over the years have laid down their lives so that we today can have our say.

And I lived for a long time in a country where 70% of the population had no vote whatsoever.

Best principle of selection, even if you don't like any of the parties is to vote for the least worst!

Take the traditional differences between the Labour and the Tory parties, i.e. Labour for the working man and Tory for the landed gentry.

Those differences have died long ago.

You are so right Phil. Aren't ALL politicians a bunch of tossers. We do agree on politics after all.