What is coming down the line ?

madred006

Hi just back from fly fair in Galway great show and few bargains to be had . However serious talk about the new licence coming our way and lots of different theory's been proposed , does anyone have any idea what exactly is coming our way in January .

vermin99

madred006 wrote: »

Hi just back from fly fair in Galway great show and few bargains to be had . However serious talk about the new licence coming our way and lots of different theory's been proposed , does anyone have any idea what exactly is coming our way in January .

A license coming,like a rod license ? Do tell

madred006

vermin99 wrote: »

A license coming,like a rod license ? Do tell

Well most people I spoke with are of the opinion that a levy will imposed on all anglers of between 50/ 70 euro and could be commencing as early as January , few guys representing Waterford anglers were saying that This could lead to registration of boats and outboard engines .I don't know how true any of it is but nothing would surprise me , especially now that the governent realise how much money angling generates here .

Pj!

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

thefisherbuy

Is it free for under 18 teens better be!

madred006

thefisherbuy wrote: »

Is it free for under 18 teens better be!

Well that's just it , according to the guys I met and spoke too are not sure in relation to teens or the exact charges but all are positive that it will be introduced from January . Our club is affiliated to tafi and we have received no notice about it or how it is going to work .

Pj!

madred006 wrote: »

Our club is affiliated to tafi and we have received no notice about it or how it is going to work .

You can read TAFI's submission (and all other submisions) here. (TAFI p.65)

I don't think anybody fully knows what to expect as of yet.

madred006

Pj! wrote: »

You can read TAFI's submission (and all other submisions) here. (TAFI p.65)

I don't think anybody fully knows what to expect as of yet.

No that's true but it's only 5-6 weeks away and I guess what ever is introduced will not be up for discussion at this stage .

Zzippy

AFAIK this will have to be introduced via primary legislation. There is a new fisheries bill which will be published next year, at this stage only the heads of bill have been drawn up and the detail is being worked on. Its a good way away yet, so talk of January is a bit ridiculous. Maybe the following January. And I doubt it will be as high as 50-70 euro if they want people to accept it.
I was at the fly fair today too and while a lot of guys were talking about it, most seemed to be of the opinion that if the money is ring-fenced and put back into projects that benefit fish stocks/angling that they would be ok with it. Like the way the conservation stamp works with the salmon licence - the money is ring fenced and spent on projects on salmon rivers.

madred006

Zzippy wrote: »

AFAIK this will have to be introduced via primary legislation. There is a new fisheries bill which will be published next year, at this stage only the heads of bill have been drawn up and the detail is being worked on. Its a good way away yet, so talk of January is a bit ridiculous. Maybe the following January. And I doubt it will be as high as 50-70 euro if they want people to accept it.
I was at the fly fair today too and while a lot of guys were talking about it, most seemed to be of the opinion that if the money is ring-fenced and put back into projects that benefit fish stocks/angling that they would be ok with it. Like the way the conservation stamp works with the salmon licence - the money is ring fenced and spent on projects on salmon rivers.

IMO Ringfenced is a word that can be interperated many ways and I wouldn't have a problem if this were the case and the clubs were given some of the money to reinvest as it were in their local water . But will clubs suffer as a result of the levy , most clubs are down on members this year , some more than others and if a levy is introduced will it further deter people from joining local clubs , and just pay the levy . As it is there are many out there who think it's their right to fish and no licence is required ,and truth be told they probably don't on some water , it's goodwill that many clubs are based on.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

In addition, what could be ringfenced to improve the lot of pike or shore anglers who are not involved with any clubs? Will a family in summer pay a levy to take the kids after a few mackerel maybe twice while on holidays?

