Public Meetings on New Fisheries Bill

The Dept and Inland Fisheries Ireland are planning to scrap the old 1959 Fisheries Act and introduce a completely new Act. They have arranged 5 public consultation meetings the first of which was held last night in Drogheda.
A huge number of changes are planned. One is the possible introduction of a compulsory angler contribution payable by pike, coarse, trout and sea anglers. There is talk of maybe 50% being ringfenced for fishery development.
There will be major changes in the Section 294 waterkeeper legislation. This would be an inland fisheries issue. It looks like we will get a fisheries reserve force something like the Garda Reserve and they may have a costal protection function.
Below is a notice that went up on the Inland Fisheries website about 2 weeks ago. I only registered to let you guys know about this as I didnt see reference to it anywhere here. It is important for sea anglers to attend these meetings and make their views known. The first meeting in Drogheda was not very well attended but the lack of sea anglers was striking.
" Notice of Public Information Meeting
Modernisation and consolidation of the legislation governing the inland fisheries sector
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Fergus O’Dowd, T.D. invites members of the public and interested parties to attend a public information meeting to canvass views on the major elements of new inland fisheries legislation, in advance of the statutory consultation period.
Details of venues, dates and times for the information meetings are as follows;
Drogheda in the D Hotel on Monday 29th April 2013 at 6pm
Tuam in the Ard Rí House Hotel on Tuesday 30th April 2013 at 6pm
Carrick-on-Shannon in the Landmark Hotel on Wednesday 1st May at 6pm
Clonmel in the Clonmel Park Hotel on Thursday 2nd May at 6pm
Dublin in the Lucan SPA Hotel on Wednesday 8th May at 7pm
The Minister of State wishes to canvass a comprehensive range of views to inform the general thrust of the new legislation and the purpose of these meetings is to update interested parties on the process for submitting their views.
The statutory written consultation process will commence on Monday 13th May."

How the **** are they going to spend 50% of my contribution 15 miles offshore developing the deep sea fishery? Stock it with Blue Sharks? Sink a few old tubs to create some more wrecks?

I hope I'm wrong but I can't help feel that the changes will be more about legitimising a revenue raising measure than anything else.

This is a short report I made on the first meeting on the Irish Federation of Pike Angling Clubs (IFPAC) message board
" The first angler consultation meeting was held tonight in the D Hotel in Drogheda. Present at the top table were Minister Fergus O`Dowd, Dr Ciaran Byrne of IFI, Denis Maher of the Dept and a chairman whose name I didnt catch. There were 3 or 4 IFI staff present and at least 4 others from the Dept. I would think that there were around 35 anglers there with nearly half being delegates from IFPAC affiliated clubs. I wasnt really expecting a big turnout of anglers but I still thought that there may have been 60 plus.
The Minister made a short speech outlining that new legislation was necessary to keep up with changing times. He hoped that it would be passed by the end of the year but it would probably be next year.
Denis Maher of the Dept was next up. He used a powerpoint presentation to outline the whole process. He went through the various reasons why a complete revamp of leglislation was necessary. He then went through the full process from tonights meeting to written submissions, heads of bill being drawn up, going to cabinet, Dail committee stages, back to Dail etc. He agreed that the period for submission of written suggestions was a bit tight closing on 10th June and extended it to 5pm on 28th June.
We then had Ciaran Byrne. He outlined some of the flaws in current leglislation. Some of it was well out of date, existing leglislation didnt take habitat or biosecurity issues into account, waterkeeper system needed to change, fishery rates system needed change, more research into who owns fishing rights needs to be done. With regard to fisheries development IFI needed to work closely with clubs and federations.
Anglers were then asked to make suggestions. At that stage no mention had been made of angler contributions.
Various anglers made various proposals on a wide range of issues from cormorants to commercial salmon netting, to poaching, waterkeeper system, fishery licences, coarse fishing on trout/salmon waters etc
I mentioned the make up of the current board of IFI. That the previous minister had told us that no anglers would be appointed and that we ended up with 5 game anglers. We always seem to have Boards that are controlled by game anglers. There should be a way of getting a better balance. I then went to suggest that IFI take over the appointing and training of waterkeepers. I outlined that game angler waterkeepers would probable just want to be appointed over the waters that they lease while coarse/pike anglers generally dont have their own waters and that their appointments should be over all waters. I them mentioned the meeting last Sept when IFI invited all federations into their offices to talk about the future funding of inland fisheries. I said that all federations knew that they wanted the federations to talk about compulsory angler contributions and that some did suggest this subject to certain conditions. I added that IFPAC were not supporting a compulsory payment at this stage but we could review this should a proper new waterkeeper system be put in place and angler funds be ringfenced.
The Minister did say that he wanted full consultation on the Bill and that he wouldnt force anything on anglers if they didnt want it. After a while they will produce a shortlisting of maybe 6 issues and invite further comment on these. The Minister did seem to want to know what anglers wanted in the Bill and that did give some comfort to those present."
If the compulsory angler contribution does come in sea anglers will be included.

