New angling by-laws.

gary29428

http://www.tuamherald.ie/?p=5284


Is this for real...

ironbluedun

gary29428 wrote: »

http://www.tuamherald.ie/?p=5284


Is this for real...

no its all bulls tit

Zzippy

As ironbluedun said, its bullsh1t. Some anglers misinterpreted the regulation increasing on-the-spot fines, got things totally wrong and went to the paper. The paper involved didn't check the story with IFI. Expect an article clarifying the story in tomorrow's edition.

Bizzum

A paper won't refuse ink!

See IFI Press Release.

http://www.fisheriesireland.ie/Press-releases/fixed-charge-notice.html

Panic averted. Though I see the fines going up to €150 if your caught being naughty!

jett

If things were positive, everything concerning fishing and shooting is negative.
Its all to do with money and nothing to do with reasonable practice of the sport.
Of course its all to do with "experts" who think they know better.
Using worm, dapping live fly, deabait quantity ( I mean I ask you, needing a receipt for more than 4 deadbaits, as if it made any difference to the bait before death where it came from) etc. as a few examples of the tangled mess of unnecasary regulations.
Nearly as crass as having ones Salmon photograph having to include the tag so its legal. It achieves nothing and just alienates the anglers from those they pay to regulate them.
Again, blue tags, brown tags, log books, only the government could think it all up. It does not stop poaching or fish being taken without a licence. Only reason and considerate behaviour by the individual can do that.
I know of anglers that have given up their lifelong sport because its so complex and just no fun anymore.
Perhaps I am getting too old.

Zzippy

jett wrote: »

If things were positive, everything concerning fishing and shooting is negative.
Its all to do with money and nothing to do with reasonable practice of the sport.
Of course its all to do with "experts" who think they know better.
Using worm, dapping live fly, deabait quantity ( I mean I ask you, needing a receipt for more than 4 deadbaits, as if it made any difference to the bait before death where it came from) etc. as a few examples of the tangled mess of unnecasary regulations.
Nearly as crass as having ones Salmon photograph having to include the tag so its legal. It achieves nothing and just alienates the anglers from those they pay to regulate them.
Again, blue tags, brown tags, log books, only the government could think it all up. It does not stop poaching or fish being taken without a licence. Only reason and considerate behaviour by the individual can do that.
I know of anglers that have given up their lifelong sport because its so complex and just no fun anymore.
Perhaps I am getting too old.

Ah, sure, let's have a free for all, no rules at all, sure that will make life easier, and there won't be any overfishing or dodgy carry-on or nothing like that. And sure won't the fish be comin' out our ears the stocks will be that good.
:rolleyes:

jett

There is nothing wrong with sensible rules is just that its all too complex.
Just think, you have got your fish, got your tags, got your log book and your pencil breaks so you cannot fill it in! You will be fined if caught!
It does not stop criminals, wrongdoers, the ignorant or just plain bad uns for doing what they want.
I repeat I have friend, aquaintances and potential tourists who just don't bother because its so off putting.
As for Salmon angling why not just ban the whole thing and have total conservation, save us all the bother of feeling guilty by association.
Tommorrow loads of Kelts will be damaged because the season starts too early in many Rivers, thats plain daft and anyone with any regard for the fish would leave them be.

Zzippy

jett wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with sensible rules is just that its all too complex.
Just think, you have got your fish, got your tags, got your log book and your pencil breaks so you cannot fill it in! You will be fined if caught!
It does not stop criminals, wrongdoers, the ignorant or just plain bad uns for doing what they want.
I repeat I have friend, aquaintances and potential tourists who just don't bother because its so off putting.
As for Salmon angling why not just ban the whole thing and have total conservation, save us all the bother of feeling guilty by association.
Tommorrow loads of Kelts will be damaged because the season starts too early in many Rivers, thats plain daft and anyone with any regard for the fish would leave them be.

Sure why not ban angling altogether if the rules are too complex for you! Solves the problem... :rolleyes:

jett

I did not say that and I cannot understand how anglers don't realise how easilly they can become criminals over an oversight.
You loose your tag on the bank whatever and you are liable, no extenuating circumstances are allowed.
Even a copper will let you off speeding at times.

If we don't get our act together there will be no angling.
If the government banned it tommorrow then people would just accept it.
The polluters and poachers would then rule.
I am well aware that without anglers there would not be a fish in the water, or much else come to that.
Its all to do with personal preference.

