salmon tagging

ring 20

hello, looked at salmon tagging rules cant find the answer so heres my question. when you catch a salmon in a boat on a lake do you have to tag it on the spot or is it ok to tag when back at the shore? had run in with balifes yesterday. got called to the shore and like an ass i went in to them, took salmon, rods and got 150 fine because i had salmon in boat with no tag, licence was in the jeep with 3 brand new tags half a mile away could have got it to them in 5mins but they would not listen. makes me wish i didnt buy a licence at all

aidanf

ring 20 wrote: »

hello, looked at salmon tagging rules cant find the answer so heres my question. when you catch a salmon in a boat on a lake do you have to tag it on the spot or is it ok to tag when back at the shore? had run in with balifes yesterday. got called to the shore and like an ass i went in to them, took salmon, rods and got 150 fine because i had salmon in boat with no tag, licence was in the jeep with 3 brand new tags half a mile away could have got it to them in 5mins but they would not listen. makes me wish i didnt buy a licence at all

You are supposed to have your licence and tags with you when you are fishing and when you catch a salmon you are supposed to tag it immediately.

Otherwise the system becomes unworkable. Each fisherman gets a limited number of tags. If you weren't required to tag the fish immediately you could not bother tagging it or only tag it when you see a bailiff thus saving your tags and catching more fish that you have tags allocated to you.

By the way, it clearly states in the Salmon Fishing regulations
"Tags must be attached immediately on landing the fish.". Also, "each angler shall Have the logbook in his/her possession while fishing for salmon or sea trout"

Daroxtar

Maybe this is a silly question but if I'm fishing purely C&R do I still need a license. I never fish for salmon but if I hook one when I'm out for trout am I technicaly breaking the law?

ring 20

i had the tags at the jeep for when i got back in. had not set foot on dry land, its more the way i was treated that annoyed me the most. the little hitler with her little book just wanted to write that ticket no matter what, a small bit of cop on would have kept it a nice evening instead of the nasty one it turned into. by law could i have kept going instead of coming ashore? did i have to stop?

thehamo

"landing" doesnt mean getting it to land per se. Its more related to when you have the fish on your person be it dead or alive. So if you had a fish in your boat that had been killed, the onus was on you to tag it immediately. Im sure by all means that your honest and would be back with the tags, but how does tha balif know that you arent going to just jump into your jeep and drive off when you say you were going to get your tags. Unfortunate situation, wouldnt like to have been in your shoes!

ring 20

fair enough i should have had the tags on board, both of them know who i am and where i live. but a little bit of give and take never killed anyone, i like to think im a genuine fisherman. not been in a situation like that before, was made feel like a crook and approached with a bad attitude from the start

josephxxx451

Sorry for your trouble. I believe that there is a money collection policy these days in regard to Salmon fishing, I was fined for late logbook return and I have heard that the bailiffs are not letting anyone away with anything, every discrepency is being brought to book. The best advice I can give is that if you look at your fine, you may see if there is a possibity to appeal the offence. Perhaps you can send the chief bailiff a note and appeal to his rational side. The young fellas are just opperating on standing instructions, generate as much capitol as possible, "Salmon fishing in Ireland is for the Tourists".

Snowc

What if you where fishing brown trout in a river where there is white trout,do the bailiffs have the right to fine you?

alanrebelsw

Been stopped by the same bailiffs a couple of times on the same stretch of club water with no problems other than their attitude..and since they know my car and know my licence and club membership are in order u would think they would leave me to fish in peace,but no that would be too intelligent

ring 20

the bad attitude is what annoyed me the most. you would swear i was after stealing the dinner off their plate. they dont like being called a bailliff either! ah well ill know the next time and they will need a boat to check to see if i have done something "wrong" as i will not show them the bit of respect i did the last time

SeaFields

Snowc wrote: »

What if you where fishing brown trout in a river where there is white trout,do the bailiffs have the right to fine you?

only if you have a seatrout in your possession.