I mentioned the make up of the current board of IFI. That the previous minister had told us that no anglers would be appointed and that we ended up with 5 game anglers. We always seem to have Boards that are controlled by game anglers. There should be a way of getting a better balance.

My personal suspicion would be that's because game anglers pay a licence fee and coarse/sea anglers dont. Officialdom always works on the principle of No Pay, No Say - if you get use of something for nothing, you cant complain about how its run. Thats why I'm in favour of [i]some[i] form of licensing for sea angling, it would give us a legitimate stakeholder voice at last, instead of always being the beggars who cant be choosers.

Well done for alerting us to all this.

I mentioned the make up of the current board of IFI. That the previous minister had told us that no anglers would be appointed and that we ended up with 5 game anglers. We always seem to have Boards that are controlled by game anglers. There should be a way of getting a better balance.

My personal suspicion would be that's because game anglers pay a licence fee and coarse/sea anglers dont. Officialdom always works on the principle of No Pay, No Say - if you get use of something for nothing, you cant complain about how its run. Thats why I'm in favour of [i]some[i] form of licensing for sea angling, it would give us a legitimate stakeholder voice at last, instead of always being the beggars who cant be choosers.

Well done for alerting us to all this.

I have been around in angling politics for 25 years and I can assure you that paying a licence didnt get the 5 game guys appointed to the board of IFI. When I mention game I mean trout and salmon. Trout guys dont pay a licence. Fair play to the 5 guys.
I was with a delegation which met the then Minister Conor Lenehan. This was before anyone was appointed to the board of IFI. He told us that he didnt want ANY anglers on the board !! Yet 5 game guys got on. The board of IFI should contain anglers as a right and there should be a spread of angling interests. This is one of the issues you should raise if you can get to one of the meetings. There is also the written submission period where you can make submissions. This was extended to 28th June.

Alright, in conclusion and in layman's terms: does this mean our inherited freedom to fish our already raped seas, rivers and lakes will be cut even further? And, adding insult to injury, are we now expected to pay through the nose for the privilege of watching foreign trawlers or unsustainable fishfarm projects wrecking a once lively and healthy resource? Another revenue raising measure? Sure it is! However, what do WE as anglers get in return? Guaranteed protection of indigenous fish stock? Patrolled and watched beaches or designated fishing areas? Security improvements in well known and identified spots where cars and anglers are victims of criminals? Environmental improvements eg. serviced bins on angling hotspots? Or just the usual BS and politically motivated promises? As history has taught me painfully, all these sweet words mean nada, zilch and zero at the end of the day! Watered down to meaningless waffle of so called experts and the outcome is the same as before. Nothing will be done, no decisions will be made and no measurements taken, maybe a few posters or signs might be printed as proof that something has been achieved but that's about it. What a waste of precious lifetime, I'd be out of here, rather sooner than later, if I'd have the luxury of independence, youth and the choice! Rant over!

never heard about this, but for the Bass fraternity this is a huge opportunity!. The position we should take is that the Sea Anglers fully support a licence fee for sea angling if the Bill will designate Bass as a sport species and not as a commercial catch. Or even a licence fee specifically for Bass. On that basis anglers can take the high ground and prove a quantifiable return to the exchequer for bass. Unlike the commercial sector who dont pay a single cent to the Government to register or licence their €15m trawler.

never heard about this, but for the Bass fraternity this is a huge opportunity!. The position we should take is that the Sea Anglers fully support a licence fee for sea angling if the Bill will designate Bass as a sport species and not as a commercial catch. Or even a licence fee specifically for Bass. On that basis anglers can take the high ground and prove a quantifiable return to the exchequer for Bass. Unlike the commercial sector who dont pay a single cent to the Government to register or licence their €15m trawler.

