Opinion Piece – Either or Neither?

And by this, I am referring to the Environment Agency and the Angling Trust. Let me kick off by saying that I have bought a current Rod Licence, (didn’t have much choice, obviously) so in effect; I am a ‘contributor’ to the EA. The question is, why? And that’s not ‘why did I buy a licence’ because there is always the fear of prosecution for not having one, but more a case of ‘why should I have to buy one?’

Now, I don’t doubt that the EA do stirling work protecting the waters and fish stocks of England and Wales, but why is it just anglers that are having to pay for that? Let’s not forget that although we have to pay for a licence, it doesn’t entitle us to fish. So the £20m per annum raised on Rod Licences just goes into the EA’s coffers, although that won’t make much of a dent in the £1000m+ per annum that this enormous and diverse government department swallows up.

Nobody asks the bird watchers, dog walkers, ramblers, canoeists and any other waterside users to cough up just for the privilege, so why pick on anglers. Surely if these are amenities that can be used by all, then everyone pays through taxation, whether national or at a local level, and if the EA needs £20m per annum to make what it does for angling pay its way, that’s about a £1 a year each for all the working population.

But consider this. Let’s say I’m into kite flying. Because of that, how would it be if I have to pay for a Park Licence because there is a park nearby. Having paid for that licence, I then have to go to the park to take up my sport, only to find that the walkers and pram pushers, kids playing football, picnickers et al all strolling about without paying a penny.

If the Park Keeper turns up and finds I haven’t got a licence, I get turned off the park and prosecuted, whilst the other carry on regardless. That would be complete madness, but it’s the situation we anglers are more than happy to put up with, apparently.

Having questioned why it is just us paying for a licence, how about asking about where that money is going, why is it channelled into the EA? Is fishing not a sport, so shouldn’t our governing body be the Department for Culture, Media and SPORT? They are awash with cash, with grants and funds coming out of their collective ears, surely we should be in line (pun intended) for a spot of that. You don’t need to be reminded about the colossal amounts of money being pumped into the 2012 Olympics, but that really is only the tip of the iceberg.

Nor are all of these funds allocated on the hope of getting a return, our last Winter Olympics team got millions thrown at them and came back with NOT ONE medal. So the good old British tradition of taking part being far more important than winning still holds true.  And I bet that not one of the participants of the sports falling under the DCMS umbrella has to buy a licence just because they want to do take part in that sport.

To recap, we are paying for a licence that doesn’t entitle us to actually go and practise our chosen sport, to a government department that doesn’t actually specialise in sport at all. And now, on top of that, we are being asked to join another organisation (the Angling Trust) in order to protect out interests.

Many, far more erudite than I, members on FM have eloquently stated the case for A) the need for an organisation such as the Angling Trust and B) the overwhelming need for anglers to join up. But to many, it’s seen as just another club, which may not cater for that one individual angler’s specific needs.

Fishing is a diverse sport, which has many different disciplines and specialities, yet we seek to create one body to cover everything, how can that work? There are many sports that are played with balls, such as football, cricket, tennis, lacrosse, rugby, basketball, etc, etc, but they don’t all have one voluntary governing body (The Ball Trust?) to which they all subscribe, why should angling?

Would you not be better off spending your £20 and joining something like the Barbel Society (if that is your quarry) Now I’ve only chosen the BS as a random example, but they seem to rub along with 1000ish members paying that kind of annual subscription, and certainly do have their member’s interests at heart. Isn’t it better that we all join societies like these who will fight our particular corner, rather than supporting some national organisation that would no doubt end up with your subscriptions helping to pay for regional, area, and district levels of bureaucracy?