[jimmy r]

heard in the grape vine that in the press next week there is going to be a bit about introducing a rod licence in scotland,  it has not worked in england so why would they want to introduce it here, sad days, would be interesting to here views from other anglers,

[Hamish Young]

The rod licence has worked in England & Wales, what has not worked has been the way the monies are managed under the auspices of the Environment Agency which continually faces 'rationalisation' of resources under successive governments.
When the National Rivers Authority was in existence things were much better as the monies were largely managed regionally rather than centrally. It was still flawed, but better than the system now in place.
A rod licence could and should work in Scotland, but who or what would it finance

H

[Allan Liddle]

Another stealth tax.  What would they use the money on???

[Ben Dixon]

Difference is, EA are responsible for rivers & fisheries down there, up here we have DSFB's.  I'd want to know how any monies were to be split and used, if it seemed like there would be improvements from paying a few quid a year for a license then I would happily pay it.  That is, provided other water users also paid for their privileges 

Cheers

Ben

[Rob Brownfield]

I remember the old days with the NRA licenses. They were a complete nightmare in the sense that each region had a different charge and licence. Where I lived I had to have one for Essex, one for Hertfordshire and one for Thams water.

However, I had hundreds of miles of river, canal and lake fishing that I did not have to pay a day ticket for, because the water was owned by the water authority.

When the national licence came in administered by the EA, in general it was a godsend for those who travelled for their fishing. It also ment that any emergency response to pollution etc had a bigger and better infrastructure to call on. More stocking of waters also took place.

Do I think it would work up here? No, I don't. The rivers and lochs are administered in a completely different way which I cannot ever see being changed as teh Salmon boards would effectively lose some of there hold.

Also, I know of about 7 people who have ever had there licences checked down south. The area covered by the EA staff is huge and they just cannot be everywhere at once...imagine the issue up here, especially the more remote areas.

Do I think a license would be a good idea? Well, only if ALL anglers had the same representation, but I do not see that happening either, with Salmon anglers always getting the thick end of the cash wedge. That actually happened on the Thames, so i can only see it being worse up here, with trout and grayling being pushed aside and coarse fish not even getting a look in.

So what does a licence give an angler down south?
Free fishing on public waters
Restocking from a central fund in the case of pollution
EA run fish farms and colleges teaching fishery management etc.
Pollution response teams
Enforcement powers (although heavily under staffed)

The rumours of the SNP introducing a rod licence have been doing the rounds, and they have flatly denied they are looking into it...but, they did write into the latest water structure bill or whatever its now called, a statement that leaves the door very much open.

[jimmy r]

interesting rob, as there are so much boards in scotland all would be squabbling a slice of the monies, but then again what have they done with there monies in the past, barr spend it on scientists to tell us that what we dont already know, do all other waterway users pay for the privalage to use waters for activities ( rafters, etc ),

[Rob Brownfield]

do all other waterway users pay for the privalage to use waters for activities ( rafters, etc ),

The answer to that is no.

Again, down south the rod licence pays for the upkeep of stocks on waterways and the monitoring of pollution and flows, and therefore I would say that anglers should pay.

Up here, it is a very different thing. How would something like the Don Trust work? Would they get money from a licence? Then the Don salmon board might want some too, then there are owners who will insist on getting some as they keep the banks accessable. It would be a nightmare to administer.

It does seem a mad situation where a salmon angler is paying £75 to fish for wild fish on the Dee, yet the kayakers who float past pay nothing but take advantage of the fast water created by groynes and the easy launching created by the estate etc.

[Jim Eddie]

All paper talk I think

Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead said:

“I understand that some newspapers set a hare running in response to the current Aquaculture & Fisheries Bill going through Parliament that provides a power to introduce charges in relation to fisheries.

“Some people have jumped to the conclusion that this means that charges for rod licences may be in our minds or introduced in Scotland at some point.

“Let me assure the angling community and yourself that we have absolutely no plans to introduce any such charge. In any case, we don't have such a system in Scotland that we could charge for!

“This is just a general power being taken in the bill and if any proposals are ever made to use this power in relation to aquaculture, sea or freshwater fisheries in any shape or form then it would be the subject of a proper consultation in the coming years.”

 

Jim

[Kevin Moss]

Jim

Look behind the political wording of the reply.

This is just a general power being taken in the bill   It gives them the power to introduce it once it goes through.Now why have it in there if there was no intention of using it.First to do it before 2014 would be political suicide,but after that when funds are required,it is easy money.

With no organisation to speak on behalf of angling or anglers do you think they are worried?

