licence confusion

ygolometsipe

Hi All

maybe you can help me, I have been reading the license requirement for
fishing for rainbow and brown trout here
http://www.fishinginireland.info/regulations.htm

if you see in the first section they mention.

While no licence is needed for trout, pike and coarse fishing in the Republic of Ireland, a rod licence is required in Northern Ireland. In both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, licences are required for salmon and sea trout fishing.

There is a river close to me and it has brown trout but also salmon.
So I guess I need a salmon license as I cant just catch brown trout, if a salmon bites then I am salmon fishing.

So do I need a license if the river contains salmon? Does it go by what you bag or if you catch a salmon can you just release it.

I would also like to know about lough corrib, it has the same problem as the river above ( it has salmon and trout) but its not clear to me if I need to ask someone for permission to fish there see,

"It should be noted that a licence does not confer the right to fish for salmon or sea trout and that permission or permits are required to fish most waters."

also, the little river over the road from me, whom do i need to ask permission from if anyone.

Thanks

realrebel

ygolometsipe wrote: »

Hi All

maybe you can help me, I have been reading the license requirement for
fishing for rainbow and brown trout here
http://www.fishinginireland.info/regulations.htm

if you see in the first section they mention.

While no licence is needed for trout, pike and coarse fishing in the Republic of Ireland, a rod licence is required in Northern Ireland. In both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, licences are required for salmon and sea trout fishing.

There is a river close to me and it has brown trout but also salmon.
So I guess I need a salmon license as I cant just catch brown trout, if a salmon bites then I am salmon fishing.

So do I need a license if the river contains salmon? Does it go by what you bag or if you catch a salmon can you just release it.

I would also like to know about lough corrib, it has the same problem as the river above ( it has salmon and trout) but its not clear to me if I need to ask someone for permission to fish there see,

"It should be noted that a licence does not confer the right to fish for salmon or sea trout and that permission or permits are required to fish most waters."

also, the little river over the road from me, whom do i need to ask permission from if anyone.

Thanks

You don't need to buy a license if you are fishing for brown trout even if there are salmon present
If you are fishing for trout then you will be using light gear 4lb line, small rod, small hooks not a stronger rod with 10lb line and bigger hooks and bigger lures
If you do hook a salmon it will have to be returned alive to the river

ygolometsipe

Thanks realrebel, that cleared it up.

danbrosnan

i wish it was that simple.... from experience down here in kerry its not that simple...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

danbrosnan wrote: »

i wish it was that simple.... from experience down here in kerry its not that simple...

Explain please.

danbrosnan

Well i know of two people last year fishing with light gear and been convicted of fishing for salmon without a license... also there was a case in Loch Currane in Waterville of people fishing for brown trout from the shore and been prosecuted for fishing for salmon and sea trout... If you fish the maine for example a river close to my home town, Tralee, you have to hold a license, you will be told this by everyone..... And the maine holds browns up to a 1lb in weight...

Zzippy

danbrosnan wrote: »

Well i know of two people last year fishing with light gear and been convicted of fishing for salmon without a license... also there was a case in Loch Currane in Waterville of people fishing for brown trout from the shore and been prosecuted for fishing for salmon and sea trout... If you fish the maine for example a river close to my home town, Tralee, you have to hold a license, you will be told this by everyone..... And the maine holds browns up to a 1lb in weight...

There are always two sides to every story Dan, people may have told everyone else they were fishing with light gear but the fishery officer actually found them with 10lbs line and a big bunch of worms... many people try to get away without buying a licence by saying they're only fishing for trout but then target salmon or sea trout - whether they are telling the truth or not is a judgement call of the fishery officer. If they were fined in the wrong they still have the right to refuse the fine and state their case in court.

danbrosnan

Ah come on... Its a stupid law, confusing and if people had to money or stupid pride could fight all the way to the high court...

I have talked to tackle shop owners and anglers everywhere and its a very confusing, i only had an in depth conversation with a fishery officer recently and they agreed with me...


I buy my license every year but what you are saying to me, now is that, if i fish with 4lb breaking strain and a mepps i don't need to buy one??

What about worms can you use worms without a licence??...

Salmon will take a mepps and small spinners are lethal for sea trout..