I presume the post above is from a member of the "bass fraternity". Why should we, as sea anglers, take that position when there are many more issues that could be raised to the benefit of a wider spread of sea anglers? Not every sea angler is driven to catch or is at all interested in fishing for bass so why should they be hit with a licence fee that "might" be of benefit to the "bass fraternity". I can count on one hand the number of decent cod i have caught from the shore in the last 2 years, the number of bass i have caught over 3lb as by-catch while targeting other species over the same time period totally eclipses the cod catches, something obviously needs to be addressed there. As regards to bass being designated as a sport fish, pfftt they are not even 1 of the top 5 fighting summer species available from the shore and given that they can be caught using many different methods they are one of the easiest species to target and catch. If a "sea angling licence" were to be introduced, it should be similar to a salmon licence, only pertaining to bass, it would be interesting to see how many licences would be taken out.

I presume the post above is from a member of the "Bass fraternity". Why should we, as sea anglers, take that position when there are many more issues that could be raised to the benefit of a wider spread of sea anglers? Not every sea angler is driven to catch or is at all interested in fishing for Bass so why should they be hit with a licence fee that "might" be of benefit to the "Bass fraternity". I can count on one hand the number of decent cod i have caught from the shore in the last 2 years, the number of Bass i have caught over 3lb as by-catch while targeting other species over the same time period totally eclipses the cod catches, something obviously needs to be addressed there. As regards to Bass being designated as a sport fish, pfftt they are not even 1 of the top 5 fighting summer species available from the shore and given that they can be caught using many different methods they are one of the easiest species to target and catch. If a "sea angling licence" were to be introduced, it should be similar to a salmon licence, only pertaining to Bass, it would be interesting to see how many licences would be taken out.

Spot on as regards Bass mania! Where have you been all this time? I still feel tho that a general licence would give us a bigger say.

But let's not fall out with among ourselves on this and misdirect our energy, a common front can be worked out.

One more public meeting. Thats Lucan nexy Wednesday. You can make written submissions up to 5 pm on 28th June.
There seemed to be 1 sea angler at the Drogheda meeting. He suggested nursery areas where commercial fishing would be banned. I seem to remember that the IFSA had a document on this many years ago. Perhaps it needs to be dusted, updated and resubmitted. Forgive me if this has already been done but I think its something that needs to pushed.
I am with the pike fed and we are producing our submission which we will circulate to our affiliated clubs for approval. We will then put it up on our website where our clubs/individuals can take what they want from it when making their own submission. Perhaps you should start a thread on what sea anglers would like to see in a new fisheries act. Its not just federations who can make submissions. They want submissions from clubs and individuals.

Alright, in conclusion and in layman's terms: does this mean our inherited freedom to fish our already raped seas, rivers and lakes will be cut even further? And, adding insult to injury, are we now expected to pay through the nose for the privilege of watching foreign trawlers or unsustainable fishfarm projects wrecking a once lively and healthy resource? Another revenue raising measure? Sure it is! However, what do WE as anglers get in return? Guaranteed protection of indigenous fish stock? Patrolled and watched beaches or designated fishing areas? Security improvements in well known and identified spots where cars and anglers are victims of criminals? Environmental improvements eg. serviced bins on angling hotspots? Or just the usual BS and politically motivated promises? As history has taught me painfully, all these sweet words mean nada, zilch and zero at the end of the day! Watered down to meaningless waffle of so called experts and the outcome is the same as before. Nothing will be done, no decisions will be made and no measurements taken, maybe a few posters or signs might be printed as proof that something has been achieved but that's about it. What a waste of precious lifetime, I'd be out of here, rather sooner than later, if I'd have the luxury of independence, youth and the choice! Rant over!

well said martin!

I attended the meeting in Clonmel laste evening - doing my bit for Bass Mania! Didnt see many (if any) sea anglers there. Thanks for the prompt.

It is an opportunity to submit and enhance maintain/change and improve the legislation for all fish.

The waterkeepers section was particularly interesting I found.

never heard about this, but for the Bass fraternity this is a huge opportunity!. The position we should take is that the Sea Anglers fully support a licence fee for sea angling if the Bill will designate Bass as a sport species and not as a commercial catch. Or even a licence fee specifically for Bass. On that basis anglers can take the high ground and prove a quantifiable return to the exchequer for Bass. Unlike the commercial sector who dont pay a single cent to the Government to register or licence their €15m trawler.