Zzippy

jett wrote: »

I did not say that and I cannot understand how anglers don't realise how easilly they can become criminals over an oversight.
You loose your tag on the bank whatever and you are liable, no extenuating circumstances are allowed.
Even a copper will let you off speeding at times.

If we don't get our act together there will be no angling.
If the government banned it tommorrow then people would just accept it.
The polluters and poachers would then rule.
I am well aware that without anglers there would not be a fish in the water, or much else come to that.
Its all to do with personal preference.

No offence but that is the biggest load of horse manure.

If you speed you are liable, no extenuating circumstances are allowed. A garda should not let you off but he may use judgement and common sense and give you a warning. Same goes for fishery officers. They're not going to fine you because "your pencil breaks". If you get a fine or are prosecuted its because you deserved it.

And saying people would just accept angling being banned? Haha, you must not remember the rod licence "war" of the late 80s. Look, if you can't handle abiding by regulations, don't fish, simple as that. They are there for a reason, to protect fish stocks, nothing else. The rest of us are able to do it, and we accept the reasons for it. There are a minority of anglers who would fight the poachers to kill the last salmon swimming up the river - anglers have to be regulated as well as poachers and polluters.

jett

I don't think you are reading what I have written.
At no time have I said I won't obey the laws, what i am saying is that the anglers were not asked what they wanted.
Its a fact, contravene the fishery laws and you will be done, no excuses, they are after results to justify themselves, its from the horses mouth.
What did the 80s licence war achieve?
It seems to me that the result was that the salmon anglers subsidise other anglers sport. Surely it would be fairer if everyone paid for an angling licence, this would mean an increase in licences,revenue and a correspondind drop in the present fee making everyone a winner.
IE just like Britain.
If angling became a criminal offence then what would you do about it?
Its would only be a final by law added to a steady errosion of past rights.
My choice would be to perhaps kill say 3 fish and then stop for the rest of the season. Who needs to catch or eat more than that.
In essence I am suggesting less fish be taken or damaged and a greater chance of everyone getting one rather than the lucky few who have well stocked Rivers to fish in their location.
The poor thing swims the ocean, battles upstream to be hooked played out and have its health risked, just for 10 minutes of " Pleasure"
As for the law, one can legally spin for Pike on a River and if a salmon latches on then hard luck salmon. The advice i was given was to use a wire trace ( unnecesary for Pike really) to indicate I was fishing for Pike.
Nowadays everything has got so complex that its time to go back to common sense.
I mean to say, bailiffs in canoes etc how pathetic.

famoussheamus

IFI always welcome any ideas in relation to byelaws or changes to legislation. In 2008 the Brown Trout Conservation Byelaws were introduced from submissions from the public and public meetings. Hence you can be a part of changing the law for the good of our natural resource.

Zzippy

jett wrote: »

I don't think you are reading what I have written.
At no time have I said I won't obey the laws, what i am saying is that the anglers were not asked what they wanted.
Its a fact, contravene the fishery laws and you will be done, no excuses, they are after results to justify themselves, its from the horses mouth.

Have you made this up or can you provide a source? I have personal experience of anglers being given the benefit of the doubt by fishery officers for minor breaches of byelaws. Your experience does not mean that is policy.
As for anglers not being consulted, every byelaw requires public consultation. As famoussheamus said, the brown trout regulations on Corrib were introduced following public consultation. Same goes for all the other byelaws.

jett wrote: »

What did the 80s licence war achieve?

I used that episode to show how vocal and belligerent anglers can be when their sport is threatened, and to show how ridiculous your point was that anglers would just accept the sport being banned. As for what it achieved, not much tbh, but it showed politicians that anglers are a powerful lobby and have a lot of votes.

jett wrote: »

It seems to me that the result was that the salmon anglers subsidise other anglers sport. Surely it would be fairer if everyone paid for an angling licence, this would mean an increase in licences,revenue and a correspondind drop in the present fee making everyone a winner.
IE just like Britain.

Now you're making sense. :eek:

jett wrote: »

If angling became a criminal offence then what would you do about it?
Its would only be a final by law added to a steady errosion of past rights

Never going to happen. Ridiculous argument.

jett wrote: »

My choice would be to perhaps kill say 3 fish and then stop for the rest of the season. Who needs to catch or eat more than that.

So you're giving out about regulations, but suggesting an even stricter one?
And how would this 3 fish limit be policed? With fewer regulations?

jett wrote: »

As for the law, one can legally spin for Pike on a River and if a salmon latches on then hard luck salmon. The advice i was given was to use a wire trace ( unnecesary for Pike really) to indicate I was fishing for Pike.
Nowadays everything has got so complex that its time to go back to common sense.

