How many rods should we pay for?

Martin Salter wades in to the licence debate...
http://fightingforfishing.anglingtrust.net/2014/12/01/just-how-many-rods-should-we-pay-for/

ITS QUITE SIMPLE, if you wont to fish a lake were the rules say max 3 rods, and you have 2 fishing licences, tough, suck it up, or don't fish it, go to a river with free fishing and fish 4 rods, why should Syndicate and private lakes get the EA to change the rules to the land, to sort their type of fishing, if these people make there own rules up, lets say max 3 rods, good for them, its down to the member to change the rules to 4 rods, simple, is that not, not go crying to the EA saying change the rules to sort our way of fishing, plus the fact that most private and syndicate never put any think back into fishing, the only thing they are interested in catching a big carp, when was the last time you saw one of these organizations doing a open day, introducing kids to fishing, or campaigning to get the rod licence to last a year, from the day you got it, get kids free fishing until they are 16, I have never seen any, please fill free to correct me. I always think out side of the box, I can use one rod with 3 diffident baits on it, 2 rods, 6 baits out, no need to get any more rod licences, problem solved

if any one wonts to make a personal attack on me again, go ahead,

As a lure angler I can only fish one rod at a time yet I have to pay for two but never complained,some people spend £100 to prebait a swim for a night session and complain about prices of rod licence

I am not a Carp angler nor do I claim to be but have the odd dabble off the boat when moored and buy 2 licences for the pleasure which tbh I don't mind at all compared to cost of boating the river its small change .They [carp anglers do seem to be target central at the mo] on all forums but whinging about the cost of another licence when the cost bait tacklke and everything else they spend makes em look a bit petty but an easy target....plenty of them do good stuff Ben off here for one and the Stoney and friends fish ins etc maybe they just don't want to brag about it on open forums . This whole division thing between different interest groups in fishing is going to be what hurts us the most with some thinking that one group is getting more help off the Angling trust say than others and along those lines I don't join as despite a bit of talk they have nought to help kayak Anglers get access to be able to fish club waters on rivers with a club ticket for one....makes me just as bad I guess .....to many factions in angling and as soon as a chink in the armour of one is exposed for any reason others cant wait to have a pop nand that is what makes the Trusts job impossible imo

As a match angler I can only fish one rod at a time and have never complained about paying for two.
I don,t understand why you need tree rods out at a time?
I you was lucky/unlucky enough to get three bites at the same time surely you would be well buggered!?
This isn,t a dig at at specimen anglers but how would deal with three/two takes at the same time.
please reply as Ive always wondered about this situation.

Keith Collett wrote:

ITS QUITE SIMPLE, if you wont to fish a lake were the rules say max 3 rods, and you have 2 fishing licences, tough, suck it up, or don't fish it, go to a river with free fishing and fish 4 rods, why should Syndicate and private lakes get the EA to change the rules to the land, to sort their type of fishing...?

I suppose the answer to that is that since they own the fishery, why shouldn't they ask the EA to change the rules? I Don't know how much funding private venues get from the EA but I would assume that money is heavily targeted at public venues. So people fishing private venues aren't aactually taking much, why should they be putting 25% more than they need to in. Why should private fisheries be forced to change their rules, why shouldn't the EA change theirs? The private fisheries aren't asking for their customers to be subject to an extra tax (and a tax it is), the EA are imposing it on them.

The principle of whether private fisheries should exist in the first place is a different argument. But if you accept that they do exist and should be able to manage themselves, then it is perfectly acceptable for them to ask for a a tax on their customers to be altered to be made fairer.

I agree with Martin Salter, 50% supplement for a third rod, free licences for kids and an increase in the cost of a fishing licence for adults.
Although I think the unemployed and OAP's should be exempt from any rise in the cost of a licence. Seems the fairest way, everyone contributes.
As for dealing with multiple takes, only happened to me once and was lucky enough that my brother had come to see me, so he took care of the other one.

this is going to put the cat among the pigeons, if these secrete/private syndicates plus specimen hunters who fish on lakes that are not open to the general public to fish, who put nothing back into fishing wont a single fishing licence, I will start a campaign on getting rid of the weir licence, why should I have to pay for a second fishing licence, extra £28 on top of my 2 rode licence costing £27, to fish a part of the Thames that is already down river of Staines Stone which is free fishing.

My idea is this, make the single rod fishing licence a private/syndicate lake only, it can not be used on any waters open to the general public, just like the ones we use for the weirs, a paper one one, as the ones we use for the weirs is now de-funked, free to fish weirs, that money then gets put aside just as the money for the weirs is, that money can only be used for weirs,so if a secrete/private syndicate lake get into trouble, then this money can be used to help out, ie, EA turn up with them machines that put a bit of air into the water, somethink like that,

before any of the above gets sorted out, the first things that need sorting out is the following which I know most anglers are in agreement with, apart if you are a syndicates person or a specimen fish hunter.

1. the fishing licence should last a year, from the day it was brought, this is stopping people taking up fishing.

2. any child under the age of 16 should get a free licence, they should be encouraged, but not composery, until they are over 16, apply for one, this is so that the powers to be have a general idea on how many under 16s are fishing,

2a. in-cress the cost by a £1 or 2 to cover this

2b. cost should not be put onto any people that get a cut price fishing licence

3. people unemployed still have to pay full price, I am unemployed and manage to find the money, reason for this, it will be to complicated to do.

