Draft bass policy - May 2012

[John D]

Hi all.

Attached you'll find the draft bass policy document that some (but I hope many!) of you will be interested in reading.

Apologies if someone has already uploaded it - I'm a lazy browser!

Regards,
John D.

[Dicenintra]

Great Document, however I think it could go a little further.
(1) I think the Minister for ECNR should submit a memo to Government asking for a decision that bass be designated permanently as an angling species.

There is enough data on value of angling to support this and this would remove an possibility in the future of it ever being commercially exploited. Responsibility would transfer from the commercial fisheries department to DECNR department.

(2) I think it should be treated on par with Salmon and bass angling should require a licence.
€10 adult resident annual, €5 child resident annual, €20 visitor 4 week.

The public service will be run on thin air from taxpayer funds in the next few years and I imagine the budget for bass protection will be non-existent. This is a reality and the IFI will need funds to actually protect the stock. You get what you pay for.

[Tanglerat]

I like that. A lot.

One point I'm concerned about though is this:

Policies should aim to manage towards developing a sustainable stock i.e. the stock should meet a required biological reference point (e.g. a conservation limit) and any surplus above this is available for the fishery.

Will this re-open the door to commercial activity once the conservation limit is exceeded, or is "the fishery" deemed only for the RSA sector?

[keith]

(2) I think it should be treated on par with Salmon and Bass angling should require a licence.
€10 adult resident annual, €5 child resident annual, €20 visitor 4 week.

Why?

[Preston]

If a licence is brought in itll be more like 100 euro annualy !

[Dicenintra]

(2) I think it should be treated on par with Salmon and Bass angling should require a licence.
€10 adult resident annual, €5 child resident annual, €20 visitor 4 week.

Why?

Well protection costs money, if the IFI can't afford the fisheries staff to protect Bass they won't do it. Salmon on the other hand is a source of income for them so they will give the resources to protecting that.

Its also puts an onus on government to support the stock. If we paid a small licence fee, the cost of 1 lure, then 1 angler is paying the Government more than the complete fishing industry for the right to catch fish that's a powerful statement and gives angler the right to have a say in the management of fisheries.

I don't think it would be €100 euros, such a cost wouldn't stack up. But its clear the IFI don't have the resources to police illegal bass fishing to the level that us anglers would like.

[John D]

If I knew the money for a licence would definitely go back into protecting the bass fishery I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it either.

In relation to the point re: meeting conservation limits - I'm afraid I don't know what they mean about the surplus.

John D.

[keith]

(2) I think it should be treated on par with Salmon and Bass angling should require a licence.
€10 adult resident annual, €5 child resident annual, €20 visitor 4 week.

Why?

Well protection costs money, if the IFI can't afford the fisheries staff to protect Bass they won't do it. Salmon on the other hand is a source of income for them so they will give the resources to protecting that.

Its also puts an onus on government to support the stock. If we paid a small licence fee, the cost of 1 lure, then 1 angler is paying the Government more than the complete fishing industry for the right to catch fish that's a powerful statement and gives angler the right to have a say in the management of fisheries.

I don't think it would be €100 euros, such a cost wouldn't stack up. But its clear the IFI don't have the resources to police illegal Bass fishing to the level that us anglers would like.

So if there was such a licence would you expect the IFI to have more staff reacting to illeagal netting or checking anglers on the beach have a licence and are not attempting to fish for Bass if not?

[dbrock]

crazy idea there not silver unicorns, if there going to have a licence system why not just have it on all sea fishing.

[John D]

The amount of digressing never fails to amaze me on this site - guilty as charged!

[Ashley Hayden]

Well said dbrock, it's about time we grew up in this country, if you refuse to buy into a resource you've no right to complain when it goes pear shaped.

[Tanglerat]

Just to keep the digression alive.....

I'm vehemently opposed to restrictions being placed on sea anglers. I see them as an erosion of basic, fundamental rights.

However, I've also long advocated more protection via enforcement of current legislation of our Bass stocks. That, as much as I hate to admit it, is going to cost and it's a cost we anglers will have to shoulder. We all know that the country is in the economic wastelands and there'll be no rich uncle in Dublin or Brussels that we can call on.

I'd prefer to see the current licencing system for Salmon and Sea Trout completely overhauled. Change it instead to a sportfishing licence and add Bass, Mullet and Pike to it. Somehow, I don't see the Trout anglers going for their fish being on that ticket, though. Possibly add on the coarse anglers fish to it too. Make it a single, all-district licence.

Leave the price of it unchanged. Indeed, possibly reduce the current price since so many more anglers will be paying into it.

[MackDublin]

I like that. A lot.

One point I'm concerned about though is this:

Policies should aim to manage towards developing a sustainable stock i.e. the stock should meet a required biological reference point (e.g. a conservation limit) and any surplus above this is available for the fishery.

Will this re-open the door to commercial activity once the conservation limit is exceeded, or is "the fishery" deemed only for the RSA sector?

I think this point really needs to be focused in on. To me it is very much leaving the door open to a debate about commercial fishing.
I would like to know what the rational was behind this paragraph?
This is a draft document. Does this mean that consultation at this point will be sought from stakeholders or is it set in stone?
Do anglers have a representative on the focus group that put this document together as I'd be interested to hear first hand what the rational is behind this paragraph.

In relation to a licence. If its revenues were channeled into protection and it gave anglers a bit more strength when the commercial fishing debate rears its head again, I would be an advocate.

