Meeting re possible introduction of angling licence/permit

jkchambers

The Irish Federation of Pike Angling Clubs will hold an information meeting in a few weeks to inform anglers of what has happened to date on this issue and seek their views. Inland Fisheries Ireland invited all National Federations to meet them on 3rd September to discuss the sustainable funding of the resource into the future, All National Federations attended and several of them suggested compulsory angler contributions providing funds are ringfenced and anglers have a say on the spending of these funds. IFPAC did not make any suggestions at that time. All affiliated clubs will be invited to send delegates to the meeting which will be held at 7.30 in the Greville Arms Hotel in Mullingar on 10th October.
At the meeting on 3rd IFI informed the meeting that they have commissioned TDI to carry out a survey on the number of Irish anglers there are, what species they fish for etc. Each person interviewed was asked whether they were a member of an angling club or not. The findings indicate that some 80% of people who fish are NOT members of clubs. To take this large number of independent anglers views into account the committee decided that any pike angler could also attend the meeting.
The views of club delegates and independent anglers will be taken into account by the committee in their future discussions with other federations and IFI.

Bizzum

jkchambers wrote: »

IFPAC did not make any suggestions at that time.

What, if any, suggestions are IFPAC intending to make?

jkchambers

Bizzum wrote: »

What, if any, suggestions are IFPAC intending to make?

We will make no suggestions until we consult our 65 affiliated clubs and pike anglers in general. Hence the meeting in Mullingar. If we think there may be a need to hold more meetings around the country we will. This is a big step and we dont want anglers divided. We will soon be having a second meeting with trout federations TAFI and NARA.

Bizzum

I think it's something that has to happen.

The Salmon and Sea Trout angler pays already. Make the state Sal/STr licence a state licence for all adult anglers. Make the juvenile one €5.
Indeed a payment scale could be used.

oldat31

Are we talking more of a rod license?...

If so I have been saying it for a long time that there should be but only if it goes to the likes of the IFI and orgs that help the angling industry......

jkchambers

oldat31 wrote: »

Are we talking more of a rod license?...

If so I have been saying it for a long time that there should be but only if it goes to the likes of the IFI and orgs that help the angling industry......

Yes, we are talking about a compulsory permit/licence/registration, whatever you want to call it.

bitemybanger

Im all for it but have to ask Jk, who will enforce this if it does come into effect?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I know this won't go down well and that people here will probably think that those like me shouldn't be allowed fish but....

Some of us are retired, unemployed, or on a very low income. We might fish for Mackeral 5 days a year and go for Pike or Perch a few times in the early Spring, as part of an occasional hobby. A rod licence would be very costly on a cost per day basis compared to serious anglers. I have often fancied fishing some locations but I can't afford the day permits. It's hard enough finding cash for tackle as it is. :mad:

Just my honest thoughts (for what they're worth) on a compulsory licence or permit.

jkchambers

I would imaging IFI protection staff whose numbers are dwindling year by year.
I am not advocating a compulsory licence/permit. I am only informing anglers of whats happening.

Bizzum

jkchambers wrote: »

I am not advocating a compulsory licence/permit.

What's your opinion on it though?

oldat31

Erica Bumpy Lens wrote: »

I know this won't go down well and that people here will probably think that those like me shouldn't be allowed fish but....

Some of us are retired, unemployed, or on a very low income. We might fish for Mackeral 5 days a year and go for Pike or Perch a few times in the early Spring, as part of an occasional hobby. A rod licence would be very costly on a cost per day basis compared to serious anglers. I have often fancied fishing some locations but I can't afford the day permits. It's hard enough finding cash for tackle as it is. :mad:

Just my honest thoughts (for what they're worth) on a compulsory licence or permit.

10 euro a season on a river license is nothing.... Even for unemployed ( which I am )

If there is a rod license it could be as little as 10 euro a year per person.... That would generate millions which could be pumped back into the protection of fish stocks....

I am a sea angler and it costs me the price of petrol to go fishing....

I would have no issue buying a yearly rod license, for myself, the girlfriend and my 2 boys...

Also TBH it will go along way to help the fight against people that bring EVERYTHING they catch home.....

whelzer

Its all well and good having a rod license (in principle I'm favour of such a "tax") but who will police it! Think of all the angling laws, by-laws, fishery rules that get broken every single day in this country. The current laws are not policed/adhered to.

Sad to say but if "they" do bring in a fee/license it will be a cash cow, you'll see nothing for it and it will creep up and up every year!

