• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Why bother buying a EA rod licence?

Thanks for that Ray. Typical farce - you could not make it up! Glaring contradictions & complete hypocrites.

Speechless, Jon
 
EA quotes. “If eel population numbers don’t improve soon we could reach a critical point of no return and face the end of this species living in our waters and possibly global extinction.”
-Sally Chadwick, fisheries technical specialist for the EA. - June 2010


“Eels are in crisis,” says Heidi Stone, the Environment Agency’s fisheries policy manager. “There’s a real sense of urgency. Eels have more protection than salmon now.” - March 2010

Forgot to mention that that the EA licensed Eel Trapper is also trapping and killing off the eels on the Dorset Stour as well as the Hampshire Avon, all with the blessing of the EA.
There are seemingly many more otters present here than on the Avon, so you know what to expect now and in the future.
Other interesting short press links articles below.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/gosport/Fish-for-eels-and-face.6337798.jp
http://www.fishnewseu.com/latest-news/uk/2798.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/01/eel-fishing-europe-environment
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/campaigns/greenwatch/8200063.Eel_population__critical_/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/6acbbc1e-3588-11df-963f-00144feabdc0.html
 
Last edited:
Thanks ray for supplying info..It seems most anglers are happy with the current licence simply because its CHEAP..I would rather see another agency formed and pay more if it meant the major issues were highlighted and something done about them such as water abstraction,legalised polluting etc..Remember the old saying..YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR..As colin gordon has pointed out look at how the rivers in oxfordshire have gone completely down hill because the same fate will be happening on many other rivers in the coming years unless urgent change happens..Unfortunately the EA WONT DO ANYTHING because they are linked with the very same groups that are contributing to the rivers downfall..And i cant help but feel as long as anglers keep giving the EA money then anglers are also contributing to the growing list of problems that our rivers are facing..:(
 
Hi Craig...If someone deliberately got caught without a rod license, it would be interesting if they could challenge the EA in court regarding the Maintain, Improve and Develope fisheries side of the protocol, in that the EA have failed, are are not willing or fullfilling their duties to the angler and fish etc.
I remember putting forward the same case regarding boycotting the NRA rod license some 20+ years ago regarding pollution etc as it would allow someone to openly air their views in court and make it public knowledge and embarrass the NRA and authorities through the national press etc.
The point is that the EA might/will let you off with a warning to avoid court proceedings thus stopping you airing your views openly in court and thus making it public knowledge.
It would be interesting to know Fish Legal's/Angling Trust views on this subject and whether the EA could be challenged in court!
Regarding the Eels, I dont think the EA can or are willing to stop Eel Trapping at this time and are therfore using the 'Scientific Research' angle as damage limitation to protect themselves.
As you can see by the links, the EA have the eel experts in their ranks and the scientific data that proves the decline.
Every single remaining eel is key to the recovery considering how many eggs they can produce if allowed to escape back to the breeding grounds in the Sargasso.
As the CITES endangered Eel is now protected on par with the Polar Bear, it is obvious that you would not continue to allow authorised professional hunters to slaughter the last remaining polar bears for research purposes to initiate a study and recovery programme!
 
Last edited:
Craig Wood said:
It seems most anglers are happy with the current licence simply because its CHEAP..I would rather see another agency formed and pay more if it meant the major issues were highlighted and something done about them such as water abstraction,legalised polluting etc.
Click to expand...

If you see that then I'd suggest that you are seeing what you want to see.;)

I pay the current licence because I don't want a fine and a criminal record. As an angler, I'm sure that I'd pay pretty much whatever was asked to fish. However, that doesn't mean that I think the EA are great. I firmly believe that most people fall into the "better the devil you know" camp. There's a reasonable chance that a new organisation would be less effective and cost a lot more. Be careful what you wish for.
 
Yes, as I said much earlier in this thread - careful what you wish for ... you might get it and you certainly won't like it.

There are people in Britain who, by virtue of birth, connection, money, ownership of good water, believe it their right to run Anglers and Angling; people who look on at all the huffing and puffing from "little people" or "the masses" [their words] who pay little more than fivepence for their fishing yet still have the front to demand a million-pound earth, and who think: "Wake up and smell the Earl Grey. You will wet yourselves when you are made to pay even a mere hundredth of what we pay for our sport...".

Careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
I have deliberately avoided reading this thread until now, I knew it would be full of moaners, having a moan...............and I was right, although there is some worthwhile input too.

Some of the comments, especially at the start of the thread were no better than the canoeist guy in another thread!!

