- Joined
- Feb 26, 2009
- Messages
- 277,087
- Reaction score
- 8
They have paid for legal advice, I assume they sought the opinion, nothing more than that. Do they expect the average paddler, or the myriad of companies who operate on many rivers, to heed that advice and cease what they're doing?
Those companies will only be affected if a case comes to court and is proven against them. Their insurance companies might then revise their policies and stop others from following suit.
QC opinion is not cheap! Maybe financing a full prosecution is now a more likely as a next step rather than people withdrawing their case or backing down when confronted with such opinions?
Those who don't have any agreement can arrive with a vehicle,unload and launch in almost less time then it takes to tell the tale.The number of places is massive that they can operate from. Once on water they do as said above, do as they like, when they want to land, again only they and the vehicle drivers know where and when. Policing this situation with the assets available to the authorities today is all but mission impossible.
(
If the Environment Agency can check licences from a motor launch then why can't they use the same to enforce the Law and protect our fishing?
IMO Steve its all about expenditure and gain because the more they can catch fishing without a rod licence the more they can publicise it and use it as a tool to put others off fishing without paying for one.
Its a double win for them, on the one hand they shout from the rooftops about the amount of none licence holding anglers they find therefor convincing the average angler that pays for a licence that their money is being spent well while on the other hand using it as a warning to those that would consider fishing without a licence and so collecting more in licence revenue. IMO its a case of what it costs them to gain this publicity against what they gain in kudos with anglers and the extra revenue gained
Carrying out these well publicised operations now costs the EA even less as they now have 300 dedicated anglers that have volunteered to do the work that we pay the EA to do.
The Angling Trust even help them in this by publishing the names of anglers that have been caught without a licence although that is not surprising though as IMO the Trust are in the financial pocket of the EA since they accepted money from them.
Your comment about none of them existing (certainly the fisheries arm of the EA) without anglers money is spot on unfortunately self interest and pleasing political and financial masters is higher on the agenda's of both organisations otherwise they would do what you suggest, just imagine the publicity they could gain from that but then there would be no money in it would there?
Prosecution is always a last resort as can be timely and expensive so we would give the offenders opportunity to purchase a licence before we would consider this action.
Why would the environment agency take out legal action against a group of people that they sell licences to?
And can it be assumed that all these angry people on here have never been in a canoe whilst getting abuse and threats shouted at them from fishermen, it's a 2 way street.
I have been fishing for eyes
Is there a list of rivers to show if it has prn so I can compare it to those that the canoe licence allows us to use?