What is coming down the line ?

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 .

jkchambers

The Minister has said that he will hold more consultation meetings around the country when the draft bill is available. Why dont all you guys go along to one of these meetings and make your points. He has said that he is very open to suggestions and wants a bill that anglers as a whole will be happy with.
At the first round of consultation meetings only a tiny number of anglers bothered their ars*s to go along and air their views.

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

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

TAFI pulled out of the Angling Council around a year ago. There are still 4 strong Federations in the Angling Council who are working well together.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jkchambers wrote: »

The Minister has said that he will hold more consultation meetings around the country when the draft bill is available. Why dont all you guys go along to one of these meetings and make your points. He has said that he is very open to suggestions and wants a bill that anglers as a whole will be happy with.
At the first round of consultation meetings only a tiny number of anglers bothered their ars*s to go along and air their views.

Yes I can see an individual who fishes on his own on a stretch of shore in Louth, or on a small pond in Meath being listened to over federations porporting to represent large numbers of anglers in areas where angling draws in tourists.

I only heard about this change by reading boards. None of the others I mentioned it to had heard anything. How can they attend meetings they don't even hear about. Very few read boards.ie

jkchambers

Kaliyah Stocky Self-esteem wrote: »

Yes I can see an individual who fishes on his own on a stretch of shore in Louth, or on a small pond in Meath being listened to over federations porporting to represent large numbers of anglers in areas where angling draws in tourists.

I only heard about this change by reading boards. None of the others I mentioned it to had heard anything. How can they attend meetings they don't even hear about. Very few read boards.ie

There are several other active angling message boards where I posted notices of the meetings and they were advertised in the press. IFPAC did notify all our affiliated clubs. Not sure whether any other Fed did. I would add that it was only after these public meetings that IFPAC called a meeting of clubs and decided to support a compulsory angler contribution. We had called a meeting of clubs prior to the Ministers round of meetings and voted against at that time.

madred006

Attended meeting in nenagh first time around and like other poster said he not intrested in what anglers think it's the federations that represent us that he wants on board individuals don't count for much with any branch of govt . But I for one fail to see why we should subsidise a govt body all over again , we pay enough taxs as it is .

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

There are several other active angling message boards where I posted notices of the meetings and they were advertised in the press. IFPAC did notify all our affiliated clubs. Not sure whether any other Fed did. I would add that it was only after these public meetings that IFPAC called a meeting of clubs and decided to support a compulsory angler contribution. We had called a meeting of clubs prior to the Ministers round of meetings and voted against at that time.

I commend your organisation jk because from the beginning ye have been involved and did spread the word about the levy and have always been in close partnership with your members .Pity others weren't as free with information .

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

I commend your organisation jk because from the beginning ye have been involved and did spread the word about the levy and have always been in close partnership with your members .Pity others weren't as free with information .

Well if any more clubs want to join IFPAC they would be most welcome. At present we have just over 70 affiliated clubs which includes several prominent salmon/trout clubs some of whose members also fish for pike. Today we are posting out our November newsletter and in it we are asking club secretaries to send us the email addresses of any club members who would like to get our newsletter by email. We want to keep as many of our affiliated club members as up to date as possible.

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

Well if any more clubs want to join IFPAC they would be most welcome. At present we have just over 70 affiliated clubs which includes several prominent salmon/trout clubs some of whose members also fish for pike. Today we are posting out our November newsletter and in it we are asking club secretaries to send us the email addresses of any club members who would like to get our newsletter by email. We want to keep as many of our affiliated club members as up to date as possible.

Just out of curiosity jk what is fee to affiliate and does it cover insurance

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity jk what is fee to affiliate and does it cover insurance

Affiliation is €75 and we have comprehensive club and personal accident insurance. I dont want to be seen selling our insurance but it is, without any doubt, the best club policy anyone is offering. The main plus is that the third party cover is extended to cover members while fresh water pleasure fishing anywhere in the World except USA and Canada. Other Feds dont have that and it is a really important add on. The price of our club policy is the same as most others charge. If you send me a pm with your email address I can send you more info.

Pappa Charlie

Any chance of a link to the newsletter here on boards?