I not getting into an argument but this law is like saying you can go the river moy but only use 4lb breaking strain and only pray to god a brown trout takes the spinner...

Zzippy

danbrosnan wrote: »

Ah come on... Its a stupid law, confusing and if people had to money or stupid pride could fight all the way to the high court...

I have talked to tackle shop owners and anglers everywhere and its a very confusing, i only had an in depth conversation with a fishery officer recently and they agreed with me...


I buy my license every year but what you are saying to me, now is that, if i fish with 4lb breaking strain and a mepps i don't need to buy one??

What about worms can you use worms without a licence??...

Salmon will take a mepps and small spinners are lethal for sea trout..

I not getting into an argument but this law is like saying you can go the river moy but only use 4lb breaking strain and only pray to god a brown trout takes the spinner...

What's the alternative - have a licence for brown trout as well, and all the other species? Trout fishing is a loophole that many dishonest people exploit in the salmon licence legislation, therefore there has to be some way of determining if someone is fishing for salmon or trout. Size and type of bait, as well as strength of tackle, is one way of assessing if someone is telling the truth. What other way do you suggest? Otherwise no one would ever buy a licence, and everyone would be "trout fishing"...

danbrosnan

The alternative is simple for all Salmonidae fish you need a license... brown trout, sea trout and salmon....

Simple, no more confusion and no more bull****ting on the side of the river bank...

Thats the simple and effective thing to do, i have yet to meet a person on a river just brown trout fishing, it happens in England but thats because the industrial revolution destroyed all there fish stocks and all of there rivers hold only brown trout, obviously except rivers that are dammed etc....

I think there has to be some old law where they cant do this or something because i cant believe it hasn't been done already...

And course fish should be licensed also... There a commodity and it costs money to manage them and the money raised should be used for more protection on the marine environment which is needed badly...

I am not too sure on sea angling, which i think is a different matter but every sea angler i meet always says the would pay a fee no problem to be a part of some sort of association of sea anglers...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

danbrosnan wrote: »

, i have yet to meet a person on a river just brown trout fishing, .

Well, pleased to meet you! I and many others here fish just for Brown Trout.

danbrosnan

Boone Square Poplar wrote: »

Well, pleased to meet you! I and many others here fish just for Brown Trout.

I have many friends who fish for brown trout, i have a a lot of friends in mayo that just fish for big ferrox trout and also in wicklow but all of them buy licenses... Do you buy a license?? Where do you fish??

Do a lot of anglers not buy licences on say the big weastern lakes??? In my experience they do!!!

Lets say blessington lake in wicklow where as far as i know there is no run of sea trout or salmon then i would think a lot of them don't buy licenses...

Why are people like yourself different as brown trout are essentially in the salmon family...

There should be no difference in my opinion...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

We do not need a licence per se to fish for brown trout but we must be club members to fish the rivers controlled by the club. If we wanted to catch Salmon or sea trout then naturally we'd also need a salmon licence. This is in the north east.made you confusing permits with licences by any chance?

danbrosnan

no i am not mixing anything up, is there salmon and sea trout in the waters you fish??

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

danbrosnan wrote: »

no i am not mixing anything up, is there salmon and sea trout in the waters you fish??

Of course there are and those with licences target them. What is your point exactly?

danbrosnan

Boone Square Poplar wrote: »

Of course there are and those with licences target them. What is your point exactly?

so how would you target brown trout and not target salmon...??

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

danbrosnan wrote: »

so how would you target brown trout and not target salmon...??

Leader and flies used usually does the trick! Look, you obviously have a problem on this issue that we don't have here, so I'll leave it at that.

danbrosnan

and you dont hook sea trout on flies used for browns??

danbrosnan

my point is the law dont make sense that a fishery officer must decide on the river bank if you are fishing for browns or sea trout... thats all...

madred006

IMO the sooner the rod levy comes in the better and just hope that it's well policed by fishery officers , will sort out a lot of blokes who don't join clubs or pay anything

EmptyTree

madred006 wrote: »

IMO the sooner the rod levy comes in the better and just hope that it's well policed by fishery officers , will sort out a lot of blokes who don't join clubs or pay anything

If someone is fishing for a species that does not require a licence, on a river or lake (or even the sea) that does not require a permit, what's wrong with that?

