I pay over £50 for my rod licences anyway so the cost isn’t an issue to me. My issue is where my money goes, and I don’t want any of it to go to the Angling Trust for personal reasons that I have seen & experienced through their “promises”.

I for one fully expect that either BW, or the EA will go, or if not both. Either way I think we can all expect a license rise what ever happens. Who else other than the Trust would be capable of taking on such a venture??

Cant see the EA going, there is more to that organisation than angling.

BW could and should go, they have been ripping anglers off for years.

It is an interesting premise and I would not object to paying such a sum for a two rod license if I could see the benefit to fishing.
As Mark said, the EA have many more duties than simply policing rod licenses, just a shame they do not always carry them out as they should – hence the need for the Angling Trust (ACA, now Fish Legal).
I suspect a price rise of that order would put a lot of people off going fishing legally. If enforcement was carried out strictly, perhaps we would see only genuine, concerned anglers on the bank? But far, far fewer of them.

I still say and have always said: make sea anglers have to buy a license. Suddenly there would be a much bigger pot available to the EA and they may get things done. Then again, the Government would probably want to get their hands on such a windfall.
Time for someone to suggest that under Magna Carta fishing in the sea has to be free, but it is nonsense, the same as not letting the Angling Trust run rod licenses.
It would just take an act of Parliament, perhaps through a private member’s bill…

I bet the enforcement of licenses will be taken over by the same people who do TV licenses, leaving the EA to do their ‘river protection and planning’ job on a smaller budget.

Fancy A £50-£60 Rod Licence?

If that’s what it takes to give us a powerful voice then YES every time!!

well at £52 per year,thats only a £1a week
is the angling trust any good though, or are they just a money making concern?

@daveyboy wrote:

well at £52 per year,thats only a £1a week

I was thinking similar last night, perhaps you should be able to pay monthly by direct debit if this license thing goes ahead.

@daveyboy wrote:

is the angling trust any good though, or are they just a money making concern?

Time will tell, but how about this: if you are a member and you bought a £500 pole from Angling Direct, you would only pay £450.
You also get public liability insurance cover amongst the benefits.
And…they will take the polluters to court if your local river or canal gets wiped out. Even if it is the EA who were at fault.

It has been debated long and hard on this and other forums, but they are probably here to stay so it would help if more anglers joined.

“while a further suggestion is to turn the lot over to the Angling Trust and let them run it.”

Dear oh dear.

They couldn’t even run their own forum.

The BWB and the EA are entirely different organisations. The EA when set up was hailed as the game keeper that looked after our waterways (ALL of them, ponds, lakes, reservoirs and canals even the ground water that is invisible to most of us most of the time.) and kept an eye on the newly privatised water companies to stop them polluting the waterways. They have enormous responsibilities under legislation for the correct disposal of all sorts of toxic materials and the cleaning up of spills etc. It will stay under Government control and funding will be reduced.

The BWB is a proper quango. As far as I am aware it was GIVEN the control of the canal network by the government after all the private firms running them had closed down as commercial trade. They are not interested in the water quality very much as canal boats, walkers, canoeists and cyclists don’t need clean water to pursue their activities. They are also the people that the BWB see as their customers.

BWB have already stated that they will be axed as a quango getting direct government funding. However they are in the process of becoming a charity and the canals they manage on our behalf having been given to them by the government will be under their control!

WRONG!! The public should have control of the canals, not some ‘charity’ that will be staffed by the same people that currently manage BWB ~naughty ~naughty

@caster rob wrote:

“while a further suggestion is to turn the lot over to the Angling Trust and let them run it.”

Dear oh dear.

They couldn’t even run their own forum.

Really?

Steve Partner hit the nail on the head about forums, particulary the last paragraph.

http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-Times/Section/News–Catches/General-News/October-2010/Steve-Partner-Fishing-doesnt-need-cyber-Forum-cowards

The internet is a wonderful tool. But the all-encompassing qualities that make it so brilliant also provide its greatest flaw. As the Trust discovered last week, open access forums can be dangerous places – because above all else, they’ve given a voice to everybody, even those without the intelligence to deserve it.

Well, we’ll just have to thank our lucky stars that someone has modestly assumed the mantle to decide which of us are intelligent enough to deserve a voice and which of us aren’t.

Talk about patronising……………………………………………..

I do think he has a point though, Rob. Just look at how the quality of this forum has declined with broadening internet access.

since when has an unelected self-serving elite deemed who is ‘intelligent’ enough to post?
You’ll be deciding on what issues and who can vote next- some corporations including HA inhouse ‘service user’ community ‘representative’ orgs already ‘conveniently ‘ do this to stifle dissent and prevent or forsestall inconvenient truths. Free speech is a cornerstone of any democracy.
As regards AT new editor Partner, he seems more interested in tabloid sensationalism and like many of the publishing media the growing use of the net by ordinary people.

Coming back to the EA, the threat to the already severely cut back agency is alarming and of consequence both to pollution, infrastructure and planning regulation.
As regards fishery staff this news comes on the merger in 2010 between former Southern and SE regions with no increase in staff. I’m lead to believe there are only 2 frontline full time fisheries officers left in the merged area out of 8 in 2009.The EA fisheries dept. already provides an excellent advice and fishery service such as netting, water and habitat ,stocking sustainability to clubs at little or no cost including scientific research linked to Sparsholt,etc.
Many small clubs would be unable to pay for private contractors and the potential impact on quality of many current club controlled fishing and long term viabillity could be severely brought into question as a result of withdrawl of the current EA fishery services.
Pertinant also is pollution monitoring and self-regulation reporting mechanisms that the Angling Trust vociferously opposed in 2009, these necessary checks and responsibilities would be severely eroded if the threat to the EA’s current responsibillities is outsourced or financially corroded.

If it was handed over to the Angling Trust would that mean we would all become members when we pay our levvy ?
I find having to pay the AT for the privalege of applying for a fish’o ticket knowing full well i may not get one, while a privaleged few get a fistfull totally unacceptable.
If they where to be given the whole pot it would implode IMO, to many ego’s fighting for where the money would be spent.
Big wages would have to be paid and let’s face facts, just because your’e a well known angler does not qualify you for running a multi-million pound organisation.
God forbid John Wilson gets a high profile job in it, his ego is big enough as it is.