No worms, prawns/shrimp and single barbed hooks on certain Rivers

Buggs

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Press+Releases/Minister+O%E2%80%99Dowd+approves+regulations+and+bye-laws+for+management+of+the+wild+salmon+fishery+in+2012.htm

This is in relation to Bye-law 888, 12th one down,
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Natural/Inland+Fisheries/Legislation/Bye+Laws/Bye-Laws+2011.htm

These new measures affect all anglers and not just Salmon anglers.

Bizzum

Bye Law 888 will have massive implications in it's current form.

It's not the first poor piece of legislation to come from the Dept.

I'm told moves are afoot seeking to amend 888.

I live in hope.

fisherking

Crude but at least its black and white
Too much scope for pleading ignorance otherwise

What problems do you think it will cause?

Bizzum wrote: »

Bye Law 888 will have massive implications in it's current form.

It's not the first poor piece of legislation to come from the Dept.

I'm told moves are afoot seeking to amend 888.

I live in hope.

tin79

fisherking wrote: »

Crude but at least its black and white
Too much scope for pleading ignorance otherwise

What problems do you think it will cause?

It has already caused problems in that people who fish for pike and perch on the liffey, for example, now cannot use worm or treble hooks. This is problematic.

Also please dont anyone reply with the "why cant you pike fish with a single barbless hook" because you will just make yourself look silly.

whelzer

Theres a few lads (and at least 2 lassies!) that spin/plug for trout in a club that I'm a member of. They won't be happy bunnies and I can't blame them.

I can see why these rules may make sense on the face of it but when fully thought out are a bit of a joke.

[Edit] I've only read by law 888 in detail - workibg my way through the others now!

fisherking

Sure
But a small price to pay to protect an endangered species
There are pike and Perch in the canal for trebles
Stocks of salmon are so low I can't even fish catch an release hopefully it will only be for a few years.....

tin79 wrote: »

fisherking wrote: »

Crude but at least its black and white
Too much scope for pleading ignorance otherwise

What problems do you think it will cause?

It has already caused problems in that people who fish for pike and perch on the liffey, for example, now cannot use worm or treble hooks. This is problematic.

Also please dont anyone reply with the "why cant you pike fish with a single barbless hook" because you will just make yourself look silly.

slowburner

Buggs wrote: »

This is in relation to Bye-law 888, 12th one down,
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Natural/Inland+Fisheries/Legislation/Bye+Laws/Bye-Laws+2011.htm

These new measures affect all anglers and not just Salmon anglers.

Should this be stickied?
It would be very useful for all concerned to stay up to date with current legislation and to know what by-laws affect their district.

slowburner

Bye-law 306, 2010

“sea trout” means fish of the migratory form of Salmo trutta, but does not include a sea trout which is 40 centimetres or less in length measured in a straight line from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail.

Bye-law 890, 2011

"sea trout" means the migratory form of Salmo trutta which is 40cm or less in length, measured in a straight line from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail.

Buggs

slowburner wrote: »

Bye-law 306, 2010
Bye-law 890, 2011

Would the newer Bye-law take precedent?

Zzippy

slowburner wrote: »

Bye-law 306, 2010
Bye-law 890, 2011

Bye-law 306 is the national bye-law pertaining to salmon, and sea trout over 40cm are included in that so as not to allow anyone to take a salmon "in the belief" that it was a large sea trout - i.e. close off a loophole.

Bye-law 809 is a local bye-law for the Avoca River and serves to prohibit the taking of any sea trout whatsoever in that river, since sea trout over 40cm are already accounted for in the national bye-law, and this extends that to sea trout under 40cm. Hence the differences in definitions.

Not sure why this was done for the Avoca, some local concern about sea trout stocks there?

ironbluedun

the whole thing is very confusing now.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

why have they banned using worm?

Buggs

Konnor Eager Rip-off wrote: »

why have they banned using worm?

The Salmon usually swallows it whole, making it impossible to return.
Can't understand why they would ban shrimp/prawn as it's the most catch and release friendly.