Daroxtar wrote: »

Maybe this is a silly question but if I'm fishing purely C&R do I still need a license. I never fish for salmon but if I hook one when I'm out for trout am I technicaly breaking the law?

not at all if your fishing for trout once you release the fish you're grand. i know a lad that caught a grilse on a size 14 dry while fishing for trout

Zzippy

ring 20 wrote: »

i had the tags at the jeep for when i got back in. had not set foot on dry land, its more the way i was treated that annoyed me the most. the little hitler with her little book just wanted to write that ticket no matter what, a small bit of cop on would have kept it a nice evening instead of the nasty one it turned into. by law could i have kept going instead of coming ashore? did i have to stop?

As other posters have said, you were in the wrong, accept it and move on. Lesson learned, next time have your licence and tags with you.
If you refuse to comply with the instructions of a fishery officer to stop, you could be prosecuted for obstruction in the district court, and it could cost you a lot more than €150. Fishery officers have a hard enough time, dealing with some less than pleasant people, don't be an a$$ and make their job harder.

josephxxx451 wrote: »

Sorry for your trouble. I believe that there is a money collection policy these days in regard to Salmon fishing, I was fined for late logbook return and I have heard that the bailiffs are not letting anyone away with anything, every discrepency is being brought to book. The best advice I can give is that if you look at your fine, you may see if there is a possibity to appeal the offence. Perhaps you can send the chief bailiff a note and appeal to his rational side. The young fellas are just opperating on standing instructions, generate as much capitol as possible, "Salmon fishing in Ireland is for the Tourists".

This is absolute BS. There is no policy to maximise revenue from on-the-spot fines. In my area, I know for a fact that most first offenders are given the benefit of the doubt for first time minor offences, they get one warning, if they choose to ignore that warning and do it again they'll be fined. But like anything, if you give respect you'll get it, people who are offensive or unco-operative are less likely to be given a chance.

slowburner

You would all be better off not referring to Fisheries Officers as bailiffs unless you deliberately want to insult them.

• A Bailiff is a person whose duty it is to seize items/property where someone has defaulted on payment.
• A fisheries officer is a person whose duty it is to protect fish and watercourses.

I can understand anglers getting hacked off when all they see of fisheries officers is when they are checking licenses/tags. But they do much, much more than this and with no thanks. When you are cosy in bed next November, think of the fisheries officers on patrol by the salmon spawning beds. Or boarding hostile vessels. Or seizing strokehauls from gurriers. Or on long stake outs to catch illegal nets.
It is not that long ago that three fisheries officers lost their lives in Ballycotton while carrying out their duty.
License/tag law enforcement are a necessary but small part of the work.
A little respect would go a long way.You can start by dropping the word bailiff.

ring 20

i have no respect for the two balliff's in question anymore. i dont act the messer just try catch a few fish. many probablly are sound people, but i hope these two have to board many hostile vessels and stake out many illegal nets in miserable november weather.

DavyDee

In order for them to legally take your rod you have to be prosecuted in the courts, they are allowed to keep your rod until you are prosecuted but until then they have to ensure your rod is kept. If i was you I would go and talk to a solicitor, this tagging lark has been thrown out of several courts as these laws were rushed through and are full of holes. You go up in front of the judge and say you killed the salmon believing your tags and license were in your pocket and next thing you know they are not there, what do you think hes going to say, that your a liar? Not likely! The judges are getting sick of these petty fishing cases taking up valuable court time! The gardai even use their discression when you are stopped and asked to produce your license, altough they can prosecute and give you points but most will give you the option to produce at the barracks in the week which follows. I would not let this go if i was you!

Zzippy

DavyDee wrote: »

In order for them to legally take your rod you have to be prosecuted in the courts, they are allowed to keep your rod until you are prosecuted but until then they have to ensure your rod is kept.

Wrong. They can legally seize your rod and issue an on-the-spot fine. When the fine is paid, they return the equipment. If you don't pay the fine, a court case will ensue, and the equipment can be kept as evidence in such court case. The judge will decide whether to return the equipment, or issue a forfeiture order, if one is applied for.

