Fined for no licence

W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
The fine wasn't heavy enough. I understand it could be ?2,500 and perhaps one day someone will get fined that amount.

Still, it makes you think. He got find ?285 in total for not buying a ?25 licence. A ratio of over 11 to one.

Yet for not buying a tax disc for a car all you get fined is a miserable ?80. That's not even 6 months road tax (?90.75). That ought to be ?1000 - no question!
 
R

Ron Troversial Clay

Guest
I have never had a problem with buying a fishing licence. The post office is only at the top of my little street. If you are out of work, disabled or a pensioner, you can get a considerable reduction in price.

We must think ourselves lucky. In Germany you have to take a test that is more complicated than the UK driving test.

This year I shall be taking the licence migratory species. I want to catch a sea trout or maybe even a salmon.
 
T

The Monk

Guest
I hope they catch the Bas**rds who ride bikes on canal banks without licenses too!
 
B

Barry Fleming

Guest
the fine used to be about ?80 with costs for a first offender. Seeing it was not his first time being caught they should have imposed the maximum penalty on him.
 
B

Barry Fleming

Guest
The good thing with checking licences for the E.A. is -: It is black or white, there are no grey areas, you have got one or you havent.And that goes for every one.

As for club licences, it can be a bit of a joke really.
 
A

Andy Nellist

Guest
Jeff,the ?80 fine for Road tax is just the automatic fine if you don't renew your license or notify the DVLA that your car is off the road. The reason they are bringing it in is that it should cut the number of people driving without Road Tax and MOT. A lot of vehicles involved in crime fall in to that category.

You could do the same in angling and requyire all anglers to register before fishing and then either buy a license each year or de-register but that would be rather big brother.

The level of fines is left to the magistrates to decide and there tends to be a lot of variation in fines from region to region.

It would be nice if the fine went to the EA sadly it does not.
 
B

Barry Fleming

Guest
As Andy says, it does depend on the judge on the day if a person gets a hefty fine or a slapped wrist.
I think I remember hearing somewhere that the E.A. gets a very small percentage of the fine.
 
B

Bill Cox

Guest
Some sort of fixed penelty system should apply as it is absurd that the differences between judges can be so much.I have always had my licence but unlike some of you i begrudge paying for something others use for nowt.Does the windsurfer or the canoest pay a licence fee? NO but they use the water the same as we do dont they ?Does the rambler pay to walk all over the river sides and around the lakes enjoying the well kept banks and pathways ,(usually kept tidy by club working parties)NO of course not so why should we !The EA does a great job but it should be directly funded.This industry (angling ) makes enough money for this country as it is without furthur taxing a mans hobby.How much of course angling is now carried out on lakes and commercial fisheries , owned/leased by clubs who run and maintain them themselves more then 50% i would bet so why should a licence be needed for that ,let the salmon and trout anglers pay if they want to after all they get the lions share of the money spent on their rivers anyway.Do away with an unfair licence and then you need,nt block up the courts with licence dodgers in the first place.
 
D

Dave Rothery

Guest
bill - what about our water charges down here? sky high to pay for the clean up of the holidaymakers.........
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
As you rightly say Andy, whatever the level of fine, the EA never sees a penny.

We had John Sutton, Fisheries and Biodiversity Manager for Thames Region, at our small meeting on Monday night and one question raised was why do the EA give advanced notice of a purge in certain areas.

His reply makes sense in agrees with what you say. He said that the EA hoped that those anglers that normally wouldn't have a licence will go out and buy beforehand. That way the EA gets the cash. If they go to Court they don't get the cash.

Still the threat of being caught is not sufficient to deter these licence dodgers. There is a number on your licence you can call and maybe you will get some attention immediately if you report suspected licence dodgers fishing. Also report anglers on rivers during the close season.
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
Bill - I take note of what you say and I can sympathise with much of it. But the Licence is required by law even if you fish in your own garden pond. The money does at least go straight to the Fisheries Department of the EA and they should be doing everything possible to help you and your club/s to benefit in every way possible.

I can say this because our Association and many of the clubs within it have had nothing but the greatest of help from our local Environment Agency people. To the extent that a scheme started, partly at my insistance, in 1999 to replenish the stock of barbel in certain stretches of the Thames has been extended time and again. Also studies have been carried out in stretches and we have been informed of the resulst. The list of help goes on.

I'm afraid it's like that old saying "You only get out of something what you're prepared to put into it." Get to know your local EA people and stick to them like glue. The fisheries lads are usually top notch guys.
 
B

Bill Cox

Guest
I hear what your saying Jeff and i do,nt in anyway decry what the EA does it does a lot of good for our sport but i still feel the EA would be better directly funded from the government.Or at the very least we should get better more rights with the licence.At the moment i have no more rights then the guy in the canoe or the guy ripping the bank up on his mountain bike .As for the old saying ,I know in that you are right and i will continue to pay as i have always done since direct funding does,nt exist and probably never will if we did,nt we would be far worse off.That said it still does not mean to licence us and not other users of the waterways is grossly unfair.Dave has a good point about the water charges too what is it about us down here have we got a sign hanging on the southwest border saying "country yokle please fleece "
 
T

The Monk

Guest
spot on Bill, all water users should pay, not just anglers, we are always the bloody fall guys, look how we got sticted up over the lead shot
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
Much as I sing the praises of the EA Fisheries there is another side to me that objects to being the only group to have to buy a "Licence" to pratice his/her sport. There is no qualifying test and therefore it can be seen as a tax, a means of revenue raising.

You register a boat, you don't have to register anything else (I'm not sure about canal towpaths now) on the river paths. You should get permission from the landowner though to ride a bike across his land.

Our licence money goes to Fisheries who should be looking after the fish stocks, which they do and in principle I have no problems with that. I am glad that someone is doing something for fish. Unfortunately, Recreations Department who should be looking after the sport of angling, haven't yet awoken to the fact that angling is a sport.

Sadly, if we didn't pay for our licences and raise so much money, I fear angling would be banned tomorrow because JUST WHO ELSE WOULD GIVE A TOSS???? Not Teflon-Tony, that's for sure.
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
The reason I mentioned boats being registered is because you don't need a licence to drive them like you do a car. A pity because there are a lot of complete tossers out there who don't know how to navigate a river at a speed that is slow enough to cause the least bank disturbance.

I going to get all wound up about boats
again ..... grrrrrrrr!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top