Zzippy

Buggs wrote: »

The Salmon usually swallows it whole, making it impossible to return.
Can't understand why they would ban shrimp/prawn as it's the most catch and release friendly.

Not a chance. I have landed fish on the prawn where I barely felt the bite and yet the fish was so deeply hooked that it was impossible to unhook - gill filaments torn etc. No chance of survival. I have seen hundreds of fish landed on prawn and while many were hooked in the mouth, a good percentage were deep hooked also.
Flyfishing is definitely the most C&R friendly method. I have yet to land a salmon, or see one landed, that was so deeply hooked that it could not be returned.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Buggs wrote: »

The Salmon usually swallows it whole, making it impossible to return.
Can't understand why they would ban shrimp/prawn as it's the most catch and release friendly.

thanks for answering. im not a salmon angler!

Buggs

Zzippy wrote: »

Not a chance. I have landed fish on the prawn where I barely felt the bite and yet the fish was so deeply hooked that it was impossible to unhook - gill filaments torn etc. No chance of survival. I have seen hundreds of fish landed on prawn and while many were hooked in the mouth, a good percentage were deep hooked also.
Flyfishing is definitely the most C&R friendly method. I have yet to land a salmon, or see one landed, that was so deeply hooked that it could not be returned.

I can't comment on your experiences, but any time I've caught a Salmon on worms he swallowed the hook negating any possible release, whereas a fish caught on a prawn with a circle hook is usually hooked in the scissors, and relatively lightly as well. If the fish is played correctly, and handled/ revived carefully there is every chance the fish will survive.
Likewise a Salmon caught on a spinner.

Fly fishing may be the most effective for C+R but,
1. I was not talking about it, also it was not being discussed in this thread
2. Not all water is suitable
3. On the rivers mentioned in the Bye-law the use of trebles on tube flies etc is now prohibited

There is always the chance of deep hooking any fish regardless of method.

fisherking

You CANNOT deep hook a fish fly fishing

Buggs wrote: »

Zzippy wrote: »

Not a chance. I have landed fish on the prawn where I barely felt the bite and yet the fish was so deeply hooked that it was impossible to unhook - gill filaments torn etc. No chance of survival. I have seen hundreds of fish landed on prawn and while many were hooked in the mouth, a good percentage were deep hooked also.
Flyfishing is definitely the most C&R friendly method. I have yet to land a salmon, or see one landed, that was so deeply hooked that it could not be returned.

I can't comment on your experiences, but any time I've caught a Salmon on worms he swallowed the hook negating any possible release, whereas a fish caught on a prawn with a circle hook is usually hooked in the scissors, and relatively lightly as well. If the fish is played correctly, and handled/ revived carefully there is every chance the fish will survive.
Likewise a Salmon caught on a spinner.

Fly fishing may be the most effective for C+R but,
1. I was not talking about it, also it was not being discussed in this thread
2. Not all water is suitable
3. On the rivers mentioned in the Bye-law the use of trebles on tube flies etc is now prohibited

There is always the chance of deep hooking any fish regardless of method.

Buggs

fisherking wrote: »

You CANNOT deep hook a fish fly fishing

http://salmon-fishing-scotland.blogspot.com/2011/03/salmon-fishing-scotland-spring-salmon_04.html

The salmon was hooked on a Monkey fly fished fairly quickly due to the long wing. The fish was deep hooked and slightly bleeding

slowburner

Zzippy wrote: »

Bye-law 306 is the national bye-law pertaining to salmon, and sea trout over 40cm are included in that so as not to allow anyone to take a salmon "in the belief" that it was a large sea trout - i.e. close off a loophole.

Bye-law 809 is a local bye-law for the Avoca River and serves to prohibit the taking of any sea trout whatsoever in that river, since sea trout over 40cm are already accounted for in the national bye-law, and this extends that to sea trout under 40cm. Hence the differences in definitions.

I see.

Not sure why this was done for the Avoca, some local concern about sea trout stocks there?

