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

No worms, prawns/shrimp and single barbed hooks on certain Rivers

Options
«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    Bye Law 888 will have massive implications in it's current form.

    It's not the first poor piece of legislation to come from the Dept.

    I'm told moves are afoot seeking to amend 888.

    I live in hope.


  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭fisherking


    Crude but at least its black and white
    Too much scope for pleading ignorance otherwise

    What problems do you think it will cause?

    Bizzum wrote: »
    Bye Law 888 will have massive implications in it's current form.

    It's not the first poor piece of legislation to come from the Dept.

    I'm told moves are afoot seeking to amend 888.

    I live in hope.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭tin79


    fisherking wrote: »
    Crude but at least its black and white
    Too much scope for pleading ignorance otherwise

    What problems do you think it will cause?

    It has already caused problems in that people who fish for pike and perch on the liffey, for example, now cannot use worm or treble hooks. This is problematic.

    Also please dont anyone reply with the "why cant you pike fish with a single barbless hook" because you will just make yourself look silly. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭whelzer


    Theres a few lads (and at least 2 lassies!) that spin/plug for trout in a club that I'm a member of. They won't be happy bunnies and I can't blame them.

    I can see why these rules may make sense on the face of it but when fully thought out are a bit of a joke.

    [Edit] I've only read by law 888 in detail - workibg my way through the others now!


  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭fisherking


    Sure
    But a small price to pay to protect an endangered species
    There are pike and Perch in the canal for trebles
    Stocks of salmon are so low I can't even fish catch an release hopefully it will only be for a few years.....

    tin79 wrote: »
    fisherking wrote: »
    Crude but at least its black and white
    Too much scope for pleading ignorance otherwise

    What problems do you think it will cause?

    It has already caused problems in that people who fish for pike and perch on the liffey, for example, now cannot use worm or treble hooks. This is problematic.

    Also please dont anyone reply with the "why cant you pike fish with a single barbless hook" because you will just make yourself look silly. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    Buggs wrote: »
    This is in relation to Bye-law 888, 12th one down,
    http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Natural/Inland+Fisheries/Legislation/Bye+Laws/Bye-Laws+2011.htm

    These new measures affect all anglers and not just Salmon anglers.
    Should this be stickied?
    It would be very useful for all concerned to stay up to date with current legislation and to know what by-laws affect their district.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    Bye-law 306, 2010
    “sea trout” means fish of the migratory form of Salmo trutta, but does not include a sea trout which is 40 centimetres or less in length measured in a straight line from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail.
    Bye-law 890, 2011
    "sea trout" means the migratory form of Salmo trutta which is 40cm or less in length, measured in a straight line from the tip of the snout to the fork of the tail.
    :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭Buggs


    slowburner wrote: »
    Bye-law 306, 2010
    Bye-law 890, 2011
    :confused:

    Would the newer Bye-law take precedent?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    slowburner wrote: »
    Bye-law 306, 2010
    Bye-law 890, 2011
    :confused:

    Bye-law 306 is the national bye-law pertaining to salmon, and sea trout over 40cm are included in that so as not to allow anyone to take a salmon "in the belief" that it was a large sea trout - i.e. close off a loophole.

    Bye-law 809 is a local bye-law for the Avoca River and serves to prohibit the taking of any sea trout whatsoever in that river, since sea trout over 40cm are already accounted for in the national bye-law, and this extends that to sea trout under 40cm. Hence the differences in definitions.

    Not sure why this was done for the Avoca, some local concern about sea trout stocks there?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭ironbluedun


    the whole thing is very confusing now.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭8k2q1gfcz9s5d4


    why have they banned using worm?


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭Buggs


    why have they banned using worm?

    The Salmon usually swallows it whole, making it impossible to return.
    Can't understand why they would ban shrimp/prawn as it's the most catch and release friendly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Buggs wrote: »
    The Salmon usually swallows it whole, making it impossible to return.
    Can't understand why they would ban shrimp/prawn as it's the most catch and release friendly.

    Not a chance. I have landed fish on the prawn where I barely felt the bite and yet the fish was so deeply hooked that it was impossible to unhook - gill filaments torn etc. No chance of survival. I have seen hundreds of fish landed on prawn and while many were hooked in the mouth, a good percentage were deep hooked also.
    Flyfishing is definitely the most C&R friendly method. I have yet to land a salmon, or see one landed, that was so deeply hooked that it could not be returned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭8k2q1gfcz9s5d4


    Buggs wrote: »
    The Salmon usually swallows it whole, making it impossible to return.
    Can't understand why they would ban shrimp/prawn as it's the most catch and release friendly.

    thanks for answering. im not a salmon angler!


