Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New angling by-laws.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    famoussheamus
    Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Bizzum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #34
    bayliner
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #35
    bayliner
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭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!!!


  • Options
    #36
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    bayliner
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭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.....


  • Options
    #38
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭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...


Advertisement