Why do these people need to be "sorted out"?

madred006

EmptyTree wrote: »

If someone is fishing for a species that does not require a licence, on a river or lake (or even the sea) that does not require a permit, what's wrong with that?

Why do these people need to be "sorted out"?

Well what I'm saying is and it's my opinion is that a certain few people will not join local clubs and will still go and fish the rivers without putting anything back it's epidemic around here just today ,I was in woods and our club pays 500 euro a year to lease the water. Four guys fishing it and befu.,,d if the had licences nor were they members of any club but refused to leave the water and carried on fishing . And no they were Irish before anyone says anything , I pay 60 euro a year for myself and 3 kids to fish our local waters it averages out at 13 cent a day , it's maddening to see others paying nothing and still fishing it , rant over .

EmptyTree

madred006 wrote: »

Well what I'm saying is and it's my opinion is that a certain few people will not join local clubs and will still go and fish the rivers without putting anything back it's epidemic around here just today ,I was in woods and our club pays 500 euro a year to lease the water. Four guys fishing it and befu.,,d if the had licences nor were they members of any club but refused to leave the water and carried on fishing . And no they were Irish before anyone says anything , I pay 60 euro a year for myself and 3 kids to fish our local waters it averages out at 13 cent a day , it's maddening to see others paying nothing and still fishing it , rant over .

Ah ya, that's fair enough, I see your point, but I suspect that even if those guys do buy the licence they still will not pay for a day permit to fish a given stretch of river - but I guess at least something is better than nothing. Like you said in your other post, the whole thing will need to be very well policed in order for it to work.

Personally I have no particular objection to the idea of a licence so long as the cost wouldn't be prohibitive. I would be interested to hear ballpark figures when the thing progresses a bit more.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

madred006 wrote: »

Well what I'm saying is and it's my opinion is that a certain few people will not join local clubs and will still go and fish the rivers without putting anything back it's epidemic around here just today ,I was in woods and our club pays 500 euro a year to lease the water. Four guys fishing it and befu.,,d if the had licences nor were they members of any club but refused to leave the water and carried on fishing . And no they were Irish before anyone says anything , I pay 60 euro a year for myself and 3 kids to fish our local waters it averages out at 13 cent a day , it's maddening to see others paying nothing and still fishing it , rant over .

I fully appreciate the situation you describe but people are confusing licences with permits/club membership. Even if guys have a licence they need local permit to fish our stretches of water. Likewise I am a club member but do not nded a licence as I fish for Brownies only. Having a universal licence will do nothing to protect or enhance club managed waters.

madred006

EmptyTree wrote: »

Ah ya, that's fair enough, I see your point, but I suspect that even if those guys do buy the licence they still will not pay for a day permit to fish a given stretch of river - but I guess at least something is better than nothing. Like you said in your other post, the whole thing will need to be very well policed in order for it to work.

Personally I have no particular objection to the idea of a licence so long as the cost wouldn't be prohibitive. I would be interested to hear ballpark figures when the thing progresses a bit more.

Under no circumstances should it ever prohibit anyone from fishing it's a great pastime and anything that gets kids out should be encouraged , and like you said if the money raised is ring fenced for the rivers etc etc and well policed it could be a great thing . Like you I'd like to hear a few ideas of figures and what it entails at least clubs could then make submissions on it , I know that the series of meetings that were arranged were poorly attended on the whole , cheers .

danbrosnan

i just think fishing as a commodity isn't managed properly from government... It isn't anybody's fault it is the fact that nobody that cares enough and knows what they are talking about has got into government and made drastic changes... i mean we as a county should be getting 10 tens as much anglers into this country... You could travel for 3 weeks without seeing anybody luring for bass in kerry, same goes for the lakes and the rivers...

