Where are all the bailiffs?

dvae

During the summer months i fish a local trout lake called Lough Acalla, its run by the Shannon fishery board and is close to where i live in Co. Galway.
When the water is right i also fish the Clare river for trout/salmon and, in the winter i fish for pike on the river Suck.
I have been fishing these venues for over 14 years since i moved to Galway.
In all that time Ive only ever been asked to produce my fishing permit once at Lough Acalla. About 13 years ago.
I have always bought a permit and i will continue to do so. Some of the lads
i know refuse to purchase a permit because they say "the risk of getting caught is so low.
I know the price of the permit goes to wards the up keep and stocking of the
lakes and rivers.
If there were more bailiffs perhaps there would be a lesser need for stocking.
I'm forever seeing lads spinning on fly fishing only lakes and others using shrimp and worms on fly only river stretches for salmon.
Where are all the bailiffs? Id love to know how many bailiffs are employed in the Galway area.
Is this problem only in the Galway area or is it through out Ireland?

coolwings

Have you tried calling in the fishery officers, while you are there, and the poachers are still there breaking the fishery laws?

Most of us regulars now have the fishery office, and sometimes the mobile numbers saved in our phones for that specific reason.

dvae

I remember one time running 2 lads who were fishing 2 days before opening day (1st may).A friend of mine who was with me at the time rang the fishery board only to be told they could not get anyone there till later that evening or the next day.
Another time i arrived at the lake and noticed a big green pipe coming out or the water.
Ten minutes later a tractor with a big tanker on the back arrived. A man got out and connected the green pipe to the tank. I was unsure if he was emptying or filling.
By coincidence some one from the fishery board arrived to stock the lake. When i asked him what the story was with the tractor i was more or less told to mind my own business.I remember being annoyed with the way he spoke to me.
I later found out the council were only drawing water for road works down the road.
I will keep there number in my phone but i wonder if theres any point.

jjm

Am not a regular contributor on this forum however would like to weigh in on this one.

Over the past few of years I have witness several trout lakes in Clare being decimated by illegal fishing. Things such as ground baiting with pellets and sweetcorn and maggot. Undersized trout being killed, no regard for bag limits. Its really p1sses me off. Usually I confronted these "fishermen" and told them where to go ....

About 2 years ago it came to a head and I called the Shannon Regional Fisheries board and spoke to the bailiff. While he was sympathetic to my cause he basically said he had thousands of miles of river and thousands of lakes. He gave me his mobile number and to call him if I saw this again but he told me in all honestly that the chance getting there in time of catching someone was pretty slim.

Just felt like it was a waste of time. Very depressing really to see our natural resources destroyed like this.

wgsten

Inland Fisheries Ireland have a 24 hour confidential ph. line in operation details here : http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Press-releases/24-hour-phone-service.html

ratarse

first of all, i am an angler..i dont agree with people slating fishery officers for not turning up quickley at the like of Lough Acalla..after all it is a stocked fishery.. these arent wild fish, so i commend the fisheries staff for looking after native wild trout in the local rivers first.. second of all, anyone that doesnt buy a permit for lough acalla is a scrounger..after all, all the fish that were stocked here had tp be payed for by the fisheries board!

Bizzum

Does anybody know how many staff IFI have?

Doc Farrell

if you want to do something about it get involved with your angling club, have a chat with the local gardai and cause an unholy ****storm when illegal fishing happens.

tell the gardai you want to have equipment confiscated, write a letters to your local td and councillors notifying them that there's a new sheriff in town and cause Havoc.

i recommend against personally approaching groups of strangers yourself as you may get stabbed.

there's plenty that anyone can do to create mayhem, the question really is are you ready to accept the consequences?

i'm serious about using common sense before getting stabbed.

Jayo2011

Bizzum wrote: »

Does anybody know how many staff IFI have?

