YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

jkchambers

The Dept are bringing in a new Fisheries Act which will make many major changes to the previous Fisheries Acts. These changes will IMPACT ON YOU
The main proposed changes are to introduce a COMPULSORY ANGLER CHARGE and completely revamp the WATERKEEPER SYSTEM. There will be lots of other major changes
The CONSULTATION PROCESS starts on MONDAY.
There will be at least 5 meetings around the country.
DONT LEAVE IT TO OTHERS. GO ALONG AND AIR YOUR VIEWS.
Link to other thread with details of meetings
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056928158

Zzippy

Have you seen the heads of bill John? Is there definitely a provision for an angler charge?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

The charge in itself would not be problem for me. What I would have an interest in is the level of charge.

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

Have you seen the heads of bill John? Is there definitely a provision for an angler charge?

No heads of bill drawn up yet. Well, thats what I am told.
They will definitely be proposing some sort of compulsory angling charge.

EireIceMan

jkchambers wrote: »

No heads of bill drawn up yet. Well, thats what I am told.
They will definitely be proposing some sort of compulsory angling charge.

what, like a rod licence of some sort? Where will the money go have you any idea?

jkchambers

EireIceMan wrote: »

what, like a rod licence of some sort? Where will the money go have you any idea?

Thats what these meetings are all about.
There are suggestions that funds raised may be split with half going to Inland Fisheries Ireland and the other half being ringfenced for angling development. Its all to be discussed at these meetings

jimmymcg

we need to fight this angling licence like our fathers did 20 or 30 years ago..we need to mobilise very fast...

they are not going to recruit new protection staff with this money i am sure????


and the idea of fishermen becoming guardians of the water is ludicrous. it needs to be left to the state..not individuals on a power trip.

gumbo1

In fairness, anglers are kinda guardians of the waters!! If you see a net in the water do you pull it out or leave it?? Same with traps, do you leave it upto a waterkeeper, who may not see it, to remove?? Personally if I see traps or nets n the waters I'll pull them out an destroy them, not on a power trip just pissed of with the current state of affairs!!
I personally have no problem paying a small fee each year if there was to be a visible increase in the number of waterkeepers and or fishery protection officers about the rivers and lakes of Ireland!!

demanufactured

More taxes

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

jimmymcg wrote: »

and the idea of fishermen becoming guardians of the water is ludicrous. it needs to be left to the state..not individuals on a power trip.

The state have no money to hire enough waterkeepers. I'm all for anglers becoming guardians of the water. I have seen poachers kill pike a few yards away from me, but I couldn't approach them, as i have no power and they needed to be caught in the act by a waterkeeper to be fined.

Zzippy

Jorge Rough Letterhead wrote: »

The state have no money to hire enough waterkeepers. I'm all for anglers becoming guardians of the water. I have seen poachers kill pike a few yards away from me, but I couldn't approach them, as i have no power and they needed to be caught in the act by a waterkeeper to be fined.

They don't actually, once you call IFI and they come out and apprehend the offenders - if you are prepared to give evidence in court that is enough. Your word of what you saw is enough to initiate a case, particularly if other evidence backs it up, such as said persons being in possession of the pike you saw killed, over size or bag limit, etc.
For an offence like that it is usually an on-the-spot fine anyway, so you would not need to give evidence unless they failed to pay the fine and were prosecuted.

jkchambers

I will be in Drogheda this evening. I hope to attend some of the others too to see what anglers are saying

Daroxtar

demanufactured wrote: »

More taxes

This^^

I'm disgusted that the bastards have got me thinking about politics when I want to be thinking about fishing.

tootsy70

What will this be, is it that everyone will have to pay for a license to fish for any aul fish.

jkchambers

tootsy70 wrote: »

What will this be, is it that everyone will have to pay for a license to fish for any aul fish.

Thats the way its looking

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

Thats the way its looking

John

As you said yourself, this isn't contained in the heads of bill. Have you other information that that is definitely on the cards, or are you just speculating here to gauge the reaction?

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

John

As you said yourself, this isn't contained in the heads of bill. Have you other information that that is definitely on the cards, or are you just speculating here to gauge the reaction?