[Tanglerat]

I like that. A lot.

One point I'm concerned about though is this:

Policies should aim to manage towards developing a sustainable stock i.e. the stock should meet a required biological reference point (e.g. a conservation limit) and any surplus above this is available for the fishery.

Will this re-open the door to commercial activity once the conservation limit is exceeded, or is "the fishery" deemed only for the RSA sector?

I think this point really needs to be focused in on. To me it is very much leaving the door open to a debate about commercial fishing.
I would like to know what the rational was behind this paragraph?
This is a draft document. Does this mean that consultation at this point will be sought from stakeholders or is it set in stone?
Do anglers have a representative on the focus group that put this document together as I'd be interested to hear first hand what the rational is behind this paragraph.

In relation to a licence. If its revenues were channeled into protection and it gave anglers a bit more strength when the commercial fishing debate rears its head again, I would be an advocate.

John Quinlan is involved in it, which is a very good thing from an angler's point of view. I've had an exchange of email from him about the very things you mention, and I'm entirely happy with his stance and how he went about business. I'm pretty impressed with it, in fact. I don't know if I should copy what JQ told me in his email, but there's nothing to stop others getting in touch with him and having a chat.

This isn't a solution. It's going to be an ongoing process which we as anglers will have to be directly involved with, and we're going to have to maintain our vigilence at all times, to be part of the decision making and decision influencing process.

[JimH]

This isn't a solution. It's going to be an ongoing process which we as anglers will have to be directly involved with, and we're going to have to maintain our vigilence at all times, to be part of the decision making and decision influencing process.

[MackDublin]

I like that. A lot.

One point I'm concerned about though is this:

Policies should aim to manage towards developing a sustainable stock i.e. the stock should meet a required biological reference point (e.g. a conservation limit) and any surplus above this is available for the fishery.

Will this re-open the door to commercial activity once the conservation limit is exceeded, or is "the fishery" deemed only for the RSA sector?

I think this point really needs to be focused in on. To me it is very much leaving the door open to a debate about commercial fishing.
I would like to know what the rational was behind this paragraph?
This is a draft document. Does this mean that consultation at this point will be sought from stakeholders or is it set in stone?
Do anglers have a representative on the focus group that put this document together as I'd be interested to hear first hand what the rational is behind this paragraph.

In relation to a licence. If its revenues were channeled into protection and it gave anglers a bit more strength when the commercial fishing debate rears its head again, I would be an advocate.

John Quinlan is involved in it, which is a very good thing from an angler's point of view. I've had an exchange of email from him about the very things you mention, and I'm entirely happy with his stance and how he went about business. I'm pretty impressed with it, in fact. I don't know if I should copy what JQ told me in his email, but there's nothing to stop others getting in touch with him and having a chat.

This isn't a solution. It's going to be an ongoing process which we as anglers will have to be directly involved with, and we're going to have to maintain our vigilence at all times, to be part of the decision making and decision influencing process.

I don't doubt for a minute the work going into this.
My question though is this. If this document is a draft and we see things in it that we would have concerns about, is there still time to direct those concerns to the body charged with formalising this document?
If the answer is yes, then who do we direct our concerns to? I'm all for debating elements of it on SAI but I would also like to pass my thoughts to the appropriate people. I'm not sure if this is John Quinlan, Derek Davis or somebody else? Do I post my input into the address on the draft, IFI Swords?

[JohnQ]

Hi Colm,
Please feel free to contact me on info@irishbass.org with any issues you have with the policy document. It is currently being debated by the IFI Forum along with the trout and pike policy documents. I am also on the Forum and we deperately need more sea angling representatives. At the forum meeting last week I was the only representative from sea angling. The situation is so bad that the chairman Derek Davis has stated that all future vacancies need to be filled only by represantatives from sea angling to try to get a better balance. If you or anyone you know is interested in getting involved then please contact the IFI in Swords. There is normally 4 or 5 meetings a year. Sadly there is no reimbursement whatsoever but it will give you a much better chance to have your say.
Regards,
John Quinlan.

[MackDublin]

Hi John,
Thanks for the reply and good work with the proposal, I'll get something over to you in the morning.
Colm

[Dicenintra]

The report is a great start, but I think there is a glaring gap. The Minister for agriculture is the ministry with legal responsibility for bass so the report is nothing more than an aspiration. The Dept Agriculture are the ones who make the rules and regulations concerning bass and they need to be involved in the report and sign of on it as a strategy for a stock which THEY manage if it is to have any power, otherwise it can be pretty much ignored.

[JohnQ]

The report is a great start, but I think there is a glaring gap. The Minister for agriculture is the ministry with legal responsibility for Bass so the report is nothing more than an aspiration. The Dept Agriculture are the ones who make the rules and regulations concerning Bass and they need to be involved in the report and sign of on it as a strategy for a stock which THEY manage if it is to have any power, otherwise it can be pretty much ignored.

Its true that the Dept of Agriculture holds the bass legislation. The do however have limited responsibility for the management of the stock. The IFI, Marine Institute, Failte Ireland and the SFPA all have responsibility for bass management so management is actually divided between two departments.
The IFI is responsible to the Department of DCENR and the Marine Institute is part of the Dept of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. This is why both needed to be involved in the policy. Had the MI not been involved then your point would be a valid one.
The trout and pike policy groups did not have that complication as the Dept of DCENR is primarly responsible for their management.
Hope this clarifys things.