jkchambers

I have posted several times on this before. Last Tuesday I attended a meeting on behalf of the Irish Federation of Pike Angling Clubs (IFPAC) with the Minister and IFI on the proposed new consolidated fisheries bill. There will be a lot of legislation changes and one will probably be the introduction of a compulsory angler registration/charge. I cannot comment on other federations but IFPAC have kept our affiliated clubs up to date and have held 2 meetings of our clubs on the issue. We are sending out another club newsletter on Monday.
The heads of bill will go before the Government in December. We will be meeting the Minister again in January to go through it. The Minister has said that he will hold more public consultation meetings around the country. There is no chance of the bill becoming law for at least 6 months plus and any angler charge would probable come in in 2015.
It looks like the salmon licence and the Midland permit will go and a new charge will cover fishing for all species. I would expect the charge to be around €40 with a reduced rate for young/old and unwaged. The funds raised will be 100% ringfenced and we expect that there will be separate funds for pike, trout, coarse etc. Anglers reps would be on supervising committees. Funds would be spent on development, protection (angler reserve force) youth angling promotion etc.
There is a concern that this angler charge may result in reduced membership for clubs. This may possibly happen in the initial stages. Clubs will be able to get development grants to improve their waters and this may attract more members to join.

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

I have posted several times on this before. Last Tuesday I attended a meeting on behalf of the Irish Federation of Pike Angling Clubs (IFPAC) with the Minister and IFI on the proposed new consolidated fisheries bill. There will be a lot of legislation changes and one will probably be the introduction of a compulsory angler registration/charge. I cannot comment on other federations but IFPAC have kept our affiliated clubs up to date and have held 2 meetings of our clubs on the issue. We are sending out another club newsletter on Monday.
The heads of bill will go before the Government in December. We will be meeting the Minister again in January to go through it. The Minister has said that he will hold more public consultation meetings around the country. There is no chance of the bill becoming law for at least 6 months plus and any angler charge would probable come in in 2015.
It looks like the salmon licence and the Midland permit will go and a new charge will cover fishing for all species. I would expect the charge to be around €40 with a reduced rate for young/old and unwaged. The funds raised will be 100% ringfenced and we expect that there will be separate funds for pike, trout, coarse etc. Anglers reps would be on supervising committees. Funds would be spent on development, protection (angler reserve force) youth angling promotion etc.
There is a concern that this angler charge may result in reduced membership for clubs. This may possibly happen in the initial stages. Clubs will be able to get development grants to improve their waters and this may attract more members to join.

Firstly thanks for the update , think that if the salmon licence was to go the majority of lads probably wouldn't mind paying 40 - 50 euro charge IMO , of course you will have some who won't and that will always be the case .
Secondly if the money was Ringfenced it would be great if it was shared equally to the different clubs to do essential maintenance work and stream enhancement as is badly needed on certain rivers , and not apportioned to tourist hotspots and bigger areas .
Also like the previous poster said there will have to be some lee way for people who go on holidays and buy a few cheap set ups to fish for mackerel and the likes .But I fear that if the midland licence goes you would see Sheelin Owl and Ennell getting a greater share of the spoils and thus leaving small clubs to struggle with scraps and also a shortfall in revenue

jkchambers

I wouldnt see it shared equally between clubs but given out on a grant basis for approved projects. If say 50% of anglers paid in there would be enough to cover all projects clubs could come up with. Non club anglers may be more reluctant to pay but it should be good for progressive clubs who want to properly develop and protect their waters

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

You seem to assume all anglers are in, or have local access to clubs. Yes, we for example have a Trout and a salmon club locally, but there's no club for pike or shore anglers. These anglers just go about their business as best they can with the facilities locally. What is ringfenced for these licence payers? Talk of clubs represented or federations is all very fine when anglers have such luxuries. Do people in areas without clubs end up paying for others in more angling rich areas to benefit? I don't mean to sound negative but just trying to see why some anglers will feel hard done by in this.

rpmcmurphy

jkchambers wrote: »

Funds would be spent on development, protection (angler reserve force)

Can you elaborate on your understanding of a reserve force John? Would it be a similar scheme to the Garda reserve? Would these reserves accompany Fishery officers while performing their duties?

jkchambers

Kaliyah Stocky Self-esteem wrote: »

You seem to assume all anglers are in, or have local access to clubs. Yes, we for example have a Trout and a salmon club locally, but there's no club for pike or shore anglers. These anglers just go about their business as best they can with the facilities locally. What is ringfenced for these licence payers? Talk of clubs represented or federations is all very fine when anglers have such luxuries. Do people in areas without clubs end up paying for others in more angling rich areas to benefit? I don't mean to sound negative but just trying to see why some anglers will feel hard done by in this.

