Angler Licence Fee Poll

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

In response to this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056936033

Do you agree with an angler registration fee?

patgmail

Neutral

Count me out for one. I struggle to afford my fishing as it is.

breghall

No

i have no issue with it so long as I don't have to pay again for mysalmon/trout licence..

realrebel

breghall wrote: »

i have no issue with it so long as I don't have to pay again for mysalmon/trout licence..

Same as breghall don't want to have to pay for two

viper123

No

realrebel wrote: »

Same as breghall don't want to have to pay for two

I disagree with that statement 100%, the reason being that salmon fishing is somewhat controlled and maintained by the fact that you need to get a specific licence do do it, wrapping it up in one overall licence will see the end of salmon in Ireland as you'll have every angler in the country fishing for them.

madred006

No

realrebel wrote: »

Same as breghall don't want to have to pay for two

Same as

Nedser101

Will not pay

Zzippy

Two sides to the argument.

As a salmon angler, I often wonder why I have to pay the State for my fishing, and all the trout/pike/coarse/sea anglers don't have to pay a penny to the State.

As a regular sea angler also, I see fish stocks falling all the time, and the State facilitating overfishing by commercial fishermen, and I wonder why the hell would I pay for that....

demanufactured

Neutral

Zzippy wrote: »

Two sides to the argument.

As a salmon angler, I often wonder why I have to pay the State for my fishing, and all the trout/pike/coarse/sea anglers don't have to pay a penny to the State.

As a regular sea angler also, I see fish stocks falling all the time, and the State facilitating overfishing by commercial fishermen, and I wonder why the hell would I pay for that....

Pike and coarse fished are not taken care of Like salmon are...

EireIceMan

Neutral

Its hard to give a solid answer. We dont know enough about it yet.
I voted 'No' anyway because with everything else in this country, we'll be the ones screwed at the end

Macy0161

I have to go neutral for now. I have no problem in principal with a licence, once money from the different sections is ring fenced and so coarse fishing is properly protected and developed. I would 100% oppose it if it all went in a central pot, and then be spent almost entirely on Game fishing.

Zzippy

demanufactured wrote: »

Pike and coarse fished are not taken care of Like salmon are...

In what way are salmon "taken care of" better than pike or coarse fish?

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Zzippy wrote: »

In what way are salmon "taken care of" better than pike or coarse fish?

well they are not culled my IFI for a start.

Im not too sure what to make of the angler contribution. In theory, its a good idea, as it will give more money to IFI who are pretty much broke. I just hope the money is used correctly

Zzippy

Achilles Breezy Abscess wrote: »

well they are not culled my IFI for a start.

Fair enough, although that only happens in a handful of game fisheries, and pike are not culled in hundreds of other fisheries. Pike are also culled in those few fisheries in order to boost numbers of wild trout - so its nothing to do with salmon. Trout anglers don't pay a licence either.

In what other way are salmon given preferential treatment?

jkchambers

No

Before you vote you should be aware of what iis proposed. Below is what IFPAC have submitted which is more or less in line with what several other federations have proposed. This is the submission re new legislation and the proposed angler registration is part of that

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Neutral

€40? Good God! That's an awful lot on top of club membership and just the ongoing costs of the hobby. I might just take up golf

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

John, I wanted to ask this at the meeting in Lucan, do you know what the future is for the Suck/Inny permit? Im assuming it will be scrapped if the angler contribution is introduced?

jkchambers

No

Achilles Breezy Abscess wrote: »

John, I wanted to ask this at the meeting in Lucan, do you know what the future is for the Suck/Inny permit? Im assuming it will be scrapped if the angler contribution is introduced?

Thats what we want

bayliner

Neutral

I won't pay it

Zzippy

bayliner wrote: »

I won't pay it

As a matter of interest, for those who say they won't pay it: Did you pay the household charge? Or the property tax? Government is going to be making us pay for everything in the future, water charges, etc., so if this is introduced there will probably be no way to avoid it if we want to fish. I held out on the HHC until it was inevitable I'd have to pay whether I wanted to or not, paid the property tax (grudgingly) and have no doubt I'll pay a charge to fish if that's the only way I'll get to pursue my hobby...

yubabill1

Neutral

Zzippy wrote: »

Government is going to be making us pay for everything in the future, water charges, etc., ...

you probably don't remember the 70% income tax rate FG imposed in the 80s. Bend over a little more.....

bayliner

Neutral

there will be another rod license dispute if this is brought in!! we will fight it with or without ye!!

danbrosnan

No

I am all for it if it done right, which I fear it won't be....

madchild

Neutral

danbrosnan wrote: »

I am all for it if it done right, which I fear it won't be....