Mr Bumble

Classic example this discussion of how several people, all with hearts clearly in the right place, find a reason to fall out by simply defending their own corner. I know trout men who fish for nothing else and they are doing nothing wrong by not buying a licence. If they don't buy a permit, arses should be kicked.
However, Dan is right too. There are many who exploit the trout loophole and sea trout don't know they're not supposed to take a fly/worm/mepps meant for brownies. By taking that to its logical conclusion, I could sit all day in a boat on Currane and claim I'm fishing for browns. Oops, there's another sea trout guard, sorry about that. Don't think the IFI lads would suck that one up.
Universal angling licence is the answer. Everyone who carries a rod - end of story. Doesn't have to be huge - say 50 quid.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

50 quid??? Some of us are living on a pension, or unemployed you know. 50 on top of club membership would kill the sport.

EmptyTree

Boone Square Poplar wrote: »

50 quid??? Some of us are living on a pension, or unemployed you know. 50 on top of club membership would kill the sport.

Funny, I was just reading Mr. Bumble's post thinking that 50e would be fine (but I can completely see your side of it too), but compared to a Salmon licence (100e for all regions, 56e for just one region) 50e would be very reasonable since it would allow you to target all species.

Of course for now it's just speculation, but I wonder:
A) will it opperate in a region system like the salmon licence (it would make sense, perhaps make things a bit cheaper for those who like to stay local)
would the cost be as high as it is for an all regions salmon licence
C) will there be a juvenile / adult / OAPs graded cost for the licence (I think this would make sence too) {even though it's the juveniles and OAPs that would have the most time to go fishing!:p lucky sods}

Zzippy

If a licence was brought in to cover all angling it wouldn't need to be that expensive, €20 would be affordable, yet still bring in a large amount of revenue, and not be so expensive that people will refuse to buy it. Think of the thousands of sea, coarse, pike and trout anglers that don't currently need a licence - €20 from each would be a large amount of money...

stylie

Fishing a world renowned Salmon and Sea Trout lake like Currane with a mepps and worm then you better have a license regardless of mepps size or line breaking strain.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Some of us do not want to target salmon - even if there was any decent salmon fishing in our area. Someone who shore fishes or targets pike with an odd trip for brown trout would get very little if anything from this licence. We're not all fanatical anglers.:)

danbrosnan

Zzippy wrote: »

If a licence was brought in to cover all angling it wouldn't need to be that expensive, €20 would be affordable, yet still bring in a large amount of revenue, and not be so expensive that people will refuse to buy it. Think of the thousands of sea, coarse, pike and trout anglers that don't currently need a licence - €20 from each would be a large amount of money...

Thats exactly what i was thinking, you would have 1000's of new anglers registered... Cheaper for everyone... Why have government not taught of this??

danbrosnan

Boone Square Poplar wrote: »

Some of us do not want to target salmon - even if there was any decent salmon fishing in our area. Someone who shore fishes or targets pike with an odd trip for brown trout would get very little if anything from this licence. We're not all fanatical anglers.:)

It should be the other way around, serious anglers should pay less because what they contribute throughout the year to the economy is massive. I think its totally underestimated, tackle shops, fuel, bait...... etc...... The money spent is huge and great for the countryside and tourism...

If you wanna fish the sea, river or lake there should be some payment method... i DONT KNOW BUT WOULD SOMEONE WITH MORE WISDOM OF KNOWLEDGE TELL ME IS IT LIKE THAT IN EUROPE, I REMEMBER A GERMAN TELLING ME ONE TIME YOU NEEDED A LICENSE TO FISH ANYWHERE IN GERMANY...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

danbrosnan wrote: »

It should be the other way around, serious anglers should pay less because what they contribute throughout the year to the economy is massive. I think its totally underestimated, tackle shops, fuel, bait...... etc...... The money spent is huge and great for the countryside and tourism...

If you wanna fish the sea, river or lake there should be some payment method... i DONT KNOW BUT WOULD SOMEONE WITH MORE WISDOM OF KNOWLEDGE TELL ME IS IT LIKE THAT IN EUROPE, I REMEMBER A GERMAN TELLING ME ONE TIME YOU NEEDED A LICENSE TO FISH ANYWHERE IN GERMANY...

Hang on a minute. That argument is totally irrational. When it comes to fly fishing for brown trout, I would spend as much as anybody around here on gear and flies. Indeed, as I buy locally I contribute much more than the many I know who buy in northern Ireland and abroad via the internet. Likewise, I have as much equipment for pike fishing as those who specialise in it. Just because somebody has angling as an occasional hobby does not mean they spend less in the Irish economy. Not having any of the premier game, sea or course venues available here means we would end up paying as much for a licence as those blessed with proximity and access to the best fishing in the country. If there was a viable means of using licence money to enhance the fishing around here then it may be worth it but not for 50 quid a year on top of club memberships.