Lastly a rod license would do nothing at all against poaching, netting etc because these people don't give a fiddlers fkkk as it is, bringing out more rules won't change that.....ohh I don't think I'll keep every fish this session 'cos my license is out of date:eek:!

jkchambers

Bizzum wrote: »

What's your opinion on it though?

I am undecided at the moment but leaning against it. I have this thread up on several other angling site message boards and there are very mixed replies

oldat31

whelzer wrote: »

Its all well and good having a rod license (in principle I'm favour of such a "tax") but who will police it! Think of all the angling laws, by-laws, fishery rules that get broken every single day in this country. The current laws are not policed/adhered to.

Sad to say but if "they" do bring in a fee/license it will be a cash cow, you'll see nothing for it and it will creep up and up every year!

Lastly a rod license would do nothing at all against poaching, netting etc because these people don't give a fiddlers fkkk as it is, bringing out more rules won't change that.....ohh I don't think I'll keep every fish this session 'cos my license is out of date:eek:!

Ok, the reason the likes of the IFI and such dont police the waters as much as everyone would like is due to lack of resources, which is caused by a lack of funding....... Now if all respectable anglers were to pay a rod license then it would generate a lot of funds for the IFI and such.....

So as to your comment about a license not helping poaching.... If there is more officers policing the waters it only stands to reason that more poachers will get caught in the act.....

Bigger picture and all......

bitemybanger

It will never work here with the lack of staff and funding and lets face it, an annual charge of €10 per annum wouldn't keep one fisheries officer+ expenses (Car/jeep/fuel) Funded for long, provided everyone pays which will never happen.
It works in the UK cause they have everything we have not.
People here will just see it as another stealth tax rather than a licence and refuse to pay it knowing there is an extremely limited and virtually unmaned system of enforcement.

jkchambers

Firstly I would imagine that a licence would be in the region of €30 to €50 for the year.
In 1988 when the then Minister Daly introduced the licence he calculated that it should bring in Ir£800,000 for the Fisheries Boards. What did he then do ?? He chopped Ir£800,000 off the Depts allocation to the Fisheries Boards !

jkchambers

What I think our fisheries need more than anything else is protection. I think that the best people to that are anglers themselves. We need a complete revamp of the club waterkeeper system to be replaced by a fisheries reserve protection force. Inland Fisheries Ireland should train, appoint and oversee the appointment of anglers as "authorised persons" under section 31 of the 2010 Inland Fisheries Act. Anglers would have much the same powers as IFI protection staff and could work as a back up force. Needless to say proper vetting and ongoing training would be needed. This can be done under existing legislation. I am aware that IFI protection staff may not like this but their numbers are dropping and under embargos they wont be replaced.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0010/sec0031.html#sec31

Bizzum

jkchambers wrote: »

Firstly I would imagine that a licence would be in the region of €30 to €50 for the year.
In 1988 when the then Minister Daly introduced the licence he calculated that it should bring in Ir£800,000 for the Fisheries Boards. What did he then do ?? He chopped Ir£800,000 off the Depts allocation to the Fisheries Boards !

I would think this is a more realistic figure alright, but one never knows where these figures are going to be plucked from.
Licence or not there are going to be cuts to the budget. There is more to a licence than generating money. I think the fact that so much fishing is free(along with other factors) allowed a mindset to develop that it was a free for all, to be used and abused. I think a licence would send out a clear message that this is a sport and resource we all value and will fight to keep it sustainable.

jkchambers wrote: »

What I think our fisheries need more than anything else is protection. I think that the best people to that are anglers themselves. We need a complete revamp of the club waterkeeper system to be replaced by a fisheries reserve protection force. Inland Fisheries Ireland should train, appoint and oversee the appointment of anglers as "authorised persons" under section 31 of the 2010 Inland Fisheries Act. Anglers would have much the same powers as IFI protection staff and could work as a back up force. Needless to say proper vetting and ongoing training would be needed. This can be done under existing legislation. I am aware that IFI protection staff may not like this but their numbers are dropping and under embargos they wont be replaced.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0010/sec0031.html#sec31[/QUOTE]