I know for a fact that there are roughly 10 Fisher Officers working in the Shannon region

2 Fishery Officers police county Clare (there are over 40 lakes in east clare alone)

3 Fishery Officers police Kerry

4 Fishery officers police Limerick

1 Roscommon

1 Offaly

The Shannon region includes the largest river in the country and encompasses thousands of miles of waterways.

these figures are based on how many staff worked there last year - there are likely to be less now, as the embargo on government jobs does not allow them to renew contracts. There were roughly double the staff numbers 2 years ago, and these fishery officers also do a lot of other work such as taking water samples, dealing with forestry applications and prosecuting polluters such as county councils and farmers. A lot of their work is also office based.

If you are wondering who polices the Claregalway region and how many staff they have, you need to contact the Inland Fishery Ireland, but my guess is likely to be similar to the Shannon Region.


http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/About-Us/contact-us.html

Contact Information for the Galway office

Inland Fisheries Ireland
Teach Breac,
Earl's Island,
Galway

091 563118

If you are a concerned angler, you may if you wish become a private water keeper. This is voluntary work that is sometimes sponsored by local clubs. In my opinion, privately stocked lakes such as Lough Acalla should be policed by private water keepers. There are already too few Fishery Officers, and they should concentrate on the Wild fish stocks.

BTW - The Gardai usually have more important work to do, and most don't know the head of a fish from the tail. they specialise in criminal law enforcement and are usually unfamiliar with the local fishery Bye-laws. This is why Fishery Officers were employed in the first place.

ratarse

THE GARDAI have no powers under fisheries law, the same way as customs officer deal with revenue offences, fisheries officers deal with fisheries offences..i agree with the last post from jayo, very few staff on the ground..i now believe that they even have to leave their vehicles at the bases, so when u do ring, they cant just hop into their car and come, they first have to go to the base..

makes the startup of a new 24 hour hotline a farce really, if only inspectors can bring cars home..the fishery officers are the lads who do the work on the ground!

Bizzum

ratarse wrote: »

makes the startup of a new 24 hour hotline a farce

A big limitation of this 'hotline' is this....
You witness an illegal event.....You ring said hotline.........Report is made to HQ.........HQ call local Fishery Officer...........Fishery officer deals with it.
Throw into the mix too that you're talking to an outside agency(Hotline), with little or no understanding of illegal fishing, or the local area your talking about!

SO.... Why not cut out the middle men.
Ring your local Fishery Officer. Every angler should have in his phone the mobile number of at least one Fishery officer. These numbers are easily available.

Jayo2011

ratarse wrote: »

THE GARDAI have no powers under fisheries law, the same way as customs officer deal with revenue offences, fisheries officers deal with fisheries offences..i agree with the last post from jayo, very few staff on the ground..i now believe that they even have to leave their vehicles at the bases, so when u do ring, they cant just hop into their car and come, they first have to go to the base..

makes the startup of a new 24 hour hotline a farce really, if only inspectors can bring cars home..the fishery officers are the lads who do the work on the ground!

Incorrect. The Gardai do have powers under Fishery Laws - I have witnessed them seize equipment - rods etc. They usually do not get involved in fishery matters unless requested to do so by the Fishery Board or by members of the public who have been threatened by an offender - for one they are not insurable kitted out for the job - waders, lifejackets etc. Also, most Gardai (with the exception of Gardai who are also anglers) are not familiar with the local fishery regulations and bye-laws (these vary from region to region and river to river and change regularly), so they are correct in not getting involved as they would look pretty foolish in court incorrectly charging possible offenders.

Fishery Officers have the powers of Search and Arrest. they can also seize equipment (including vehicles involved in illegal fishery related activity) without the assistance of Gardai, and they can issue on-the spot fines - so why involve the Gardai when there is a government department that specializes in this field of expertise?

besides, the Gardai have more important things to do - eg. preparing for the queens visit etc.


There was always a 24 hour hotline in the SHRFB - usually the answering machine. But while it was not normally policed 24/7, calls were usually followed up as soon as somebody came to base. This makes for no need for anglers to have staffs personal details. I am not familiar with the new system, but it does sound like a step backward....



Regarding the use of cars - it is a job at the end of the day with a base, a 39 hour week, and staff shouldn't be expected to leave their home and come to work when not on duty. Neither should they be expected to work every time an angler rings them - end of the day, everybody is entitled to time off work.