Mr Bumble

Back to the smaller rows again.....the issue here is a licence to fish, not what you fish for.
If you want to trade verbal blows over a smaller matter, carry on but the thread is about licences.
Dan speaks a lot of truth about the general picture. All anglers would need to buy into it for it to work.
I don't care how much. If everyone buys in, as has been mentioned above, the price could be kept low.
As things stand, the general burden is weighted heavily on game anglers. The game fishing licence provides a big lump of the funding for the IFI and at least some of that money is used to fund clubs and work done on brown trout and coarse fisheries. I see no sensible reason why one angler should pay and another not.
It has nothing to do with access to good waters for prized fish. The game licence simply allows you to carry a rod and gear likely to catch salmon or sea trout. It allows you to sit in a boat on Currane and fish with a mepps or a fly or a rapalla or whatever floats your boat. Paid on top of that, if you do want to fish prime water, is either a club membership or a beat payment.
It's obvious that those who currently don't pay will have a natural inclination to keep it that way and I would have serious concerns about what the clowns who run our country would do with the cash once they got their hands on it.
Take a look at British Colombia for an example of how to do it properly Dan.....http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/#Synopsis takes a bit of digging around on this site but in short, all rivers are state owned, all rivers barbless hooks for salmon and some specific species and you buy a licence extension to fish for steelhead and other named species...i think it was about C$120 to fish for the lot.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Oh don't get me wrong. I would pay a licence fee but I had difficulty with the notion from another poster that €50 was cheap. It is far from cheap for many like us pensioners. And particularly if you don't benefit from any IFI initiatives.

Mr Bumble

stylie wrote: »

Fishing a world renowned Salmon and Sea Trout lake like Currane with a mepps and worm then you better have a license regardless of mepps size or line breaking strain.

That's actually incorrect. Practically every lake with an outlet to the sea on the west coast has sea trout in it - even Corrib. You don't need a licence to fish Corrib. Technically, you don't need it to fish Currane either. It only becomes an issue legally if a fisheries officer finds fish in the boat and you've no licence.
Nobody i've met fishes Currane specifically for brownies so it never really arises.

danbrosnan

Was out fishing all night last night with 7 anglers... We were fishing for undulate ray and done very well i might add.. We had this conversation and all seven anglers agreed they would pay a license fee absolutely no bother, in fact they all supported it and actually wanted something to be done about it...

Heres the thing, within the seven people, myself and another angler where also salmon anglers and altogether the other salmon angler calculated that he has to pay out 400 euro a year before he catches a salmon... Between licenses and club fees etc.. And the sea anglers don't pay a penny other then maybe a sea angling club fee... Which is generally maybe 40 euro...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I raised this while shore fishing yesterday with 6 others. None had heard about it and all said they would not pay to sea fish. They, unlike me, were dedicated sea anglers and said they get nothing from any federations. Stocks are not managed for sea anglers and why should somebody pay to wet a line maybe 3 times a year with his kids after mackerel?
Their comments, not mine, but I see their point.

danbrosnan

Boone Square Poplar wrote: »

I raised this while shore fishing yesterday with 6 others. None had heard about it and all said they would not pay to sea fish. They, unlike me, were dedicated sea anglers and said they get nothing from any federations. Stocks are not managed for sea anglers and why should somebody pay to wet a line maybe 3 times a year with his kids after mackerel?
Their comments, not mine, but I see their point.

How you mean stocks are not managed for sea anglers, bass ban, size limits, protected species... Stocks are managed for sea anglers and laws are reenforced on behalf of taxpayers...

stylie

Mr Bumble wrote: »

That's actually incorrect. Practically every lake with an outlet to the sea on the west coast has sea trout in it - even Corrib. You don't need a licence to fish Corrib. Technically, you don't need it to fish Currane either. It only becomes an issue legally if a fisheries officer finds fish in the boat and you've no licence.
Nobody i've met fishes Currane specifically for brownies so it never really arises.