I did not assume that at all. I did mention that non club anglers may be more reluctant to pay. In IFPAC we are more concerned about protection and youth than development as pike thrive on neglected waters. We are trying to get more clubs established around the country and will give every assistance to anglers trying to set up a club

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

I wouldnt see it shared equally between clubs but given out on a grant basis for approved projects. If say 50% of anglers paid in there would be enough to cover all projects clubs could come up with. Non club anglers may be more reluctant to pay but it should be good for progressive clubs who want to properly develop and protect their waters

This is where the fun begins then , what will the criteria be for getting grants accepted ,and a small club will have no chance against the bigger ones , ie grant to carry out stream work on Sheelin or stream work on barrow , Sheelin will win every time . And the smaller clubs will cease to exist after a year or two .

jkchambers

rpmcmurphy wrote: »

Can you elaborate on your understanding of a reserve force John? Would it be a similar scheme to the Garda reserve? Would these reserves accompany Fishery officers while performing their duties?

This is all still being developed. The current section 294 waterkeeper system has had its day. What is now being looked at is an angler reserve force which will be appointed, trained and monitored by Inland Fisheries Ireland. These trained and maybe uniformed anglers would work closely with IFI staff. As I wrote above the proposal is at drawing board stage.

madred006

I have funny feeling and people might laugh but this is a stepping stone to bigger charges and IMO they will impose further charges down the line like boat licence and engine certs . Watch this space . As for reserve force why would you want to do a job on voluntary basis when person beside you has big wage and benifits like sick pay etc .Full time jobs are what's needed or even temporary ones with some security involved if things did go wrong.

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

This is where the fun begins then , what will the criteria be for getting grants accepted ,and a small club will have no chance against the bigger ones , ie grant to carry out stream work on Sheelin or stream work on barrow , Sheelin will win every time . And the smaller clubs will cease to exist after a year or two .

The whole thing is still being developed. There will be no question of bigger clubs getting their way. Recently IFI made 50 grand available under the Midland Fund and clubs in the permit areas on Suck , Inny, Brosna etc could apply and that included the clubs on Sheelin, Derravaragh etc. A small pike club on the Inny, the Inny Legan Anglers club, got the biggest grant to erect footbridges and stiles along several miles of the Inny. They got over 10 grand.

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

The whole thing is still being developed. There will be no question of bigger clubs getting their way. Recently IFI made 50 grand available under the Midland Fund and clubs in the permit areas on Suck , Inny, Brosna etc could apply and that included the clubs on Sheelin, Derravaragh etc. A small pike club on the Inny, the Inny Legan Anglers club, got the biggest grant to erect footbridges and stiles along several miles of the Inny. They got over 10 grand.

That's great but not been bad or anything that was then and as you say it's only in draft stage . However what will happen to those who don't pay and have never paid for anything , there are no resources to police the rivers at the moment.

rpmcmurphy

madred006 wrote: »

I have funny feeling and people might laugh but this is a stepping stone to bigger charges and IMO they will impose further charges down the line like boat licence and engine certs . Watch this space . As for reserve force why would you want to do a job on voluntary basis when person beside you has big wage and benifits like sick pay etc .Full time jobs are what's needed or even temporary ones with some security involved if things did go wrong.

I agree madred006. Why would someone want to carry out duties for nothing. Fisheries protection, i would imagine, can be at times a hostile profession. Surely an investment towards full-time staff would be the way forward. I know of fishery protection officers who have worked several successive fixed-term contracts on an annual basis with no prospect of full time work looming. Surely a reserve force operating for free would undermine individuals such as these.

In my opinion one of the main flaws of the S294 Waterkeepers system was over zealous individuals drunk on the power of their appointment. Pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Don't even offer a single peanut and you get...........

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

That's great but not been bad or anything that was then and as you say it's only in draft stage . However what will happen to those who don't pay and have never paid for anything , there are no resources to police the rivers at the moment.

