New Policy Road Map for Angling

SafeSurfer

Looks like there are major changes to angling policy proposed.

One of the reasons for the new policy is to find a new funding model for the inland fisheries sector.


“The draft policy framework will put forward proposals for a more balanced and harmonised funding model. This new funding model will need to reflect the value and socio-economic potential of the resource and the activity of angling / inland fishing in the long term interests of the resource and those who avail of it.”

A general angling licence to cover trout, course and sea angling to enable IFI to be self financing seems most likely.

Will this lead to a 1980s style rod war or will Irish anglers be more accepting of a rod licence this time round?

twin_beacon

Is this the document you are referring to:https://bit.ly/3p8F8GB

If so, I don't see anything about a license in there. If they are proposing a license, then yes it will result in a war like the 80s, the trout clubs in the west have said previously they will go to war if one is introduced.

Most anglers that fish for pike will also be against it, while pike are being gill netted by IFI.

IMO if there is a "general license", they that should give equal rights to any angler to a water to fish for an species that is in season, i.e. coarse fishing is pretty much banned on the likes of sheelin and owel.

I'm on the fence weather I'd support it or not, as I don't know what a "general license" is at this stage.

dmc17

twin_beacon wrote: »

Is this the document you are referring to: https://assets.gov.ie/120532/fbdad661-b0cc-4638-bbc2-7298cc55ddce.pdf

If so, I don't see anything about a license in there. If they are proposing a license, then yes it will result in a war like the 80s, the trout clubs in the west have said previously they will go to war if one is introduced.

Most anglers that fish for pike will also be against it, while pike are being gill netted by IFI.

IMO if there is a "general license", they that should give equal rights to any angler to a water to fish for an species that is in season, i.e. coarse fishing is pretty much banned on the likes of sheelin and owel.

I'm on the fence weather I'd support it or not, as I don't know what a "general license" is at this stage.

Inserted a web link there as your link was on your local drive. Hope it's the same document.

twin_beacon

thanks, I updated my link too, I didn't notice it was linking to my pc.

SafeSurfer

twin_beacon wrote: »

Is this the document you are referring to:https://bit.ly/3p8F8GB

If so, I don't see anything about a license in there. If they are proposing a license, then yes it will result in a war like the 80s, the trout clubs in the west have said previously they will go to war if one is introduced.

Most anglers that fish for pike will also be against it, while pike are being gill netted by IFI.

IMO if there is a "general license", they that should give equal rights to any angler to a water to fish for an species that is in season, i.e. coarse fishing is pretty much banned on the likes of sheelin and owel.

I'm on the fence weather I'd support it or not, as I don't know what a "general license" is at this stage.

When a new “harmonised and balanced” funding model for inland fisheries is proposed, one can be sure that this will mean the days of only one group of anglers being expected to pay are over.

twin_beacon

SafeSurfer wrote: »

When a new “harmonised and balanced” funding model for inland fisheries is proposed, one can be sure that this will mean the days of only one group of anglers being expected to pay are over.

Do you mean the fees for Salmon Anglers?

SafeSurfer

twin_beacon wrote: »

Do you mean the fees for Salmon Anglers?

I mean currently the only anglers required to purchase a licence are salmon and sea trout anglers.

twin_beacon

Not just them, anglers in the Midlands need a permit to fish anywhere that isn't the main river Shannon, and it's navigable lakes. The permit covers a huge area.

SafeSurfer

twin_beacon wrote: »

Not just them, anglers in the Midlands need a permit to fish anywhere that isn't the main river Shannon, and it's navigable lakes. The permit covers a huge area.

The Midlands permit is a permit to fish waters privately owned by the ESB and managed by the IFI on their behalf. It is not a fishing licence.

twin_beacon

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The Midlands permit is a permit to fish waters privately owned by the ESB and managed by the IFI on their behalf. It is not a fishing licence.

Oh I know its not a license, however to say only salmon and sea trout anglers are expected to pay for their fishing is not accurate.

SafeSurfer

twin_beacon wrote: »

Oh I know its not a license, however to say only salmon and sea trout anglers are expected to pay for their fishing is not accurate.

