[Mike Barrio]

Hi folks

There is growing concern within public Scottish angling circles regarding the Scottish Government consultation document named " A Strategic Framework for Scottish Freshwater Fisheries "

The consultation document can be viewed and its contents accessed from the following URL http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/09/13103142/0

The document is lengthy and not the easiest to read ............... but there is a closing date for responses to the consultation paper of January the 4th 2008 and we should be reading it, as this document will affect all of us in the near future.

One of the major concerns voiced by the angling public appears to be regarding points raised under reference 2.26 "Stewardship Issues", points which include:
 "how to develop new funding streams to support future fish and fisheries management initiatives that augment existing funding sources"
This can be read here http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/09/13103142/5
The public feeling being that these points are possibly "jargon terms" for Scottish National Rod Licence!

The format for responding to the consultation is perhaps not the easiest thing to find on the website either, but I believe that "Manson Wright" may be the person to direct emails to? See http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Consultations/Current/Q/Page/2/rowId/28#conRow28

Best wishes
Mike Barrio

[Tam Greenock]

How much does it cost to buy a license to fish in england, l would be all for it if the money was spent solely in Scotland.

[Hamish Young]

Currently (valid until 31st March '08) a full adult ticket for Salmon & Sea Trout (which covers all non-migratory species as well) costs £66.50/pa and half that for a junior.

Not excessive IMHO but I imagne that IF any such measure were to happen up here then it would most likely be a smidgen cheaper - maybe 

[Mike Barrio]

Yes, I agree

I think most anglers would probably be behind a rod licence system, as long as all of the monies raised went back in to fishing and the environment.

Best wishes
Mike

[Jim Eddie]

I think most anglers would probably be behind a rod licence system, as long as all of the monies raised went back in to fishing and the environment.

Mike most people would agree with that , however would it really be spent on improving fishing or lost in the goverements coffers, how much of the road tax we pay actually go's on roads ?

 

Jim

[goosander]

On  one hand this is just more money for govement to waste??
On the other hand if everybody had a licence then the various bodys [A.C.A.. etc.] would be able to use the numbers of anglers in the country to put a bit of preasure on the govement to control fish farming etc.
However on balance it will turn out to be more money "lost" as with most govement ideas.
Any one agree with me?

[Mike Barrio]

Hi Jim

Yes, I understand what you are saying and I fully agree with you ............ trouble is, where does this leave us?

Should we send in thousands of emails to object to something that could actually be quite a good thing, simply because we do not trust our government to handle things properly? .......... I guess the answer to this, very sadly, is yes perhaps we should?

Best wishes
Mike

[Mike Barrio]

Oops, sorry "goosander"

You obviously posted your reply while I was writing ........... but I can see that you have similar reservations

Best wishes
Mike

[ANDREW BEBBINGTON]

hi this is a tricky one,

can have good and bad points would be in favour if national and the money was used for developing the sport.

my biggest grip would be if it is national or would it be regional like in england, Were my brother lives he has a licence for that area but is also within a half hour drive of his house there is 3 other areas and if he wants to fish in anothe region he needs another licence for hi, his wife and son works out expensive if you need more than one.

Another thing with this document is if a movement licence is brought in it is also costly if run in the same way the EA do in england, each time you move fish in england you need a licence stating were from and to the fish are going with ordinate survey grid referances this is applied for min 2-3 weeks befor the move and each licence costs £10 not much i hear you say, but one is needed each time you move fish, if i want 100 fish moved from the fish farm to the fishery in 3 weeks i need a licence to move 100 fish if it gets busy and i decide i need another 50 i need to apply for another licence. so if i stock 40 times over the year its £400 in licence fees plus the cost of fish to buy in would increase each time the fish farm wants to move fish from one tank/pond to another a licence is needed even if only 20 foot away, how many time would a fish move between hatching and stocking to a fishery and the cost of that would be passed on to the fishery then the anglers.

I Know of one farm in england who was fined £5000 for moving brood carp from one stock pond on his property to indoor tanks for spawning about 30 yards away.

I can see the advantage of both rod licences and movement licences but worry about how pricing of them would affect fishing.

andrew

[gunner100]

"- a fisheries management planning regime that fosters sustainable, long-term development;
- government support for fisheries management to deliver public benefits, particularly in fish stock recovery and areas that are disadvantaged in terms of income generation;
- and new sources of funding for management of the sector."

Above is a further quote from the Strategic Framework for Scottish Freshwater Fisheries document from the Scottish Government. Most  anglers would not dissent too much I believe from the first two propositions but the third further underlines the point first raised by Mike re a Scottish rod licence.

I find the issue of a rod licence difficult to call. It is only one of a number of new funding streams that the Government could investigate.

