That Licence Fee

[John Bailey]

I see Simon Cooper is having one of his pops at the EA, notably its enforcement officers and their role in today’s world. He’s correct to do so. There are more flaws in the system than holes in a keepnet.

Their paramilitary uniform is barely what any of us want to see on the lakeside and embarrasses many of the officers I know. That is besides intimidating many anglers I have talked to.

Enforcement officers have limited powers, and Health and Safety strictures mean they are prevented from operating in many situations where real offences are taking place.

Police friends tell me they have frequently caught poachers and other offenders, and presented super-tight cases to the EA yet no action has been taken.

The vast majority of anglers, perhaps as high as 95%, buy licences, hence the sum of £24 million is achieved. Yet licence payers have no say in how this money is spent and, despite copious EA PR exercises, would disagree with many/most of the projects the EA dreams up.

The fact remains that the EA remains ludicrously weak in its policing of the water companies, and it is gross maltreatment of our rivers that it should be dealing with.

Joggers. Swimmers. Canoeists. Birders. Cyclists. A host of people enjoy our river banks and pay nothing for the privilege, yet we anglers do. If this continues to be the case, can we at least demand that money is spent as we would like it to be spent?

Cooper is right on this one. There simply have to be changes... and why not NOW!?

 

[mikench]

The licence fee is a tax like any other . All taxes are given a name but none are hypothecated and probably never will be. The sum raised annually is just lost in the treasury coffers and no doubt wasted on some folly or worse.

 

[fishface1]

Fisheries annual report 2020 to 2021

www.gov.uk

 

[steve2]

When was the last time anyone was asked how their taxes should be spent so why should the angling tax be any different. Most just swallowed up in other projects what ever they might be.

 

[nottskev]

I'm very unsure what, if anything, we get from the EA. I think we have every right to demand better. But the .58p per week ( .38p if we qualify for concession) for a coarse license seems neither here nor there to me.

 

[no-one in particular]

Fisheries annual report 2020 to 2021

www.gov.uk

That's an interesting read, the facts, not the hype (who am I going to blame for everything today). I haven't made my mind up yet or added it up as to whether it is showing me value for money but I bet it it is a lot more than I believed or led to believe!

 

[John Aston]

I will repeat what I have said before , that the EA has some excellent on the ground staff, often passionate anglers themselves. Further up the hierarchy , there are also some excellent staff , but also some who prioritise process over outcome. My view is informed by direct experience , and while it is temptingly easy to join a lynch mob of grumpy old men (I admit to being one ) , things are much more nuanced . Underfunding is a chronic problem and it is a typically cynical government technique , especially a Tory one, to reduce funding and foment discontent about its consequences in the redtops and Torygraph .

With respect , comments such as 'I don't know what we get from the EA , but we pay too much' illustrate the problem for any government body, including this one . Fisheries are only a part of the EA role .

As for enforcement duty gripes , what officers wear is neither here nor there and it is disingenuous to moan about health and safety procedures in a world where personal injury claims can involve huge amounts and HSE fines can be massive. You can't blame the EA for complying with the law .

Walkers don't pay for the privilege of walking river banks - so what ? Isn't that like the tired old cliche of drivers moaning that cyclists and walkers don't pay VED ? Well they wouldn't , would they ?

£24m is peanuts. I am not for a moment suggesting that the EA shouldn't do a far better job at improving water quality by increasing its prosecutions of offenders , and that greater transparency is desirable but let's not join a lynch mob and let's be grown ups , not Michael Gove wannabes dismissing experts .

I chaired one of the EA fisheries forums for some years and what really struck me more than anything else, even more than my irritation at the EA's near obsession with migratory fish , was the overwhelming apathy of the angling community . Attendance was often pitiful , and a worrying percentage of anglers who did attend had no interest in anything beyond their own back yard. Parochial , blinkered and often frighteningly ignorant about the environment .

Let St Matthew have the last word ' Thou hypocrite , first cast out the beam in thine own eye.. '

 

[nottskev]

With respect , comments such as 'I don't know what we get from the EA , but we pay too much' illustrate the problem for any government body, including this one . Fisheries are only a part of the EA role .

The quotation marks suggest that comment came from an earlier post, but I can't see it in any. I hope nobody mistakes it for the one I made, "I'm very unsure what, if anything, we get from the EA. I think we have every right to demand better.", as I go on to imply the cost of a license is negligible. I should probably have made the point more explicitly that whilst I'm happy to contribute, and contribute more, there's no more reason to think anglers should get the bill for environmental protection of rivers than there is to dump the costs of healthy air on exponents of aerobic sports. The air and water belong to us all.

I do agree that the EA is under-resourced and toothless, and it may well be that some sterling work is happening. I have only two bits of recent experience, but neither inspired confidence. With the collapse, over a decade, of coarse fish stocks on the Lower Derwent, three local clubs, nagged by anglers like myself, formally asked the EA about it. Why no fish? The reply? It may be that improvements to sewage treatment have created a cleaner river, that the river has changed, or that further investigation is needed ( which we won't be doing). Think about that answer. In the same period, I was fishing on the ten mile stretch between Derby and the Trent confluence at a time when you could catch nothing bar the small grayling that had exploded and I struck up a conversation with two EA agents who walked past. They were going to check over a level monitoring business upstream. Did they know that three clubs strung over 10 miles had been inquiring why no fish? No. Did they know that not that long ago the stretch we were on had been a roach and chub mecca? No. That the seemingly empty swim I was in had produced a 100lb match catch for a famous Nottingham angler? No. They had no idea of the river's history as a fishery, only, apparently, as a conduit for water.