That’s why I didn’t say it. I said they were the only anglers who have to purchase a licence to fish. This is accurate.
You can fish for trout, course or sea fish without having to purchase a licence. You cannot fish for salmon or sea trout without having to purchase a licence to fish.

twin_beacon

SafeSurfer wrote: »

That’s why I didn’t say it. I said they were the only anglers who have to purchase a licence to fish. This is accurate.
You can fish for trout, course or sea fish without having to purchase a licence. You cannot fish for salmon or sea trout without having to purchase a licence to fish.

Fair enough, I see what you mean.

dublinbando

SafeSurfer wrote: »

That’s why I didn’t say it. I said they were the only anglers who have to purchase a licence to fish. This is accurate.
You can fish for trout, course or sea fish without having to purchase a licence. You cannot fish for salmon or sea trout without having to purchase a licence to fish.

And the reason for that I thought was to manage fish stocks? not fund IFI? why are our taxes covering less and less stuff? all I keep seeing is more taxes, more privatization and less services for said taxes in this Country.

SafeSurfer

dublinbando wrote: »

And the reason for that I thought was to manage fish stocks? not fund IFI? why are our taxes covering less and less stuff? all I keep seeing is more taxes, more privatization and less services for said taxes in this Country.

It is likely to become an imperative, post Covid, to identify new sources of funding.
It is vital for the new policy to succeed that anglers concede the right NOT to pay for fishing.
It is the same principle as the Irish Water debacle. The aim was to get people to concede the right to free water.

Green Peter

Maybe a license wouldn't be a bad thing if it was managed correctly and funding re invested directly back into angling projects with some input from anglers and clubs. Unfortunately I think there are some people out there who just want a battle regardless of the merits or not. Some of the nicest people you will ever meet are anglers but there are a few apes as well.

SafeSurfer

Green Peter wrote: »

Maybe a license wouldn't be a bad thing if it was managed correctly and funding re invested directly back into angling projects with some input from anglers and clubs. Unfortunately I think there are some people out there who just want a battle regardless of the merits or not. Some of the nicest people you will ever meet are anglers but there are a few apes as well.

I agree it could be beneficial if those two provisos were met. That is, if it were managed correctly and used directly for funding projects with input from anglers.

There is no evidence that this will happen. For example delivery of the National Angling Development Plan was a debacle. Arguably one of the worst deliveries of state funded fishery projects in the history of the state.

Secondly the conservation levy, funded through sales of salmon licences is often unspent. At last check there was €3 million unspent in the fund.

Thirdly there is no input from anglers or other stakeholders. The vehicle which was established at the same time as IFI to facilitate stakeholder involvement hasn’t met in years.

Maybe if these issues were addressed first anglers would be more willing to see the merits in conceding their right to fishing without a licence.

twin_beacon

SafeSurfer wrote: »

It is likely to become an imperative, post Covid, to identify new sources of funding.
It is vital for the new policy to succeed that anglers concede the right NOT to pay for fishing.
It is the same principle as the Irish Water debacle. The aim was to get people to concede the right to free water.

There lies the problem. There are many anglers that feel it is their god given right to fish what they view as "their" lakes without anyone telling them what to do. The same people ignore bag limits and required minimum size.

Freshwater angling in Ireland is very divided at the moment, and if the idea of a license is proposed in the next few months, it will just add more fuel to the fire. Lets not forget that people's boats were chopped in two for ignoring the angling boycott thirty years ago. With social media being used to stir sh1t3 between angling groups, I really do not look forward to the next few years if this is the case. What ever happens, if history is anything to go by, the people with the loudest voice will be heard, TDs need to get elected again, and sadly whats actually best for Irish angling will be ignored.



What would the three major angling Feds think I wonder.
I can't see TAFI backing this in any form, as the overwhelming majority of their affiliated clubs would appose it.
I can only see IFPAC backing this proposal, IF the pike culling is stopped. No need to comment on how TAFI and their clubs would react to that.
NCFII could go either way, depending on the wording.

viper123

Has a fishing licence been specifically mentioned as an option on the table? There are very few places left in the world now where you can fish without a licence so I can imagine it'll be on the agenda again once they manage to get people to forget about the farce of the 80's

SafeSurfer

viper123 wrote: »

Has a fishing licence been specifically mentioned as an option on the table? There are very few places left in the world now where you can fish without a licence so I can imagine it'll be on the agenda again once they manage to get people to forget about the farce of the 80's

Everything is on the table. A sustainable “new funding model” isn’t going to come from anywhere but service users.
There can’t be many politicians still around who were in office during the rod war. If there were they would tread very, very carefully.

viper123

I personally dont have an issue with a rod licence, I cant see many genuine anglers having an issue with one in principle (asssuming money taken is ringfenced!). It cant be a bad thing for fish stocks either as it possible limits the number of rods and also possibly limits that class of angler who is more likely to fish for the table. It also gives something for fisheries offiers to check for.

