Dunlaoghaire-Rathdown restrict angling to designated areas??

Message

#221 Post by **Seancelt** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:17 am

It might be worth pointing out to the councilors that modern hooks breakdown in saltwater in a very short period of time, otherwise they may have the idea that a hook lost now might be forever and a day waiting for an unsuspecting beach-user. It might also preempt an argument on health and safety grounds.

teacher · #222 Post by **teacher** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:28 am

Not sure I'd start picking at that thread. The whole jumper might unravel ;)

#223 Post by **Tanglerat** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:38 am

teacher wrote:To be honest, I can't see a problem with those proposals.

It's made clear first of all that no bye-law is necessary.

If the council feels they must introduce unnessary bye-laws, then Donagh's proposal suggests what might be acceptable. He says the 40-foot is the only area where a restriction might make sense. (Who wants to fish at the 40-foot. Aargh, my eyes, my eyes.)

He also suggests that anglers wouldn't fish within 50m of a swimmer. Such a regulation (or guideline) could never require an "established" angler to move. It would give ordinary members of the public powers over anglers that typically only gardaí and other officials might have. Instead, it would place an onus on an angler not to fish within 50m of someone who's already swimming.

In my view what's proposed is common sense so, as Donagh says, there's really no need to regulate for it anyway.

Yeah, so make it a by-law that a swimmer must not approach within 50m of an angler.......

It's a fundamental basics issue here, really. I don't believe that any Authority is my friend, or that they have my best interests at heart.

Cynic, moi? :shock:

teacher · #224 Post by **teacher** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:48 am

Tanglerat wrote:Yeah, so make it a by-law that a swimmer must not approach within 50m of an angler.......

Now you're talkin!! We'll throw in PWCs and dogs as well. Problem solved! :D

#225 Post by **Donagh** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:30 am

Just to make it clear this is from the forum member DonOgh not DonAgh.

If negotiating you shouldn't concide in an opening statement. This is left to to the negotiating. So giving into to any sort of a ban on angling should not be in this response.

Donagh

teacher · #226 Post by **teacher** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:41 am

Is there going to be a negotiation?

#227 Post by **Donagh** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 11:57 am

I can only go by the thread that discussions are being had with various parties. Concillors for and against will have to hammer out any new proposal. Is that not negotiating????

Donagh

#228 Post by **eric** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:40 pm

good idea tangle rat, why should we always have to make allowences for swimmers and the like, i think it should be first come, first served basis on the beach, we shouldn't have to move just because a swimmer sets up camp next to us!!

#229 Post by **Donogh** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:47 pm

It's a very fair point that Gerry and a few more of you have raised about my suggestion that anglers might be able to tolerate a ban on angling at a very restricted non-beach area that was particularly suitable for swimming (ie. the 40 Foot) and I thought long and hard about it before including it. And I'm still a bit in two minds about it.
My first thoughts about this were along precisely the same lines, that we shouldn't give an inch, on the grounds that there was no problem and therefore there was no need for a solution. On further examination, although problems are very rare, and there are none in DL Rathdown, they have very occasionally occurred around the country.
I was concerned that if such examples were raised, we should have a politically defensible position. Would anglers appear unreasonable if, for instance, someone suggested at a Council meeting that no restriction could lead to anglers casting 6-ounce leads over the heads of swimmers in the 40-foot, and we had claimed there was 'no problem' whatsoever?? Tho' we feel, quite rightly I think, that our entitlements to use the coast/beach are precisely equal to those of swimmers/surfers, I'm not sure that non-anglers would feel the same way. They might feel that human safety was an issue in such situations, and that in very particular localised circumstances, where the 50-metre requirement might not be practicable, some angling restrictions were necessary. In that situation, might it be useful that we had already pointed the way towards relatively 'harmless' restrictions? On balance, and given that this was merely a personal submission, I thought, yes.
After considering the reaction from colleagues, perhaps the key to this strategy should be to ensure that the Council does not only not include the ban in its Bye-Laws, but does not grant to the management any right to restrict angling in the future. (So if, in the future, this issue came up again, (I'd really hope it wouldn't, but I wouldn't bet on it) the Management would have to go back to the Council again.) Though, as i say, this is only a personal submission, I will change it in terms of lobbying the politicians (who are the people that now matter in all of this) to reflect the concerns that you've raised about giving an inch.

#230 Post by **Tanglerat** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:59 pm

I believe that a right, a liberty, a personal freedom once surrendered can never be regained, and once compromised is open to further compromise. Lets not suffer the death by a thousand cuts here.

However, equally important is the need for unity and a common voice in opposition to these proposals. The best present we could give our opponents is division and a split in our ranks. They would expolit it ruthlessly.

I've voiced my personal opinion, but I'm not going to be sitting down around a table with these folks. Someone else will, and I hope they've appreciated my arguments when they go in to fight for me. Meanwhile, I'm supporting our angling reps.

