- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
This is a dedicated thread for discussing article: Is the EA Fit for Purpose?
Obviously in this incident there are problems with the the EA's conduct, but to submit "it is not fit for purpose" over one incident relating to fishing is a bit disingenuous.
It would appear to me from a previous FM news feature that this is a continuous problem with the EA:
Environment Agency Fails to Investigate Fish Kills
It is one thing to call the EA into question, but altogether a very different thing to suggest an alternative.
Now, who would that be then, the Angling Trust?
That is never likely to happen . . . . .. is it?
A fully functional EA can only happen if funding is increased, more funds from rod licenses £27 is a pittance = just over 51.00 pence per week. So would you be willing to pay £50 or £75 per license (what’s that oh no you say). Charging other water users who pay nothing to use our waterways would be a step in the right direction.
As in all things funding only goes so far, and the EA have a vast amount of liabilities to cover. So what would you be wiling to pay for a full functional EA?
Kind regards
Ray
Fit for purpose........and the Angling Trust (incorporating Fish Legal) has the damn cheek to ask that question mg: mg: mg:
With respect Blinka that what the ATr do! And in doing that they gain Self-promotion from it.
What they have not done is offer solutions to the problem. All well and good spouting about it, but to be taken seriously you need to offer up solutions or be prepared to take action yourself. The latter being in the questions I asked above!
Given the huge cuts in the budget of the EA we may have to pay more for the service we want from the EA. For the sake of argument lets call it a “Legal percept” ring-fenced for fisheries only to take action against water polluters. Now you may say that’s what or license money’s for now. And you’d be right up to a point. Like it or not the EA does a Cost Benefit Analysis on taking cases to court. If that CBA comes out in the + column it goes to court. If it’s – it doesn’t! All the state prosecution agencies use something similar.
As money through cuts gets less, legal staff lose their jobs and greater workloads on those left, the bar get higher for + side.
Agree it shouldn’t do but that’s the reality of cuts! Now if there’s more money in the pot that’s ring-fenced then we bring the bar threshold down again and more cases go to court. And that’s the point, you pays your money you get what you want.
I very much doubt that many more efficiencies can be made in this regard as it’s into the bone now.
A higher authority? As a Quango it has that already; A Governance Board. However, they are appointed by the Govt of the day. Ergo they are political appointees stack in favour of the Govt of the day to do their bidding.
Again I agree it’s not right but until we the public bring about change to a democratic system of Board appointees that the way it is and will stay.
Given the supposed talent in the ATr, it strikes me that’s something they should be highlighting and campaigning on.