It will however cause problems between trout and pike anglers, salmon vs non salmon anglers, tourists vs locals, rights to fish in certain waters etc etc

dublinbando

viper123 wrote: »

I personally dont have an issue with a rod licence, I cant see many genuine anglers having an issue with one in principle (asssuming money taken is ringfenced!). It cant be a bad thing for fish stocks either as it possible limits the number of rods and also possibly limits that class of angler who is more likely to fish for the table. It also gives something for fisheries offiers to check for.

It will however cause problems between trout and pike anglers, salmon vs non salmon anglers, tourists vs locals, rights to fish in certain waters etc etc

The notion that one would ever need to pay for a licence to fish in the sea from the shore is absolutely ludacris, half the revenue would probably be spent on enforcement!

SafeSurfer

viper123 wrote: »

I personally dont have an issue with a rod licence, I cant see many genuine anglers having an issue with one in principle (asssuming money taken is ringfenced!). It cant be a bad thing for fish stocks either as it possible limits the number of rods and also possibly limits that class of angler who is more likely to fish for the table. It also gives something for fisheries offiers to check for.

It will however cause problems between trout and pike anglers, salmon vs non salmon anglers, tourists vs locals, rights to fish in certain waters etc etc

It depends on how you define “genuine angler”. Although from your post it is apparent how you would define them.

On the point that it would give fishery officers something to check for. I would say they have more than enough to check for and regulations to enforce as it is. Would a compulsory licence increase compliance? I would suggest not.

kildare lad

Maybe a license wouldn't be a bad thing if it was implemented properly. There's to many undesirables out poaching and if they could be banned from fishing and heavily fined it might help in bringing back fish stock in areas where poaching is rife.

SafeSurfer

kildare lad wrote: »

Maybe a license wouldn't be a bad thing if it was implemented properly. There's to many undesirables out poaching and if they could be banned from fishing and heavily fined it might help in bringing back fish stock in areas where poaching is rife.

I don’t understand why people believe that introducing a licence is going to magically stop poaching. The powers are already there to punish illegal behaviour.

kildare lad

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t understand why people believe that introducing a licence is going to magically stop poaching. The powers are already there to punish illegal behaviour.

Because if it's done like England , you get banned from fishing , end up in court where you get fined 700 or 800 for just having no license. I'm talking mainly coarse fishing by the way. Over here I could have 5 dead tench in my bag and get a 150 euro fine , get my gear takin off me and they'll give it back once the fine is paid . There's people in Ireland that shouldn't be let near any waterways for the damage they do.

I would have said 20 years ago that you didn't need a licence as there was very little poaching now it's everywhere . With the growing influx of cormorants coming inland over the last few years . Coarse angling in Ireland is gonna be under severe pressure in the coming years
If it funds more bailiffs and patrols I'm all for it , but penalties have to be way higher

SafeSurfer

kildare lad wrote: »

Because if it's done like England , you get banned from fishing , end up in court where you get fined 700 or 800 for just having no license. I'm talking mainly coarse fishing by the way. Over here I could have 5 dead tench in my bag and get a 150 euro fine , get my gear takin off me and they'll give it back once the fine is paid . There's people in Ireland that shouldn't be let near any waterways for the damage they do.

I would have said 20 years ago that you didn't need a licence as there was very little poaching now it's everywhere . With the growing influx of cormorants coming inland over the last few years . Coarse angling in Ireland is gonna be under severe pressure in the coming years
If it funds more bailiffs and patrols I'm all for it , but penalties have to be way higher

That’s an argument for tougher penalties and greater enforcement. Not an argument for the introduction of a licence.
Do you think people found without a TV licence should be banned from having a TV?
Over 400 people a year are jailed for not having a TV licence yet more people than ever don’t buy them.

Fishery officers have enough powers to tackle illegal fishing behaviour already without introducing a licence.
They seem to control angling pretty effectively in Scotland without any fishing licence.