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭Buggs


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Not a chance. I have landed fish on the prawn where I barely felt the bite and yet the fish was so deeply hooked that it was impossible to unhook - gill filaments torn etc. No chance of survival. I have seen hundreds of fish landed on prawn and while many were hooked in the mouth, a good percentage were deep hooked also.
    Flyfishing is definitely the most C&R friendly method. I have yet to land a salmon, or see one landed, that was so deeply hooked that it could not be returned.

    I can't comment on your experiences, but any time I've caught a Salmon on worms he swallowed the hook negating any possible release, whereas a fish caught on a prawn with a circle hook is usually hooked in the scissors, and relatively lightly as well. If the fish is played correctly, and handled/ revived carefully there is every chance the fish will survive.
    Likewise a Salmon caught on a spinner.

    Fly fishing may be the most effective for C+R but,
    1. I was not talking about it, also it was not being discussed in this thread
    2. Not all water is suitable
    3. On the rivers mentioned in the Bye-law the use of trebles on tube flies etc is now prohibited

    There is always the chance of deep hooking any fish regardless of method.


  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭fisherking


    You CANNOT deep hook a fish fly fishing



    Buggs wrote: »
    Zzippy wrote: »
    Not a chance. I have landed fish on the prawn where I barely felt the bite and yet the fish was so deeply hooked that it was impossible to unhook - gill filaments torn etc. No chance of survival. I have seen hundreds of fish landed on prawn and while many were hooked in the mouth, a good percentage were deep hooked also.
    Flyfishing is definitely the most C&R friendly method. I have yet to land a salmon, or see one landed, that was so deeply hooked that it could not be returned.

    I can't comment on your experiences, but any time I've caught a Salmon on worms he swallowed the hook negating any possible release, whereas a fish caught on a prawn with a circle hook is usually hooked in the scissors, and relatively lightly as well. If the fish is played correctly, and handled/ revived carefully there is every chance the fish will survive.
    Likewise a Salmon caught on a spinner.

    Fly fishing may be the most effective for C+R but,
    1. I was not talking about it, also it was not being discussed in this thread
    2. Not all water is suitable
    3. On the rivers mentioned in the Bye-law the use of trebles on tube flies etc is now prohibited

    There is always the chance of deep hooking any fish regardless of method.


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭Buggs


    fisherking wrote: »
    You CANNOT deep hook a fish fly fishing

    http://salmon-fishing-scotland.blogspot.com/2011/03/salmon-fishing-scotland-spring-salmon_04.html
    The salmon was hooked on a Monkey fly fished fairly quickly due to the long wing. The fish was deep hooked and slightly bleeding


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Bye-law 306 is the national bye-law pertaining to salmon, and sea trout over 40cm are included in that so as not to allow anyone to take a salmon "in the belief" that it was a large sea trout - i.e. close off a loophole.

    Bye-law 809 is a local bye-law for the Avoca River and serves to prohibit the taking of any sea trout whatsoever in that river, since sea trout over 40cm are already accounted for in the national bye-law, and this extends that to sea trout under 40cm. Hence the differences in definitions.
    I see.
    Not sure why this was done for the Avoca, some local concern about sea trout stocks there?
    It is something of a miracle that stocks of migratory fish are recovering after 250+ years of the most intense pollution any river has suffered on this island. Any legislation which affords this recovery period some protection can be nothing but beneficial in the long run.
    We've already seen what the catchment is capable of producing.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    fisherking wrote: »
    You CANNOT deep hook a fish fly fishing
    Buggs wrote: »
    I can't comment on your experiences, but any time I've caught a Salmon on worms he swallowed the hook negating any possible release, whereas a fish caught on a prawn with a circle hook is usually hooked in the scissors, and relatively lightly as well. If the fish is played correctly, and handled/ revived carefully there is every chance the fish will survive.
    Likewise a Salmon caught on a spinner.

    Fly fishing may be the most effective for C+R but,
    1. I was not talking about it, also it was not being discussed in this thread
    2. Not all water is suitable
    3. On the rivers mentioned in the Bye-law the use of trebles on tube flies etc is now prohibited

    There is always the chance of deep hooking any fish regardless of method.

    If a fish is hooked so deeply that the hook is behind the tongue or down the throat it can cause serious damage to the fish and reduce its chance of survival when released.
    There is a significant difference between the fish's behaviour when it takes a lure and when it takes a bait.
    A lure has no smell or taste and the texture is unlike the food it is supposed to represent. So the fish takes it, realises that it is not what it thought it was and tries to spit it out.
    A bait has a smell, a taste, a texture and it is food. The fish takes it and unless it feels the hook, sees no reason not to swallow it - and that's where the damage occurs.