4. to cut down on sending out reminders, ie letters, when you first get a fishing licence, it should state on how you would like to be reminded, ie, by letter, email, or text on phone, this will cut down the cost of post, that money can them be used to improve fishing on the rivers, cut down on the f@@@ ups that keep happening year in, year out, if they the EA cannot do a database that tells them how many people have a fishing licence for any given day, then all is lost, someone who is getting £100,000 a year wages needs a good talking to, to be very politicly correct,

5. do a survey on these people trying to get the EA to change the fishing regs to suite them, ie, have they ever fished for carp on a free river or do they do all their fishing on a non open to the public lake

how many fisher-persons have read the following, not many,

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/295631/South_East_Byelaws.pdf

if you have, then you should know what is on page 5, par 1.5.3, line 3, word 6

this is the law of the land, this was written to include all types of fishing disciplines, not to suite one type of fishing discipline, as some one has stated, why should private/syndicates fishery's change their rules, it is down to the EA to change the rules to suite them, wrong, can some one with some common sense please till me why the EA should change the fishing rules to just suite one type of fishing discipline and bugger the other fishing disciplines,

I would also like to add, that I am paying £1 more a year for 2 fishing Licences, am I crying in my 1pt of maggots container full of red/white maggots, "NO", am i throwing my rod in the corner, "NO" that's because I choose to get 2 fishing licences, one for fishing, to let me fish and one to fish the weirs,

I will be sending above to the Angling trust


http://www.anglingtrust.net/page.asp?section=1060§ionTitle=Should+carp+and+specimen+anglers+have+to+buy+two+rod+licences%3F

how many people will do the some,


a few days ago I was talking to a carp fishing-person next to the Thames, near chertsey bridge and he stated that he was not happy at seeing fishing-person using 4 rods on the Thames, due to the fact that if you get a shoal of bream going though your swim, you could get 4 all at the same time, and this is not good for the fish, I then kindly informed him that these people using 4 rods where carp fisher-persons, he insisted that these people were bream fisher-person and that carpers never use more then 3 rods, this is just another way to get the rules to suite these type of fisher-persons

happy angling,

Can't find anytanything to disagree with there Keith. All valid points well made.

I also can't see any anything much to disagree with a three-rod license. But it is really just tinkering around the edges of a regime that is in pretty obvious need of reform. Some good ideas from the crab there, for starters.

I think the weir permit is a good idea.  
The weirs are relatively dangerous places and there are limited numbers of swims, having a separate permit keeps them more available to those who really want to fish there.
It's little different to paying for a club membership or other private access water really.

I don't actually think that anyone (over 16) should get a cut-price fishing licence at all, it's so cheap anyway in the scheme of things.  Abolish OAP discounts and use that to make it free for all under-16s. Sticking my neck out(!) keep it completely simple and abolish the disabled discount as well, it's only £9 and a lot of money goes in to providing disabled access, platforms etc, use that money to provide more of them.

Ed Randall wrote:

I think the weir permit is a good idea.  
The weirs are relatively dangerous places and there are limited numbers of swims, having a separate permit keeps them more available to those who really want to fish there.
It's little different to paying for a club membership or other private access water really.

I don't actually think that anyone (over 16) should get a cut-price fishing licence at all, it's so cheap anyway in the scheme of things.  Abolish OAP discounts and use that to make it free for all under-16s.  Sticking my neck out(!) keep it completely simple and abolish the disabled discount as well, it's only £9 and a lot of money goes in to providing disabled access, platforms etc, use that money to provide more of them.

I don't see why it is necessary to abolish the OAP discounts, I'd prefer to see funding cut before that.

I do see the logic behind the weir permit and, from a selfish point of view, I'd like to see Teddington be included as well. However, Keith has a point, especially for youngsters it basically blocks out some of the best fishing you can have on the Thames. All the weir permit is doing really is giving a degree of exclusivity to the some of the best spots, as well as decreasing risk of EA liability for any accidents.

It might overcomplicate things but they could introduce some sort of scheme that means voluntary work gets you a free pass. Someone who is giving his time to stuff checking eel traps, reporting problems, clearing rubbish and keeping an eye on things is doing a lot more than someone buying a weir license and turning up a couple of times a year to fish - the money they pay just gets swallowed up into the agency black hole anyway.

Aside from the weir permits I think Keith has a good point. If people just want to fish private syndicates then they can pay a separate licence that covers off a bare minimum spend from the EA (emergency bubblers, perhaps invasive species inspections) and they can be left to manage themselves. Wealtheir folks can buy land and restrict fishing to the better off. That is a wider political question, but if private citizens get that privilege, then they should pay the extra fee for necessary emergency cover and monitoring, then if they want to fish public fisheries they put into the common pot like everyone else.

Apart from the occasional gravel pit or new lake, private fisheries are not "creating" wealth/resources and expanding the amount of provision (as it would be possible to argue with something like private schooling, or private healthcare). They are just limiting access to a finite pool of already existing resources. The current system is very regressive. In my opinion private fisheries should therefore, as well as paying a fee to the EA for the necessary minotoring/emergency cover, also be paying a further levy for restricting their fisheries to the public. Restricting access to the limited number of fisheries means there is further pressure on the remaining public fisheries, which need to be better managed and funded as a result.

If those private fisheries can't afford to pay, then those fisheries can go back to being publicly accessible again, hopefully with proper EA management.

At the moment we are just tinkering around the edges of a fundamentally unfair system, there should be more radical reform.

ED, just inform me dad of your remarks, he has rang his mates who are all over 65, they are all coming round on their Zimmer frames and wheel chairs, some with electric motors on armed with walking stick to hav a word

AAAaaaaarrrrrr with a bottle of rum