If staff take vehicles home when not on duty, and when other fishery officers come into work, there will be instances where no vehicle is available to carry out legitimate patrols with. So having vehicles kept at base does make sense. It also saves on fuel - a very expensive commodity at the moment

I think Angling clubs need to take the initiative and start employing their own Water Keepers to manage waterways themselves, as the government currently isn't prepared to employ enough staff. This is beyond the control of the INI and is unlikely to change any time soon, and protecting our waterways is not top of any politicians agenda at the moment. Clubs could try pressurising the IMI into allowing them to manage waterways themselves and hire private water keepers. Regardless of the current economic climate, Angling Clubs would have a very strong case to put forward regarding a salary or expenses for equipment for any water keeper they choose to employ.

A large part of your licence fee goes towards fishery conservation. If there are less ground staff (about half of the staff have been made redundant over the past 2-3 years) carrying out the protection work, and licence fees haven't been significantly reduced, I would view this as a a surplus of funds has been unnecessarily generated and hasn't been refunded. This extra revenue could go towards employing water keepers

The current numbers of Fishery Officers is a joke. Regardless of what they say, the fisheries cannot honestly claim to be effectively policing all the waterways that they currently are being paid to police. It is physically impossible for 1 or 2 Fishery Officers to police a whole county 24/7.


Dvae passed comment on the county council extracting water from a lake.
If you witness a crime and a guard is present and you try to quiz him on it, he will also tell you to mind your own business and keep out of it. Sometimes it comes across as being rude, but a pollution case usually goes straight to court. Any unnecessary interference or sharing of evidence with the public can result in a case being dismissed in court. End of the day, I think you will agree that a successful prosecution more than justifies getting up somebodies snout.

ratarse

jayo, no-one wants the queen to come to ireland!

famoussheamus

The Gardai do have powers under the authorised officer act. Fishery Officers (not bailiffs) in my local area respond to all reports of illegal fishing. Everybody possesses the mobile number of the officers and spot checks are prominent throughout the seasons. Anglers and locals are in fact encouraged to report suspected cases immediately as they can be more effectively dealt with. I think there is approx 200 officers nationwide. It would be advisable to get to know your local officer. He/she is getting paid to worry about fishery matters.

ratarse

yes it is their job, but if there is only 1 or 2 covering a county or two each, do u really expect them to jump to a call at say 7 or 8pm in the evening if they had an early morning patrol that same morning..i mean they are not even allowed bring cars home anymore, so do u expect them to drive to their bases twice in the one day?


point 2- i know for a FACT that there is only one person in the Birr fisheries area(this covers Athlone- Portumna on the shannon, lough derg, the brosna, nenagh rivers and all the tribs of these.. does anyone really expect the fisheries to perform efficienty with only one person covering county offally, north tipp, bits of westmeath, east galway and even down to parts of laois clodiagh river?!

famoussheamus

I am speaking nationally, there may be regional problems with staffing levels and yes I do expect officers to answer and attend calls that are a threat to our fisheries. Until the public embargo is lifted, getting involved and reporting cases is all that joe public can do for the moment.

Bizzum

famoussheamus wrote: »

Fishery Officers (not bailiffs) in my local area respond to all reports of illegal fishing.

Any harm to ask you roughly what area your in?

On the staffing levels within IFI, I believe there are less than 450 staff nationwide, to include Admin, Fishery scientists, Enviromental, Development, and Protection staff.
So 200 may well be over guilding the lily, there could be way less!

ratarse

i hope u are only talking about officers running around protecting native species..i am a pike fisherman, but sick to the teeth, of people complaining about an odd pike being taken from a lake. FACT-unless the waterways was completely poisened pike and coarse fish could not be eradicated...salmon and trout is a different story..im glad to hear from certain sources that officers are more concerned with our native species, and if they have time they will look after the coarse fish too i imagine...