I have been attending the public consultation meetings and other Fed/Ifi meetings. It is on the way.

tootsy70

jkchambers wrote: »

Thats the way its looking

Shocking! We'll be getting taxed soon for every footstep we have to take in the city centres and theyll make up some bull**** law thats its good for the enviroment this new tax lol

COYW

tootsy70 wrote: »

What will this be, is it that everyone will have to pay for a license to fish for any aul fish.

And how is it going to be enforced? Can't see the guards traversing the banks to check licenses.

jimmymcg

lets set up an anti-licence organisation?? we need to mobile and stamp this out ASAP.

dardevle

quite possibly some gobshyte in government thinks that a suitable period of time has passed since the last rod license debacle and is trying to make a name for themselves like Brendan Daly did 20+ years ago,

when hell freezes over is the phrase that comes to mind!........anyone that thinks this money will be ringfenced for the needs of the angling community is completely naïve....

Zzippy

dardevle wrote: »

quite possibly some gobshyte in government thinks that a suitable period of time has passed since the last rod license debacle and is trying to make a name for themselves like Brendan Daly did 20+ years ago,

when hell freezes over is the phrase that comes to mind!........anyone that thinks this money will be ringfenced for the needs of the angling community is completely naïve....

Playing devils advocate here, but there is already a precedent - salmon and sea trout anglers pay a licence for their fishing, some people would ask why should other anglers not also pay for their fishing?
Half of the salmon licence fee is ringfenced and the money spent on habitat restoration projects on salmon rivers. If other anglers paid a licence this could well be the case for trout/coarse/pike waters too.

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

Playing devils advocate here, but there is already a precedent - salmon and sea trout anglers pay a licence for their fishing, some people would ask why should other anglers not also pay for their fishing?
Half of the salmon licence fee is ringfenced and the money spent on habitat restoration projects on salmon rivers. If other anglers paid a licence this could well be the case for trout/coarse/pike waters too.

That is what is been suggested. Ringfencing of funds raised from trout, pike, coarse AND sea anglers. It may well come down to the amount to be ringfenced. There are some other issues that need to be sorted.
1 We need a scrapping of the section 294 waterkeepers and replacement by a properly trained and monitored fisheries reserve force. Appointed and trained by IFI
2 Under the 2010 Act the Board of IFI is made up of the CEO, an elected staff member and 8 appointed by Ministers etc. Before the current board of IFI was appointed we met the then Minister Conor Lenehan. He bluntly told us that he wanted NO ANGLERS on the board of IFI , just business people. He added that he would have to appoint some women and that our best chance of getting someone on the board was if he had a female angler who was also a businesswoman. I kid you not !. As it happened 5 game anglers managed to get themselves appointed (whats new about that). Anglers should have several seats on the board allocated to them as a RIGHT. There should be a balance of representation sea,coarse, game etc.

mattcullen

jkchambers wrote: »

That is what is been suggested. Ringfencing of funds raised from trout, pike, coarse AND sea anglers. It may well come down to the amount to be ringfenced. There are some other issues that need to be sorted.
1 We need a scrapping of the section 294 waterkeepers and replacement by a properly trained and monitored fisheries reserve force. Appointed and trained by IFI
2 Under the 2010 Act the Board of IFI is made up of the CEO, an elected staff member and 8 appointed by Ministers etc. Before the current board of IFI was appointed we met the then Minister Conor Lenehan. He bluntly told us that he wanted NO ANGLERS on the board of IFI , just business people. He added that he would have to appoint some women and that our best chance of getting someone on the board was if he had a female angler who was also a businesswoman. I kid you not !. As it happened 5 game anglers managed to get themselves appointed (whats new about that). Anglers should have several seats on the board allocated to them as a RIGHT. There should be a balance of representation sea,coarse, game etc.

The idea of a rod licence for sea fishing is crazy. Sure what could they even pretend to use the money on to improve sea fishing when the problem is clearly overfishing

EmptyTree

mattcullen wrote: »

The idea of a rod licence for sea fishing is crazy.

While I would not have any particular problem with paying for some sort of a licence if I thought the money was going to be ring-fenced and put back into the sport, I can’t imagine a licence for sea fishing would be introduced as I think it would be simply unenforceable (in my mind anyway).