Why are ya all for it then when ya know damn rightly they,ll make a mess of it like everything else if it ain,t broke ...........

jkchambers

No

madchild wrote: »

Why are ya all for it then when ya know damn rightly they,ll make a mess of it like everything else if it ain,t broke ...........

if it aint broke
Well its heading that way.
The number of IFI protection and development staff is down around 30% on what it was a few years ago and staff numbers will drop more. None are being replaced. Who is going to protect and develop our waters
Due to anti social behaviour access to more and more rivers and lakes (coarse) is being closed off by landowners
We have lots of cowboys out there netting and fishing illegally
We , the anglers , need to come on board more to protect and develop our fisheries.
If the angler registration contribution system does come in the funds collected will be 100% ringfenced and will be spent on protection, development, youth angling etc. All things that most of us would like to see done.

yubabill1

Neutral

There is no such thing as ringfencing.

All it takes is a new government and everything is up for grabs.

When gun licences were introduced in the early '70s, the money was ringfenced for gun club projects.

It was cut over and over until they stopped all funds from the licence in 1985.

Of course, the prospect of funds to administer was very attractive to the shooting organisations.

Yuba.

Zzippy

yubabill1 wrote: »

There is no such thing as ringfencing.

All it takes is a new government and everything is up for grabs.

When gun licences were introduced in the early '70s, the money was ringfenced for gun club projects.

It was cut over and over until they stopped all funds from the licence in 1985.

Of course, the prospect of funds to administer was very attractive to the shooting organisations.

Yuba.

Currently, 50% of the salmon licence is ringfenced, and has paid for a lot of habitat improvement work on salmon rivers in the last few years, as well as installation of fish counters to monitor runs. Not saying you're wrong, but ringfencing can work, and currently does.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Zzippy wrote: »

Currently, 50% of the salmon licence is ringfenced, and has paid for a lot of habitat improvement work on salmon rivers in the last few years, as well as installation of fish counters to monitor runs. Not saying you're wrong, but ringfencing can work, and currently does.

this is the only reason I'm in favor of the contribution. There are many coarse lakes within 30 mins from me, with stands that are too dangerous to fish. One lake had 30 stands build around 10-12 years ago, only 9 or 10 are safe to fish off at the moment. There are lots of lakes like this around the country, it wont take much money to fix them, but currently IFI has no money to do it.

These development projects get done for salmon angling, because the salmon anglers are putting money towards it.

I just hope that the money for coarse/pike will be ringfenced, and spent on coarse/pike projects.

danbrosnan

No

madchild wrote: »

Why are ya all for it then when ya know damn rightly they,ll make a mess of it like everything else if it ain,t broke ...........

Something has to change... there too much bull****ting going on with regards to course and sea fishing, its a free for all because it isn't licensed, the thing about goverment and sites like this, is that its all just opinions, actions speak louder then words...

People need to take our fisheries departments and really do a shake up, change the whole mentality... More ambition is needed and i fear it be a long long time before that happens...

WE JUST MIGHT DESTROY EVERYTHING BEFORE WE MAKE IT BETTER

danbrosnan

No

jkchambers wrote: »

if it aint broke
Well its heading that way.
The number of IFI protection and development staff is down around 30% on what it was a few years ago and staff numbers will drop more. None are being replaced. Who is going to protect and develop our waters
Due to anti social behaviour access to more and more rivers and lakes (coarse) is being closed off by landowners
We have lots of cowboys out there netting and fishing illegally
We , the anglers , need to come on board more to protect and develop our fisheries.
If the angler registration contribution system does come in the funds collected will be 100% ringfenced and will be spent on protection, development, youth angling etc. All things that most of us would like to see done.

Thank god, abit of reality being spoken... We all are not blindfolded

yubabill1

Neutral

Zzippy wrote: »

Currently, 50% of the salmon licence is ringfenced, and has paid for a lot of habitat improvement work on salmon rivers in the last few years, as well as installation of fish counters to monitor runs. Not saying you're wrong, but ringfencing can work, and currently does.