Some ask who will police it.Well we already have SEPA and fishery boards in place and extra money would equal funds for extra people to police it and still leave money over.
Those who say they wont pay it or they will never catch me,jails are full of those who said the same thing.It could take 5 years or 10 ,but the fine would cover those years missed in license fees and a bonus on top.

It has been talked about for years and years and it hasnt gone away and its only a matter of time.

[Allan Liddle]

So how would the charges apply to private businesses such as yours Kevin?  Understand and agree it could be an excellent thing if the money is used correctly and wisely but where would the revenue raised from anglers who can only fish put and take waters be used, to help enhance rivers?  Would assume fisheries would be looking to collect some of this revenue?

To be fair the role model Scotland could have looked to follow regarding this was Canada, but things have not been plain sailing over there recently have they?  The other option is to follow the Norwegian role which is set along the same lines as Assynt with large areas under the control of local groups. How do coarse and sea fishing angling bodies benefit?

This would mean no privately owned angling in this country, would we all want to see this happening?  Would the SNP really want to try this potential vote loosing scenario out regardless of timing?

[Rob Brownfield]

So how would the charges apply to private businesses such as yours Kevin? 

It wouldn't if based on the English and Welsh model. The licence is applied to the angler, not the fishery. The license money goes to the authority to police the license, but also to research facilities to look into disease and fish production, and to restocking public waters. Private bodies would not receive money, but they can buy the services of, in theis case, the EA to advise on stocking levels and so on. The could also buy stock direct from the EA. So, they indirectly benefit by being able to call on the expertise the license has paid for.

As for Coarse and Sea anglers...Coarse, Eel and Trout anglers (trout in a stocked still water) anglers currently pay £27 for a licence, and that allows 2 rods to be used. Buying 2 licences allows upto 4 rods. 4 rods is the max allowed to be used, but the fishery can impose a lower limit.

Migratory fish anglers currently pay £72. The higher cost  accounts for the higher investment involved in the maintenance of salmon rivers etc.

[Hamish Young]

I suggested - a long time ago - that a voluntary 'rod licence' could be set up in Scotland as a fund-raiser for habitat work or other projects within Scotland.
The monies would be available as a fund that fisheries trusts could 'lobby' for, the licence holders would vote for the project most deserving of the funds and thus works that might not otherwise get attended to would stand a chance of getting some funding; albeit not a fortune. Every little helps.....
There would have to be payback of some kind to the licence holder in respect of a small discount at some waters or something like that.
I still like the idea (I would ) and I do think there is mileage in something based on a 'charitable' model working in Scotland. However, I have yet to receive a reply from SANA to whom I suggested the idea.
Maybe I should write to someone at Holyrood..... or maybe I should just not bother.
C'est la vie 

H

[Kevin Moss]

Hi Alan
Rob has answered it really.It doesn't concern stillwwaters it would apply to all fishing,that would probably include coarse and sea(which has been talked about a lot in recent years,just look at the spey bay coast)

The main point to raising all this is that if the government did bring it in then it is then a tax,angling and anglers will recive in return very little compared to supporting a single organisation registered as a trust where the money gets used for angling and anglers and they would have someone who would fight on behalf of them in government on all issues effecting angling.That alone has to be worth something.
SANA are doing what they can but  don't get the support due to the past issues so it needs to either change its name or become a new organisation such as Scottish Angling Trust,given the support if the government wish to introduce things in angling strength in numbers would make them listen and consider more than they do at the minute.Hamish is quite right and this is the point to it all.

[Mike Barrio]

Perhaps if SANA were to come away from competition angling ............... things might be different

Best wishes
Mike

[Kevin Moss]

Mike I don't think they do a lot with competitions these days,they do hold one or two but I doubt if there is much profit made from it.But The other guys who work as volunteers on the migratory and non migratory side do a fair bit in the little time they have.The problem is that volunteers have little time and can only do so much,it does require some full timers to do it as a sole job,accountable then to anglers.
The main point is that any money which did go in ,in form of either rod license or membership benefits angling and anglers and doesn't go out as a tax.
I was against the Angling trust when it started ,but having watched the work they have done along with fish legal who have prosecuted poluters in civil actions on top of the EA court actions meaning the costs to a poluter have been twice as bad as they would have been which is only right as fines are ridiculous and they get off lightly,this has to be worth it and a deterrent.AT are now backed y MP,s and listened to more than ever now and that is what we need here.SANA may not be the one ,but there are some good guys there who work hard in their own time for angling and I respect them for that.They have made mistakes in the past I agree,but we do need to move on and we can only do that by discussing it as anglers within and represented by one group not as individuals or splinter groups.Goverments will just walk over that with no opposition.