Angler talking to official

Anglers had the chance to discuss with the representatives from the Governments Wild Fisheries review.

I popped in to Glasgow Angling Centre today and there were a few people who turned up at the same time as me. It was clear the majority of the focus seemed to be on the issue of Kill Licences for Salmon amongst the anglers. Personally, regardless of where the “blame” lies for the weakness in the salmon fishery nationally, if you want to have salmon to fish for in future years, killing the few fish that make it back into the river doesn’t strike me as the way to do it! I think I read somewhere once that a single spawning salmon creates 4000 young so that’s 4000 potential new fish you are losing so you can have a wild salmon dinner, when salmon is cheaply available in a supermarket. And Ok I appreciate it maybe doesn’t taste as good, but you can’t have your fish and eat it.

A few anglers seemed put at ease when it was explained that the kill licence fee, which might be £1000 for a club ( entirely notional figures) and taken over a membership this might amount to £5 or £10 into the cost of a membership as the “liability” could be shared amongst the membership as a recoverable charge.

That’s as much as I will say on the subject of the review regarding wild salmon.

Rod Licence

On the subject of a rod licence it was reiterated a number of times that the ministerial position ( ie. the Scottish Government) was NOT to have a rod licence. The review chaired by Andrew Thin had made the point that IF ANGLERS had a desire to increase sports development of Angling generally ( though I notice the document attached below makes a particular point of coarse angling)  then it would require additional money to finance. The review stated there was probably enough money in the system as is to fund the wild fisheries review reforms, presumably from existing levies waged on salmon fisheries and perhaps the kill licence/tag fees, but that in the consultation carried out, a number of parties ( who these are is anyones guess- SANA?) has stated they wanted to have angling development better funded. Thin stated this could only be funded by additional income and this would need to come from additional funding ie. a rod licence.

The gent from Marine Scotland said they had put it out there with the wild fisheries review to see if anglers wanted to fund angling development and if not but still wanted a licence, what would their views be on what it would fund.

For my part I said to the chap from Marine Scotland that I wasn’t sure funding Angling development was as high on my personal criteria for what’s needed from a rod licence. Amongst some of the other anglers in attendance were clearly a few guys who were bailliff’s on rivers. One made the point that he basically works 6 days a week and in fact 7 as he could not take a day off on a Sunday as there was always someone who tried it on fishing for salmon on the closed day. Now to an extent the chap ( as he acknowledged himself ) was a volunteer, so in essence no one was “forcing him” or making him contractually bound to carry out the activities he does around bailiffing, and he was trying to suggest ( perhaps tongue in cheek)  he should be paid a full time salary for his work from a licence. I don’t think the fees collected on a rod licence would stretch somehow to paying for potentially hundreds of full time bailiffs on individual river systems ( not unless the licence was very highly priced) and in any case though he was protecting river stock and someone’s fishing rights, surely the owner of those rights would, if they valued his work, be better placed to pay his wages?  However some sort of expenses reimbursement for voluntary bailiffs would seem a reasonable use of licence fees. Another option ( in my view) would be to fund a small number of full time bailiffs nationally ( Scotland) and they be given similar powers to the police to carry out permit checks and tackle/licence checks wherever they please, fishing wardens if you like. But not tied to a particular river free roaming, highly visible and active.

I was talking to the Marine Scotland guy about the problems with access to trout/grayling fishing on Salmon only rivers, and also the interpretation of the law as levelled by some who claimed that free fishing for Brown Trout was practically a “human right” that could be done free and unchallenged. The bailiff chap piped up that every one had the right to take one Brown Trout if they were travelling from A to B and sleeping over ‘somewhere’ ” it was a law from 17 suh’hin….” . This to me is part of the issue with fishing rules, everyone ‘knows’ some law or rule or right and most of it is frankly apocryphal bollocks! (I wondered if I turned up on this bailiff’s river and claimed the right to take a trout while travelling if he would allow me? Bet I know the answer…. ) Ask anyone to tell you the law or statute and they can’t! The Marine Scotland guy agreed with me ( he hadn’t heard this particular travellers right to fish one himself) that there was far too many interpretations of “hand me down” laws  and part of the review was to try level the field, make the law simpler, clearer and less open to interpretation. So fishing without a permit for trout might be equally a criminal offence as it was for Salmon.Apparently though the legislation for angling is so old and scattered that it is a bit of a nightmare to level it all. The MS rep mentioned another old “law” that a legal salmon trap was one that a pig could turn around in…… hardly 21st century law or something that could be enforced….. what type of pig? A Kunekune or an American Yorkshire?

I took these handouts anyway and you are quite at liberty to download them as I have made them into PDF’s

The Marine Scotland guy was especially keen that any comments on Salmon fishing or ANY other aspect of the review be commented on at http://www.gov.scot/wildfishreform

Fundamental Principals
Sustainable Fisheries
Roles and Responsibilities
Regulation and Compliance
Opportunities and Access *mentions licencing
Local Management

What it might generate

These are entirely my own estimates, not based on any official figures!

Just on what a licence could fund I reckon these back of a fag packet figures might be the revenues and costs associated with a licence scheme. There is some stat somewhere that there are around 1 million anglers UK wide. As Scotland is roughly 8% of the UK by population then that means we have around 80,000 anglers. If licence fees were the same as in England then expect around £27 per head for non migratory fishing and £72 for a migratory one. As I have no idea how many of each would be issued lets assume an average adult return of £50.

That would be a MAXIMUM income of £50 x 80,000 = £4M

HOWEVER there would be a significant number of concessions for children and pensioners. I reckon something like 1/3 would be pensioners and maybe 10% children. Again going by EA licence fees, the kids would pay £5 annually and old folks, roughly half price. So that leaves 45600 full paying adults.

45600 x £50

26400 x £25

8000 x £5

Gross income= £2.98M ( this assumes everyone bought an annual licence of some sort and everyone complies- which we know full well they won’t!

From this, there will need to be some sort of civil service manager and administrative assistants to administer issuing licences, database admin, etc,  Lets say 4 x full time equivalents earning £30K p.a and a boss on £45K = £160K

There will be infrastructure costs, IT resources, costs of printing and sending out licences, and other sundries. £100K pa?

Office space etc- Ok I know this is the Govt but still it will factor in some budget somewhere- another £100K pa?

So Ball park £400K annually to run just the system.  That leaves circa £2.5M to spend less non payments fees.

I just did a bit Googling and found out that the EA brings in £23M per annum from the England and Wales licence so I reckon my numbers aren’t far away.