1) A scheme similar to that in the waste industry where the companies are relieved of the taxation on disposing of waste if they give a similar amount to environmental improvements. Just think how this could change the behaviour of fish farming companies if they had to pay a tax on their use of our resources. Similarly, if fishery owners had to pay a  tax but could also divert it to environmental improvements. The additional tax could be based upon the rateable value of the property occupied, rent or valuation of the premises.

2) Each fishery proprietor pays an additional levy based upon council tax valuation   to a central organisation which would then distribute the funds accrued for approved environmental improvements.

3) A rod licence utilised as in 2) above.

4) The status quo i.e no new revenue streams are identified.

Whatever "new" revenue streams are identified ,if any, at the end of the day it will be Joe Angler who will eventually pay. There is nothing wrong with that in my mind, as you never get "owt for nowt". Whichever "new" revenue streams are eventually identified, the Govt and the Treasury in particular, do not like hypothecation i.e. ringfencing monies/tax for specific projects.

Lyall

[Jim Doyle]

A licence to improve waters we are not allowed  to fish!! interesting!!  How much of the fee would go to what species. Mind you it should give all fish equal status, Theres one for you to ponder.  Would salmon rivers only get the revenue spent on them that was raised from salmon anglers?  jim

[ANDREW BEBBINGTON]

Not sure how they would split it but in England its about £25 for a coarse and non migratory trout and an extra £40ish to add migarting fish, dont know how the money is split but it does cover bailiff wages on EA run waters

andrew

[gunner100]

Andrew,

I am not sure that the EA in England and Wales ( must never ever forget fellow Celts) run any waters but yes EA bailliffs do check that anglers have rod licences . Not sure what other powers they have. Must have  a google!!!! will report back if I can find any answers.

Lyall

[Irvine Ross]

One factor to bear in mind is that the local district salmon fishery boards are an existing mechanism for channelling money raised from river anglers into habitat protection and improvement schemes. Every salmon proprietor on the Dee, the Don, etc., has to pay their dues to their local salmon fishery board. That is why there are no business rates levied on salmon fishing. The salmon board levies are considered an equivalent payment. Lyall’s Options 1 & 2 would not raise any additional money from salmon rivers but simply re-direct levies that are already being collected. I don’t know, but I suspect that stocked still water fisheries also already pay some form of business rates?

The salmon fishery board employs the bailliffs, the river managers and the biologists who spend their time working on reducing poaching, running hatcheries, habitat improvement schemes etc. Money raised locally is controlled locally and spent locally and cannot disappear into the general government revenues.

The big question is, would a rod licence fee be an addition to, or a replacement of the salmon board levy? 

If the salmon fishery owners argue that their clients would now be taxed through a rod licence so they should no longer have to collect extra money from their clients and pay what would be a double a double tax in the form of the salmon fisheries board levy, then no new money would come into the system. Local control would be lost and the money could be spent any way the central government decides.

If the rod licence is to be an addition to the salmon fishery board levies then, the salmon fishers would have every justification for arguing that the rod licence fee for non-migratory fish should be higher than the licence for migratory fish because salmon fishers are paying twice. 

If it does not spell all this out in detail, then the consultative paper is not worth the paper it is printed on. ???

Irvine

[Hamish Young]

I can maybe shed a wee bit of light here 
But this is very much my own hypothesis based on what I've read and putting 2+2 together - this is not printed in black and white (well, not yet....).

Firstly the Salmon Fishery Boards will most probably change comprehensively in their make up as, for the first time, it becomes a river basin and all the fishes contained within plus area habitat that they will be responsible for. This requires a dramatic change in most cases, on how things are done are at the moment. I forsee a lot of Salmon Fishery Boards becoming River Fisheries Trusts as the first step in incorporating the new initiatives into local management of fisheries.
It's logical to assume there will be a gradual overhaul of all fisheries law in Scotland within a decade.

Secondly the levy currently raised on proprietors of Trout & Salmon fishing will remain as this provides for local costs (bailiffs/managers/hatcheries etc). Proprietors of Trout fishing are just as liable for levy/fee raising (albeit not excessive amounts) particularly where a protection order is in exsistence so it's all encompassing. Monies raised centrally by a rod licence would supplement local initiatives.

Thirdly - and this is where it gets interesting...... a rod licence within Scotland would have to be national and managed centrally, most probably from Edinburgh. The framework rightly points out that fisheries management in Scotland needs to "raise its game" in most cases, caertainly the fractured approach we currently "enjoy" is a cause of frustration for many. It is logical to asume that a rod licence would, in part, serve as a vehicle for the collection of a pool of money to be distributed equally on an annual basis to the river/loch trusts. Ultimately I see that it would be paying for something similar to the way the old NRA worked on a regioanl basis in England and Wales prior to the creation of the EA. I imagine that SEPAs role will change as they will be seen as the competent body to deal with certain enforcement issues. I'm not entirely sure I back that move 100% myself but let's wait and see if I'm right - I'm not saying this will happen, it's how I see things developing.

I'll maybe come back to this later, but right now I need a coffee