Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

licence confusion

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.:)


  • Options
    #33
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭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??


  • Options
    #34
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭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... :)


  • Options
    #35
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Mr Bumble
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    Mr Bumble
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #40
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    stylie
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #44
    stylie
    Registered Users Posts: 689 ✭✭✭stylie


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


  • Options
    #45
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


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


  • Options
    #46
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #47
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #48
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #51
    patgmail
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40 ✭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.;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    madred006
    Registered Users Posts: 631 ✭✭✭madred006


    As the details are not near ready to be published yet no one can say what exactly is ahead of us , but as far as I know this is an extra add on.Those of us fishing for Salmon and sea trout will continue to require a state licence to do so . My biggest fear is that it will put an end to many clubs throughout the country who do great work keeping rivers clean and carrying out essential work to maintain the areas in a correct manner .


  • Options
    #53
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭danbrosnan


    I dont know where people are getting this over emphasis on salmon fishing... The state only runs a hand full of state fisheries the rest are left to wreak and ruin... The big rivers have clubs that run them not the state...

    If you were to look at the accounts, i bet you that the cost of running the protection of course and sea areas runs just as much as the salmon costs...

    Sea bass are a saltwater fish and the money spent every year on them is massive, the very same is the course angling which is huge...

    Yes even if you just fish for a couple of days a year you should have to pay because the fish you catch are a commodity to the country, which money has been spent on, in research, protection etc...

    It will happen in my opinion, it has to happen...

    Most anglers i meet and i meet alot are all for it, sea anglers want it so that they have a voice and a recognised federation...


  • Options
    #54
    madred006
    Registered Users Posts: 631 ✭✭✭madred006


    danbrosnan wrote: »
    There is some very big brown trout in the currane let me assure you...

    You are just as likely to catch a brown quicker than sea trout or salmon , people think currane is solely sea trout and salmon very much mistaken great browns in it and they love a dry fly:-).


  • Options
    #55
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    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.

    Sorry to be even more pedantic, but I think salmon and trout are more closely related than humans and orang utans. Trout and salmon can cross-breed and produce hybrids, whereas humans and orang utans cannot - at least I hope not, and I certainly hope no one has tried! :D


  • Options
    #56
    ytpe2r5bxkn0c1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32,688 ✭✭✭✭ytpe2r5bxkn0c1


    You are absolutely correct Zzippy. Genetically they are closer. I was talking in terms of classification by genus, species, family etc but you are right.


  • Options
    #57
    danbrosnan
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭danbrosnan


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Sorry to be even more pedantic, but I think salmon and trout are more closely related than humans and orang utans. Trout and salmon can cross-breed and produce hybrids, whereas humans and orang utans cannot - at least I hope not, and I certainly hope no one has tried! :D

    What you think Zzippy.... All state license for anyone using a rod and line??


  • Options
    #58
    breghall
    Registered Users Posts: 605 ✭✭✭breghall


    personally i fish because i enjoy fishing (game and sea). If a license means that stocks will get better protection and better management then I'm all for it. I hear the argument for people who go out once or twice a year but that's their choice, if you wanna golf as a hobby you pay green fees even if it's once a year.....why not fishing....?

    Anybody who enjoys their angling and wants to see it maintained, will I'm sure have no issue with paying a small fee for it.... hell it's already 100 for an all ireland licence for the salmon and sea trout licence. Surely a yearly angling licence will rule this out and so, be even cheaper, and cover all different types of angling.

    Bring in it IMO


  • Options
    #59
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    danbrosnan wrote: »
    What you think Zzippy.... All state license for anyone using a rod and line??

    As an angler I already buy a salmon licence every year, and plenty of permits and club membership money besides, but I wouldn't mind a state licence for all angling on top of that as long as it was a nominal sum that people would buy into.
    As someone who will have to enforce any new licence, I dread it - I wasn't around for the rod licence dispute in the 80s but heard enough stories - it will be a nightmare to implement.


Advertisement