That grant for the Inny Anglers was only a few months ago.
There are around 700 to 900 anglers in the country who have been appointed waterkeepers under section 294. There are lots of anglers who want to help protect our fisheries. IFI will not be allowed appoint new staff or replace retiring staff. Us anglers have to step up and fill the gap. I would see some of the angler charge money being spent on training volunteers to become part of the angler reserve force. They would patrol and complete report sheets and get reimbursed for fuel. It could be that part of their duties would involve checking anglers to make sure that they have contributed. I would imagine that anyone caught fishing without having paid would get an on the spot fine.
Either we are going to be serious about protecting and developing our waters or we throw our hat at it and let the poachers, polluters etc have their way. If we want the former we all have to put our hands in our pockets like they do everywhere else.

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

That grant for the Inny Anglers was only a few months ago.
There are around 700 to 900 anglers in the country who have been appointed waterkeepers under section 294. There are lots of anglers who want to help protect our fisheries. IFI will not be allowed appoint new staff or replace retiring staff. Us anglers have to step up and fill the gap. I would see some of the angler charge money being spent on training volunteers to become part of the angler reserve force. They would patrol and complete report sheets and get reimbursed for fuel. It could be that part of their duties would involve checking anglers to make sure that they have contributed. I would imagine that anyone caught fishing without having paid would get an on the spot fine.
Either we are going to be serious about protecting and developing our waters or we throw our hat at it and let the poachers, polluters etc have their way. If we want the former we all have to put our hands in our pockets like they do everywhere else.

While I agree with what you say it does not make sense to expect ordinary anglers to fill in the gaps exposed by ifi . We have to two water keepers appointed in our club we give them 250 a year for expenses petrol and phone credit which I believe they entitled to . However this year one of them got severly abused to the point that the guards were called but didn't show up , and only for 3 anglers that came to his aid he was going to be threw in river . This compared to some one who has state job with pension and sick pay if things do go wrong is a no brainier . Fishery officers were rang about poaching on ennel and response was they haven't petrol for the boat .
Angling for me is a leisure pursuit that I greatly enjoy and I don't see why I should have to confront anyone about permits or the likes . IMO we have too many agencies in this country and some are just intrested in competitions and the likes , instead of coming together and forming one strong body with people like jk to represent the pike anglers and come to some arrangement that benifits all anglers .

Geomy

I remember the last rod licence fiasco, and they can still shove it...

Hill walker's will be hit next. ...

flyfish anywhere

Geomy wrote: »

I remember the last rod licence fiasco, and they can still shove it...

Hill walker's will be hit next. ...

It didnt go down too well last time alright!

madred006

flyfish anywhere wrote: »

It didnt go down too well last time alright!

It could be coming again IMO .

Zzippy

Interesting - "no rod licence - no fish farms - no pollution". Two of those things have gotten worse since then, I wonder if anglers were more vocal about fish farms and pollution back then would our rivers and fish stocks be in a better state now?

Pappa Charlie

Zzippy wrote: »

Interesting - "no rod licence - no fish farms - no pollution". Two of those things have gotten worse since then, I wonder if anglers were more vocal about fish farms and pollution back then would our rivers and fish stocks be in a better state now?

It was a political football at the time, ironically it's the opposition at the time Fine Gael and labour who are now going to bring it in. I wonder will their supporters be so anti rod licence this time! It's just another tax and will go into the big black hole, a few token projects and then more taxes ands legislation and then a ban on fishing altogether, smell the coffee folks!

jkchambers

There are a couple of major differences between 1988 and now
1. This time all the federations apart from TAFI are requesting it and the Minister is only acting on this. TAFI want a voluntary contribution system. We had that in the Co-ops after the rod licence dispute and anglers proved then that only a handful were prepared to actually make a small contribution.
2. In 1988 when Minister Daly brought in the rod licence he immediately reduced the State allocation to the fisheries boards by the amount he thought it would raise. I think it was Ir£600,000
3. This time the funds raised will be 100% ringfenced for angling development, protection and youth activities and anglers will have a major say over the allocation of these funds.
4. The Minister has already held 5 public meetings around the country seeking anglers views on what should go in the new fisheries consolidated act. When we have draft legislation in January he said that he is willing to go around the country to listen to anglers views again. We never had consultation on fisheries legislation like this before.

