Opinion Piece - Either or Neither?

[Stealph Viper]

Hi james,

Can i ask were you source your information from please as to what the EA spend our Rod License money on, it may help others research the EA themselves and put some minds at ease.

I myself would be interested to see what my Rod License money is being spent on.

Perhaps this will do as a start -:

http://www.onlinefishing.tv/channel/feature/your-licence-your-money/low/

Thanks.

 

[thx1138]

Stealph,

Some of my mates are EA bailiffs, so I guess I've got a head start. But dont you get that magazine through the post that tells you what they are doing in your area?

I found some links here:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/fishing/106684.aspx

By the way, that video seems to do the trick! nice find.

 

[Stealph Viper]

I haven't had a magazine from the EA through the post for what seems like ages, i had even forgot all about them to be honest.

 

[klik2change]

the environment agency and the angling trust have absolutely nothing to do with each other apart from the fact that both are paid for, in whole [not enough] or in [very small] part, by anglers.

The rod licence means we are regulated by the EA but the EA also provides services which cater for or protect anglers, in return for the money. They have no choice other than to consider us. Money paid to the Angling trust is in no way a tax nor should it be in any way presented as one. Money paid to the AT is used purely to protect us from outside forces - including the EA. If you see the rod licence as a tax, then it's still a hypothecated tax with distinct purposes. Going back to the original rather pointless piece, dog owners buy dog licences, just as anglers buy ROD licences. A rod licence does not entitle someone to fish, just as a dog licence does not entitle a dog owner to walk their dog.

 

[Graham Whatmore]

Here we go again, I like the article Kevin it makes us (well me anyway) think and also points out the seeming injustice of a rod licence but I have been thinking and saying that for bloomin yonks.

The thinking about the AT is that it is a pressure organisation to try and make up for the quite obvious failings of the EA. Lets face the hard fact that the EA is here to stay regardless of all its shortcomings, they will never abandon the licence fee and we the angler need a voice to speak for us, something we havn't got right now and never have had.

A fishing licence (tax) is an injustice when matched against all other river and lake users or other sports or pastimes and Scotland or Ireland don't feel the need to employ one yet their waterways are in a better state than ours.

 

[Steve Spiller]

"A rod licence does not entitle someone to fish"

I don't understand that statement Klik? If I'm fishing a free stretch of river I have to have a rod licence, I can't fish without one!

 

[klik2change]

I don't understand that statement Klik? If I'm fishing a free stretch of river I have to have a rod licence, I can't fish without one!

You need the permission of the owner of the fishing rights, perhaps via a club or what ever. The rod licence on its own is not enough. Your free stretch of river is maintained to some extent, perhaps pitfully, by the EA - in return for the rod licence fee. No free lunches, remember? Somebody always pays.

 

[davegn]

I read this "discussion" piece with some trepidity, the "Rod License" has always been a contentious issue after all, but I think that one cannot quite call it an "unjustified tax" because the funds do not go to either National or Local government, it is a levy imposed by the Enironment Agency upon anglers to help them pay the salaries of the workforce that has over the last fifty years that I've been fishing, cleaned up our rivers until they are now amongst the cleanest in Europe. Anyone who wants proof, come up to my local rive, the Rother, which was an open sewer only 20 years ago and now abounds with barbel, grayling and dace, amongst other species!
Twenty two quid or so is not a lot today, as others have already stated, so why bemoan the EA who do a great deal for angling and anglers, if only one takes the time or make the effort to find out!
Stop whinging, although as a breed of sportsmen anglers seem very adept at this and examine what the real cost of the work of the EA is to you and I.

 

[geoffmaynard]

... it is a levy imposed by the Enironment Agency upon anglers to help them pay the salaries of the workforce that has over the last fifty years that I've been fishing, cleaned up our rivers until they are now amongst the cleanest in Europe.

Ah. There's that quote again. 'cleanest in Europe' :wh
The Ebro is one of the dirtiest rivers in Europe but it has some of the best fishing. The Canadian river Fraser is one of the dirtiest rivers in the northern hemisphere but has more fish (inc salmon) than every river and lake in this country put together. Clean does not always mean healthy.

 

[Steve Spiller]

I'm amazed!

Why shouldn't we be allowed to question and moan about where our rod licence (tax) is going?

People have talked about 'trust'......'they know best'.......