So what do you suggest? Easy to criticise, less easy to produce workable alternatives.

jett wrote: »

I mean to say, bailiffs in canoes etc how pathetic.

Why is it pathetic?

jett

.... and once only i give in, say what you want I really don't care a toss anymore.
The threads degenerated into flaming so best it stops there.
I will put my money where my mouth is, no Salmon fishing this year and spend the licence fee on 6 visits to the rainbow lake, at least the money for the stock fish I take will go to the Fisheries board and I will have 12 fish to eat and give to friends without being guilty.

ironbluedun

some good points there lads, and some odd ones too........the concept of an "all species" freshwater permit is overdue, i have called for this before and wrote to the ifi about it.
i cant see why salmon anglers have to pay while others dont, and i fish for salmon, trout and sometimes coarse fish. So its not a them and us thing with me.
of course all funds raised MUST go back into the sport, this is where the problem lies, hence the rod trout permit despute in 1989, i remember it well anglers just felt it was another tax lost in the abyss.

overall the salmon regulations while a little complicated are by and large just in my opinion, they are orientated towards conservation and this is a good thing. Personally while i am not a member of mensa i have had little difficulty in coming to terms with the regulations. To have it a free for all is madness, we had that for years and look what that did to stocks.

The point was made that people were turning away from salmon angling, this is true but its not true because of the salmon regulations, tagging etc, its because stocks fell so low, east coast rivers for example where stocks fell so low it was not worth while fishing the rivers.
When stocks recover angler numbers will follow, irrespective of the regulations.
Thankfully the situtation is improving thanks to the salmon angling regulations, the removal of drift nets and a few more anglers practising C&R fish stock are showing signs of improvement. lets not fish them all out of the rivers again.........and dont say we didnt fish them all out. We did play our part in the salmons demise.... in one september day in 1989 i saw a angler catch 10 salmon in the curley hole on the river boyne....on another day i personally witnesses one angler catching 8 grilse on the upper moy in about 30 minutes!......on the galway weir i remember some people taking 10 salmon in a session, they are three of many examples of excessive greed that greed did a lot of damage to stocks and thats a fact. i have seen many other such examples over the years.

as for when fishing season opens that has to be looked at, for example the moy open on feb 1st is crazy when there are zero fresh spring fish about and the river full of kelts!!! sheer bonkers. To provide protection to returning kelts that river should not open until at earliest the 1st of April. its little good until mid to late april anyway. Why on earth does it take soooooooooo long for trhe ifi to act on issues like this?

finally we need to encourage C&R more, if you dont agree with me, and plenty dont, have a look at what is happening on the rivers tweed and dee in scotland. its a no brainer.

I think salmon stocks are showing signs of recovery.........lets not make a balls of it again.

jett

You put it all better than I managed to:D
Why are people catching so many slats, after 2 most would get the hint and go home.
On the Suir we don't even get Grilse till July, and even then only if it rains. Whats the point of damaging them?

Paparazzo

One of the quotes from the Tuam Herald is:

The most contentious line in the new legislation states that “it prevents the use of any lure, other than artificial fly in angling for any kind of fish with rod and line”.

Once I read that I knew it had to be a wind up

bayliner

this was signed on the day before the election!! its not a wind up.... its a disgrace!!!

bayliner

prohibiting the use of any lure other than artificial fly in angling for any kind of fish with rod and line...............thats not from the papers its from the legislation

Paparazzo

bayliner wrote: »

prohibiting the use of any lure other than artificial fly in angling for any kind of fish with rod and line...............thats not from the papers its from the legislation

Sure half the "flys" used are lures. A few searches online and all you get is this thread. The tuam hearald article is too badly written to find out what the bylaws actually are.
Unless there's a proper source, this is pointless. One line says livebait is banned, and another says every type of fishing but artificial fly is banned. Is this on certain lakes at a certain time? The article is more interested in telling us about peoples outrage than what's actually happening.

Bizzum

bayliner wrote: »

prohibiting the use of any lure other than artificial fly in angling for any kind of fish with rod and line...............thats not from the papers its from the legislation

No need to panic on this one.
The Bye law is No. 81 of 2011, and the only real change is the on the spot fine is being increased from €90 to €150.
All these other sections of Bye laws being quoted are already in existance in some fisheries.