It’s early days yet, but would it be a case of one licence for game, one for coarse (and one for sea)? Or would the one licence cover all three?

jkchambers

EmptyTree wrote: »

While I would not have any particular problem with paying for some sort of a licence if I thought the money was going to be ring-fenced and put back into the sport, I can’t imagine a licence for sea fishing would be introduced as I think it would be simply unenforceable (in my mind anyway).


It’s early days yet, but would it be a case of one licence for game, one for coarse (and one for sea)? Or would the one licence cover all three?

If they want it to run the one payment is going to have to cover sea, trout, pike and coarse

jkchambers

I would think that there were about 50 anglers at last nights meeting in the Spa Hotel in Lucan. There was a good turnout of pike anglers. Lots of good points made. The Minister did seem to be genuine in wanting to hear all anglers concerns and does seem anxious to make sure that the new legislation will be acceptable to anglers. He clearly said that if we wanted an angler registration fee/permit all funds would be ringfenced and if we didnt want to contribute it wouldnt be in the legislation. He also said that when the Bill was drawn up he would be willing to come back to meet us again to make sure that we were happy. His principle officer in the Dept Dennis Maher, while only in the inland fisheries 14 months was well in command of his brief and could answer all questions well.
I attended 3 of these meetings and the main thing that struck me was the complete lack of sea anglers in attendance. According to a recent survey sea anglers are supposed to be the most numerous.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Maybe sea anglers don't read Boards. I know I only heard of all this from Boards.ie. No mention on the river bank, lakeside, shore, or boat around here.

Dfmnoc

Can someone say what the rules are at the moment, i taught anglers had to get a licence to salmon fish, and pay membership fees to a club to fish on most rivers anyway.

jkchambers

Dfmnoc wrote: »

Can someone say what the rules are at the moment, i taught anglers had to get a licence to salmon fish, and pay membership fees to a club to fish on most rivers anyway.

Yes they do. What is now suggested that trout, sea, pike and coarse anglers make a contribution

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

Yes they do. What is now suggested that trout, sea, pike and coarse anglers make a contribution

John, you seem to be the only one suggesting this. You've even posted yourself that the minister said if anglers don't want it it won't be in the legislation. Nothing I have heard has indicated that IFI are pushing a licence - most people in IFI remember only too well the last licence fiasco. I've not heard the minister or government pushing it.
So who exactly is suggesting that anglers make a contribution??? I'm not saying its a bad idea, just that you're the only person anywhere who seems to be keeping this going. Do you want a licence?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

+1. I read it that the licence is only on the cards if anglers want it. So what exactly is this all about? I'm totally confused at this point.

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

John, you seem to be the only one suggesting this. You've even posted yourself that the minister said if anglers don't want it it won't be in the legislation. Nothing I have heard has indicated that IFI are pushing a licence - most people in IFI remember only too well the last licence fiasco. I've not heard the minister or government pushing it.
So who exactly is suggesting that anglers make a contribution??? I'm not saying its a bad idea, just that you're the only person anywhere who seems to be keeping this going. Do you want a licence?

IFI called all feds into a meeting on sept 3 to look at the funding of inland fisheries into the future. All feds knew that they wanted someone to suggest angler contributions. In April 2012 they invited feds in seperately for general talks. They raised it with each fed.
A thread on the subject
http://www.irelandscoarsefishing.com/phpbb3/general-fishing-news/topic4705.html
Also on this site
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056760564

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Who are these Feds? I fish coarse, trout, and sea and apart from the obligatory club membership to fish the trout river I have no contact with any Feds. Asked guys at the shore today and while they all beach fished and trout fished none knew anything about federations.

Can you give us an idiot's guide and explain the pros and coins of fed membership? Thanks.