It is something of a miracle that stocks of migratory fish are recovering after 250+ years of the most intense pollution any river has suffered on this island. Any legislation which affords this recovery period some protection can be nothing but beneficial in the long run.
We've already seen what the catchment is capable of producing.

slowburner

fisherking wrote: »

You CANNOT deep hook a fish fly fishing

Buggs wrote: »

I can't comment on your experiences, but any time I've caught a Salmon on worms he swallowed the hook negating any possible release, whereas a fish caught on a prawn with a circle hook is usually hooked in the scissors, and relatively lightly as well. If the fish is played correctly, and handled/ revived carefully there is every chance the fish will survive.
Likewise a Salmon caught on a spinner.

Fly fishing may be the most effective for C+R but,
1. I was not talking about it, also it was not being discussed in this thread
2. Not all water is suitable
3. On the rivers mentioned in the Bye-law the use of trebles on tube flies etc is now prohibited

There is always the chance of deep hooking any fish regardless of method.

If a fish is hooked so deeply that the hook is behind the tongue or down the throat it can cause serious damage to the fish and reduce its chance of survival when released.
There is a significant difference between the fish's behaviour when it takes a lure and when it takes a bait.
A lure has no smell or taste and the texture is unlike the food it is supposed to represent. So the fish takes it, realises that it is not what it thought it was and tries to spit it out.
A bait has a smell, a taste, a texture and it is food. The fish takes it and unless it feels the hook, sees no reason not to swallow it - and that's where the damage occurs.


Sometimes a fly angler will describe a fish as being deeply hooked. This just means that the lure was deep in the mouth cavity - not that it was swallowed.
A fish hooked in this way is to do with the way it came at the lure.

fisherking

Touche!
A very rare occurance though

Buggs wrote: »

fisherking wrote: »

You CANNOT deep hook a fish fly fishing

http://salmon-fishing-scotland.blogspot.com/2011/03/salmon-fishing-scotland-spring-salmon_04.html

The salmon was hooked on a Monkey fly fished fairly quickly due to the long wing. The fish was deep hooked and slightly bleeding

tin79

fisherking wrote: »

Sure
But a small price to pay to protect an endangered species
There are pike and Perch in the canal for trebles
Stocks of salmon are so low I can't even fish catch an release hopefully it will only be for a few years.....

Yes hopefully it will be just a few years.

Worm fishing I can understand and generally shrimp/prawn is a salmon specifi method but the single hook rule is frustrating as it rules out deadbaiting, sink and draw and plugs/jerkbaits/etc. There are pike in the canal yes but the liffey is a mixed fishery and as such its unfortunate that predator anglers are loosing their sport when they do not target salmon anyway.

Bizzum

tin79 wrote: »

the single hook rule is frustrating as it rules out deadbaiting, sink and draw and plugs/jerkbaits/etc.

Just on this point. This rather clumsy piece of legislation will, where it applies, rule out Deadbaiting as far as I can see. I don't know how you would mount a deadbait successfully on a single barbless hook?
In relation to plugs/jerkbaits/ etc it would be simple enough to modify a conventional triple hook to turn it into a single barbless.

I think it's also worth noting exactly where this Bye Law applies. As an example, take the Drogheda District,the Boyne is main chanell only and Blackwater is to the 9 eyed br. Thus much of the catchment is excluded (including Ramor and the other lakes in that area).

Little consolation though to any man that want's to fish for Pike with a deadbait in the main body of the Boyne! Or indeed the many Trout anglers that fish with a worm in areas of the catchment that Salmon rerely frequent nor are caught.

slowburner

.....any fish hooks, other than single barbless hooks......

Note the use of the plural.

Will it rule out deadbaiting?
Can deadbaits not be mounted effectively with the likes of a Pennel rig?

Bizzum

slowburner wrote: »

Note the use of the plural.

Will it rule out deadbaiting?
Can deadbaits not be mounted effectively with the likes of a Pennel rig?

