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
  • 07-02-2021 6:04pm
    #1
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭


    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?

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



«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3
    dmc17
    Registered Users Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭twin_beacon


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


  • Options
    #5
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Options
    #6
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Options
    #8
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #9
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Options
    #10
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #11
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #13
    dublinbando
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #14
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Options
    #15
    Green Peter
    Registered Users Posts: 947 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #16
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Options
    #17
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users Posts: 1,240 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #18
    viper123
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭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 :D


  • Options
    #19
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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 :D

    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.

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



  • Options
    #20
    viper123
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #21
    dublinbando
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Options
    #23
    kildare lad
    Registered Users Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #24
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Options
    #25
    kildare lad
    Registered Users Posts: 2,010 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #26
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Options
    #27
    Green Peter
    Registered Users Posts: 947 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #28
    dublinbando
    Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #29
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



  • Options
    #30
    viper123
    Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭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.

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



Advertisement