I would agree that our fishery resource needs even more protection but I think the best people to do this are those employed, trained and experienced to do it. The number of Fisheries protection staff in the country as a whole is very small and getting smaller, around 150 field staff? Angler cooperation has always been vital and now even moreso. Anglers already work as a back up force providing much vital intelligence along the rivers.
In some areas there are already decent numbers of court appointed authorised persons, some of which do a lot of work in conjunction with IFI Officers. Others cause more trouble and make things more difficult for everybody.
On the subject of training, I don't believe IFI are in a position to offer such training. Formal training in my opinion is best left to those qualified to teach.

jkchambers

Some Regional Fisheries Boards (Shannon anyway) did provide day courses or information days for waterkeepers. These were pretty good.
The number of protection staff IFI have is pretty small. It will maybe a decade before public funds get better and the staff employment embargo gets lifted. As protection staff retire or leave they are not being replaced. The age profile is generally older so we will have retirements most years. They will not be able to adequately cover all waters.
The Section 294 waterkeepers situation is a joke. Anglers are appointed only over local waters which the have "an interest in". Their letter of appointment is a scrap of paper with a court stamp. Their home address is on it so that cowboys can get at him. They receive no training. I could go on and on.
Anglers who are prepared to protect should have a proper official card. Their snap and name should be on it but not their address. If they are good enough to cover local waters they should be good enough to cover ALL waters ie a National warrant card. They should be properly vetted and trained with regular refresher courses.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

In the last few days I have changed my mind on this topic. Im now against the idea of a licence, as I know my conditions for agreeing to the licence will never be met

jkchambers

Just a reminder about the meeting tomorrow night

jkchambers

The meeting was not well attended. A lot of people phoned me to say that they couldnt make it and some set me emails outlining their concerns.
We had a long discussion on the issue going through the pros and cons. Many felt a great distrust of IFI on a number of issues and in the end delegates were unaminously of the opinion that, at this stage, IFPAC should not support the introduction of a compulsory licence/permit.

Bizzum

jkchambers wrote: »

We had a long discussion on the issue going through the pros and cons. Many felt a great distrust of IFI on a number of issues and in the end delegates were unaminously of the opinion that, at this stage, IFPAC should not support the introduction of a compulsory licence/permit.

Thanks for the feedback John.
Might I ask, this great distrust of IFI, is IFI staff on the ground?, IFI management? or even the minister?

What are these issues that run to numbers?

jkchambers

Bizzum wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback John.
Might I ask, this great distrust of IFI, is IFI staff on the ground?, IFI management? or even the minister?

What are these issues that run to numbers?

I dont really think that there was much distrust of IFI staff on the ground.
I posted earlier that I had this thread up on other message boards too. Below is a thread to the most active thread which may be informative. It starts before our meeting last week. I hope its ok on this site to post a link to thread on another message board where the topic extends to 6 pages
http://www.fishingtalkireland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=11897

Bizzum

jkchambers wrote: »

I dont really think that there was much distrust of IFI staff on the ground.
I posted earlier that I had this thread up on other message boards too. Below is a thread to the most active thread which may be informative. It starts before our meeting last week. I hope its ok on this site to post a link to thread on another message board where the topic extends to 6 pages
http://www.fishingtalkireland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=11897[/QUOTE]

Having read that thread, it seems to lack balance and bash IFI at every turn. But to view it objectively what it amounts to is a small number of posters sitting at their laptops, engaging their fingers before their brains, with the occasional bit of logic thrown in.
The usual shout of IFI doing nothing for Coarse fish is tiresome now. Could you John tell me a) The number of attendees at the last meeting? b) The number of On The Spot Fines issued by IFI Officers for Coarse vs Game violations?
On the latter, I only know about the area I live in and I know Coarse wins hands down.

jkchambers

Bizzum wrote: »

jkchambers wrote: »

I dont really think that there was much distrust of IFI staff on the ground.
I posted earlier that I had this thread up on other message boards too. Below is a thread to the most active thread which may be informative. It starts before our meeting last week. I hope its ok on this site to post a link to thread on another message board where the topic extends to 6 pages
http://www.fishingtalkireland.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=11897[/QUOTE]

Having read that thread, it seems to lack balance and bash IFI at every turn. But to view it objectively what it amounts to is a small number of posters sitting at their laptops, engaging their fingers before their brains, with the occasional bit of logic thrown in.
The usual shout of IFI doing nothing for Coarse fish is tiresome now. Could you John tell me a) The number of attendees at the last meeting? b) The number of On The Spot Fines issued by IFI Officers for Coarse vs Game violations?
On the latter, I only know about the area I live in and I know Coarse wins hands down.