DavyDee wrote: »

If i was you I would go and talk to a solicitor, this tagging lark has been thrown out of several courts as these laws were rushed through and are full of holes. .

Judges in district courts often dismiss cases based on the evidence before them, and often on a whim, but district courts do not set precedent, so there is no guarantee another judge will do the same. There are loopholes in many laws, but the law is very precise in that it says you must have your licence and tags in your possession when fishing for salmon, and you must tag a fish immediately upon capture.

DavyDee wrote: »

You go up in front of the judge and say you killed the salmon believing your tags and license were in your pocket and next thing you know they are not there, what do you think hes going to say, that your a liar? Not likely! The judges are getting sick of these petty fishing cases taking up valuable court time!

In my experience, judges are more sick of people not paying legitimate on-the-spot fines, and unnecessarily taking up court time. You're missing the point, its not about lying, its about making sure he had his licence and tags in his pocket so he was in compliance with the law.

DavyDee wrote: »

The gardai even use their discression when you are stopped and asked to produce your license, altough they can prosecute and give you points but most will give you the option to produce at the barracks in the week which follows. I would not let this go if i was you!

So do fishery officers in most cases, again in my experience most offenders are given a chance the first time they are caught. Which leads me to believe that in this case, either it was happening a lot in that area, and they were fed up giving warnings and the message wasn't getting out, or that they personally knew the OP and had already had dealings with him. Either way, he should have known better.

ironbluedun

ring 20 wrote: »

its more the way i was treated that annoyed me the most.

Well the rules are there and although cumbersome, they are there and they should be adhered to....however sadly this is too all common where even legitimate anglers acting within the laws are spoken to rudely and abruptly. treating people with discontent what a wonderful tourism policy........manners cost nothing.

DavyDee

Zzippy wrote: »

Wrong. They can legally seize your rod and issue an on-the-spot fine. When the fine is paid, they return the equipment. If you don't pay the fine, a court case will ensue, and the equipment can be kept as evidence in such court case. The judge will decide whether to return the equipment, or issue a forfeiture order, if one is applied for.





Judges in district courts often dismiss cases based on the evidence before them, and often on a whim, but district courts do not set precedent, so there is no guarantee another judge will do the same. There are loopholes in many laws, but the law is very precise in that it says you must have your licence and tags in your possession when fishing for salmon, and you must tag a fish immediately upon capture.





In my experience, judges are more sick of people not paying legitimate on-the-spot fines, and unnecessarily taking up court time. You're missing the point, its not about lying, its about making sure he had his licence and tags in his pocket so he was in compliance with the law.





So do fishery officers in most cases, again in my experience most offenders are given a chance the first time they are caught. Which leads me to believe that in this case, either it was happening a lot in that area, and they were fed up giving warnings and the message wasn't getting out, or that they personally knew the OP and had already had dealings with him. Either way, he should have known better.

By any chance would you be a fishery officer? I understand he should have had his license on him but its ok for those who never forget anything but I know some people may have 2 or 3 different fishing jackets and these things can happen! The officers in this case could have met him back at his vehicle and given him the chance to produce his license and tag the fish and given him the benefit of the doubt but in this case it looks like they were on a power trip! We were idiots to comply with tagging in the first place after been promised by government that tagging of salmon would only ever be used as a means of research and never to allocate a quota. Its a ridiculous system, I can tell you first hand its not working, its crimanilising ordinary decent folk who are paying fisheries officers wages!

alanrebelsw

Respect is earned and not given freely(by me anyway)some of these officers are *unts,they may meet unpleasant people but they sometimes draw bad ass people on them and situations can go downhill fast..not right or fair that 3 lost there lives and condolences to their families but when have you known life to be right or fair!some of you posting on this are very naive

Zzippy

DavyDee wrote: »

By any chance would you be a fishery officer? I understand he should have had his license on him but its ok for those who never forget anything but I know some people may have 2 or 3 different fishing jackets and these things can happen! The officers in this case could have met him back at his vehicle and given him the chance to produce his license and tag the fish and given him the benefit of the doubt but in this case it looks like they were on a power trip! We were idiots to comply with tagging in the first place after been promised by government that tagging of salmon would only ever be used as a means of research and never to allocate a quota. Its a ridiculous system, I can tell you first hand its not working, its crimanilising ordinary decent folk who are paying fisheries officers wages!

