can I use 2 single barbless hooks when a river is catch and release?

huggy15

Just wondering am I fishing within the law if i was to use a rapala type lure with single barbless hooks replacing the trebles on the belly of the lure and the tail when a river is catch and release?

SeaFields

huggy15 wrote: »

Just wondering am I fishing within the law if i was to use a rapala type lure with single barbless hooks replacing the trebles on the belly of the lure and the tail when a river is catch and release?

It's an interesting one. The regulations say you must use single barbless hooks. I take this to mean not to use double or treble hooks so you are probably ok to use two single barbless hooks in the manner you say.

Zzippy might be able to confirm if he sees this thread.

huggy15

SeaFields wrote:

It's an interesting one. The regulations say you must use single barbless hooks. I take this to mean not to use double or treble hooks so you are probably ok to use two single barbless hooks in the manner you say.

SeaFields wrote:

Zzippy might be able to confirm if he sees this thread.

Yeah that's what i got from it too. The fact it says single barbless hooks and not just hook. I'll be chancing it anyway but it'd be nice to have a definite answer in case I'm stopped by a fishery officer to check my tackle.

Zzippy

Not one I've come across. I suppose a team of flies would be fine as long as they are single barbless. Two hooks on a lure or in a bait would probably be looked on differently, even if barbless.

huggy15

Even though it says you can only use single barbless hooks it doesn't say it has to be only one hook and rapala lures are designed for two hooks. So you think it wouldn't be above board?

Rows Grower

huggy15 wrote: »

Just wondering am I fishing within the law if i was to use a rapala type lure with single barbless hooks replacing the trebles on the belly of the lure and the tail when a river is catch and release?

I can't see how anyone could interpret that you were not fishing within the regulations.

kildare lad

It depends on the officer i suppose. I had one try and take my all my gear off me down the liffey one day because i was lure fishing. I showed him that all my trebles were de-barbed. So he sort of said, ill let you away with it this time but no trebles in the future. He could have been a prick and took my gear but he didnt, you could get someone else and he'd take everything and give you a fine as well

Rows Grower

kildare lad wrote: »

It depends on the officer i suppose. I had one try and take my all my gear off me down the liffey one day because i was lure fishing. I showed him that all my trebles were de-barbed. So he sort of said, ill let you away with it this time but no trebles in the future. He could have been a prick and took my gear but he didnt, you could get someone else and he'd take everything and give you a fine as well

I know what you mean when you say some fisheries officers can be sound enough and some can (or maybe used to) be right pricks.

I've been given a break by one or two in my youth when they could have obeyed the letter of the law and summonsed me but used their discretion instead and gave me a warning.

I've encountered others who verged on being bullies even though there were no laws being broken, lads on a power trip.

In this case though I don't see how any law is being broken. Even if a fishery officer decided he wanted to confiscate my fishing gear and issue a fine I'd demand a member of the gardai present or at least a receipt issued before handing over any of my personal property.

I'd fight it in court and be confident of winning too.

huggy15

They would have no right to take any of my gear if they stopped me and checked my lure and I was using a rapala with 2 barbless singles and I would not be giving it to them. The exact wording of the legislation is that 'it is prohibited to use or attempt to use worms as bait or any fish hooks, other than single barbless HOOKS, in angling for fish in the waters of the river'.

It doesn't say anywhere that it has got to be one hook all it says is you have got to be using single barbless hooks obviously in place of trebles or doubles. In my view id be fishing within the law and if they did take my gear id go to court because any judge in the country could see that I would be too.

Zzippy

Rows Grower wrote: »

Even if a fishery officer decided he wanted to confiscate my fishing gear and issue a fine I'd demand a member of the gardai present or at least a receipt issued before handing over any of my personal property.

I'd fight it in court and be confident of winning too.

I haven't been able to clarify the single hook thing yet, but please don't do the above unless you want an obstruction charge. Fishery officers have every right to confiscate equipment where they believe an offence has been committed. Trying to prevent that is obstruction. If you want the guards called that's definitely a good way to go about it, but you may not get the reception you expected.