Some people on that site are pretty anti IFI OK.
I am fully aware that IFI do look after coarse/pike fisheries pretty well given current resources.
I never made any secret of the fact that the meeting was not well attended. There were 19 at the meeting. That said several of the attendees were there representing several clubs. All clubs were invited to send delegates along. The IFPAC committee are obliged to follow the mood of the meeting and that clearly was that, at this stage, IFPAC could not support the introduction of a compulsory permit. Prior to the meeting I think I was middle of the road in my postings.
Protection was a major issue at the meeting. I would fully expect that much more on the spot fines would have been issued for coarse offences than game. Anglers want to get more involved in protecting waters. The current waterkeeper system is completely outdated. I understand that IFI and the Dept have been talking about changing the system and have been looking at the Dutch model. Anglers are going to be central in this yet, it appears, that they are being completely left out of the consultations to change the current system. If IFI want to bring anglers more on board they need to get more dialog going. Are they planning to announce a new waterkeeper system without first consulting anglers ? This reminds me of that crazy bye law 888 where the draft was banning the use of barbed hooks on the Shannon, Erne etc. Even the final version was flawed and had to be scrapped. If the draft had been shown to anglers the crazy parts could have been sorted.
If our fisheries are to be developed, protected and marketed into the future it should be done in a partnership manner - IFI and anglers. For this to happen I think IFI really have to bring anglers much more into the consultation/decision making process regarding our resource.
Bizzum - do you have connections with IFI or the old boards ?

Bizzum

jkchambers wrote: »

Bizzum wrote: »

I am fully aware that IFI do look after coarse/pike fisheries pretty well given current resources

.

Coarse/pike fishing was badly let down by legislation long before current resources were an issue. I witnessed many many bin liners full of fish going home in car boots pre 06.

I never made any secret of the fact that the meeting was not well attended. There were 19 at the meeting. That said several of the attendees were there representing several clubs. All clubs were invited to send delegates along. The IFPAC committee are obliged to follow the mood of the meeting and that clearly was that, at this stage, IFPAC could not support the introduction of a compulsory permit. Prior to the meeting I think I was middle of the road in my postings.

Thanks for that.

Protection was a major issue at the meeting. I would fully expect that much more on the spot fines would have been issued for coarse offences than game. Anglers want to get more involved in protecting waters. The current waterkeeper system is completely outdated. I understand that IFI and the Dept have been talking about changing the system and have been looking at the Dutch model. Anglers are going to be central in this yet, it appears, that they are being completely left out of the consultations to change the current system. If IFI want to bring anglers more on board they need to get more dialog going. Are they planning to announce a new waterkeeper system without first consulting anglers ? This reminds me of that crazy bye law 888 where the draft was banning the use of barbed hooks on the Shannon, Erne etc. Even the final version was flawed and had to be scrapped. If the draft had been shown to anglers the crazy parts could have been sorted.

I think anglers have a huge role to play in fishery protection. They are at the coal face and in a position to gather and share vital information. I'm not so sure how much more they can contribute without training. I would suggest that professional enforcement be left to a professional organisation (working hand in hand with angling bodies).
Taking 888 as an example, it's interesting the way this was foisted upon us all. I'm at a loss to see who was the driving force behind it(though I have my suspicions!), an ill thought out piece of rubbish, that those charged with it's implementation were never, in any meaningfull way, asked for an opinion on. Instead it was rushed through even in a form that could never work. The draft wasn't even shown to rank and file fisheries staff (that I'm aware of) let alone anglers.

If our fisheries are to be developed, protected and marketed into the future it should be done in a partnership manner - IFI and anglers. For this to happen I think IFI really have to bring anglers much more into the consultation/decision making process regarding our resource.

Who is the real IFI? Is it a few suits above in Swords insulated from what's going on in real life? Or is it the lads and lassies (About 150 Field staff covering the whole country!!!) we meet at the waters edge?
I suspect there may be a disconnect between the two.

Bizzum - do you have connections with IFI or the old boards ?[/

We all have an agenda John. I think it's easy enough to see what corner I'm in. I'm not blindly following anyone dictat. I can see through the bullsh1t coming from BOTH sides!

jkchambers

One other thing that came up at the meeting was "what would IFI spend licence money on". There were groans when one delegate suggested some may be spent on netting and removing pike and coarse fish from certain waters.