As I said before, in most cases people will be given the benefit of the doubt. However, we have only heard one side of the story here, from the angler concerned, it is quite possible the story would be very different if we heard the other side. I actually am involved in fisheries, and have given several people the benefit of the doubt in the last 2 weeks alone, but that was because they were genuine and didn't get aggressive, if they had I wouldn't have been so considerate. There is no onus on fishery officers to let people off, its just something most do because people appreciate that kind of consideration, but respect is a two way thing and we have only the OP's word that he was never involved in anything before, or that he was polite to the officers involved. My opinion - there's more to this story than we have heard.

alanrebelsw wrote: »

Respect is earned and not given freely(by me anyway)some of these officers are *unts,they may meet unpleasant people but they sometimes draw bad ass people on them and situations can go downhill fast..not right or fair that 3 lost there lives and condolences to their families but when have you known life to be right or fair!some of you posting on this are very naive

I suggest you apply to become a private waterkeeper, get involved in looking after your local river, and see things from the other perspective. You might not be so naive yourself then.

alanrebelsw

Naive, me, not so,have been involved and good friend is a waterkeeper..i only speak from my exp..dont make this personal friend..my good humour will only last so long..

Zzippy

alanrebelsw wrote: »

Respect is earned and not given freely(by me anyway)some of these officers are *unts,they may meet unpleasant people but they sometimes draw bad ass people on them and situations can go downhill fast..not right or fair that 3 lost there lives and condolences to their families but when have you known life to be right or fair!some of you posting on this are very naive

alanrebelsw wrote: »

Naive, me, not so,have been involved and good friend is a waterkeeper..i only speak from my exp..dont make this personal friend..my good humour will only last so long..

Good humour, yeah? :rolleyes:

You were the one who called people naive in the first place, if you can't take it don't dish it out. Nothing personal, "friend".

ring 20

zzippy, your automaitcally thinking i was wrong. never had a talking to from any baillf, only friendly chat. will not be so friendly anymore.

Zzippy

ring 20 wrote: »

zzippy, your automaitcally thinking i was wrong. never had a talking to from any baillf, only friendly chat. will not be so friendly anymore.

If that's the case then you're probably just unlucky, its quite possible the officers concerned have had a lot of similar excuses in that area lately - forgot the tags, etc, and just got fed up giving people a chance.
Either way, there's nothing that says they must give you a chance, same way there's nothing that says a garda should let you off a speeding ticket - you killed a salmon without being in possession of your licence or tags so you were in the wrong. Being given a chance is a lucky escape, not a right.
As for not being so friendly, I'm sure they are well used to that, and the only thing that will do is make them even less likely to humour you should you do anything you shouldn't in the future.

Compton

Bailiffs are annoying *****. I have no respect for them. They will never go after people setting nets at night or targeting poachers. they sit on their ass eating donuts all day then go around harassing people on fisheries when they have tickets.

ring 20

Zzippy wrote: »

If that's the case then you're probably just unlucky, its quite possible the officers concerned have had a lot of similar excuses in that area lately - forgot the tags, etc, and just got fed up giving people a chance.
Either way, there's nothing that says they must give you a chance, same way there's nothing that says a garda should let you off a speeding ticket - you killed a salmon without being in possession of your licence or tags so you were in the wrong. Being given a chance is a lucky escape, not a right.
As for not being so friendly, I'm sure they are well used to that, and the only thing that will do is make them even less likely to humour you should you do anything you shouldn't in the future.

its not in the book so it must not happen!:rolleyes: id hardly put a speeding offence and an un tagged salmon in the same levels, could kill someone speeding, couldn't really do much damage with a 4lb salmon?? you sound like the same type i had theunfortunate experience of meeting. if im ever fishing up around galway i hope i dont have the misfortune of bumping into you. happy hunting

ironbluedun

a few anglers cars broken into along the east mayo water at the moy last week by the ******** wonder will the full force of the law be applied to those culprits, i think not, they will just be told to move on.

alanrebelsw

Surely a person can defend their private property..might have a serious problem here..