FOs are issued with receipt books and should *always* issue a receipt listing the items seized. You can appeal a fine to the regional director if you believe you have been treated incorrectly, or have your day in court if you prefer, but who wants to waste a day in court? Believe me, it's not that exciting...

Rows Grower

Zzippy wrote: »

I haven't been able to clarify the single hook thing yet, but please don't do the above unless you want an obstruction charge. Fishery officers have every right to confiscate equipment where they believe an offence has been committed. Trying to prevent that is obstruction. If you want the guards called that's definitely a good way to go about it, but you may not get the reception you expected.

FOs are issued with receipt books and should *always* issue a receipt listing the items seized. You can appeal a fine to the regional director if you believe you have been treated incorrectly, or have your day in court if you prefer, but who wants to waste a day in court? Believe me, it's not that exciting...

Obstruction charge?

Are you of the opinion that an employee of the Inland Fisheries is above reproach?

Zzippy

Rows Grower wrote: »

Obstruction charge?

Are you of the opinion that an employee of the Inland Fisheries is above reproach?

Not at all, people make mistakes and should not be above reproach. However, once a FO has made the decision to confiscate equipment, refusing to co-operate is obstruction, and only escalates a situation. That is the legal situation. I'm not for one minute saying FOs never make a mistake, just pointing out that being obstructive can make a minor situation into something much more serious.

Rows Grower

Zzippy wrote: »

Not at all, people make mistakes and should not be above reproach. However, once a FO has made the decision to confiscate equipment, refusing to co-operate is obstruction, and only escalates a situation. That is the legal situation. I'm not for one minute saying FOs never make a mistake, just pointing out that being obstructive can make a minor situation into something much more serious.

Thank you for the clarification of your view Zzippy.

I don't agree with it but it would be a boring world if we all had the same opinion.

huggy15

Yeah but if I was to hand over my gear I know rightly how it would go. I wouldn't see my gear for a long while because I wouldn't be paying the fine that's for sure, and where would I be left then ? No gear for the rest of the season until the case would be heard in court? Which would be god knows when. The legislation is there in black and white how could they even attempt to argue that I was breaking it?

Zzippy

huggy15 wrote: »

Yeah but if I was to hand over my gear I know rightly how it would go. I wouldn't see my gear for a long while because I wouldn't be paying the fine that's for sure, and where would I be left then ? No gear for the rest of the season until the case would be heard in court? Which would be god knows when. The legislation is there in black and white how could they even attempt to argue that I was breaking it?

Let me put it this way. If you were drinking a few cans with friends down the local park on a sunny day and a guard came along and told you he was confiscating your cans, even though you knew there was no law against drinking there, would you refuse to hand them over and argue your case until he arrested you, or would you hand them over then go to the station and make a complaint to the station sergeant? Which is the sensible option here?

huggy15

Zzippy wrote:

Let me put it this way. If you were drinking a few cans with friends down the local park on a sunny day and a guard came along and told you he was confiscating your cans, even though you knew there was no law against drinking there, would you refuse to hand them over and argue your case until he arrested you, or would you hand them over then go to the station and make a complaint to the station sergeant? Which is the sensible option here?

I don't think that's a great comparison. A few cans is going to be minimal in value in comparison to a rod, reel and what ever else. If the FO couldn't understand the legislation then he shouldn't be in the job in the first place. Some of the FO's I've met are on a power trip and seemingly only patrolling the river for one reason, which is to hand out fines. Tbh its a pretty open and shut case for me, the legislation is there in black and white and maybe they have came across something like this before and it is in fact above board. But if they weren't happy with it then that's not my problem and maybe they should think about modifying it instead of punishing the fisherman for their mistake.

Bogwoppit

Unfortunately it’s not as black and white as you’re saying, if it was then why would have started the thread?

huggy15

Bogwoppit wrote:

Unfortunately it’s not as black and white as you’re saying, if it was then why would have started the thread?

Well the more I think about it and read the legislation i can't see how i would be breaking the law. I am just looking to see if anyone else has ever came across something like this before.