Corrib is world renowned for brown trout fishing, Currane is not. If you are fishing a lake known for its salmon and sea trout using baits that catch salmon and sea trout then you better have a license. You cant compare the two lakes. Guys that say they are only after brown trout are chancing their arm when the lake or river is stuffed with migratory species and they are using baits that catch them.

danbrosnan

stylie wrote: »

Corrib is world renowned for brown trout fishing, Currane is not. If you are fishing a lake known for its salmon and sea trout using baits that catch salmon and sea trout then you better have a license. You cant compare the two lakes. Guys that say they are only after brown trout are chancing their arm when the lake or river is stuffed with migratory species and they are using baits that catch them.

I have caught more salmon on the corrib then i have brown trout.. i buy a license every year...

stylie

So fishing for brownies on Corrib you catch more Salmon ? I wish I could have that fishing

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I get the impression Salmon anglers are looking for all others to pay a licence so it will reduce their costs.

danbrosnan

stylie wrote: »

So fishing for brownies on Corrib you catch more Salmon ? I wish I could have that fishing

i have only fished there twice and had a kelt and a fresh fish.. no brownies of any size at all.. not saying there not there if course they are... thats just my experience of the corrib...

It has to be unfair that anglers are being discriminated against because of what they fish for... In kerry all rivers are recognised as salmon and sea trout rivers so you have to buy a license no matter what, and if you wanna fish the feale you have to buy two district licenses or an all Ireland license and the feale runs into the cashen in kerry...

There has to be all Ireland license for all anglers, its the viable, most fair and simplest solution... Brown trout are the same species as salmon so the argument that people fishing for brownies are some how different to salmon anglers is completely absurd... Fish stocks all along the irish coast need to be protected and patrolled so sea anglers need funding also...

danbrosnan

stylie wrote: »

Corrib is world renowned for brown trout fishing, Currane is not. If you are fishing a lake known for its salmon and sea trout using baits that catch salmon and sea trout then you better have a license. You cant compare the two lakes. Guys that say they are only after brown trout are chancing their arm when the lake or river is stuffed with migratory species and they are using baits that catch them.

There is some very big brown trout in the currane let me assure you...

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Just for clarity Trout and Salmon are not the same species. They are the same family. Salmonidae is the family. Salmonidae is then subdivided to sub-families, genus and then species. Brown Trout as as closely related to Salmon as Humans to Orangutans.

danbrosnan

Boone Square Poplar wrote: »

Just for clarity Trout and Salmon are not the same species. They are the same family. Salmonidae is the family. Salmonidae is then subdivided to sub-families, genus and then species. Brown Trout as as closely related to Salmon as Humans to Orangutans.

We are talking about angling. Not basic science. I am well educated on environmental science, wildlife biology and angling regulations. In this country salmon and sea trout anglers are been taxed because they fish for that species. Anglers are not charged when fishing for course fish or sea angling. So that means the salmon anglers are been unfairly treated, thats common sense. To be honest, if people who care and want to build a better infrastructure around the angling community then they should be willing to pay for it. It is going to happen because bass fishing is getting so popular and course angling is hitting there own troubles with poaching etc.. The inland fishery board are acting on the care of all fish in this country not just salmon and sea trout.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Look, I just corrected an error in that they are not the same species. That's all. Pedantic I know but having spent 38 years working on environmental and wildlife management and protection I couldn't let that error pass. Pedantic I know, but it was just plain wrong.

Now continue with the case that someone catching a few mackerel with the kids each year or taking the grandchildren down to the canal should pay licence fees to pay for the over emphasis on Salmon fisheries in this country. I'm done!

patgmail

+1. I fish with my son for mackerel near our home during the summer. we might go 3 times a year during our holiday forth night. I could not justify paying a licence fee for these few mornings out. I agree that those who benefit by fisheries being stocked or waters managed for Salmon should pay and that someone here does seem to want every "hacker" in the country to pay so they can enjoy their salmon fishing at our expense. I know dozens like me who have no interest in salmon or sea bass etc.


thank you srameen for pointing out the "species" error because it threw me when I read the comment. I thought I had got it wrong but you showed me I was not losing my marbles.;)