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

IFI called all feds into a meeting on sept 3 to look at the funding of inland fisheries into the future. All feds knew that they wanted someone to suggest angler contributions. In April 2012 they invited feds in seperately for general talks. They raised it with each fed.
A thread on the subject
http://www.irelandscoarsefishing.com/phpbb3/general-fishing-news/topic4705.html
Also on this site
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056760564

That's all very well, but if they haven't brought it up since, and its not included in the heads of bill, it doesn't seem to be a runner. I'm a member of 2 federations through clubs in different disciplines, but I would say federations represent maybe 10% of anglers in Ireland, at a push. If they were going to bring in a licence there would have to be a public consultation, not just a couple of meetings with federations which are irrelevant to most anglers.

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

That's all very well, but if they haven't brought it up since, and its not included in the heads of bill, it doesn't seem to be a runner. I'm a member of 2 federations through clubs in different disciplines, but I would say federations represent maybe 10% of anglers in Ireland, at a push. If they were going to bring in a licence there would have to be a public consultation, not just a couple of meetings with federations which are irrelevant to most anglers.

All the Feds had their seperate annual meetings with IFI last month where they raised the subject once again.
The TDI report will be published in a few weeks. I believe that it will show around 30% of anglers are members of clubs. I would think that maybe 90% of clubs would e affiliated to a fed maybe just for the purpose of cheap club insurance. The public consultation period starts on 13th May and goes on to 28th June. I am told notices of these 5 open meetings were in the press.
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Natural/Inland+Fisheries/Latest+News/

jkchambers

Harrison Obedient Cutoffs wrote: »

Who are these Feds? I fish coarse, trout, and sea and apart from the obligatory club membership to fish the trout river I have no contact with any Feds. Asked guys at the shore today and while they all beach fished and trout fished none knew anything about federations.

Can you give us an idiot's guide and explain the pros and coins of fed membership? Thanks.

Individual anglers dont join feds. Clubs affiliate to fedsto represent their views, obtain cheap insurance and partake in fed national and international competitions.
You would expect expect that there would be 5 different feds with one representing each of the following trout, salmon, pike, coarse and sea. However because of splits we have 2 salmon, 2 trout, 2 coarse, 2 sea and 1 pike
I am chairman of the pike fed. Below is the link to our website. We have a message board which you can access by clicking on the news and forum tab
http://www.angling-in-ireland.com/

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Thanks for the clarity but most anglers are members of clubs just because they have to be to fish certain waters. They are not active and certainly not really represented by any federation reps. Perhaps we should be more involved but most just want to get out fishing.

jkchambers

Harrison Obedient Cutoffs wrote: »

Thanks for the clarity but most anglers are members of clubs just because they have to be to fish certain waters. They are not active and certainly not really represented by any federation reps. Perhaps we should be more involved but most just want to get out fishing.

A lot more trout and salmon anglers would be members of clubs in order to fish club controlled waters. That is not the case with pike, coarse and sea anglers whose clubs rarely control fishing waters

jimmymcg

just had a look at http://www.angling-in-ireland.com/ .. the first thing i notice on your websight is 'becoming a waterkeeper' .

It is very clear to me from reading different forums that most (not all ) anglers are totally out of touch with how to handle guarding our waters. i read on another forum last year of non nationals in the midlands getting fined 4000 in court, and someone said that their car should have been seized also. I am best friends with a garda, and asked him. he said that small items should be seized for evidence, while cars ect can be seized, it would be ridiculous to do so.the judges hand them back after the case,and rarely confiscate them... This is why I am totally against 'water-keepers'. This english system is not the way to go in Ireland. People campaigning for more state staff would be more productive, not trying to undermine them, by creating a reserve.

Regarding a licence, I will be campaigning against it. It is not necessary. Very little money is needed to fund fishery protection in the grand scheme of things. Its one of the last things we have free in the country.long may it continue.

Allround Predator

Personally I would lobby against the introduction of a charge or rod licence! I am a course and pike angler and I feel that very little money would be put back if at all into course fishing in my area.

I live in Dublin city center and the Royal canal is just 3 minutes from my house yet I haven't fish it since I was a kid. The royal canal is totally neglected all the way from the city center up past Broom bridge, it is an awful waste, I would love to be able fish down there on some evenings after work but there are no fish in it. If I want to go fishing I have to get a train or go to some fishery. As I see it, it costs me enough money to go fishing as it is, when there's a perfectly good canal down the road from me but the fishery's board chooses to neglect it because of were it is!