Bizzum

Paparazzo wrote: »

Unless there's a proper source, this is pointless. One line says livebait is banned, and another says every type of fishing but artificial fly is banned. Is this on certain lakes at a certain time?

Live baiting is illegal nationally.

Some of the other regulations are indeed site specific or time specific.

So again there is no real change from this new bye law except to raise the penalty from €90 to €150.
The next time you are talking to your local Fishery Officer get them to show you the on the spot fine book and you'll see all them regs already in it!

Paparazzo

Bizzum wrote: »

Live baiting is illegal nationally.

Some of the other regulations are indeed site specific or time specific.

So again there is no real change from this new bye law except to raise the penalty from €90 to €150.
The next time you are talking to your local Fishery Officer get them to show you the on the spot fine book and you'll see all them regs already in it!

The article says live bait of worms and flys though. Not just live bait of fish.

I have never seen a fishery officer in my life!

bayliner

live baiting FISH is illegal all over the country, has been for yrs that is not where the arguements are coming from, if you google the by-law you will find all what it says.... its more than just whats in the paper, ansd the fisheries explanation (somewher back in this thread) tells us nothing!!
so has it always been prohibited to fish with crustacaens and shrimp and prawns and worms etc? or has it always been prohibited to fish or attempt to fish for bass????if these are for certain waters and not for others how do we know (with it being in the bye-law)that we wont be threatened with this garbage all over the country in the future??!! i have also seen draft bye-laws from the inland waterways that doesnt make good reading either!!! anyone wants to have a look send me your email address...7 files plenty to read! some suggestions like taxing outboards!! making their waters catch and release only etc... i still havent read them all yet!!

Paparazzo

Here it is.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0081.html

It does contain the line:

Prohibiting the use of any lure other than artificial fly in angling for any kind of fish with rod and line.

It's probably taken out of context and is related to some other law.

Bizzum

bayliner wrote: »

live baiting FISH is illegal all over the country, has been for yrs that is not where the arguements are coming from, if you google the by-law you will find all what it says.... its more than just whats in the paper, ansd the fisheries explanation (somewher back in this thread) tells us nothing!!
so has it always been prohibited to fish with crustacaens and shrimp and prawns and worms etc? or has it always been prohibited to fish or attempt to fish for bass????if these are for certain waters and not for others how do we know (with it being in the bye-law)that we wont be threatened with this garbage all over the country in the future??!! i have also seen draft bye-laws from the inland waterways that doesnt make good reading either!!! anyone wants to have a look send me your email address...7 files plenty to read! some suggestions like taxing outboards!! making their waters catch and release only etc... i still havent read them all yet!!

When I say live baiting in this context it is implicit that it relates to the use of live fish as bait.


You have raised several questions. As an example I will answer one:
Is it Prohibited to fish or attempt to fish for Bass?

The answer is yes it is, Between the 15th of may and the 15th of june.

I will say this: This whole thing has been very very badly handled by the powers that be, and the press release from IFI did little to clarify the matter.

Daroxtar

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the change in the law regarding the use of any bait other than Fly and the prohibition of fishing for Bass only apply to the lower reaches of the Shannon ?

Bizzum

Daroxtar wrote: »

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the change in the law regarding the use of any bait other than Fly and the prohibition of fishing for Bass only apply to the lower reaches of the Shannon ?

As I understand it the new bye law (No.81 of 2011) changes only ONE thing and that is the fixed penalty change from €90 to €150.

bayliner

Bizzum wrote: »

When I say live baiting in this context it is implicit that it relates to the use of live fish as bait.


You have raised several questions. As an example I will answer one:
Is it Prohibited to fish or attempt to fish for Bass?

The answer is yes it is, Between the 15th of may and the 15th of june.

I will say this: This whole thing has been very very badly handled by the powers that be, and the press release from IFI did little to clarify the matter.

i agree it has been handled poorly, the problem is the wording of the bye-law is so bad that it looks like the powers that be want to leave options for any water management to throw in any of these rules as they see fit!! :mad: or at least that is how i am reading it and many more like me,
i didnt know there was a season for bass, i dont sea fish too often, once a yr ussually, there is a close season for trout too, yet it doesnt say the same for the spotties?!? or does it not come into this cataory as some fisheries dont close?.......

the whole thing needs to be explained better!!!

bayliner

Bizzum wrote: »

As I understand it the new bye law (No.81 of 2011) changes only ONE thing and that is the fixed penalty change from €90 to €150.

and for poaching thats not enough...certain people are raping our lakes and rivers and the threat of 150euro fines wont stop them!!!

