Let me first of all say that I happily buy a rod licence every year and I am a member of the Angling Trust, but I wasn’t always going to be the happy subscriber to either at times. Allow me to explain…
It wasn’t too long ago that I objected strongly to buying a rod licence from the National Rivers Authority then (now the Environment Agency) as I saw it as a direct tax on our sport. Similar in many ways to Road Fund Licence (Road Tax) or the Broadcast Receiving Licence (Telly Tax). In the case of the Road Fund it doesn’t, let’s be honest, go on maintaining the roads otherwise we’d have the best highways in the world and in the latter case you may never want to watch the BBC, where all the money goes, but you still have to pay. They are all forms of a direct tax, although some would argue it’s indirect, semantics.
The Environment Agency – Rod Licence and Fisheries Departments
It was when I got involved with them in 1996 that I then realised, if you wanted something doing for fishing then it’s best to be good friends with the EA Fisheries Officers and not criticise too much. They helped us with a netting survey on one of our waters, took away water samples for analysis, and later gave us some 14,000 roach, gudgeon, and tench from a fish rescue they did on a small pond. So as far as I was concerned I was starting to see some benefits from my Rod Licence money.
It’s been a great relationship ever since because in 1999 when I asked them about the lack of barbel (none in fact) in one section of the Thames they collected a bit of data together, got some funds from somewhere and introduced 10,000 barbel in various stretches (we got 700) all down the Thames from Temple Lock to Staines. This was followed up two years later with more fish, all were elastomer-dye marked somewhere so that they could be identified later when caught.
Recently the EA have been enormously helpful with a fishery our organisation had been paying someone else for before we heard, by rumour, that is was free fishing and owned by the EA. It took some time, but eventually their Estates Dept. came back to us with the confirmation that it is EA owned and therefore free fishing, for the moment. OK, we have lost a control over it, but we still get to fish it without paying for it, so good news all round.
 |
| The EA prosecute polluters, ATr sue for damages |
Where the Environment Agency works is that it has legislation on its side so polluters can be prosecuted, the down side of that is that most fines go into Government coffers unless the Judge decides to awards costs and compensation.
Another thing you should note that is different to Road Fund, but similar to the Broadcast Receiving Licence is that ALL the funds go to the EA Fisheries Department and not to support benefits or the NHS or whatever. That is then topped up by Grant In Aid, however that is mostly spent on salmon and sea trout work. The grand total of fisheries money is then broken down into budgets for each region, but apart from general running costs of vehicles and boats etc., much of it is spent on fisheries.
Note there, also, that I mentioned ‘fisheries’ and not as fishing or angling. It is spent on habitats that contain fish, hence ‘fisheries’, whether clubs or the public can fish on them or not. They can spend some on improving banks and access points to benefit anglers, but it is still with an accent on fisheries as opposed to fishing or angling. However, we mustn’t complain because much of time what benefits fisheries also benefits us.
Where the Environment Agency fall down is that they don’t have to answer to us, or as one of our regional consultative people once said “They have a duty to consult, they don’t have a duty to listen.” Now that relates not to Fisheries Departments so much as the whole of the Environment Agency, which I describe as the biggest DIS-organisation in the country. This is because you get Fisheries staff protecting the fish whilst Abstractions licence people to abstract water that damage fisheries or other departments within the EA that licence legal pollutions (as recently in the Thames) that again damage and destroy our fisheries. So for the one department that does good for us, there are perhaps 10 or more departments that care little about the destruction their work causes just so long as it’s within the law.
And please don’t get me started on the planning of hydropower plants on the weirs of all rivers in this country! That would perhaps be the biggest fish killer yet! And don’t get me on their Recreations Department that doesn’t recognise angling as a rcreation!
Overall, do I think my £27 to pay for a rod licence is worth it? Well I have to have one by law if I want to fish, but YES, I certainly do if only to have one of those departments working in my (and other anglers’) interests. I get on well with the people I know and in September I’m going on a survey boat with them (as is a member of TAC) to find out more about that side of things. If you don’t think you’re getting value for money from your licence, then get involved with a club who are involved with the EA fisheries people and it will open your eyes.
The Angling Trust & Fish Legal
For years there were many different groups involved in angling. The key one, that is the one who claimed to be the “Governing Body” was the National Federation of Anglers (NFA), but in later years it was felt by many non-match anglers that all the NFA was for was match anglers. It seemed to many that most of its comments and statements to the press concerned match fishing more than any other aspect of our sport and not for angling in general.