That's bo**ocks! Politicians know best, they run our country, do you trust them?

The E.A do what they can on a limited budget. If I heard the video correctly it was around 36 million per annum, with 500 staff? 36 million pounds!!! What could the A.T do with that if they took charge of rod licences? Too much 'red tape' and beaurocracy stands in the way of that ever happening!

We have no choice! If we want to fish we have to pay for a rod licence.

The video and website is great, lets see the real figures that are submitted to the tax man. How much goes where? What are the salaries?

Real questions and answers that I would like to see the E.A publish!

I totally agree Geoff, are our rivers too clean?

If nature had its way what would they look like?

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Why shouldn't we be allowed to question and moan about where our rod licence (tax) is going?

Of course you should question, Steve. My point has always been that you (Steve) and everyone else complaining should take the trouble to find out what the EA do with it and not just rely on little PR videos. Get your hands dirty and join a group along the lines that we have in Thames Region.

I will confess though, we don't find out where EVERY penny has gone or who is on the best salaries and given the biggest cars and not be worth it! But as far as I am concerned, the guys on the ground that I deal with ARE worth every penny.

36 million pounds!!! What could the A.T do with that if they took charge of rod licences?

Perhaps about the same. A lot of the costs, building, furniture, some if not most equipment, is provided generally for the EA and Fisheries, the poeple who get your £26, just get the benefit from it. If AT had to do the same, they would have to pay for a lot of that from our money.

Real questions and answers that I would like to see the E.A publish!

For years now I have been asking the top brass at Fisheries (not the guys on the ground) to publish a set of accounts just stating in round thousands how much is received, where it is spread to, and what projects it is spent on (ie. enforcement, renewal of fisheries, landscaping, restocking, etc.) I am NOT holding my breath.

In answer to Upnorth as well, by dent of the fact that an angler MUST purchase a licence it therefore is a TAX and, because not all people/sports using the river as an amenity have to pay, it is to a large extent unjustified. Were it justified, then the others would have to pay something also as they get benefits too. In the grand scheme of total EA things, what they collect from anglers is a pitance and hardly worth the effort of collecting it.

However, I don't mind paying so long as our EA boys keep looking after my little bits of river.

 

[Kevin Perkins]

Sorry, I thought there would be a bit more mileage in this discussion, so I'll give it one more little push.

James makes the statement that anglers exploit fish. I'll admit that if the fish weren't there, then the anglers wouldn't be either, but surely the EA haven't stocked every fish that swims in our waters. But aren't the EA culpable for exploiting fish in the manner of coal mine canaries when it comes to pollution incidents? If the fish weren't in the water to go belly up, how many 'accidental' dischages or illegal dumpings would show up? Maybe the constant water quality monitoring by the EA of every piece of freshwater in England and Wales would have spotted it.......

'Klik' is of the opinion that it was a pointles piece. Now, while I am the first to admit that the way the article was constructed may have been as poor as my usual standard, and the reasoning in the arguements I was trying to put across may have failed to hit their targets, it was at least well meant 'Pointless' is a bit harsh.

Why the EA and the AT was the main thrust of the article. It can only be that we anglers feel we don't get enough representation from the EA. Then how about suggesting an increase in the Rod Licence that will give us our own 'Publicity' office at the EA and another 200 of so bailiffs would be handy. An extra £10 a year should do it

How about that...???

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

An extra £10 a year should do it

Crikey, now you're increasing it further still?

Your piece wasn't pointless, Kevin. Like I said, I would agree with much of the first part, but you must understand that the Environment Agency isn't one animal with one head. It's a bit like Medusa's hair in that it's full of snakes.

The Fisheries Department that receives our licence fee is, for me at least, a brilliant organisation. However, in the case of a pollution, another body takes over and Fisheries are only consulted to assess the likely damage to fish life (no mention yet of other animals or insect life). The offenders are then prosecuted by the EA Legal Department.

Sometimes, it all comes unstuck and as I've said many times, the EA is one of the biggest disorganisations in the country.

There's much that I can find fault with it and I wished that we had retained the National Rivers Authority, at least we might have excluded ourselves from air, ground, environmental and other things it gets its sticky fingers into.

---------------------------------------------------------

What I don't get and where I think your case fell apart to some extent, would be achieved by answering this - what do you want?