Bizzum

What is wrong with the Fisheries service protecting fish, and their habitat. I don't see that this should become an argument between coarse and game. In many cases they co-exist within the one fishery.
Obviously at different times of the year there will be different priorities, Eg. Spawning times.
The way I see it is that the Fishery service is there to protect and conserve ALL fish.

ratarse

oh i 100% agree! i think they are doing a great job anyhow, considering they even have to leave cars at their bases now.. when they get a call they now have to drive to the base, get a fisheries car, and then go to the callout..talk about slowing things down..the poachers or pollution would have ended by the timethey do all that! and they talk about a new 24 hour number!

famoussheamus

I think 450 was the highest number of staff circa 2007. 200 is an approximate figure of fishery officers. I am in the Mayo area.

Zzippy

Bizzum wrote: »

famoussheamus wrote: »

Fishery Officers (not bailiffs) in my local area respond to all reports of illegal fishing.

Any harm to ask you roughly what area your in?

On the staffing levels within IFI, I believe there are less than 450 staff nationwide, to include Admin, Fishery scientists, Enviromental, Development, and Protection staff.
So 200 may well be over guilding the lily, there could be way less!

Its actually about 350, a large portion of whom are in admin and research. No idea what the exact number of fishery officers is. AFAIK, since the IMF bailout, there are plans to downsize further to maybe 300 staff.
Also AFAIK IFI are planning to encourage a lot more private waterkeepers, so clubs will get a much bigger role in protecting the resource.

petroltimer

ratarse wrote: »

jayo, no-one wants the queen to come to ireland!

i'd strongly disagree with you statement, I would welcome her visit as i personally know of plenty of others as well.
A royal visit could do wonders for tourism in Ireland, and especially to do with fishing, if the queen makes part of her visit to the countryside and the lakes and rivers are shown on TV in the UK and the world think how many high spending tourists this would attract to fish, play golf etc

ratarse

petroltimer,

is it all about money with you people, i thought the celtic tiger woes would have put a stop to that..i guarantee you, you are certainly not a nationalist from the north of ireland..i bet you are sitting on a nice cosy job, and have never been affected by the queens troops in the north?????

its not so long since her ancesters plundered our towns, ran our relatives off farms, and took control of our rivers...have u no shame saying, oh it would be good for business..for gods sake, you are a disgrace..

Jayo2011

ratarse wrote: »

petroltimer,

is it all about money with you people, i thought the celtic tiger woes would have put a stop to that..i guarantee you, you are certainly not a nationalist from the north of ireland..i bet you are sitting on a nice cosy job, and have never been affected by the queens troops in the north?????

its not so long since her ancesters plundered our towns, ran our relatives off farms, and took control of our rivers...have u no shame saying, oh it would be good for business..for gods sake, you are a disgrace..

800 years we spent trying to get rid of her

now our non-patriotic president has invited her over for dinner:mad:

this is a topical decision that while some people may think it is a good idea, it still deeply cuts others and a decision of this nature should never have been taken on a whim.

In any case me bringing it up should not have been done in this forum.

It was a sarcastic remark and not meant to be taken seriously. if people wish to discuss it further, I'm sure there is a political section

meanwhile, lets get back to the angling discussion here

bonzer79

petroltimer wrote: »

i'd strongly disagree with you statement, I would welcome her visit as i personally know of plenty of others as well.
A royal visit could do wonders for tourism in Ireland, and especially to do with fishing, if the queen makes part of her visit to the countryside and the lakes and rivers are shown on TV in the UK and the world think how many high spending tourists this would attract to fish, play golf etc

ratarse wrote: »

petroltimer,

is it all about money with you people, i thought the celtic tiger woes would have put a stop to that..i guarantee you, you are certainly not a nationalist from the north of ireland..i bet you are sitting on a nice cosy job, and have never been affected by the queens troops in the north?????

its not so long since her ancesters plundered our towns, ran our relatives off farms, and took control of our rivers...have u no shame saying, oh it would be good for business..for gods sake, you are a disgrace..

Jayo2011 wrote: »

800 years we spent trying to get rid of her

now our non-patriotic president has invited her over for dinner:mad:

this is a topical decision that while some people may think it is a good idea, it still deeply cuts others and a decision of this nature should never have been taken on a whim.

In any case me bringing it up should not have been done in this forum.