Here's my experience:

In 2008, the local EA fisheries department, being sick of trying hard to improve the Loddon catchement with very little support from anyone brought all associated fishing clubs together for a meeting to ask what can we do collectively and how can we support each other, this was the starte of the Loddon Consutative, which is now a great collaboration working to improve our local river system. This is an EA led initiative...........

I know they are trying to do this in other areas too but constantly struggle, as we do to get anglers to volunteer any of their time to get involved.

I find exactly the same thing with local clubs, all are struggling to maintain their own fisheries as no-one will give up their free time to get involved any more.

I really do get the impression that the average angler thinks that if he pays a measley 50 to 100 quid to join a club, the club should ensure the fisheries are upkept, stocked, etc and he should be able to just go fishing without another thought, they don't realise that the income at most clubs these days barlely pays the rents!!!

Same with the EA, I have paid my 20 odd quid and now everything should be perfect............

If the actual costs of mainaining good healthy angling waters both still and running was divided across the countries anglers we would probably have to pay over a thousand pounds each, hence clubs, the EA, etc.. expect people to get involved and help keep the costs down........

Some people don't know what they have got until it's gone and anglers seem better at moaning without getting stuck in than any other pastime........
 
Putting aside all of the arguments re what the EA actually spend their (our) income on ...

I seem to remember as a lad having to pay a seperate licence fee for every river authority in the UK...this was very pricey to me as a teenager.The actual cost of today's licence surely can't be moaned at?

I have a sneaking suspicion that the old adage "better the devil you know" applies to the EA licence system.

:rolleyes:
 
Its not the cost thats the issue its the way things are being run..heres a list of examples..
EA..no weed cutting on hamps avon and stour so as to encourage fish stocks..
THE TRUTH..weed cutting would highlight how much water is being abstracted by various partys which is causing pollution issues due to not enough water to dillute the "legal"polluting which is sanctioned by the EA..
EA..eels are a protected species and need our help due to a massive decline..
THE TRUTH..They still issue eel trapping licences to eel trappers..
EA..Our rivers have never been cleaner so much so we were able to encourage otter reintroduction..
THE TRUTH..Potassium phosphide along with other "legal" chemical pollution which is sanctioned by the EA is slowly affecting fish stocks and breeding for all species such as barbel and salmon etc..

I could go on and on as the lies and hypocrisy that the EA sprout are endless..Again its not about cost its simply about the longer this situation carries on the more damage will be inflicted on our rivers...You might aswell throw your £28 in the river because that would do more good than giving it to the EA..Unfortunately the term "better the devil you know" is not going to help our rivers..:(
 
It is also a fact that the EA receive income/money from polluters of our rivers by issuing them with a license/consent which gives them the 'legal' right to pollute!
The polluter pays the EA 'beforehand' for the legal right to pollute! and not necessarily 'after' a pollution incident has occured where they may be prosecuted and fined. A polluter (just like bus and train timetables) has only to keep within a 95% target of the EA discharge consent/permit issued, so he can, literally, damage or kill the river 5 times by releasing damaging effluents without ever being prosecuted, although he may get a warning and a slap on the wrist.
No doubt there are some very good EA staff (i even know some) who care for the river and lake environments, but unfortunately they are not always the ones that call the shots.
Basically, we pay the EA in one hand by means of a Rod License fee to legally fish in clean rivers and lakes and they are bound to 'Maintain, Improve and Develope' UK fisheries etc. In the other hand, the polluter pays the EA by means of a 'Discharge Consent License' (different department) to legally pollute the same fisheries. When a pollution incident/fish kill occurs, our rod license money is used by the EA fisheries dept to clean it up and restock.
The EA Flood Defense section is yet another department which have other priorities which may overide the Maintain, Improve and Deveope protocol of the Fisheries Department, and to where deliberate damage and destruction is caused to the riverine environment.
The way i see it is that it has always been an ongoing kill and repair, kill and repair situation because these seperate departments don't often communicate within themselves.
Oh yes, and the Eel Trapper is also paying the EA money for a license for the legal right to kill the remaining protected and endangered eels.
 
Last edited:
Craig,

Do you have evidence to support any of these points?? Or this this just more anti EA opinion??

One thing for sure, my local rivers would have died years ago without the EA.........don't get me wrong, I am talking about EA Fisheries, don't have much exposure to the rest but fisheries is the area where the rod licence money goes to provide between 40 and 50% of their funding..........
 
Last edited:
Craig Wood said:
Its not the cost thats the issue its the way things are being run..heres a list of examples..
EA..no weed cutting on hamps avon and stour so as to encourage fish stocks..
THE TRUTH..weed cutting would highlight how much water is being abstracted by various partys which is causing pollution issues due to not enough water to dillute the "legal"polluting which is sanctioned by the EA..
EA..eels are a protected species and need our help due to a massive decline..
THE TRUTH..They still issue eel trapping licences to eel trappers..
EA..Our rivers have never been cleaner so much so we were able to encourage otter reintroduction..
THE TRUTH..Potassium phosphide along with other "legal" chemical pollution which is sanctioned by the EA is slowly affecting fish stocks and breeding for all species such as barbel and salmon etc..

