| Description | Presentation by Andrew Wallace (Association of Salmon Fishery Boards) for the Freshwater Fisheries Forum 2. |
|---|
| ISBN | (Web Only) |
|---|
| Official Print Publication Date | |
|---|
| Website Publication Date | July 15, 2005 |
|---|
Slide 8:
Analysis Of Possible Funding Sources
Options for Funding
There is broad consensus that any proposed legislative
changes had to be accompanied by adequate funding from
public/private sector sources
Private Sector Sources | Public Sector Sources |
- Status quo
- Voluntary
donations
- Area Permits
- Rod Licences
- Levy on
proprietors
- Permit levy
- Levy on sale of
tackle
| - Block grant
- Funding for
services
- SNH
- SEPA
- WFD
|
Slide 9:
SWOT Analysis of Options
Option 4 - Rod Licences
A statutory charge which anglers have to pay before
they can fish lawfully with rod and line in any freshwater.
The charge is separate from, and additional to, any permit
fee to fish a particular water, and applies even where the
angler himself or herself is the owner of the fishing
rights.
Strengths Well-established means of raising funds
(around £18 M pa gross) from anglers in England
& Wales Equity in level of anglers' contribution system is universal and consistent clear, simple and readily understood can attract substantial levels of
compliance would be readily accepted by visiting
anglers - most of whom expect to have to pay
for this kind of licence Creates scope for a strategic and
co-ordinated approach to management | Weaknesses no tradition of rod licencing in
Scotland current provisions in E&W are
fundamentally flawed in many ways, and are not
well loved by anglers clubs or proprietors who believe they
already raise sufficient for the management of
waters they control tend to perceive this as
all cost and no benefit for their clients /
members anglers who purely use commercial or
well-funded club fisheries would be funding the
management of fisheries in which they have no
interest | Opportunities Adopting the concept of rod licences would
not require the wholesale importation of the
E&W model. In particular, it is neither
necessary nor desirable for the money raised by
rod licences to be channelled through a
monolithic national agency like the EA. | Threats Collection and enforcement costs can be
substantial (understood to be between 20% and
25% in E&W) Risk that money raised centrally would
become a substitute for, rather than a
supplement to, existing sources of funding and
voluntary effort |
|
Actions to develop as a national system of
funding
Primary legislation would be required to establish a
statutory rod licence. Machinery would have to be put in place
to collect and disburse the revenue concerned, and to enforce
compliance.
Slide 10:
Summary of SWOT
- Status quo - Insufficient funding for
all species
- Voluntary donations - Inconsistent /
Unreliable
- Area Permits - Bureaucratic /
Inconsistent
- Rod licences - Favoured (with
qualifications)
- Levy on proprietors - Retain for
salmon but n/a for other spp
- Permit levy - Inconsistent /
Unfair
- Levy on sale of tackle - Bureaucratic
/ Inconsistent