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

allquestions

I was told that this was recinded by the Minister? Any truth in that?

Bizzum

allquestions wrote: »

I was told that this was recinded by the Minister? Any truth in that?

I have heard the same but nothing official yet.

bayliner

allquestions wrote: »

I was told that this was recinded by the Minister? Any truth in that?

heard something similar yesterday, its being looked at in more detail or something along those lines, same source claims small barbless hooks do damage to trout under half a pound, acting like a scissors! it was mentioned at an AGM, dont shoot the messenger:)...

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

ironbluedun wrote: »

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?

may work in theory, however it will prob make most tourist anglers fish locations where they can use treble hooks. What about lures? I have never heard of stores if salmon taking 6"+ jerk baits.

ironbluedun

Konnor Eager Rip-off wrote: »

may work in theory, however it will prob make most tourist anglers fish locations where they can use treble hooks. What about lures? I have never heard of stores if salmon taking 6"+ jerk baits.

Good point. But would it really put tourist anglers off if the fishing was good. A few years ago i went to canada to fish because the fishing was very good over there. Before going i knew that it was all single barbless hooks. It didnt make a blind bit of difference because the fish were there and fishing excellent. So if fishing is very good quality I cant really see a treble hook ban stopping tourist anglers.

6 inch + is indeed a big bait for a salmon. But salmon will take smaller rapala and similar type lures.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

I dont see the point in an outright ban on treble hooks though. Why not limit the ban to the areas where salmon are fished for

*Removed most of the post as it was incorrect

Zzippy

Konnor Eager Rip-off wrote: »

I dont see the point in an outright ban on treble hooks though. Why not limit the ban to the areas where salmon are fished for? Salmon may take small lures, however, very very few are caught by pike anglers every year. This rule is not going to be adhered to by 99% of anglers in the mid shannon for a few reasons:

• Most coarse/pike anglers wont have heard about the rule
• There are no signs showing the rules
• Lures/dead basit rigs will still be sold with treple hooks
• there are very few water keepers in non game sections of rivers (I have never seen one)
• Bream anglers are not going to stop using worm

`


Did you even read the byelaw? Its linked in the very first post in the thread. The byelaw specifically relates only to those rivers where salmon are, and where salmon angling is currently prohibited due to low stocks. The rivers are listed by name in the byelaw. The Shannon is not included. The canals are not included. Before you jump in with 2 feet maybe take a moment and read about it before posting...

I have to make a comment on this!
As for the Canal, most have been hammered by our eastern european friends. The governemnt never intervened when our canals were being netted or swans being eaten.
There are a lot more game anglers in Ireland than coarse. This rule is going to have a small impact on the game angler, but a massive impact on the coarse angler. But do you really think this rule is going to improve the stocks of salmon? I honnestly cant see it. If the salmon are endangered, why not make salmon angling catch and release? IF that rule came in, there would be protests in the streets!

Did you even read the byelaw?? Its linked in the very first post in this thread. The byelaw specifically relates only to those rivers where salmon are, and where salmon angling is currently prohibited due to low stocks. The rivers are listed by name in the byelaw. The Shannon is not included. The canals are not included. Before you jump in with 2 feet maybe take a moment and read about it before posting...

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Zzippy wrote: »

Did you even read the byelaw?? Its linked in the very first post in this thread. The byelaw specifically relates only to those rivers where salmon are, and where salmon angling is currently prohibited due to low stocks. The rivers are listed by name in the byelaw. The Shannon is not included. The canals are not included. Before you jump in with 2 feet maybe take a moment and read about it before posting...

should have read it all! going to edit my posts as they are incorrect

Buggs

http://www.irelandscoarsefishing.com/bye-law-888-gets-a-haircut/

The following changes will be implemented:
1. Bye Law 888 will shortly be revoked and replaced by Bye Law 897 2012. This change will have the effect of removing a number of provisions which had the unintended consequences in the implementation of Bye Law 888.
2. While this particular Bye Law was part of the proposed Salmon management regulations, it is recognised that those proposals had the potential to ultimately affect coarse and Pike anglers. These anglers would not necessarily have had reason previously to examine thae consultation documents for Salmon management and hence they did not appreciate the significance of the proposed Bye-Law.
Therefore, following discussion with the Angling delegation, it has been agreed that for future years, in addition to publication on my Departments's website, the advisory/consultation documentation will be sent directly to the main angler representative bodies in advance of sign off. The angling representatives can then disseminate to their members and other interested parties.
3. Reference to banning prawn and shrimp as angling baits be removed from the Bye-Law.
4. Remove the River Fergus system from the Bye-Law.
5. Remove the Kilcolgan River from the Bye-Law.
6. All other issues can be dealt with through giving a clear communication of the spirit and intent of the Bye-Law and how it is going to be implemented.

slowburner

It might be wise not to take the above statement as an amendment, just yet.
I don't know who David Warrington is, or who this, 'My Department's website' refers to.
Nor do I see any legitimate reason why coarse anglers should wish to lobby for the use of prawn and shrimp.

Buggs

David Warrington is the owner of that website.
"My Department's website", refers to the Minister in charge.
It's not an amendment, they are scrapping the Bye-law and replacing it with Bye-law 897

Bizzum

I can't get my head around what/who is driving this nonsense.
One ill thought out mish mash of legislation replaced by another equally ill considered piece of junk.
If the law is aimed at Salmon/Sea Trout why not name them as in other SI's.
888 (where appliciable) demonised the genuine Pike angler dead baiting for Pike and 897 appears to do the same.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic comes to mind.