Green Peter

SafeSurfer wrote: »

That’s an argument for tougher penalties and greater enforcement. Not an argument for the introduction of a licence.
Do you think people found without a TV licence should be banned from having a TV?
Over 400 people a year are jailed for not having a TV licence yet more people than ever don’t buy them.

Fishery officers have enough powers to tackle illegal fishing behaviour already without introducing a licence.
They seem to control angling pretty effectively in Scotland without any fishing licence.

I'm sorry but there are not 400 a year jailed for not having a tv licence. Anyone jailed it is for repeatedly refusing to pay the fine. As we all know you generally get a chance to get one before they fine you. Anyone jailed for not paying a tv licence fine is generally an ass.

dublinbando

Green Peter wrote: »

I'm sorry but there are not 400 a year jailed for not having a tv licence. Anyone jailed it is for repeatedly refusing to pay the fine. As we all know you generally get a chance to get one before they fine you. Anyone jailed for not paying a tv licence fine is generally an ass.

I stand fully behind anybody who refuses to pay the scam of a TV licence that only goes to paying the fat wages of the RTE elite, many of which are paid way in excess of the US presidents salary.

SafeSurfer

Green Peter wrote: »

I'm sorry but there are not 400 a year jailed for not having a tv licence. Anyone jailed it is for repeatedly refusing to pay the fine. As we all know you generally get a chance to get one before they fine you. Anyone jailed for not paying a tv licence fine is generally an ass.

I don’t agree that anyone jailed for not having a TV licence is an ass. Having to replace a €300 washing machine unexpectedly would be beyond many people, never mind a €1000 fine for having no TV licence.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.her.ie/amp/life/dublin-mum-terrified-as-she-gets-prison-time-for-failing-to-pay-tv-license-279883

If fines of €800 or €2500, like in England are imposed for not having a fishing licence we will have a wasteful situation of anglers being imprisoned for a couple of hours and then released.
It’s not going to improve enforcement. You might as well make the fine a million as a thousand for some people.


By the way the current state salmon licence only covers the salaries of the 5 highest paid staff in IFI.

viper123

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don’t understand why people believe that introducing a licence is going to magically stop poaching. The powers are already there to punish illegal behaviour.

It funds policing

SafeSurfer

viper123 wrote: »

It funds policing

Policing if anglers have a licence or not. So the bulk of funds generated from a new licence would be used to check whether anglers have the new licence or not. Seems like a convoluted use of resources.

Zzippy

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Policing if anglers have a licence or not. So the bulk of funds generated from a new licence would be used to check whether anglers have the new licence or not. Seems like a convoluted use of resources.

Checking anglers is a very small part of the job. Policing involves far more, and bigger targets receive a lot more time. Poaching, pollution, habitat protection, water quality. A new licence will be just one more thing to add to the list, but it will get the time that is available, which is not a lot.

SafeSurfer

Zzippy wrote: »

Checking anglers is a very small part of the job. Policing involves far more, and bigger targets receive a lot more time. Poaching, pollution, habitat protection, water quality. A new licence will be just one more thing to add to the list, but it will get the time that is available, which is not a lot.

According to the 2018 Annual Report of IFI there were 37,525 inspection checks on anglers. There were 28,654 water quality and habitat inspections, over 18,000 of which were habitat inspections. There were 30,445 anti poaching patrols, representing 172,559 man hours. Of the 30,445 anti poaching patrols over 90% were what is classified as vehicle/foot patrols. Unlike all other classifications these 2 patrol types are grouped together. In essence a drive around a road near a lake can be classified as a lake anti poaching patrol conduced by vehicle/foot.

Furthermore there can be dual classification. So for example if while checking anglers officers are also keeping an eye out for nets the patrol can be listed as an angler compliance check and as an anti poaching patrol.

It is therefore, in my opinion, inaccurate to conclude that “checking anglers is a very small part of the job”.

Currently only a small percentage of anglers, salmon and sea trout, are required to have a licence. Yet even processing and compiling licence returns of this, approximately 5% of anglers in the country takes up a disproportionate amount of staff time. Can you imagine the staff time it would take to process the returns of an additional 450,000 licence holders?

Zzippy

SafeSurfer wrote: »

According to the 2018 Annual Report of IFI there were 37,525 inspection checks on anglers. There were 28,654 water quality and habitat inspections, over 18,000 of which were habitat inspections. There were 30,445 anti poaching patrols, representing 172,559 man hours. Of the 30,445 anti poaching patrols over 90% were what is classified as vehicle/foot patrols. Unlike all other classifications these 2 patrol types are grouped together. In essence a drive around a road near a lake can be classified as a lake anti poaching patrol conduced by vehicle/foot.