Bizzum

jkchambers wrote: »

One other thing that came up at the meeting was "what would IFI spend licence money on". There were groans when one delegate suggested some may be spent on netting and removing pike and coarse fish from certain waters.

The Salmon/ Sea Trout Conservation stamp monies seem to be going in the right direction from what I can see.

jkchambers

Bizzum wrote: »

The Salmon/ Sea Trout Conservation stamp monies seem to be going in the right direction from what I can see.

It is. I am happy with that. However, I was recently informed that IFI are only looking at ringfencing 35% of licence money (if it goes ahead) and the balance would go into the general IFI kitty. Delegates were worried that some of the IFI portion or trout ringfenced funds could go into netting operations.

Zzippy

Bizzum wrote: »

Who is the real IFI? Is it a few suits above in Swords insulated from what's going on in real life? Or is it the lads and lassies (About 150 Field staff covering the whole country!!!) we meet at the waters edge?
I suspect there may be a disconnect between the two.

Nail. On. Head

jkchambers wrote: »

It is. I am happy with that. However, I was recently informed that IFI are only looking at ringfencing 35% of licence money (if it goes ahead) and the balance would go into the general IFI kitty. Delegates were worried that some of the IFI portion or trout ringfenced funds could go into netting operations.

Whatever portion is mentioned, I'd be worried that the government will reduce core funding for IFI by the amount that goes into the general coffers, a la the household charge. What happens then if a lot of anglers stop buying a licence - there's a shortfall from one year to the next. Like the county councils, IFI will be told to go find the money themselves, rather than government funding the shortfall.


Personally I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of IFI discussing/lobbying for a compulsory licence. I really don't think it's IFI's job, or remit, to be advocating a licence. If a government decides to introduce a licence, fair enough, its a government decision, but IFI has a remit to protect, manage and develop our fisheries resource, not to make policy on how it is funded. I think its a PR disaster for IFI to be advocating this, and not something I'm happy with.

I'm also uncomfortable, as a sea angler, with the idea of paying a licence fee to fish for species that are being slowly exterminated by the commercial fishing industry, with the complicity of our government, and those of other EU countries. The Common Fisheries Policy is an abject failure, and has resulted in a catastrophic decline in most of our angling quarry species. Why should I pay a licence to fish for them when I see the EU and our government completely abdicate their responsibility to manage these fish stocks sustainably for the benefit of all?

Finally, I'm uncomfortable because a licence is nigh on unenforceable - the rod licence dispute in the 1980s outlines that. This would be on a far greater scale, involving coarse and sea anglers as well as trout anglers, while at the same time IFI is haemorrhaging the staff required to enforce the law. IFI staff are used to issuing on-the-spot fines and dealing with abuse, but the level of abuse and violence we see now would be a fraction of what would happen if this was introduced, and they are simply not trained to the level required, nor have the manpower or equipment to deal with that kind of abuse on a greater scale.

Bizzum

Zzippy wrote: »

IFI staff are used to issuing on-the-spot fines and dealing with abuse, but the level of abuse and violence we see now would be a fraction of what would happen if this was introduced, and they are simply not trained to the level required, nor have the manpower or equipment to deal with that kind of abuse on a greater scale.

Templemore??????????????;)

Sfinn

Have been watching this thread from the sidelines and felt the need to contribute.

As an angler from multiple disciplines I wish to highlight the following points

1. There is no clear strategy defining the medium and long term objectives, aspirations for our fisheries. Yes, IFI have an internal document but that does not address all the stakeholders.
2. Where have the River Basin Management plans gone to? Nothing in the media or elsewhere? Who is monitoring these and reporting?
3. Where are the management plans for each system, development, conservation, protection. This includes all course, pike, sea angling & game. i.e proper project plans, with clear initiation,planning , execution, monitoring and controlling, closing with lessons learnt.
4. It is only through adequate planning that the resources required can be defined. It is then thats anglers can be asked to contribute, as opposed to filling a black hole. But these contributions must be administered by an approved third party with clear governance and not IFI directly or other single vested party.
5. To many Angling Bodies, multiplies for the same discipline? fragmentation
6. Anglers must air their visions and not waiting for direction from IFI as is happening, top down management. But this has to be constructive dialogue (effective communication)
7. IFI cannot achieve their goals alone, they need us the anglers. Suits/politicians/commercial need to realise this and stop the lip service.
8. Fishery ownership, we have unknowns, private & state all this needs clarification. Short term leases are not the way forward, a minimum of 5 years

Just a bit of brain storming.