You argued for a £50 licence to go to the AT and then soem of that to go to the EA. Apart from the fact that it's never going to happen for political as well as logistical reeasons, what is the difference is buying a rod licence now for £26 and joining AT for £20, other than it's £4 cheaper?

I think that's the point you need to make clearer because it went over my head.

I'm happy buying a rod licence from the EA and having them spend it on rivers, research, environmental projects in my area (and a lot of our area's cash goes to other regions anyway, bear in mind). I'm also very happy paying the AT £20 per year so that a national organisation speaking as one voice on behalf of all anglers can lobby and protest Parliament and fight battles against the antis and other things, that I can't on my own. I'm also very happy that a good proportion of that £20 goes to Fish Legal who will also fight the polluters on behalf of my friends (anglers) in other parts of the country.

I honestly wouldn't wish to have a pollution like that on the Trent to affect our lovely Thames. It's like I pay £24 per annum towards Cancer Research to help others and carry out research to find preventative cures, but I sure as hell don't want the bl**dy disease myself just so I know I get value for money.

I hope you see my point Kevin. Perhaps if you made yours a little clearer....

 

[Stealph Viper]

The problem arises when you look at it as me, mine etc

I know i did the same with the Angling Trust debate, yes, it's my money, but i quickly realised that it is to benefit the fishing in England as a whole.

When i was 21 we had moved house 19 times, from England to Scotland to England and then back to Scotland.

Now in the next 21 years i could move again, it could because of work, coming in to money, but then i would want my money re routed to were i was then fishing, it's not practical.

There should be more information available to anglers from there county's on reports from the EA, but to do that they would have to either find more money to fund it, or use the money they are currently using and redirect the funds from them to fund it.

I know which i would rather happen, more money for fishing and less info about what they are doing in my area.

You could write to the Angling Trust to see if they have any info about the Bristol Avon.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I'm also very happy paying the AT £20 per year so that a national organisation speaking as one voice on behalf of all anglers can lobby and protest Parliament and fight battles against the antis and other things, that I can't on my own. I'm also very happy that a good proportion of that £20 goes to Fish Legal who will also fight the polluters on behalf of my friends (anglers) in other parts of the country.

Let me repeat what I have said before: at 20 pounds for AT Individual Membership we are nowhere near to getting the right sort of money into the AT in order for them to carry out their full remit.

Prior to January this year we paid the same 20 pounds to the ACA alone, and then more to each of the constituent bodies as and if we wanted that membership.

I'd like to see the EA license increased slightly each year to account for inflation etc., but also to see the AT Individual membership increased to a meaningful amount - 40 pounds should do it for the first year.

 

[Stealph Viper]

I'd like to see the EA license increased slightly each year to account for inflation etc., but also to see the AT Individual membership increased to a meaningful amount - 40 pounds should do it for the first year.

The only problem about paying £40.00p to the Angling Trust is, a lot of Anglers already think that paying £20.00p is to much, yes, i agree, it isn't a great deal of money if you have it available to you and you believe in their cause, but, if you double it you just risk alienating even more anglers from joining the Angling Trust.

The EA license goes up every year, i am not sure whether it reflects inflation, but it has risen every year for the last 10 years or so.

 

[Graham Whatmore]

Peter, £40 a year now is it? I think a spell on the naughty chair for you mate, cor! forty quid he says, just like that.

 

[Kevin Perkins]

The Fisheries Department that receives our licence fee is, for me at least, a brilliant organisation.
QUOTE]

Then if that is the case, why aren't we all demanding that this department (already set up, so no start-up costs) look after our interests in the manner we are expecting the AT to do?

A £10 ramp up of the compulsory licence fee paid directly to this department (which must already have significant expertise and contacts in all things piscatorial) would seem far more logical that trying to set up another organisation to help and support anglers......

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Then if that is the case, why aren't we all demanding that this department (already set up, so no start-up costs) look after our interests in the manner we are expecting the AT to do?

It's different Kevin. The EA is a QUANGO, basically, and part of teh Government. No Government in its right mind (even a foolish Labour one) would have a large section of one of its QUANGOs speaking out against its (Government) own policy.

They MUST be separate. Way of the world.....


Oh, and I wouldn't go around suggesting the EA increase the licence fee by £10 because some silly a**e is going to do it, but you won't get any more for it.