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

There are a couple of major differences between 1988 and now
1. This time all the federations apart from TAFI are requesting it and the Minister is only acting on this. TAFI want a voluntary contribution system. We had that in the Co-ops after the rod licence dispute and anglers proved then that only a handful were prepared to actually make a small contribution.
2. In 1988 when Minister Daly brought in the rod licence he immediately reduced the State allocation to the fisheries boards by the amount he thought it would raise. I think it was Ir£600,000
3. This time the funds raised will be 100% ringfenced for angling development, protection and youth activities and anglers will have a major say over the allocation of these funds.
4. The Minister has already held 5 public meetings around the country seeking anglers views on what should go in the new fisheries consolidated act. When we have draft legislation in January he said that he is willing to go around the country to listen to anglers views again. We never had consultation on fisheries legislation like this before.

I'm not for one minute doubting you but it's my belief that it's a means of getting in more revenue and this magic word Ringfenced never really works out ,our rivers or the bigger percentage are in deplorable state and clubs hands are tied through red tape , they now expect ordinary anglers to go out and do ifi work patrolling rivers for nothing .As for stocking lakes rivers etc etc or filling a hole in governent coffers I know which will be done every time . Consultation is good but if it's not taken on board it's pure useless .

madred006

Would I be wrong in thinking that the money raised by this levy would finance ifi and relieve the governent of another bill .

flyfish anywhere

Even if the Government say that all the money will go back into angling its pretty obvious even going by this thread alone that alot of people wont believe them....its hard to win. Then again they have earned that reputation.

Zzippy

The only previous mention of ring-rencing in fisheries was in relation to the salmon conservation fund. Essentially this was a new levy, as it doubled the price of the salmon licence. But 100% of the extra levy has been ring-fenced, and is spent on projects on salmon rivers. Clubs are invited to apply for this funding and the money has been allocated to projects all around the country.
The midlands fisheries fund is also ring-fenced, and the money spent on projects in that area.
If the new "levy" or whatever it will be called, is guaranteed to be ring-fenced and put back into angling/conservation, then I'll have no problem with it. That was also the prevailing attitude at those I spoke to over the weekend at the fly fair, so it seems to be a view held by many others.

madred006

Zzippy wrote: »

The only previous mention of ring-rencing in fisheries was in relation to the salmon conservation fund. Essentially this was a new levy, as it doubled the price of the salmon licence. But 100% of the extra levy has been ring-fenced, and is spent on projects on salmon rivers. Clubs are invited to apply for this funding and the money has been allocated to projects all around the country.
The midlands fisheries fund is also ring-fenced, and the money spent on projects in that area.
If the new "levy" or whatever it will be called, is guaranteed to be ring-fenced and put back into angling/conservation, then I'll have no problem with it. That was also the prevailing attitude at those I spoke to over the weekend at the fly fair, so it seems to be a view held by many others.

And to those not eligible to apply ,there is nothing else ,hardly seems fair on the smaller stand alone clubs throughout the country .

flyfish anywhere

madred006 wrote: »

And to those not eligible to apply ,there is nothing else ,hardly seems fair on the smaller stand alone clubs throughout the country .

Exactly, this will be the problem trying to get everyone on board with it.

okedoke

If it was set at a reasonable amount I'd generally be in favour, with some concerns.
- If work is done in the future to benefit trout, course and sea fishing then those who partake in those sports (including me) should pay for that work as salmon/sea trout anglers do currently.
- if the funds are ringfenced for the IFI/other angling spending then angling will be less vulnerable to budget cuts in the future. There's many years of brutal budgets to come and cutting government funding for angling will look very tempting.
- if one licence covers all types of fishing then it will encourage people to try their hand at salmon/sea trout fishing, who would have been put off by the cost of the licence before.