Bizzum

bayliner wrote: »

and for poaching thats not enough...certain people are raping our lakes and rivers and the threat of 150euro fines wont stop them!!!

The threat of court is always there. If an offence warrants a prosecutation via court appearance, that avenue is there.
The threat of court action makes payment of the on the spot fine more attractive for minor bye law breaches but for more serious offences court action is ultimately the road to go down.

famoussheamus

The byelaw only changes the amount of the fine, this has been answered a number of times through this thread:rolleyes:. The text people are reading into has always been there on the fixed penalty book and only refer to scheduled waters.
Recent byelaws have come about from submissions from the public along with public consultation and not just simply introduced by IFI. This organisation will provide you with any information you require, as they did when I contacted them regarding this matter.

Bizzum

Paparazzo wrote: »

I have never seen a fishery officer in my life!

No way? And you in Royal Meath? Have you your own private lake?

bayliner

famoussheamus wrote: »

The byelaw only changes the amount of the fine, this has been answered a number of times through this thread:rolleyes:. The text people are reading into has always been there on the fixed penalty book and only refer to scheduled waters.
Recent byelaws have come about from submissions from the public along with public consultation and not just simply introduced by IFI. This organisation will provide you with any information you require, as they did when I contacted them regarding this matter.

the bye law doesnt state ONLY REFER TO SCHEDULED WATERS.... so it in my view leaves it wide open for water managements to introduce any of these, does it not???
and who were the public that were consulted? it certainly wasnt the connaught anglers or here in the midlands

bayliner

Bizzum wrote: »

The threat of court is always there. If an offence warrants a prosecutation via court appearance, that avenue is there.
The threat of court action makes payment of the on the spot fine more attractive for minor bye law breaches but for more serious offences court action is ultimately the road to go down.

just seen in local paper, 2 lithuanians were fined 2040euro each for using gill net and over 50 hooks on a line in the river suck last july, judge said they were lucky they didnt get jail!!!

Zzippy

bayliner wrote: »

the bye law doesnt state ONLY REFER TO SCHEDULED WATERS.... so it in my view leaves it wide open for water managements to introduce any of these, does it not???
and who were the public that were consulted? it certainly wasnt the connaught anglers or here in the midlands

Can people not read or do they just like being obtuse? IFI have clarified the issue with a public statement - there are no changes to regulations. Its mentioned several times on this thread. What's to understand?

As for consultation, all the byelaws that pertain to the Corrib catchment (catch limit, size limit, rod limits, etc) were the subject of a public consultation process in 2007, and the byelaws were introduced in 2008. I can't speak for the byelaws in the rest of the country, but that was definitely the case on the Corrib.

bayliner

there is no problem with the catch limit etc!!!! its the mayfly/worms/crickets/daddys etc where the confusion is!!! FINE if its only for specific waters! but it needs to be clarified that it wont be introduced in open waters like lough ree/mask or indeed corrib or the shannon, i know we didnt agree to this when the fish/rod/size limits were agreed,

calling me optuse when i am simply trying to explain what some anglers are worried about isnt healthy either.....

Zzippy

bayliner wrote: »

there is no problem with the catch limit etc!!!! its the mayfly/worms/crickets/daddys etc where the confusion is!!! FINE if its only for specific waters! but it needs to be clarified that it wont be introduced in open waters like lough ree/mask or indeed corrib or the shannon, i know we didnt agree to this when the fish/rod/size limits were agreed,

calling me optuse when i am simply trying to explain what some anglers are worried about isnt healthy either.....

There is no mention anywhere - ANYWHERE - in any byelaw, of banning live insects as bait. The only livebait banned is live fish. Seriously, this has gotten so out of hand its ridiculous. IFI made a statement clarifying the misinterpretation a small few people made. Why can people not accept that clarification and stop posting what amount to conspiracy theories on internet forums? Maybe you weren't being obtuse, but people continuing to post these rumours on the internet despite reassurances to the contrary from a state agency is just causing more confusion, and actually worrying to people in the tourism angling industry, whose customers, both Irish and foreign, can read these rumours and may reconsider their holiday plans. And that is first hand experience, I deal with these people a lot.
With the amount of locals who troll/dap/spin those waters you mention, do you seriously think there is any chance of a fly-only byelaw a) getting through public consultation and b) being successfully implemented? Not in a million years...