Then there was the Anglers Conservation Association (ACA) who acted on behalf of anglers when there was a pollution incident causing the deaths of fish with the aim of claiming compensation on behalf of a member club/angler. It fulfilled this task very well indeed, but had no political clout other than bending a few ears privately.
 |
| Cormorants – a problem the EA could not resolve |
There were other groups, the Specialist Anglers Association (SAA) and National Association of Fishery and Anglers Consultatives (NAFAC), both of which did a good job for their members. In fact it was Terry Mansbridge (Chair of NAFAC) who brought about the licences to shoot cormorants by applying pressure on the Government, but he was a very self-effacing man and never got on a soap box and claimed it was all his doing, even though most of it was. The only side left was the National Association of Sea Anglers (NFSA), the trout and salmon anglers went their own way by declaring the S&TA a charity.
All of these bodies separately had no really strong political clout, none (bar the NFA to some extent) were officially recognised as representing all anglers and none really claimed any massive subsidies that other physical sports enjoyed. Something had to change, the demand was for ONE and only ONE representative body and after much screaming and bickering – they formed the Angling Trust.
The only side that kept itself separate for legal reasons was the ACA and that changed its name to Fish Legal, and that jars with me today if only that the name means nothing whereas the old Anglers Conservation Association did mean something in the title. However, its role was extended and it performs the same tasks today as it always did, only more so. Let me also say that I was never entirely happy with the £20 (then) subscription believing it would sit better with more anglers at £5 or £10.
In itself, the Angling Trust/Fish Legal has no legislation to back it up, it can only operate within the laws already provided to seek private writs or sue for damages and, more importantly, put pressure on the Government to change legislation. It is now our voice, whether you like to agree with that statement or not, because I have seen, witnessed myself, the close relationship that has now been formed between the Minister responsible and the ATr and that is all for the good, we have at last got their ears! This is something we have not previously had in any other way shape or form.
It isn’t perfect and it can’t do everything on its limited staff and budget, but that is down to a lack of members and I’m not going down that track right now, this is not meant as an advert for them. It may take several years before it is seen as performing ‘up to scratch’, but the start it has made so far is quite remarkable.
The Differences
As I said, the EA has legislation on its side whereas the ATr doesn’t.
The EA cannot lobby Parliament nor Ministers for changes although it can recommend if asked to and depending on circumstances. The Angling Trust’s main purpose is to lobby Parliament and Ministers and it is free to do so.
If one department within the EA brings in a proposal or issues a licence that is at odds with Fisheries then Fisheries staff cannot start or join a public outcry about it, but sure as hell, the Angling Trust can and will!
The EA cannot privately sue for damages/compensation if a fishery is wiped out whereas ATr/Fish Legal can.
 |
| Calverton Fish Farm, work the ATr couldn’t do. |
The EA has a pretty hefty budget of around £22m (if I remember from the last count) plus its grant-in-aid (used to be around £8m) and it gets a lot of services paid for it, buildings and the like, I believe. (Please also note that Court cases involving pollutions are paid for by Pollutions Department and does not come out of Fisheries budget.) The ATr has just about 14,000 members paying £25 per year and some clubs who have joined (I do not know at what costs), but from about £½m that has to pay for experts (solicitors etc.), all of it’s own running costs including buildings, heating, services, vehicles, staff salaries, computers, telephone…… it goes on.
The Angling Trust does not have the experience nor staff nor the wherewithal to run all of the EA Fisheries duties and responsibilities across the country. What the EA Fisheries does with our money is phenomenal, but then it hasn’t the freedom and cannot undertake all the political tasks that the ATr fulfil (and I haven’t touched on company sponsorship).
Both need each other and each need us!
This is now the advert for both, if you like –
Add them together – the EA charge £27 for a rod licence and membership of the Angling Trust costs £25 per year, that’s £52 per year. Coincidentally (and I don’t know if that’s the reason the EA Rod Licence remained the same this year) there are 52 weeks in the year so work it out, that’s £1 per week to protect and defend your fish and your fishing rights. Is £1 per week too much to ask?
(P.S.: I have to thank Ray Clarke for, sometime ago, starting to use the short form of ATr for the Angling Trust as many anglers were confusing it with the Angling Times, which is often referred to as AT. I know you’ll probably have more to say on the ATr, Ray, but first of all, thanks for that, it saves a lot of typing at times.)
JEFF WOODHOUSE
