In trouble with E.A

[oliver reed]

Alls I can say is this-as it stands the Government offer very little in the way of protecting the sport you and I partake in. When the likes of ******* decide it is more economically viable to dispose of x amount of tonnage of waste bi product into the local river system instead of hiring a haulage company to do it for them the result is usually in the form of thousands of dead fish which are washed downstream away from the concerning eye.

Coupled with this is the nasty factor of the river/lake no longer being able to sustain lifeforms. Now your average Joe who doen't go fishing probably isn't aware of these goings on,more to the point he/she probably doesn't give a shhhit if it is going on,so long as their dog doesn't get ill after a swim.

As a result there is a large 'getawaywithit' margin from the evil disposers of said waste,with little policing of the water they are discreetly 'murdering'.

The only real monitoring that I am aware of is from the EA and being as the government won't be worried about such an undercover 'going on' such as waste dumping there is little cause for them to throw funds at it.

This is where the EA comes into play. We as anglers fund the EA via our licence fees,therefore when such an atrocity happens as a toxic spillage onto a stretch of river,the EA uses the funds you and I provide to tackle these huge companies who think they are untouchable and pursue for compensation through the courts.

This aint your typical car accident whiplash claim where a no win no fee agreement comes into play,the EA use the funds raised by licensing to try and bring these culprits to justice-if they cannot afford to take it to the courts for fear of losing then corporate mofo polluter gets away with it,in a nutshell.

So,you are,by buying a licence or two,in essence providing bullets for the EA's weaponry so they can take on companies who have no regard for our 'playground'. By not buying a licence you are merely watching someone defending your pastime get the 5hit kicked out of them. Hope you feel proud of that and that your golf clubs haven't gone rusty when your fishing goes up the creek as a result of pollution....

Some see licences as a 'tax' but the reality is you are buying a small piece of armour for your chosen sport-Buying one licence and fishing three rods is totally defeating the object,looking over your shoulder all the time is no way to relax whilst fishing...

do people need to fish wiv 3 rods?? wots wrong wiv the owd skool ways of fishin? that being 2 rods only. wiv 3 u are just askin for trouble, 2 many lines, not needed. if you must fish wiv 10 or more rods at least av the decency to buy thr right number of lisense. the ea dont run on brass buttons

[Stig]

So judging back everyones reactions Northern Monkey is no place for rod licence dodgers

[snagmaster]

do you need extra licences to cover your spod /marker?

[Stig]

Originally Posted by snagmaster

do you need extra licences to cover your spod /marker?

Now thats a definite question to be answered

[peterpike]

Originally Posted by snagmaster

do you need extra licences to cover your spod /marker?

i would say YES.if your spodding and you,ve got your bait rods in and a ea bailiff arrives,he will ask you for your LICENCES

[bluenose6]

Surely the rod licence will cover rods actually 'fishing' and in the water. Spod and marker rods are simply tools. I for one would be suprised at an EA representative being funny about any rod, line or reel unless it is in the water with a bait and hook attached for the sole purpose of catching a fish. Anybody in the know care to shed some light?

[cantona]

As far as im aware the license covers you for 2 rods for fishing,from what i have been told you are allowed to spod or use a marker,that dosnt constitute as fishing.But if you are actually fishing with more than 2 you need that other license.You can have 3/4 rods set up next to you and you wouldnt be prosecuted,its when you use them for fishing that the license comes into play.Thats my interpretation

[snagmaster]

well i`m of the understanding that when rod licences were introduced it was similar to air rifle,as in you had to have one because it was a dangerous(potential weapon) item to carry,so my thinking is that if your carrying it then you should need a licence for it.
come on someone from the e.a. should clarify this.
craig

[cantona]

Just got this of the EA site

How many rods does a rod licence entitle me to use?

A rod licence entitles you to fish with up to two rods and line at the same time for coarse fish and eels, but with only one rod and line for trout, sea trout, char and salmon. Always check club rules and local byelaws regarding the rod limit on the water you intend to fish.

Additional licences are required if you fish with more rods, where byelaws and rules permit.

For further information on rod fishing licences, please contact the Fisheries Permitting and Enforcement team on the following email address rod.licence@environment-agency.gov.uk



2007/08 rod licence

[bluenose6]

Originally Posted by cantona

Just got this of the EA site

How many rods does a rod licence entitle me to use?

A rod licence entitles you to fish with up to two rods and line at the same time for coarse fish and eels, but with only one rod and line for trout, sea trout, char and salmon. Always check club rules and local byelaws regarding the rod limit on the water you intend to fish.

Additional licences are required if you fish with more rods, where byelaws and rules permit.

For further information on rod fishing licences, please contact the Fisheries Permitting and Enforcement team on the following email address rod.licence@environment-agency.gov.uk



2007/08 rod licence

Thats the deciding sentence, you arent actually fishing with a spod or marker rod just like you dont need a licence for a bait boat which essentially does the same job as a spod rod. And if you were to highlight those 8 words in court with proof that the spod and marker rods are not used for 'fishing' then you would get away with it every time.

[cantona]

Originally Posted by bluenose6

Thats the deciding sentence, you arent actually fishing with a spod or marker rod just like you dont need a licence for a bait boat which essentially does the same job as a spod rod. And if you were to highlight those 8 words in court with proof that the spod and marker rods are not used for 'fishing' then you would get away with it every time.

Yep totally agree you are not fishing with the spod and marker so therefore you dont need the license for them,but you do if you have more than 2 fishing.

[cantona]

I have just e-mailed them with the query.I will post there responce on here when they reply.

[matt]

Re- spods and markers if they don't have a baited hook attached they are not fishing therefore no licence is required. If you are using three rods with one licence, the bailiff may ask you if all belong to you and have hooks and bait attached or he may ask you to wind them in to check they all have hooks and baits attached.

You can be asked for your licence if you are preparing to fish or have fished within the last half hour. Just because your rods aren't in the water that doesn't mean you won't be asked for your licence.

[carp junkie]

been done before this and someone contacted the ea who confirmed a marker/spod rod is NOT classed as fishing but you may be asked to reel in any rods with line on that are in the water to confirm you have no hooks on