Furthermore there can be dual classification. So for example if while checking anglers officers are also keeping an eye out for nets the patrol can be listed as an angler compliance check and as an anti poaching patrol.

It is therefore, in my opinion, inaccurate to conclude that “checking anglers is a very small part of the job”.

Currently only a small percentage of anglers, salmon and sea trout, are required to have a licence. Yet even processing and compiling licence returns of this, approximately 5% of anglers in the country takes up a disproportionate amount of staff time. Can you imagine the staff time it would take to process the returns of an additional 450,000 licence holders?

Stats don't tell a full picture. 37,525 checks on anglers sounds like a lot. It equals 102 checks every day of the year. It's approx. 0.5 checks per staff member engaged in protection. An angler check can take from 1 minute to 10 minutes, but rarely any longer than that. So that's 30 seconds to 5 mins per staff member per day. Give it 1-10 mins per day to allow for days not worked etc. I stand by my point that angler checks are a small part of the job.

Your last paragraph is very true. If a licence was introduced (I'm not pushing for one) the only way it would work is online.

SafeSurfer

Zzippy wrote: »

Stats don't tell a full picture. 37,525 checks on anglers sounds like a lot. It equals 102 checks every day of the year. It's approx. 0.5 checks per staff member engaged in protection. An angler check can take from 1 minute to 10 minutes, but rarely any longer than that. So that's 30 seconds to 5 mins per staff member per day. Give it 1-10 mins per day to allow for days not worked etc. I stand by my point that angler checks are a small part of the job.

Your last paragraph is very true. If a licence was introduced (I'm not pushing for one) the only way it would work is online.

30 seconds to 5 minutes per staff member per day doesn’t tell the full story either. You say an angler check can take 1 to 10 minutes. What is not included is the time getting to the site for the check or the time spent between checks.

I could spend a full day checking 20 anglers. It would not be accurate to calculate that I only spent 20 minutes checking anglers.
Some of the fishery district HQs are hours journey times from waters within the district. Within water bodies such as rivers, checking anglers takes time, especially in remote areas where some of the best fishing is. You may have to walk for an hour or more between angler checks.

It is interesting that the figure in the annual report is given as number of checks carried out rather than man hours spent on those checks.

dublinbando

If you are calling for a licence to fish in the sea you probably aren't a sea angler and if you are you probably have plenty of money

spaceHopper

viper123 wrote: »

It funds policing

If there is 3 million unspent in the conservation fund there is money to fund policing

Zzippy

SafeSurfer wrote: »

30 seconds to 5 minutes per staff member per day doesn’t tell the full story either. You say an angler check can take 1 to 10 minutes. What is not included is the time getting to the site for the check or the time spent between checks.

I could spend a full day checking 20 anglers. It would not be accurate to calculate that I only spent 20 minutes checking anglers.
Some of the fishery district HQs are hours journey times from waters within the district. Within water bodies such as rivers, checking anglers takes time, especially in remote areas where some of the best fishing is. You may have to walk for an hour or more between angler checks.

It is interesting that the figure in the annual report is given as number of checks carried out rather than man hours spent on those checks.

Well that's me told. Inside knowledge or you got all that from a report?

viper123

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Policing if anglers have a licence or not. So the bulk of funds generated from a new licence would be used to check whether anglers have the new licence or not. Seems like a convoluted use of resources.

I'm sure there's lots more to police than just licence, the fee should allow increased policing for everything, environment, poaching,

SafeSurfer

Another step towards a bright new future for Irish Angling. An Angling Consultative Council of Ireland has been established to express the views of Irish anglers in the wake of the abolition of the Inland Fisheries Forum.

https://fishinginireland.info/2021/fishing-updates/angling-consultative-council-of-ireland/

Only angling bodies affiliated to the Angling Council of Ireland are currently represented.

In my experience of the aspects of angling I am most familiar with the vast majority of anglers are not affiliated with any representative bodies.
Now a small group of these representative bodies will officially represent the views of all anglers.

Another debacle in the making IMHO.

kildare lad

There won't be too much left to fish for in the future with the growing numbers of cormorants coming inland .