DavyDee

From what Ive seen the fisheries officers have more interest in picking up soft fines from tagging and now pulling for permits on private fisheries. Does anyone else not think its an absolute disgrace that tax payers money is now being used to pay government officers to check anglers for tickets on fully staffed private fisheries waters?

slowburner

DavyDee wrote: »

From what Ive seen the fisheries officers have more interest in picking up soft fines from tagging and now pulling for permits on private fisheries. Does anyone else not think its an absolute disgrace that tax payers money is now being used to pay government officers to check anglers for tickets on fully staffed private fisheries waters?

The second part of your statement is a serious allegation - can you support it?

DavyDee

slowburner wrote: »

The second part of your statement is a serious allegation - can you support it?

Of course i can, call the inland fisheries and ask them do they check for permits on private waters. They have been doing this legally the past 2 years on the River Moy!

mp22

slowburner wrote: »

I can understand it being part of a fisheries officer's duties to check permits on state controlled waters - but checking for permits on private waters does seem odd. That would not be normal practice.

There is a few private fisheries here, one owner called in the fisheries officers to sort out a few people who had no permission to fish,they were happy to do so.
The bailiffs said that they could issue fines to those fishing on private or club waters without permission.

DavyDee

slowburner wrote: »

I can understand it being part of a fisheries officer's duties to check permits on state controlled waters - but checking for permits on private waters does seem odd. That would not be normal practice.

So you government employed fisheries officers handing fines to the tax payers who are paying their wages for fishing on waters owned and staffed by whats left of the landlords and English gentry. What I would also like to know is how would Cromwellian deeds stand up in a European Court of Law? Sion Mills fishing club took one of these landlords to the European courts who tried to stop the locals fishing the towns water. All they had to prove was their ancestors fished the river for free and the European court of law handed the control of the fishery back to the locals who now run the fishery!

slowburner

mp22 wrote: »

There is a few private fisheries here, one owner called in the bailiffs to sort out a few people who had no permission to fish,they were happy to do so.
The bailiffs said that they could issue fines to those fishing on private or club waters without permission.

Please refrain from using the word bailiff to refer to a fisheries officer - unless you deliberately want to cause insult ?

The following is from the 1959 Fisheries act and has not been amended to the best of my knowledge. It should be clear from these sections that it is part of the fisheries officers' duty to protect private fisheries. This would not include the issue of permissions or receipt of monies.

Chapter IV.

Protection of Private Fisheries.

Penalty for unauthorised entry on several fishery.
178.—If any person (not being authorised by the owner or occupier of a several fishery) enters into or upon such several fishery for the purpose or under the pretence of killing fish therein or taking fish therefrom or kills any fish therein or takes any fish therefrom, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine of not less than ten shillings and not more than five pounds.
Penalty for fishing with nets in a several fishery without licence of owner.
179.—(1) If any person uses or fishes with any net within the limits of a several fishery without authority in writing from the owner or occupier of such fishery, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, any net in respect of which the offence was committed shall, as a statutory consequence of conviction, stand forfeited.
Penalty for unauthorised fishing in private ponds.
180.—If any person kills, takes or destroys any fish in any pond, private canal or reservoir wherein he has no property without the authority of the owner of such pond, private canal or reservoir, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
Penalty for entering without permission lands for purposes of fishing.
181.—If any person enters on any land for the purpose or under the pretence of fishing in any water without authority in writing from the owner or occupier of such land, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding two pounds.

slowburner

DavyDee wrote: »

So you government employed fisheries officers handing fines to the tax payers who are paying their wages for fishing on waters owned and staffed by whats left of the landlords and English gentry. What I would also like to know is how would Cromwellian deeds stand up in a European Court of Law? Sion Mills fishing club took one of these landlords to the European courts who tried to stop the locals fishing the towns water. All they had to prove was their ancestors fished the river for free and the European court of law handed the control of the fishery back to the locals who now run the fishery!