It was a sarcastic remark and not meant to be taken seriously. if people wish to discuss it further, I'm sure there is a political section

meanwhile, lets get back to the angling discussion here

If ye want to have a discussion like this AH is more suitable I would think!
@Petroltimer I sugget you head on back to the political forums where you might not be accused of derailing or get classed as a troll!:eek:

I have in recent years paid for Salmon licence, club fees and taking into account my first year (5 years ago) buying a full set up /flyfishing outfit, spent a serious amount of money to get my time on the river! However in all my time I have met 1 fisheries officer! Now say I have been out 100 times in the 5 years, I accept that the lads knew me in my previous club and just didn't bother but yes there should be more officers and more inspections but sadly in this day and current economy it is just not going to happen!! So IMHO it is now time for the clubs to get out there and fight(not litteraly) for their rights but clubs need to protect their rivers/lakes/canals! Knowing that there will be 2 lads checking up on who is where and should they be there will by word of mouth deter so the opertunist!
At the end of the day it's down to us all we respect the laws and the club rules so why not make an effort to impliment them! Phone numbers and a simple courtesy "Hello" will help so much more. We are here on an angling forum and we may pass each other tomorrow on the river, but if we take the oppertunity that we are given then maybe just maybe we can actually work together and make all of our fisheries a little bit better! Basically get to know your fellow anglers, have the mobile number of the officers in your phone and a civil howya to a stranger can yield alot of information, like so how long you been in the club?(oh did you not know you needed a licence, well you can get 1 in this shop......ah yeah the inspectors are around all the time)
Sorry for the long winded post but an angling thread is not for the virtues of a royal visit!

ironbluedun

Zzippy wrote: »

Bizzum wrote: »

famoussheamus wrote: »

Also AFAIK IFI are planning to encourage a lot more private waterkeepers, so clubs will get a much bigger role in protecting the resource.

Thanks be to god.....about time something like this was done.....This is the only way forward the local clubs associations must have real input and power.
All 'public' fisheries leased by angling clubs should be controlled by local clubs and associations with a overseeing or regulating body.

ratarse

while i agree that anglers could be more active, i dont agree with private water keepers at all..i think they are power hungry peope(who lets be honest have feck all power)..i do agree hower, that every club should have a couple of people in every club, river who could liase with the authorised fishery officers, and pass on poaching /pollution and other info, a bit like a community alert organisation... there have been 2 many instances of waterkeepers abusing their limited powers over the years...its a big no-no....:mad:

SeaFields

ratarse wrote: »

while i agree that anglers could be more active, i dont agree with private water keepers at all..i think they are power hungry peope(who lets be honest have feck all power)...

They have a good deal of 'power' actually. The water keeper warrent is signed by the district court judge in the area of the river or lake catchment. It gives the individual power to enforce the Fisheries Consolidation Act 1959(amended 1990 I think). There are strict criteria to being appointed. You cannot have any criminal conviction or any convictions under fisheries legislation.

ratarse wrote: »

i do agree hower, that every club should have a couple of people in every club, river who could liase with the authorised fishery officers, and pass on poaching /pollution and other info, a bit like a community alert organisation.

Thats what water keepers do. They liaise with the boards and local officers in their area. Fishery Officers cant be everywhere so having people who have the power to enforce the same act as the fisheries board give a lot more eyes watching the water. If you are fishing within the law then there is nothing to worry about.

Bizzum

SeaFields wrote: »

They have a good deal of 'power' actually. The water keeper warrent is signed by the district court judge in the area of the river or lake catchment. It gives the individual power to enforce the Fisheries Consolidation Act 1959(amended 1990 I think). There are strict criteria to being appointed. You cannot have any criminal conviction or any convictions under fisheries legislation.

BUT very rarely bring a case to its conclusion, ie prosecution.
It's my opoinion that the enforcement of fisheries legislation be left to the professional bodies, that are trained and experienced in the area.

I am NOT saying that section 294 water keepers have no value. Indeed working in tandem with the revelant authority, can only strengthen the position, and lead to more convictions.
But the buck stops with the IFI Officers.

ratarse

bizzum, i agree totally, they are professional, and have the experience in all aspects of the job...private water keepers have their advantage in certain limited circumstances, but are accountable to no-one in reality...