I see a lot of nudging and spinning going on here.

Just one other point, for anyone who can be bothered to separate the wheat from the chaff:

Water has become a valuable and scarce commodity.

Forget about a government reaching down the back of the sofa for spare change for a minute and think -

They are going to charge for water, surely they need to control who has access to a something they are making money from.

I mean, a potato farmer is not going to let you camp in his fields with a fork or shovel.

Once access is controlled, other stipulations, conditions etc. can follow in due course.

Thin end of the wedge, people?

danbrosnan

No

yubabill1 wrote: »

I see a lot of nudging and spinning going on here.

Just one other point, for anyone who can be bothered to separate the wheat from the chaff:

Water has become a valuable and scarce commodity.

Forget about a government reaching down the back of the sofa for spare change for a minute and think -

They are going to charge for water, surely they need to control who has access to a something they are making money from.

I mean, a potato farmer is not going to let you camp in his fields with a fork or shovel.

Once access is controlled, other stipulations, conditions etc. can follow in due course.

Thin end of the wedge, people?

If people think the goverment a are actually controling our water at the moment, then they are in cuckoo land...

The fishery board will have the gather more revenue anyway as they are at a loss at the moment...

Zzippy

yubabill1 wrote: »

I see a lot of nudging and spinning going on here.

Just one other point, for anyone who can be bothered to separate the wheat from the chaff:

Water has become a valuable and scarce commodity.

Forget about a government reaching down the back of the sofa for spare change for a minute and think -

They are going to charge for water, surely they need to control who has access to a something they are making money from.

I mean, a potato farmer is not going to let you camp in his fields with a fork or shovel.

Once access is controlled, other stipulations, conditions etc. can follow in due course.

Thin end of the wedge, people?

Nudging and spinning?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Neutral

I love all this talk about IFI and manageing waters. You must all live in areas with great fishing. Some of us only have access to a few small streams or totally unmanaged lakes. Many around here are not in clubs or federations and struggle to find any decent fishing within miles. Will all this ringfenced money allow for providing fishing facilities to the less well endowed areas of the country?

Caribs

yubabill1 wrote: »

I see a lot of nudging and spinning going on here.

Just one other point, for anyone who can be bothered to separate the wheat from the chaff:

Water has become a valuable and scarce commodity.

Forget about a government reaching down the back of the sofa for spare change for a minute and think -

They are going to charge for water, surely they need to control who has access to a something they are making money from.

I mean, a potato farmer is not going to let you camp in his fields with a fork or shovel.

Once access is controlled, other stipulations, conditions etc. can follow in due course.

Thin end of the wedge, people?

You raise an interesting point around the ownership of the water. As I understand it and taking Lough Corrib as my example the lake is owned by the people of Ireland and was given to us by Queen Anne (whether it was hers or not to give is a whole different discussion :-) ). I heard this in a pub discussion so may have picked up the finer points incorrectly but do think the lake isn't owned by the state per se, rather by the people.

The IFI presentation talked to seeking to establish title over the waters - who owns what. It was before my time but from talking to locals this is part of the rod licence row again in that if a government body establishes title over a stretch of water they can then impose whatever conditions they want over it. As it currently stands, rightly or wrongly anyone can fish Corrib and I think this isn't a bad thing.

The IFI do some great work but their funding has been drastically reduced and monies such as the Friends of Lough Corrib fund (Cairde Loch Corribe) can only do so much. My current club fees already go towards a number of bodies so in principle I'm not against a fee of some sort - just not happy about having to pay it on top of what I'm already paying.

danbrosnan

No

Gordon Young Signal wrote: »

I love all this talk about IFI and manageing waters. You must all live in areas with great fishing. Some of us only have access to a few small streams or totally unmanaged lakes. Many around here are not in clubs or federations and struggle to find any decent fishing within miles. Will all this ringfenced money allow for providing fishing facilities to the less well endowed areas of the country?

I completely agree with you, in fact there is unmanaged waters all around us, they everywhere, i would go far as saying possibly 80 % of our waters are not managed, i from kerry which is full of streams, rivers and lake and the vast majority are not managed... Every water course should be managed even if it only holds a few small brown trout, i know people in france who can only fish for small brown trout and they manage them waters... The government have completely mistreated the potential of irelands waters... Not just this government but every government since the start of the irish republic..