Duely noted.
However would a Salmon angler use it as defence if found to be using three single barbless hooks on a lure?
He could well you know.

Having never used a deadbait I cant say if a particular rig will suffice. I've only ever noticed deadbaits mounted via treble hooks.

I am told moves are afoot to amend said Bye Law. Here's hoping!

purehoor

so no more piking for me on the boyne???? this law sucks ass:mad:

keyser2012

does this effct the moy at all

allquestions

Wow :eek: this is the first I've heard of it and already have a few fishing trips planned for later in the year... I'll have to keep an eye on the current legislation and think about the implications that this has for my (used to be legal) activities!

purehoor

Bizzum wrote: »

Just on this point. This rather clumsy piece of legislation will, where it applies, rule out Deadbaiting as far as I can see. I don't know how you would mount a deadbait successfully on a single barbless hook?
In relation to plugs/jerkbaits/ etc it would be simple enough to modify a conventional triple hook to turn it into a single barbless.

I think it's also worth noting exactly where this Bye Law applies. As an example, take the Drogheda District,the Boyne is main chanell only and Blackwater is to the 9 eyed br. Thus much of the catchment is excluded (including Ramor and the other lakes in that area).

Little consolation though to any man that want's to fish for Pike with a deadbait in the main body of the Boyne! Or indeed the many Trout anglers that fish with a worm in areas of the catchment that Salmon rerely frequent nor are caught.

iv just read thru the laws but theres nothing on the boyne??? am i missing some of it?

Bizzum

purehoor wrote: »

iv just read thru the laws but theres nothing on the boyne??? am i missing some of it?

As things currently stand, 888 includes the Boyne main channel only and the Kells Blackwater up to the 9 eyed bridge.

I am hearing a lot of talk about the Boyne being excluded from 888 but I've seen nothing official yet!

I live in hope.

ironbluedun

I have no problem with the bye law, in fact a ban on the use of worms will protect young brown trout and salmon parr. I do agree a shrimp ban is a little odd. A treble hook ban is being done to protect salmon.

Yes there are side affects on pike anglers but why cant an angler fish dead bait for pike with a large single barbless hook, or a pair of them?

I don't do a huge amount of piking these days but used to when i was younger and i can see dead bait working with single hooks. One hook through the top lip and one in and out through the base of the dorsal fin with points showing??

allquestions

I was told that this was recinded by the Minister? Any truth in that?

Bizzum

allquestions wrote: »

I was told that this was recinded by the Minister? Any truth in that?

I have heard the same but nothing official yet.

bayliner

allquestions wrote: »

I was told that this was recinded by the Minister? Any truth in that?

heard something similar yesterday, its being looked at in more detail or something along those lines, same source claims small barbless hooks do damage to trout under half a pound, acting like a scissors! it was mentioned at an AGM, dont shoot the messenger:)...

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

ironbluedun wrote: »

Yes there are side affects on pike anglers but why cant an angler fish dead bait for pike with a large single barbless hook, or a pair of them?

may work in theory, however it will prob make most tourist anglers fish locations where they can use treble hooks. What about lures? I have never heard of stores if salmon taking 6"+ jerk baits.

ironbluedun

Konnor Eager Rip-off wrote: »

may work in theory, however it will prob make most tourist anglers fish locations where they can use treble hooks. What about lures? I have never heard of stores if salmon taking 6"+ jerk baits.

Good point. But would it really put tourist anglers off if the fishing was good. A few years ago i went to canada to fish because the fishing was very good over there. Before going i knew that it was all single barbless hooks. It didnt make a blind bit of difference because the fish were there and fishing excellent. So if fishing is very good quality I cant really see a treble hook ban stopping tourist anglers.