I am neither a fisheries officer nor employed by the state.

DavyDee

slowburner wrote: »

I am neither a fisheries officer nor employed by the state.

Like most of our fisheries laws, its very outdated it refers to shillings and pounds and I wonder if it is now legally binding due our currecy now being euro. As for insinuating you were an officer or employed by the state, I dont remember doing so!

Zzippy

DavyDee wrote: »

Like most of our fisheries laws, its very outdated it refers to shillings and pounds and I wonder if it is now legally binding due our currecy now being euro.

Like most laws, it may sound outdated but is still valid, there have been various amendment acts since then, as well as byelaws, etc, but this section is still in force.
Fishery officers have always had authority to check permits of anglers on several (private) fisheries, the practice has usually been to check for licences and allow clubs/owners to manage permits, otherwise you would have every fishery owner in the country demanding fishery officers patrol their fishery for permits on a daily basis. Where fishery owners are having a serious problem, they may request the local IFI office to do some patrols and check for permits, and where anglers are found to be fishing without a permit (which is legally termed unlawful entry) they can issue on-the-spot fines.

ironbluedun

slowburner wrote: »

Please refrain from using the word bailiff to refer to a fisheries officer - unless you deliberately want to cause insult ?

never knew that calling a bailiff a bailiff was insulting? thats a new one to me! is it a bit like the way some ghillies want to be called 'guides'?

DavyDee

Zzippy wrote: »

Like most laws, it may sound outdated but is still valid, there have been various amendment acts since then, as well as byelaws, etc, but this section is still in force.
Fishery officers have always had authority to check permits of anglers on several (private) fisheries, the practice has usually been to check for licences and allow clubs/owners to manage permits, otherwise you would have every fishery owner in the country demanding fishery officers patrol their fishery for permits on a daily basis. Where fishery owners are having a serious problem, they may request the local IFI office to do some patrols and check for permits, and where anglers are found to be fishing without a permit (which is legally termed unlawful entry) they can issue on-the-spot fines.

I know its 100% legal, this isnt my problem. My problem is the fact tax payers money is been used to patrol fully staffed private fisheries. Legally its right, morally its 100% wrong! These officers could be checking for illegal netting or sources of pollution but the soft few quid to be made in fines!

Zzippy

DavyDee wrote: »

So you government employed fisheries officers handing fines to the tax payers who are paying their wages for fishing on waters owned and staffed by whats left of the landlords and English gentry. What I would also like to know is how would Cromwellian deeds stand up in a European Court of Law? Sion Mills fishing club took one of these landlords to the European courts who tried to stop the locals fishing the towns water. All they had to prove was their ancestors fished the river for free and the European court of law handed the control of the fishery back to the locals who now run the fishery!

I would love nothing more than to see all Irish lakes and rivers under State control rather than the chaotic mix of clubs, landlords, Coillte, State, etc that it is now, with many fisheries in dispute and deeds unable to be found. Fisheries could be either run by the State or licensed to clubs, as many currently are. But that's not the legal situation, no matter how much we might wish it.

Have you any links to the Sion Mills case, press reports, etc?

On your first point, fishery officers are tax payers too, and just because you pay tax doesn't mean you know best about how State employees should do their job. Saying "I pay your wages" means nothing. Are you saying that where private fishery owners (many of whom are Irish and nothing to do with gentry, landed or otherwise) have serious problems with illegal fishing, that fishery officers should let those people fish on illegally, just because they pay tax???

DavyDee wrote: »

I know its 100% legal, this isnt my problem. My problem is the fact tax payers money is been used to patrol fully staffed private fisheries. Legally its right, morally its 100% wrong! These officers could be checking for illegal netting or sources of pollution but the soft few quid to be made in fines!