I'd have two main concerns
- I'd hate to see this affecting kids mackeral fishing during the summer. This is how I started fishing and if I (or even my dad) had to buy a licence before ever trying fishing it might have discouraged us from starting.
- It will only work if properly enforced, people are going to get very p****d off if they pay and lots of others don't.

madred006

okedoke wrote: »

If it was set at a reasonable amount I'd generally be in favour, with some concerns.
- If work is done in the future to benefit trout, course and sea fishing then those who partake in those sports (including me) should pay for that work as salmon/sea trout anglers do currently.
- if the funds are ringfenced for the IFI/other angling spending then angling will be less vulnerable to budget cuts in the future. There's many years of brutal budgets to come and cutting government funding for angling will look very tempting.
- if one licence covers all types of fishing then it will encourage people to try their hand at salmon/sea trout fishing, who would have been put off by the cost of the licence before.

I'd have two main concerns
- I'd hate to see this affecting kids mackeral fishing during the summer. This is how I started fishing and if I (or even my dad) had to buy a licence before ever trying fishing it might have discouraged us from starting.
- It will only work if properly enforced, people are going to get very p****d off if they pay and lots of others don't.

Agree about the kids and nothing should ever get in the way of a child getting a chance to fish (whichever method he prefers) but as you say about enforcement I don't believe that the resources are there to police it .And training a reserve force to do the enforcement won't work they will be abused and laughed at as are many if the voluntary water keepers at present .

Pappa Charlie

madred006 wrote: »

Agree about the kids and nothing should ever get in the way of a child getting a chance to fish (whichever method he prefers) but as you say about enforcement I don't believe that the resources are there to police it .And training a reserve force to do the enforcement won't work they will be abused and laughed at as are many if the voluntary water keepers at present .

Just wondering if anyone knows what's in force in the UK or are we the first to introduce such a tax?

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

Would I be wrong in thinking that the money raised by this levy would finance ifi and relieve the governent of another bill .

It will not finance IFI and IFI`s gov allocation will not suffer because of the introduction of the charge. So the Minister has assured us.

jkchambers

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone knows what's in force in the UK or are we the first to introduce such a tax?

You pay licences in most if not all EU countries. It is not a tax but an angler contribution to be spent by other anglers on development , protection etc

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

And to those not eligible to apply ,there is nothing else ,hardly seems fair on the smaller stand alone clubs throughout the country .

The kitty will be open to ALL angling clubs to apply for funding, not just those affiliated to federations.

jkchambers

Zzippy wrote: »

The only previous mention of ring-rencing in fisheries was in relation to the salmon conservation fund. Essentially this was a new levy, as it doubled the price of the salmon licence. But 100% of the extra levy has been ring-fenced, and is spent on projects on salmon rivers. Clubs are invited to apply for this funding and the money has been allocated to projects all around the country.
The midlands fisheries fund is also ring-fenced, and the money spent on projects in that area.
If the new "levy" or whatever it will be called, is guaranteed to be ring-fenced and put back into angling/conservation, then I'll have no problem with it. That was also the prevailing attitude at those I spoke to over the weekend at the fly fair, so it seems to be a view held by many others.

I believe the salmon conservation fund works well and I know an angler
on the committee and he is very happy with its operation.
Actually the Midland fund isnt ringfenced.

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

You pay licences in most if not all EU countries. It is not a tax but an angler contribution to be spent by other anglers on development , protection etc

We or some of us pay licences here and join clubs for example I am member of several clubs and don't mind paying to fish them but what I am opposed to is having to pay a levy on top of all this . As has been said ifi don't have the resources to patrol all waters or to develop streams and rivers in all areas , and now they want to train up water keepers to do their job for nothing ,this is a stumbling block IMO .I pay 10 euro a child and 30 for myself to fish our local water and it's mainly a goodwill gesture because really we don't need a licence . Now that a new levy is been introduced many will just buy it and fish away ,where will this leave clubs .

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

We or some of us pay licences here and join clubs for example I am member of several clubs and don't mind paying to fish them but what I am opposed to is having to pay a levy on top of all this . As has been said ifi don't have the resources to patrol all waters or to develop streams and rivers in all areas , and now they want to train up water keepers to do their job for nothing ,this is a stumbling block IMO .I pay 10 euro a child and 30 for myself to fish our local water and it's mainly a goodwill gesture because really we don't need a licence . Now that a new levy is been introduced many will just buy it and fish away ,where will this leave clubs .