I presume the post above is from a member of the "Bass fraternity". Why should we, as sea anglers, take that position when there are many more issues that could be raised to the benefit of a wider spread of sea anglers? Not every sea angler is driven to catch or is at all interested in fishing for Bass so why should they be hit with a licence fee that "might" be of benefit to the "Bass fraternity". I can count on one hand the number of decent cod i have caught from the shore in the last 2 years, the number of Bass i have caught over 3lb as by-catch while targeting other species over the same time period totally eclipses the cod catches, something obviously needs to be addressed there. As regards to Bass being designated as a sport fish, pfftt they are not even 1 of the top 5 fighting summer species available from the shore and given that they can be caught using many different methods they are one of the easiest species to target and catch. If a "sea angling licence" were to be introduced, it should be similar to a salmon licence, only pertaining to Bass, it would be interesting to see how many licences would be taken out.

very well said

I couldnt get to the Clonmel meeting as I had to attend an Angling council of Ireland meeting. Were there many anglers at it ? Apart from the top table there are usually 3 Dept staff and around 3 IFI staff in the audience so deduct them from the total number present

Hi JK

There seemed to be a lot of IFI staff there last evening, I'm guessing > 5 as I recognized and spoke to some of them. There was probably 40 other people in the room FISSTA, TAFI, and a lot of individual clubs from Clonmel, Tipperary, Carlow etc. Lots of people seemed to have traveled considerable distances with representations from Kerry, Cork, and Clare too. All these people are salmon trout and coarse anglers, some netsmen from Wexford also present!

It was to me a very interesting experience, even if it weighed strongly on our freshwater species.

Jim

[RockHunter]

So who do we address the written submissions to?

Last edited by RockHunter on Fri May 03, 2013 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

never heard about this, but for the Bass fraternity this is a huge opportunity!. The position we should take is that the Sea Anglers fully support a licence fee for sea angling if the Bill will designate Bass as a sport species and not as a commercial catch. Or even a licence fee specifically for Bass. On that basis anglers can take the high ground and prove a quantifiable return to the exchequer for Bass. Unlike the commercial sector who dont pay a single cent to the Government to register or licence their €15m trawler.

I presume the post above is from a member of the "Bass fraternity". Why should we, as sea anglers, take that position when there are many more issues that could be raised to the benefit of a wider spread of sea anglers? Not every sea angler is driven to catch or is at all interested in fishing for Bass so why should they be hit with a licence fee that "might" be of benefit to the "Bass fraternity". I can count on one hand the number of decent cod i have caught from the shore in the last 2 years, the number of Bass i have caught over 3lb as by-catch while targeting other species over the same time period totally eclipses the cod catches, something obviously needs to be addressed there. As regards to Bass being designated as a sport fish, pfftt they are not even 1 of the top 5 fighting summer species available from the shore and given that they can be caught using many different methods they are one of the easiest species to target and catch. If a "sea angling licence" were to be introduced, it should be similar to a salmon licence, only pertaining to Bass, it would be interesting to see how many licences would be taken out.

Can't we all just get along!

Sent from my GT-S5369 using Tapatalk 2

Why no meetings in the south of the Country????
Also if anybody believes that paying a licence will 'give you a voice' then you are living in la la land.
Commercials will still have a bigger say than anglers and if these meetings had been about commercial fishing there would have been a huge turnout of skippers etc to tell the Minister what to do.
Who will enforce these sea angling licences? I suppose the money raised can be used to pay for extra staff and vehicles to drive around the coast looking for anglers and confiscating tackle, enforcing fines etc, this is possibly how the money will be spent on angling.
I will NEVER pay a sea angling licence and they can drag me off to prison before I will.

Why no meetings in the south of the Country????
Also if anybody believes that paying a licence will 'give you a voice' then you are living in la la land.
Commercials will still have a bigger say than anglers and if these meetings had been about commercial fishing there would have been a huge turnout of skippers etc to tell the Minister what to do.
Who will enforce these sea angling licences? I suppose the money raised can be used to pay for extra staff and vehicles to drive around the coast looking for anglers and confiscating tackle, enforcing fines etc, this is possibly how the money will be spent on angling.
I will NEVER pay a sea angling licence and they can drag me off to prison before I will.

Paul, There are only 5 meetings around the country. I believe that several travelled from West Kerry to the Clonmel meeting.
The fisheries acts do impact on commercial people too. There was a draft salmon netsman at the Drogheda meeting and I here that there were a few salmon netsmen at the Clonmel meeting. The 1959 Act is the main one for the chop. Have a look at the main sections
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1959/en/ ... index.html