What's immoral about it? More to the point, what's moral about people fishing illegally, whether with rod or net? You seem to be defending people fishign without a permit, just because you disagree with people owning a fishery...
For what it's worth, fishery officers in this area are snowed under at the moment with illegal netting, and putting in 70-80 hours a week on stakeouts and boat patrols, having their boats rammed and being threatened with assault (this week alone). Fishing permits are well down the list of priorities right now.

aidanf

Seems to be a lot of antipathy towards fisheries officers coming out in this thread. Not sure why - seems to me they do a difficult job with limited resources. I've never had a run-in with one, but then again I pay my licence fee and follow the rules.

DavyDee

aidanf wrote: »

Seems to be a lot of antipathy towards fisheries officers coming out in this thread. Not sure why - seems to me they do a difficult job with limited resources. I've never had a run-in with one, but then again I pay my licence fee and follow the rules.

I just want to clear something up here, I know plenty of fisheries officers personally and have never personally had an unpleasant encounter with one. What I have a problem with is abuse of power and the waste of state resources (.ie state fisheries officers pulling for permits on private fisheries!) by officers having to waste time enforcing petty laws against rod anglers tresspassing when they could be protecting the rivers and lakes for poaching and pollution. I know how hard a job it is but its easy to treat people as you would like to be treated yourself!

Whats immoral about a fisheries officer paid with your tax money taking a rod off a person whose ancestors have fished the river because the decendant of some landlord doesnt want him to catch a fish or 2 off a beat there are no guests on? Ill let you figure that one for yourself!

slowburner

DavyDee wrote: »

Like most of our fisheries laws, its very outdated it refers to shillings and pounds and I wonder if it is now legally binding due our currecy now being euro. As for insinuating you were an officer or employed by the state, I dont remember doing so!

If you read your post (no 33) your reply appears naturally to be directed at me because you quote a post of mine. I would call that insinuation.

slowburner

DavyDee wrote: »

Like most of our fisheries laws, its very outdated it refers to shillings and pounds and I wonder if it is now legally binding due our currecy now being euro. As for insinuating you were an officer or employed by the state, I dont remember doing so!

It is very much still in force and don't worry, the fines have been updated to the Euro currency.

slowburner

ironbluedun wrote: »

never knew that calling a bailiff a bailiff was insulting? thats a new one to me! is it a bit like the way some ghillies want to be called 'guides'?

Ask a fisheries officer.

Compton

Aye I'll ask a bailiff next time one pisses me off again..

ring 20

i also think its not right that state paid [not having a go at anyone paid by the state] baillifs have anything to do with private fisheries, would the county council come and fix a private road on your land?? they seem to serve these fisheries owners like its they who pay the baillifs wages

slowburner

ring 20 wrote: »

i also think its not right that state paid [not having a go at anyone paid by the state] baillifs have anything to do with private fisheries, would the county council come and fix a private road on your land?? they seem to serve these fisheries owners like its they who pay the baillifs wages

If it was your private road and a bunch of people decided to park their caravans there - would you not call the Gardai?

It is pretty clear here that some of you refuse to pay any degree of respect to fisheries officers and persist in name calling.
This puts you on one side of the law and fisheries officers on the other.
Not so clever.

ring 20

they have been known as baillifs as long as i can remember, when did they decide it offended them?

Compton

me too i was talking to one a few weeks ago and HE called himself a bailif.

slowburner

ring 20 wrote: »

they have been known as baillifs as long as i can remember, when did they decide it offended them?

1939 actually.
Glad you are keeping up with the times.

Substitution of expression “water keeper” for expression “water bailiff” in Fisheries Acts.
48. —In the Fisheries Acts, 1842 to 1937—
(a) the words “water keeper” shall be substituted for the words “water bailiff” wherever the latter words occur;
(b) the words “water keepers” shall be substituted for the words “water bailiffs” wherever the latter words occur;
(c) the word “keeper” shall be substituted for the word “bailiff” wherever the latter word occurs;
(d) the word “keepers” shall be substituted for the word “bailiffs” wherever the latter word occurs.