I could go on and on as the lies and hypocrisy that the EA sprout are endless..Again its not about cost its simply about the longer this situation carries on the more damage will be inflicted on our rivers...You might aswell throw your £28 in the river because that would do more good than giving it to the EA..Unfortunately the term "better the devil you know" is not going to help our rivers..:(
Click to expand...

Ok...so going back to the thread's title....the short answer must be ..."because it is the law of the land" ...there's plenty of laws I dont like/agree with but that's tough I guess.
 
I can only speak as i find..My local rivers the hamps avon and dorset stour are losing fish stocks at alarming rates..The EA have indeed been told and various clubs have conducted years of fish stock surveys only to be told by the EA that theres nothing wrong with our rivers..So if thats the case where are the fish stocks dissapearing too?..:eek:
 
Craig Wood said:
You might aswell throw your £28 in the river because that would do more good than giving it to the EA..Unfortunately the term "better the devil you know" is not going to help our rivers..:(
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the replacement body you espouse could cost us a lot more and actually be worse for our rivers than the EA. Lets face it, it'll either be the EA with an expensive makeover that'll cost us more for no discernible change or a private/semi-private company that'll cost us more, because they'll need to turn a profit, and could actually be far worse for our waterways. Hence people suggesting that you "be careful what you wish for" and "better the devil you know".;)

P.S. That was a quick and rather drastic edit!
 
Ray wrote 'When a pollution incident/fish kill occurs, our rod license money is used by the EA fisheries dept to clean it up and restock'.

Not exactly true. Under the 'Polluter Pays Principle' discharges made either out of consent (license) or an illegal non consented discharge - the polluter will be charged for all expenses incurred by the EA & any (most, not all) consequential stocking that might take place thereafter. For the last 7 years, to my knowledge & previous experience - all polluters are charged, at no small fee, for these costs.

Before then, unless the impact was of significance, recharge was down to the discretion of the pollution officer concerned

Costs sometimes are well in excess of a court fine, if it ever gets that far

Cheers, Jon
 
Last edited:
I never used to be anti-EA but i am now..They do more harm than good..The term "SHEEP IN WOLVES CLOTHING" comes to mind..Ive no dought that their are good intentioned people on board the EA but it seems they are not the ones who can make a difference..I think a good point that has been raised is the fact they will help once disaster has struck rather than make measures to prevent it happening in the first instance..I want to see a totally independent organisation formed that will tackle the various water abstractors and legal polluters and tell us the real truth so we can tackle the problems faced..I dont see how improvement can happen whilst the real truth is being concealed..The main reason alot of rivers are cleaned up is simply to provide more water for our consumption and often waste..If the water authorities cleaned up their act and began to repair their supply pipes instead of putting share holders profit first then i firmly believe we would be beginning to address the problems faced by our rivers because we wouldent need to take so much out..Wishfull thinking i know but thats why i think in the long run we would benefit from a organisation thats independent from government and can publiclly voice its concerns without restraint or being gagged..;)
 
Jon..I am pretty sure that occurs only when the polluter is identified, caught and prosecuted. If the EA don't have enough or conclusive evidence (like a legal EA licensed polluter discharging through a 'public surface water drain') where tracing the source is much more difficult to prove. Anglers money would therefore foot the bill for the clean up if the polluter is not identified..
The polluter still pays the EA for the legal right to pollute the river 'upfront', before he is allowed to discharge effluents.
 
The mistake I think some are making is to presume that the EA is purely there for the benefit of angling. They aren't, they have to juggle the demands of the wider public and business for water too. The best we can hope for is that a status quo is maintained whereby angling doesn't suffer unduly from all those other (legitimate?) demands. Water abstraction isn't going to stop any more than oil drilling is going to stop due to the disaster in the gulf of Mexico.
 
That is exactly the case Ray. Sometimes the extent of the Polluter Pays Principle is also down to Regional implementation & in addition, the anglers money might have to pay for restocking on an impoverished river sometime after the event.

Craig - It's a sticky wicket keeping all parties happy - a utopian dream at a cost. Environmental quality & sustenance is a luxury. A fully developed manufacturing country needs to have a consistent budgetary surplus to sponsor these ideals amongst all the other needs to deal with the wants & needs of human nature.

I understand where you are coming from Craig, but for social practicalities at present, you are asking for the impossible.

Cheers, Jon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top