If you dont join the club it means that they have less to spend on developing the water. However they can apply for grant aid from the kitty.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Again I come back to the guys who don't have clubs or serious fishing locations available. A few small lakes in one area have a few pike that people enjoy spending a few hours fishing during the winter. They rarely catch anything. Likewise the coast around here offers little in the way of fishing success but guys enjoy the day out and the bit of chat and banter. No amount of ringfenced funds will improve this fishing for them. What are they paying a licence for?
I don't mind paying the club fees to fish the small brown trout stream here as my focus is primarily fly fishing but many I know don't and they have said they don't see the point of a fee for their activity except as another tax. To say federations asked for this is amazing to be honest as many anglers are not represented by or even aware of these federations. I raised this issue when shore fishing during the summer and not one person I met (none bashers) knew anything about the up coming fee or what clubs or federations porported to speak for them.

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

If you dont join the club it means that they have less to spend on developing the water. However they can apply for grant aid from the kitty.

We are infested with dace waiting 7 years for essential stream enhancement and just this year we get letter from ifi asking us as a club to get permission off the landowners for them to work on river . Still no further on we put 3 small stone barriers across a slow stretch of river and 3 days later told to remove them . This should be sorted out first and then introduce a levy that everyone can access funds from , appoint more staff in ifi and get them to get their act together .

madred006

Kaliyah Stocky Self-esteem wrote: »

Again I come back to the guys who don't have clubs or serious fishing locations available. A few small lakes in one area have a few pike that people enjoy spending a few hours fishing during the winter. They rarely catch anything. Likewise the coast around here offers little in the way of fishing success but guys enjoy the day out and the bit of chat and banter. No amount of ringfenced funds will improve this fishing for them. What are they paying a licence for?
I don't mind paying the club fees to fish the small brown trout stream here as my focus is primarily fly fishing but many I know don't and they have said they don't see the point of a fee for their activity except as another tax. To say federations asked for this is amazing to be honest as many anglers are not represented by or even aware of these federations. I raised this issue when shore fishing during the summer and not one person I met (none bashers) knew anything about the up coming fee or what clubs or federations porported to speak for them.

Federations ain't all they are cracked up to be I don't even think tafi have representitive on the angling council , I could be mistaken

Zzippy

madred006 wrote: »

We are infested with dace waiting 7 years for essential stream enhancement and just this year we get letter from ifi asking us as a club to get permission off the landowners for them to work on river . Still no further on we put 3 small stone barriers across a slow stretch of river and 3 days later told to remove them . This should be sorted out first and then introduce a levy that everyone can access funds from , appoint more staff in ifi and get them to get their act together .

The long wait is because IFI simply don't have the funds or staff to do all the work that needs doing. That would be the point of the levy, so clubs can access funds and do the work themselves. But you want them to put the cart before the horse - sort out what needs doing first (with what resources?) and then introduce the levy? And there is zero chance of more staff in IFI - like most state agencies they have to shed more staff to get down to a target staffing level set by the department of finance.

madred006

Zzippy wrote: »

The long wait is because IFI simply don't have the funds or staff to do all the work that needs doing. That would be the point of the levy, so clubs can access funds and do the work themselves. But you want them to put the cart before the horse - sort out what needs doing first (with what resources?) and then introduce the levy? And there is zero chance of more staff in IFI - like most state agencies they have to shed more staff to get down to a target staffing level set by the department of finance.

I fully understand the point of the levy , I'm just highlighting one of many faults with ifi at the moment , and I'm not putting Cart before the horse , but what your saying is the levy will basically subsidise the ifi and I don't see the point of it been subsidised when it's not working. And as I have said I don't see the point in asking ordinary anglers police rivers for nothing when ifi staff are been paid for the same duties . The majority of anglers are into it as a hobbie and enjoyable pastime , I'm sure they don't want to go down the river on Sunday and be asking people for levies or licences .