Me and many other anglers from the city center have made numerous attempt's to have the fishery board stock up the canal between the North Strand and Broom Bridge over the years but they insist on fobbing us off every time!

This new legislation should cover all areas from the Shannon to the Liffey to the Grand canal to a little stretch of canal in the city center. All areas, only then would it get my support!!...

jkchambers

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Natural/Inland+Fisheries/Latest+News/

jkchambers

It appears that all the Federations , apart from one, now support the idea of a compulsory angler registration charge where 100% of the funds raised will go into a ringfenced kitty to be spent on the likes of protection, development, youth etc and where anglers have a major say on what projects etc gets funded.
Individuals, clubs and federations have until 28th June to make submissions on what they would like to see in the fisheries legislation.

mattcullen

jkchambers wrote: »

It appears that all the Federations , apart from one, now support the idea of a compulsory angler registration charge where 100% of the funds raised will go into a ringfenced kitty to be spent on the likes of protection, development, youth etc and where anglers have a major say on what projects etc gets funded.
Individuals, clubs and federations have until 28th June to make submissions on what they would like to see in the fisheries legislation.

Thanks for the update. Do you know was it the sea anglers who voted against the charge? If so I can understand why..How could the government charge anglers to 'protect' and 'develop' a fishery which they actively endorse the destruction of through overfishing? It's nuts. Maybe the rivers and lakes are a different story but I don't think the charge should apply to sea anglers and would like to make a submission along those lines.

Would you know how to go about making a submission?

Thanks again for posting

jkchambers

mattcullen wrote: »

Thanks for the update. Do you know was it the sea anglers who voted against the charge? If so I can understand why..How could the government charge anglers to 'protect' and 'develop' a fishery which they actively endorse the destruction of through overfishing? It's nuts. Maybe the rivers and lakes are a different story but I don't think the charge should apply to sea anglers and would like to make a submission along those lines.

Would you know how to go about making a submission?

Thanks again for posting

As far as I know TAFI are the only ones against.
Here is a link to info on the Dept`s website. It shows where you can send your submission

Zzippy

jkchambers wrote: »

As far as I know TAFI are the only ones against.
Here is a link to info on the Dept`s website. It shows where you can send your submission

Are IFSA in favour?

mattcullen

jkchambers wrote: »

As far as I know TAFI are the only ones against.
Here is a link to info on the Dept`s website. It shows where you can send your submission

Thanks, submission e-mailed

EmptyTree

I don't think this has been asked yet, apologies if it has, but if licence fee money is to be ring fenced for our sport, will that see an equal reduction in funding given by the government to the various bodies that currently manage the environs in which we fish?

In other words, are we sure this isn't just a stelth tax that we won't see any benefit from at all??

jkchambers

EmptyTree wrote: »

I don't think this has been asked yet, apologies if it has, but if licence fee money is to be ring fenced for our sport, will that see an equal reduction in funding given by the government to the various bodies that currently manage the environs in which we fish?

In other words, are we sure this isn't just a stelth tax that we won't see any benefit from at all??

I was one of 2 anglers in the Dail in 1988 when Minister Brendan Daly brought in the rod licence. At the time he estimated that it would raise Ir£600000. He quickly announced that he was cutting the State allocation to the fisheries boards by that amount.
This time the Minister has assured us that all funds raised would be for protection, development etc and that the funds raised would be kept in a separate kitty and that this would not impact on the States allocation to IFI

EmptyTree

jkchambers wrote: »

I was one of 2 anglers in the Dail in 1988 when Minister Brendan Daly brought in the rod licence. At the time he estimated that it would raise Ir£600000. He quickly announced that he was cutting the State allocation to the fisheries boards by that amount.

That's my fear :mad:

jkchambers wrote: »

This time the Minister has assured us that all funds raised would be for protection, development etc and that the funds raised would be kept in a separate kitty and that this would not impact on the States allocation to IFI

Great news if that's the case, thanks for that - Lets hope the Government keep to their word.

nc13

I am only able to get out and fish a few times a year (4 or 5 times) due to other commitments. If a licence or yearly fee comes in, this will force people like me away from fishing.