Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New Policy Road Map for Angling

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #34
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #36
    dublinbando
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users Posts: 3,967 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    viper123 wrote: »
    It funds policing

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


  • Options
    #38
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #39
    viper123
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭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,


    1. Options
      #40
      SafeSurfer
      Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

      Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



    2. Options
      #41
      kildare lad
      Registered Users Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭kildare lad


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


    3. Advertisement
    Advertisement