    Sometimes a fly angler will describe a fish as being deeply hooked. This just means that the lure was deep in the mouth cavity - not that it was swallowed.
    A fish hooked in this way is to do with the way it came at the lure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 374 ✭✭fisherking


    Touche!
    A very rare occurance though

    Buggs wrote: »
    fisherking wrote: »
    You CANNOT deep hook a fish fly fishing

    http://salmon-fishing-scotland.blogspot.com/2011/03/salmon-fishing-scotland-spring-salmon_04.html
    The salmon was hooked on a Monkey fly fished fairly quickly due to the long wing. The fish was deep hooked and slightly bleeding


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,270 ✭✭✭tin79


    fisherking wrote: »
    Sure
    But a small price to pay to protect an endangered species
    There are pike and Perch in the canal for trebles
    Stocks of salmon are so low I can't even fish catch an release hopefully it will only be for a few years.....

    Yes hopefully it will be just a few years.

    Worm fishing I can understand and generally shrimp/prawn is a salmon specifi method but the single hook rule is frustrating as it rules out deadbaiting, sink and draw and plugs/jerkbaits/etc. There are pike in the canal yes but the liffey is a mixed fishery and as such its unfortunate that predator anglers are loosing their sport when they do not target salmon anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    tin79 wrote: »
    the single hook rule is frustrating as it rules out deadbaiting, sink and draw and plugs/jerkbaits/etc.

    Just on this point. This rather clumsy piece of legislation will, where it applies, rule out Deadbaiting as far as I can see. I don't know how you would mount a deadbait successfully on a single barbless hook?
    In relation to plugs/jerkbaits/ etc it would be simple enough to modify a conventional triple hook to turn it into a single barbless.

    I think it's also worth noting exactly where this Bye Law applies. As an example, take the Drogheda District,the Boyne is main chanell only and Blackwater is to the 9 eyed br. Thus much of the catchment is excluded (including Ramor and the other lakes in that area).

    Little consolation though to any man that want's to fish for Pike with a deadbait in the main body of the Boyne! Or indeed the many Trout anglers that fish with a worm in areas of the catchment that Salmon rerely frequent nor are caught.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,220 Mod ✭✭✭✭slowburner


    .....any fish hooks, other than single barbless hooks......
    Note the use of the plural.

    Will it rule out deadbaiting?
    Can deadbaits not be mounted effectively with the likes of a Pennel rig?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    slowburner wrote: »
    Note the use of the plural.

    Will it rule out deadbaiting?
    Can deadbaits not be mounted effectively with the likes of a Pennel rig?

    Duely noted.
    However would a Salmon angler use it as defence if found to be using three single barbless hooks on a lure?
    He could well you know.

    Having never used a deadbait I cant say if a particular rig will suffice. I've only ever noticed deadbaits mounted via treble hooks.

    I am told moves are afoot to amend said Bye Law. Here's hoping!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭purehoor


    so no more piking for me on the boyne???? this law sucks ass:mad:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭keyser2012


    does this effct the moy at all


  • Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭allquestions


    Wow :eek: this is the first I've heard of it and already have a few fishing trips planned for later in the year... I'll have to keep an eye on the current legislation and think about the implications that this has for my (used to be legal) activities! :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭purehoor


    Bizzum wrote: »
    Just on this point. This rather clumsy piece of legislation will, where it applies, rule out Deadbaiting as far as I can see. I don't know how you would mount a deadbait successfully on a single barbless hook?
    In relation to plugs/jerkbaits/ etc it would be simple enough to modify a conventional triple hook to turn it into a single barbless.

    I think it's also worth noting exactly where this Bye Law applies. As an example, take the Drogheda District,the Boyne is main chanell only and Blackwater is to the 9 eyed br. Thus much of the catchment is excluded (including Ramor and the other lakes in that area).

    Little consolation though to any man that want's to fish for Pike with a deadbait in the main body of the Boyne! Or indeed the many Trout anglers that fish with a worm in areas of the catchment that Salmon rerely frequent nor are caught.


    iv just read thru the laws but theres nothing on the boyne??? am i missing some of it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,034 ✭✭✭Bizzum


    purehoor wrote: »
    iv just read thru the laws but theres nothing on the boyne??? am i missing some of it?

    As things currently stand, 888 includes the Boyne main channel only and the Kells Blackwater up to the 9 eyed bridge.

    I am hearing a lot of talk about the Boyne being excluded from 888 but I've seen nothing official yet!

    I live in hope.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭ironbluedun


    I have no problem with the bye law, in fact a ban on the use of worms will protect young brown trout and salmon parr. I do agree a shrimp ban is a little odd. A treble hook ban is being done to protect salmon.

    Yes there are side affects on pike anglers but why cant an angler fish dead bait for pike with a large single barbless hook, or a pair of them?

    I don't do a huge amount of piking these days but used to when i was younger and i can see dead bait working with single hooks. One hook through the top lip and one in and out through the base of the dorsal fin with points showing??


Advertisement