#231 Post by **Donogh** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:41 pm

Taking into account what people have said, I've amended the document I'm using to lobby politicians as follows:

"Are There Regulations that Might Be Acceptable to All Beach/Coast Users?

Since there is no problem, no solution and no regulations are necessary.
After consulting widely with sea-anglers since this issue was first proposed, I think anglers feel deeply that we should have precisely the same rights to use the beach/coastline as any other category of user and that no ban or restriction whatsoever is necessary. In the rare cases where an angler and a swimmer may wish to use the same waters, a simple, reasonable, first-come-first-served system, has served everyone perfectly well until now, and will continue to do so.
Anglers would not only be concerned about any restriction being imposed now, many of us would be just as concerned if councillors agreed to grant any such power to Council officials for the future. many of us trust our elected representatives to take into account their constituents’ rights and freedoms, but, sadly, this experience has led us to have no similar confidence in the officials of the Council.
But anglers are generally highly-responsible members of society. Although we feel it to be utterly unnecessary, if the Council also wanted to place a general onus on anglers to keep away from swimmers/people in the water, that might be acceptable to many anglers. A simple requirement in the bye-laws that anglers do not fish within 50 metres of any swimmers/sunbathers would seem to be more than adequate to do so."

Just one other thing: Although I fully support our angling reps in their campaign, politicians are used to meeting and hearing from lobby groups and are not always fully-conscious of just how many people they represent, how passionately those people really feel, whether they would really vote on the basis of whatever issue etc. (no matter how often they're told)
In addition to the formal, offical, campaign of our reps, I think that anglers should also really keep campaigning on a personal basis. Numbers of letters, calls etc. really matter on something like this. And a personal letter, from a voter, saying, effectively: "This is my issue, and I will vote on the basis of it", still has a powerful effect on any politician.

#232 Post by **keith** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:50 pm

Folks,

We do have to distance ourselves from the swarms of Idiots firing feathers
out from anywhere they can access water and leaving most marks like a tip when they are finnished. I have seen a group of youngfella's terrorise swimmers at the steps in greystones this is not going to help because the county counsel's see these fools as angler's............

uvox · #233 Post by **uvox** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:58 am

i think it goes without saying we distance ourselves from such behaviour - as would swimmers distance themselves from the lousy behaviour of some swimmers that i've seen throwing stones and rocks into areas where angling is taking place.

personally, i feel there's a strong whiff of racism behind this proposal too.

#234 Post by **Tanglerat** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:08 pm

uvox wrote:personally, i feel there's a strong whiff of racism behind this proposal too.

Care to expand on this uvox? We should be scrutinising all aspects of this issue. There's no point in leaving stones unturned!

teacher · #235 Post by **teacher** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:24 am

This might have a passing relevance... An Taisce has withdrawn the Blue Flag from Seapoint after increased bacteria levels were detected. Article in today's Irish Times.

#236 Post by **Paramedic030** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:36 pm

Being from and more important IN Germany, I've sent a letter to DLRDCoCo a few weeks ago, commenting on the importance of angling to the tourism industry and the fact that in a few years time with the climate change, the computer industry and other global players moving out of the country tourism might be the No. one jobs mashine in Ireland.

Anyway, I've got this reply in the post today:

- - - - - - - - - -

Re: Draft Beach Bye-Laws

Dear Mr. Thies,

I acknowledge reciept of your letter in respect of the above.

Your comments have been noted and consideration will be given to your suggestions.

Yours sincerely,

Patricia O'Keefe

Beaches Section,
Culture, Community Development
& Amenities Department.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Now, lets see where it leads us!

Patrick!

teacher · #237 Post by **teacher** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:42 pm

I got one of the above today as well.

Also got a letter from An Cathaoirleach Denis O'Callaghan stating that his intention is to "table an amendment to the draft proposals to delete the proposed blanket ban on fishing along the foreshore."

#238 Post by **Paramedic030** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:46 pm

We should try to get more international writers!

I believe the only thing that possibly makes my letter stand out of the crowd is the adress I've sent it from!

P

teacher · #239 Post by **teacher** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:59 pm

Paramedic030 wrote:We should try to get more international writers!

I believe the only thing that possibly makes my letter stand out of the crowd is the adress I've sent it from!

You should write to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Failte Ireland and the fisheries boards as well. They're all interested in selling angling tourism abroad.

#240 Post by jd » Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:46 pm

Some comment at The Village by Richard Boyd Barrett, who was an activist in the Dun Laoghaire Baths issue, and also did well in the last General Election.

http://www.village.ie/Forum/Statement/C ... onian.%92/

Sea Angling Ireland

Dunlaoghaire-Rathdown restrict angling to designated areas??

Giving an inch?

Political Lobbying