 

[steve2]

So true the apathy in the angling community and only caring about where they fish is that the reason why on here we hear so much about the Wye and Wensum.
I haven't fished now for over two years but I have attended work parties and still bought a licence. So I still give something back for the past 60 plus years I did fish.

 

[rayner]

Rod licences have always been here for us ever since I remember. I can't remember it may have been when I reached 15 in 67 when I bought my first licence, still not sure. I can not remember nor do I care.
Ever since 98, I have qualified for a concession. In the 70s I had to have 3 licences. Yorkshire, Trent and Lincolnshire. I don't think I was too bothered about the cost back then. I think on the whole I have been rather fortunate with concessions. I have no grumbles regarding the cost of my rod licence.
Steve2 makes a valid point so long as I can get to my chosen water I would not care too much if everywhere else was to close.
I have never attended a work party, talking about giving back I have never had the time nor inclination.

 

[Philip]

as I can get to my chosen water I would not care too much if everywhere else was to close.

Problem is the guy on those waters everywhere else is probably saying the same thing.

 

[rayner]

?‍

 

[Notts Michael.]

Not strictly true that kayakers, paddle boarders etc pay nothing, the ones I know through paddleboarding on the Trent and Soar among other places have, like me a membership of British Canoeing, basically a permit which allows access to most but not all rivers, along with insurance and other benefits, a percentage of the yearly fee goes to waterways authorities, although I'm pretty sure not all paddlers stump up the £45 a year for it. then again a minority of people fishing, mostly the lure chucking 'yoofs' with no landing net or mat probably don't buy a licence. Sadly there will always be a few people with a 'Why should I pay' attitude in most things.

 

[John Aston]

Steve2 makes a valid point so long as I can get to my chosen water I would not care too much if everywhere else was to close.
I have never attended a work party, talking about giving back I have never had the time nor inclination.

So a dead heat between selfishness and apathy then ? With friends like you...

 

[Keith M]

I have never attended a work party, talking about giving back I have never had the time nor inclination.

Since I joined my very first club back in 1966 I’ve always helped on work parties. In fact every single club that I’ve been a member of insists that you either do at least one work party or pay extra monies if you don’t want to attend a work party (unless you are disabled).

You can learn a lot about the waters your working at by talking to other anglers during these work parties, plus you can also improve the fish habitats where you are going to fish, instead of just turning up to fish it blindly.

For 30 of those years I also got involved in helping to run our estate lake club while on the committee, and for ten years of this I served as the match secretary and also captained the club match team, for which I was awarded a free lifetime membership for services rendered to the club.

Keith

 

[Philip]

?‍

Yep, and that will be the others anglers reaction too if its your water that closes.

Its a good example of why the human race is ultimatly screwed as despite some enthusiastic cries to the contary your view actually reflects the majority.

 

[108831]

Not strictly true that kayakers, paddle boarders etc pay nothing, the ones I know through paddleboarding on the Trent and Soar among other places have, like me a membership of British Canoeing, basically a permit which allows access to most but not all rivers, along with insurance and other benefits, a percentage of the yearly fee goes to waterways authorities, although I'm pretty sure not all paddlers stump up the £45 a year for it. then again a minority of people fishing, mostly the lure chucking 'yoofs' with no landing net or mat probably don't buy a licence. Sadly there will always be a few people with a 'Why should I pay' attitude in most things.

Im a little curious here,who does the £45 go to allow access to 'most' rivers,the reason I ask is that we pay a licence to fish,we in the most part have to pay for 'access' to our waters,in fact many,many,thousands are paid as you know,I know of many landowners that do not allow access to the rivers over their land,still loads of canoes,paddleboards,on the D.Stour Throop fisheries is on a estate but these guys still think they can paddle it...

 

[fishface1]

If you go on the website, there is a very useful and specific list of rivers where you are covered by the “waterways licence”.

No mention of the Dorset Stour.

I suppose you could argue, if it’s not on the list, then it’s non-navigable (other than tidal stretches).

I’m going to ask British Canoeing how much of the licence fee goes towards ‘supporting the work that waterway authorities carry out to maintain and protect managed waterways. ‘
I suspect it is very little.

 

[108831]

In general terms I have nothing against kayaking,but when you pay to fish waters like the Wye and have to contend with a constant streams of kayaks in decent weather,so are not really given a chance of catching much until they ease,on the tidal D.Stour paddle boarders,kayaks,dinghies come up a weedy fast flowing river where we anglers have to fish into runs,the counts are often 20-30 in an evening,they are still coming at dusk,it seems as though angling is doomed whilst paddling,which disturbs wildlife is set to boom,not to worry,my coffin isnt too far away so I wont have to worry...

 

[Notts Michael.]

In reality, I also suspect it is a small amount of the 45 quid fee that goes towards the upkeep of waterways, and yes, as paddleboarding in particular has had a big surge in popularity, a lot of those new to it will not know or maybe care that you can't just rock up to a body of water and go and paddle around in it without any thought of who owns it and feel that they can go where they want. there have been reports of people being turned away from a nature reserve near me who turned up and thought it was ok to go and paddle board in the lakes, they get remembered a little more than those who are not as dumb a lot of the time! sadly some people will by default take the p12s if they are of that mindset and others get tarred with their ways, I love fishing and pay what is required in the way of rod licence and day ticket/season ticket for the places I want to fish, and by having the British Canoeing licence hopefully do the same with regards to the paddle boarding which I sometimes do, the group I go out with are very respectful of other waterway users and give a wide berth and communicate with any people fishing that we pass. I can see it from both sides as I fish as well and the general rule in life 'Don't be a d1ck' is very applicable here!