6 inch + is indeed a big bait for a salmon. But salmon will take smaller rapala and similar type lures.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

I dont see the point in an outright ban on treble hooks though. Why not limit the ban to the areas where salmon are fished for

*Removed most of the post as it was incorrect

Zzippy

Konnor Eager Rip-off wrote: »

I dont see the point in an outright ban on treble hooks though. Why not limit the ban to the areas where salmon are fished for? Salmon may take small lures, however, very very few are caught by pike anglers every year. This rule is not going to be adhered to by 99% of anglers in the mid shannon for a few reasons:

• Most coarse/pike anglers wont have heard about the rule
• There are no signs showing the rules
• Lures/dead basit rigs will still be sold with treple hooks
• there are very few water keepers in non game sections of rivers (I have never seen one)
• Bream anglers are not going to stop using worm

`


Did you even read the byelaw? Its linked in the very first post in the thread. The byelaw specifically relates only to those rivers where salmon are, and where salmon angling is currently prohibited due to low stocks. The rivers are listed by name in the byelaw. The Shannon is not included. The canals are not included. Before you jump in with 2 feet maybe take a moment and read about it before posting...

I have to make a comment on this!
As for the Canal, most have been hammered by our eastern european friends. The governemnt never intervened when our canals were being netted or swans being eaten.
There are a lot more game anglers in Ireland than coarse. This rule is going to have a small impact on the game angler, but a massive impact on the coarse angler. But do you really think this rule is going to improve the stocks of salmon? I honnestly cant see it. If the salmon are endangered, why not make salmon angling catch and release? IF that rule came in, there would be protests in the streets!

Did you even read the byelaw?? Its linked in the very first post in this thread. The byelaw specifically relates only to those rivers where salmon are, and where salmon angling is currently prohibited due to low stocks. The rivers are listed by name in the byelaw. The Shannon is not included. The canals are not included. Before you jump in with 2 feet maybe take a moment and read about it before posting...

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Zzippy wrote: »

Did you even read the byelaw?? Its linked in the very first post in this thread. The byelaw specifically relates only to those rivers where salmon are, and where salmon angling is currently prohibited due to low stocks. The rivers are listed by name in the byelaw. The Shannon is not included. The canals are not included. Before you jump in with 2 feet maybe take a moment and read about it before posting...

should have read it all! going to edit my posts as they are incorrect

Buggs

http://www.irelandscoarsefishing.com/bye-law-888-gets-a-haircut/

The following changes will be implemented:
1. Bye Law 888 will shortly be revoked and replaced by Bye Law 897 2012. This change will have the effect of removing a number of provisions which had the unintended consequences in the implementation of Bye Law 888.
2. While this particular Bye Law was part of the proposed Salmon management regulations, it is recognised that those proposals had the potential to ultimately affect coarse and Pike anglers. These anglers would not necessarily have had reason previously to examine thae consultation documents for Salmon management and hence they did not appreciate the significance of the proposed Bye-Law.
Therefore, following discussion with the Angling delegation, it has been agreed that for future years, in addition to publication on my Departments's website, the advisory/consultation documentation will be sent directly to the main angler representative bodies in advance of sign off. The angling representatives can then disseminate to their members and other interested parties.
3. Reference to banning prawn and shrimp as angling baits be removed from the Bye-Law.
4. Remove the River Fergus system from the Bye-Law.
5. Remove the Kilcolgan River from the Bye-Law.
6. All other issues can be dealt with through giving a clear communication of the spirit and intent of the Bye-Law and how it is going to be implemented.

slowburner

It might be wise not to take the above statement as an amendment, just yet.
I don't know who David Warrington is, or who this, 'My Department's website' refers to.
Nor do I see any legitimate reason why coarse anglers should wish to lobby for the use of prawn and shrimp.

Buggs

David Warrington is the owner of that website.
"My Department's website", refers to the Minister in charge.
It's not an amendment, they are scrapping the Bye-law and replacing it with Bye-law 897

Bizzum

I can't get my head around what/who is driving this nonsense.
One ill thought out mish mash of legislation replaced by another equally ill considered piece of junk.
If the law is aimed at Salmon/Sea Trout why not name them as in other SI's.
888 (where appliciable) demonised the genuine Pike angler dead baiting for Pike and 897 appears to do the same.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind.