nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

New Galway club challenges proposed County Bye-Laws

JohnCleary

See attached, sniplets taken from City Tribune & Galway First

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

workaccount

JohnCleary wrote: »

See attached, sniplets taken from City Tribune & Galway First

Yeah talk about some stupid rules there trying to impose.

So what kind of stuff were this minority up to which caused all this?

Interceptor

workaccount wrote: »

So what kind of stuff were this minority up to which caused all this?

Oh the usual, making noise, having fun, being different...

'cptr

JohnCleary

Interceptor wrote: »

Oh the usual, making noise, having fun, being different...

'cptr

Basicly, yeah. Oh, and the engines of the powerboats may cause the fishermen to not catch any fish, so, you know... these boat's are causing harm to the enviornment. But the engines of the fishermen don't scare the fish at all or harm the enviornment :rolleyes:

Basicly, there's a group of water users who want the waterways to be theirs and nobody elses (I'm not naming names, but the paragraph above may give you a hint). However, safe and responsible users of powerboats are not standing for this and will not be bullied into giving up their hobby

galvianlord

best of luck with the new club to all involved! makes sense...

PopeBuckfastXVI

wrong thread...

PopeBuckfastXVI

JohnCleary wrote: »

Basicly, yeah. Oh, and the engines of the powerboats may cause the fishermen to not catch any fish, so, you know... these boat's are causing harm to the enviornment. But the engines of the fishermen don't scare the fish at all or harm the enviornment :rolleyes:

Basicly, there's a group of water users who want the waterways to be theirs and nobody elses

So what you're basically admitting is that there's no minority who are acting out of line and ruining it for everyone else? Was that just a big lie to gain sympathy? When all else fails make up a 'minority' who are ruining it?

JohnCleary

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So what you're basically admitting is that there's no minority who are acting out of line and ruining it for everyone else? Was that just a big lie to gain sympathy? When all else fails make up a 'minority' who are ruining it?

No you twit. Go out Salthill any warm summers evening and you will see the minority for yourself :rolleyes:

The GPWC is encouraging these people who are giving the majority a bad name to get some training etc. It's comparable to the minority of boy racers giving car enthusiasts a bad name.

The whole reason why these bye-laws came to be is because a certain group of water users decided to make complaints ABOUT the minority who are causing trouble on the water, resulting in punishment for the responsible majority.

PopeBuckfast - Don't even try to put words in my mouth with your "so basicly you're admitting" muck. I've seen this minority with my own eyes, and I see it on a weekly basis. There's always one, and that's all it takes to upset people and for complaints to start rolling in.

Funny though, the people who made the original complaints aren't following up writing submissions to the Co Council in SUPPORT of the bye-laws, despite plenty of knowledge that there's lots of people opposing the bye-laws. Cowards hiding behind paper. At least the people opposing the bye-laws have the courage to go to the media and display their names. Also, the GPWC have sent letters to angling clubs throughout the city & county asking to meet with the powerboaters to try and come to an agreement. To date, no one has replied

workaccount

JohnCleary wrote: »

No you twit. Go out Salthill any warm summers evening and you will see the minority for yourself :rolleyes:F

The GPWC is encouraging these people who are giving the majority a bad name to get some training etc. It's comparable to the minority of boy racers giving car enthusiasts a bad name.

The whole reason why these bye-laws came to be is because a certain group of water users decided to make complaints ABOUT the minority who are causing trouble on the water, resulting in punishment for the responsible majority.

PopeBuckfast - Don't even try to put words in my mouth with your "so basicly you're admitting" muck. I've seen this minority with my own eyes, and I see it on a weekly basis. There's always one, and that's all it takes to upset people and for complaints to start rolling in.

Funny though, the people who made the original complaints aren't following up writing submissions to the Co Council in SUPPORT of the bye-laws, despite plenty of knowledge that there's lots of people opposing the bye-laws. Cowards hiding behind paper. At least the people opposing the bye-laws have the courage to go to the media and display their names. Also, the GPWC have sent letters to angling clubs throughout the city & county asking to meet with the powerboaters to try and come to an agreement. To date, no one has replied

Fair play to ye for organising yourselves and putting your names out there. I will probably be getting into this hobby in the future and thanks to you the opportunity won't be taken away. It's the same in anything...there's always going to be a few that will spoil it for everyone.

I know a fella that's been at your meetings and is now a member I think...he was telling me about the rubbish drawn up. Isn't there something about having BBQ's in there aswell?

JohnCleary

workaccount wrote: »

Fair play to ye for organising yourselves and putting your names out there. I will probably be getting into this hobby in the future and thanks to you the opportunity won't be taken away. It's the same in anything...there's always going to be a few that will spoil it for everyone.

I know a fella that's been at your meetings and is now a member I think...he was telling me about the rubbish drawn up. Isn't there something about having BBQ's in there aswell?

Yeah the GPWC is having a day out on the Corrib on the 12th July. GPWC is going to bring 3 (if possible) County Councillors (plenty have expressed interest) with us to show that a group of us can get together, have fun and mess about (when safe to do so) in a responsible manner without sacrificing the fun of others.

Actually hold on, when you say 'mention of bbqs' do you actually mean that in the byelaws they were trying to ban people from having bbq's? Then yes, they're trying to ban people from having BBQ's on the beach and trying to ban GROUPS of people getting together on the beach. They're trying to make out that if you want to get together as a goup on a beach that you must pay something 8euro/sq. metre of space you use.... Do I need to go on about how stupid these bye-laws are?

Zzippy

JohnCleary wrote: »

Basicly, yeah. Oh, and the engines of the powerboats may cause the fishermen to not catch any fish, so, you know... these boat's are causing harm to the enviornment. But the engines of the fishermen don't scare the fish at all or harm the enviornment :rolleyes:

Basicly, there's a group of water users who want the waterways to be theirs and nobody elses (I'm not naming names, but the paragraph above may give you a hint). However, safe and responsible users of powerboats are not standing for this and will not be bullied into giving up their hobby

That's BS blaming anglers for this, I suppose anglers are trying to get dogs banned from beaches too, and why would anglers be claiming powerboat engines harm the environment when they use outboards too? :rolleyes:
These byelaws came from council officials, they are similar to byelaws being proposed/already adopted in other counties (Mayo for example).
But I suppose you need someone to blame. I thought it was your minority of irresponsible users, but it you're blaming someone else it must not be their fault eh... its always someone else's fault I suppose

So which exact proposals are you unhappy about? I understand the jetskis only in navigation channel one, that was silly. But how can you object to a speed restriction within 200m of the shore? That's to protect swimmers. Or maybe it was the anglers! That's it, yeah, its a big angling fraternity conspiracy!

JohnCleary

Who said anything about anglers directly? I certainly didnt.
I said that GPWC has written to numerous angling clubs around Galway. GPWC have also written to many other clubs in Galway. I have heard from the horses mouth that there are a certain group of anglers in favour of these bye-laws (A group told me themselves one day when I was out fishing (I have an interest in jetskiing/powerboating/fishing/swimming)). The problem here is that when a certain group of people feel they are 'with their own crowd' and have their backing, they are all talk. However, when you try to invite them for discussion, just like a lot of people on Internet forums, they cower away and are nowhere to be seen.

There is no argument about the 200m restriction - This is being welcomed to protect swimmers. GPWC is ENCOURAGING the Council to put down high-viz bouys for designated powerboat/swim areas

Another silly proposal is to have a 5knot restriction from at least 500m of any rock outline on the Corrib - Anyone that knows the Corrib will know that it's unusual to ever be more than 500m from a rock outline/island.

Zzippy - If you feel so argumentative, maybe you have a hidden agenda? Why don't you come to the GPWC's next meeting? There you can speak out to people who will listen in a non-judgemental way, instead of cowering behind your PC

To answer your questions:
A certain group, again who I met one day while fishing were ranting on about how 'Those big speedboat engines are killing the lake' - TOTAL BULLSH1T! A *LOT* of fishing boats still use traditional 2stroke engines which emit BURNED OIL aswell as exhaust gasses into the water. Nearly all fast-craft powerboats either have 4stroke outboard engines (granted there are still a few 2strokers out there). Any petrol inboard will be 4stroke, hence does not burn oil. And the diesel fast-craft powerboats emit exhaust into the air, not the water (exhaust above the waterline). POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

"What proposals are you unhappy about?"
Who said I was unhappy about any proposals? I certainly didn't. All I did was post an article written in the paper

Anyhow, as I just said above, i'm only posting an article in the paper. Anyone with more interest should attend a GPWC meeting, some of you seem quite hot headed in here - I wonder would ye be so loud at a public meeting? I'm un-subscribing as I wasn't looking to debate/chat on the matter, simlpy post an interesting article from the paper.

Hope to see you at the GPWC meetings

Zzippy

JohnCleary wrote: »

Basicly, yeah. Oh, and the engines of the powerboats may cause the fishermen to not catch any fish, so, you know... these boat's are causing harm to the enviornment. But the engines of the fishermen don't scare the fish at all or harm the enviornment :rolleyes:

Basicly, there's a group of water users who want the waterways to be theirs and nobody elses (I'm not naming names, but the paragraph above may give you a hint). However, safe and responsible users of powerboats are not standing for this and will not be bullied into giving up their hobby

JohnCleary wrote: »

Who said anything about anglers directly? I certainly didnt.

Eh, you weren't exactly subtle in your earlier post. See above.

JohnCleary wrote: »

I said that GPWC has written to numerous angling clubs around Galway. GPWC have also written to many other clubs in Galway. I have heard from the horses mouth that there are a certain group of anglers in favour of these bye-laws (A group told me themselves one day when I was out fishing (I have an interest in jetskiing/powerboating/fishing/swimming)). The problem here is that when a certain group of people feel they are 'with their own crowd' and have their backing, they are all talk. However, when you try to invite them for discussion, just like a lot of people on Internet forums, they cower away and are nowhere to be seen.

Why would they want to meet you? Most of them couldn't give a toss about powerboats, except when they interfere with their fishing. "Cowering away", are you for real? :pac:

JohnCleary wrote: »

There is no argument about the 200m restriction - This is being welcomed to protect swimmers. GPWC is ENCOURAGING the Council to put down high-viz bouys for designated powerboat/swim areas

Glad to hear it.

JohnCleary wrote: »

Another silly proposal is to have a 5knot restriction from at least 500m of any rock outline on the Corrib - Anyone that knows the Corrib will know that it's unusual to ever be more than 500m from a rock outline/island.

Agreed.

JohnCleary wrote: »

Zzippy - If you feel so argumentative, maybe you have a hidden agenda? Why don't you come to the GPWC's next meeting? There you can speak out to people who will listen in a non-judgemental way, instead of cowering behind your PC

I don't have any hidden agenda. I'm in favour of some of the proposals, I'm against others. I've already made a submission to the Co. Co. with those views. None of them related to the sections on PWCs or powerboats, I don't drive a powerboat so why would I object to or come out in favour of any of those proposals, that's up to your interest group to do. I don't need to come to your meeting as I have no interest in it either way. And I'm certainly not "cowering behind my PC". I'm just asking you a few questions and putting forward an alternative viewpoint.

JohnCleary wrote: »

"What proposals are you unhappy about?"
Who said I was unhappy about any proposals? I certainly didn't. All I did was post an article written in the paper

Maybe have a read back over some of your posts and previous thread on this. If you're not unhappy with the proposals why are you posting so much on this. It doesn't exactly tally with "However, safe and responsible users of powerboats are not standing for this and will not be bullied into giving up their hobby". LOL

JohnCleary wrote: »

Anyhow, as I just said above, i'm only posting an article in the paper. Anyone with more interest should attend a GPWC meeting, some of you seem quite hot headed in here - I wonder would ye be so loud at a public meeting? I'm un-subscribing as I wasn't looking to debate/chat on the matter, simlpy post an interesting article from the paper.

You seem to be the only one getting hot headed about things, I just called you on one of your posts that was BS. I stand by that

JohnCleary

You've no hidden agenda? Really?

Taken from your 'My Flickr' sig:
"My best sea trout, 14.5lbs. A bit coloured having been in the river a while"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradan99/2555276963/

I realise pic wasn't taken in Ireland, or even Europe, or infact may now even be you in the picture. But judging by the fishing orientated pictures I now understand why you're being so argumentative and defensive

Zzippy

Hmmm, just cos you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you John!

Jesus, you're funny. Just because I fish, I have a hidden agenda towards your interest group? :rolleyes: Listen, you may have a chip on your shoulder about anglers, but I couldn't care less about you and your boat.
As I've stated before, there is a small minority of boat users who I would have problems with (driving fast close by when I'm fishing, etc), but I have no problem with anyone who drives a boat responsibly. If I had I would have included supporting speed restrictions etc in my submission to GCC. But guess what, I didn't.

But you believe what you want! You're right, the world is against you...

JohnCleary

Zzippy wrote: »

Hmmm, just cos you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you John!

Jesus, you're funny. Just because I fish, I have a hidden agenda towards your interest group? :rolleyes: Listen, you may have a chip on your shoulder about anglers, but I couldn't care less about you and your boat.
As I've stated before, there is a small minority of boat users who I would have problems with (driving fast close by when I'm fishing, etc), but I have no problem with anyone who drives a boat responsibly. If I had I would have included supporting speed restrictions etc in my submission to GCC. But guess what, I didn't.

But you believe what you want! You're right, the world is against you...

OK OK fair enough we're getting off on the wrong foot. Just to be clear, I have no chip on my shoulder against anglers - my point is that i'm an angler myself (albeit I don't be fishing night, noon and morning)

Peace?!

Zzippy

JohnCleary wrote: »

OK OK fair enough we're getting off on the wrong foot. Just to be clear, I have no chip on my shoulder against anglers - my point is that i'm an angler myself (albeit I don't be fishing night, noon and morning)

Peace?!

Ah, at last! I don't be fishing 24 hours a day either, but don't be confusing me with someone who has an agenda.
There's a minority of anglers who hate powerboats, same as there's a minority of powerboaters who give the others a bad name. The rest of us are the reasonable majority on both sides who just want to enjoy our hobby in peace.

Speaking of which - peace!

JohnCleary

Zzippy wrote: »

Ah, at last! I don't be fishing 24 hours a day either, but don't be confusing me with someone who has an agenda.
There's a minority of anglers who hate powerboats, same as there's a minority of powerboaters who give the others a bad name. The rest of us are the reasonable majority on both sides who just want to enjoy our hobby in peace.

Speaking of which - peace!

Agreed - Sure isin't there always a minority in every walk of live either trying to be greedy and having everything for themselves, or giving others a bad name... grrrrr :mad: