What is coming down the line ?

jkchambers

The Minister has said that he will hold more consultation meetings around the country when the draft bill is available. Why dont all you guys go along to one of these meetings and make your points. He has said that he is very open to suggestions and wants a bill that anglers as a whole will be happy with.
At the first round of consultation meetings only a tiny number of anglers bothered their ars*s to go along and air their views.

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

Federations ain't all they are cracked up to be I don't even think tafi have representitive on the angling council , I could be mistaken

TAFI pulled out of the Angling Council around a year ago. There are still 4 strong Federations in the Angling Council who are working well together.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jkchambers wrote: »

The Minister has said that he will hold more consultation meetings around the country when the draft bill is available. Why dont all you guys go along to one of these meetings and make your points. He has said that he is very open to suggestions and wants a bill that anglers as a whole will be happy with.
At the first round of consultation meetings only a tiny number of anglers bothered their ars*s to go along and air their views.

Yes I can see an individual who fishes on his own on a stretch of shore in Louth, or on a small pond in Meath being listened to over federations porporting to represent large numbers of anglers in areas where angling draws in tourists.

I only heard about this change by reading boards. None of the others I mentioned it to had heard anything. How can they attend meetings they don't even hear about. Very few read boards.ie

jkchambers

Kaliyah Stocky Self-esteem wrote: »

Yes I can see an individual who fishes on his own on a stretch of shore in Louth, or on a small pond in Meath being listened to over federations porporting to represent large numbers of anglers in areas where angling draws in tourists.

I only heard about this change by reading boards. None of the others I mentioned it to had heard anything. How can they attend meetings they don't even hear about. Very few read boards.ie

There are several other active angling message boards where I posted notices of the meetings and they were advertised in the press. IFPAC did notify all our affiliated clubs. Not sure whether any other Fed did. I would add that it was only after these public meetings that IFPAC called a meeting of clubs and decided to support a compulsory angler contribution. We had called a meeting of clubs prior to the Ministers round of meetings and voted against at that time.

madred006

Attended meeting in nenagh first time around and like other poster said he not intrested in what anglers think it's the federations that represent us that he wants on board individuals don't count for much with any branch of govt . But I for one fail to see why we should subsidise a govt body all over again , we pay enough taxs as it is .

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

There are several other active angling message boards where I posted notices of the meetings and they were advertised in the press. IFPAC did notify all our affiliated clubs. Not sure whether any other Fed did. I would add that it was only after these public meetings that IFPAC called a meeting of clubs and decided to support a compulsory angler contribution. We had called a meeting of clubs prior to the Ministers round of meetings and voted against at that time.

I commend your organisation jk because from the beginning ye have been involved and did spread the word about the levy and have always been in close partnership with your members .Pity others weren't as free with information .

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

I commend your organisation jk because from the beginning ye have been involved and did spread the word about the levy and have always been in close partnership with your members .Pity others weren't as free with information .

Well if any more clubs want to join IFPAC they would be most welcome. At present we have just over 70 affiliated clubs which includes several prominent salmon/trout clubs some of whose members also fish for pike. Today we are posting out our November newsletter and in it we are asking club secretaries to send us the email addresses of any club members who would like to get our newsletter by email. We want to keep as many of our affiliated club members as up to date as possible.

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

Well if any more clubs want to join IFPAC they would be most welcome. At present we have just over 70 affiliated clubs which includes several prominent salmon/trout clubs some of whose members also fish for pike. Today we are posting out our November newsletter and in it we are asking club secretaries to send us the email addresses of any club members who would like to get our newsletter by email. We want to keep as many of our affiliated club members as up to date as possible.

Just out of curiosity jk what is fee to affiliate and does it cover insurance

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity jk what is fee to affiliate and does it cover insurance

Affiliation is €75 and we have comprehensive club and personal accident insurance. I dont want to be seen selling our insurance but it is, without any doubt, the best club policy anyone is offering. The main plus is that the third party cover is extended to cover members while fresh water pleasure fishing anywhere in the World except USA and Canada. Other Feds dont have that and it is a really important add on. The price of our club policy is the same as most others charge. If you send me a pm with your email address I can send you more info.

Pappa Charlie

Any chance of a link to the newsletter here on boards?

jkchambers

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

Any chance of a link to the newsletter here on boards?

I am afraid not.
This is a link to the message board of our website
http://www.angling-in-ireland.com/forum/index.php

Zzippy

madred006 wrote: »

I fully understand the point of the levy , I'm just highlighting one of many faults with ifi at the moment , and I'm not putting Cart before the horse , but what your saying is the levy will basically subsidise the ifi and I don't see the point of it been subsidised when it's not working. And as I have said I don't see the point in asking ordinary anglers police rivers for nothing when ifi staff are been paid for the same duties . The majority of anglers are into it as a hobbie and enjoyable pastime , I'm sure they don't want to go down the river on Sunday and be asking people for levies or licences .

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying the levy would subsidise development work carried out by clubs with IFI support. That's very different from subsidising IFI, either you misunderstood me or you're putting words in my mouth. Do you think these projects should be done by IFI anyway for free?

I never said anything about waterkeepers, but the fact is IFI staff are very limited in numbers, and many anglers do want to help police rivers. Some of them have been doing so for years. You're fully entitled to not want to do so yourself, but don't knock people who do want to contribute.

madred006

Zzippy wrote: »

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying the levy would subsidise development work carried out by clubs with IFI support. That's very different from subsidising IFI, either you misunderstood me or you're putting words in my mouth. Do you think these projects should be done by IFI anyway for free?

I never said anything about waterkeepers, but the fact is IFI staff are very limited in numbers, and many anglers do want to help police rivers. Some of them have been doing so for years. You're fully entitled to not want to do so yourself, but don't knock people who do want to contribute.

Firstly voluntary water keepers have little or no powers and small clubs haven't got finances to take people to court, iv done the water keeping thing and just this may approached 3 lads on river to be told to F off and upon returning to the car with 3 kids discover almost two thousand euros worth of damage done . I or anyone else I know don't class this as fishing .
Secondly:Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) the state agency responsible for the protection, management and conservation of Ireland's inland fisheries and sea angling resources. Yes I do expect them do the work it's what they were set up to do , and if they are not capable of doing what they were set up to do get rid of them , start at the top and work downwards .

Zzippy

madred006 wrote: »

Firstly voluntary water keepers have little or no powers and small clubs haven't got finances to take people to court, iv done the water keeping thing and just this may approached 3 lads on river to be told to F off and upon returning to the car with 3 kids discover almost two thousand euros worth of damage done . I or anyone else I know don't class this as fishing .
Secondly:Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) the state agency responsible for the protection, management and conservation of Ireland's inland fisheries and sea angling resources. Yes I do expect them do the work it's what they were set up to do , and if they are not capable of doing what they were set up to do get rid of them , start at the top and work downwards .

Right - so you expect a State agency to carry out development works for which they have NO MONEY, and when they can't carry out said works because they have NO MONEY you think they should be disbanded. Where have you been the last 5 years? You do realise there is a recession, and government spending has been severely curtailed? Seriously, cop on...

madred006

Zzippy wrote: »

Right - so you expect a State agency to carry out development works for which they have NO MONEY, and when they can't carry out said works because they have NO MONEY you think they should be disbanded. Where have you been the last 5 years? You do realise there is a recession, and government spending has been severely curtailed? Seriously, cop on...

I think that when something ceases to work it should be repaired or replaced very hard to watch tv without a plug on it .What ur saying is we should subsidise the ifi and like lots of things in life some will benefit greatly from this and others won't benifit at all . That's why many govt bodies are the way they are there is no accountability and just keep going through the motions on a daily basis ,ifi replaced the co-ops with promises of great work to be done and as far as I'm concerned have done very little and if they can't operate should be disbanded yes .As for cop on if it were a business it would be closed down long ago because it's not functioning .

Zzippy

madred006 wrote: »

I think that when something ceases to work it should be repaired or replaced very hard to watch tv without a plug on it .What ur saying is we should subsidise the ifi and like lots of things in life some will benefit greatly from this and others won't benifit at all . That's why many govt bodies are the way they are there is no accountability and just keep going through the motions on a daily basis ,ifi replaced the co-ops with promises of great work to be done and as far as I'm concerned have done very little and if they can't operate should be disbanded yes .As for cop on if it were a business it would be closed down long ago because it's not functioning .

You do realise that development is only one of the remits of IFI? And development work has always been very much dependent on funding. The amount of funding provided by the co-ops was miniscule because it was a voluntary contribution by anglers, the vast majority of whom chose not to contribute. The vast majority of the money spent on development works was provided by government or EU funding. That has now totally dried up. Where is the money to come from to do development work???

So all the fisheries protection officers, environmental officers, research staff and development staff (who are continuing to do maintenance work, or redeployed to protection), should be laid off because the funding for one aspect of IFI's work is no longer available???

madred006

Zzippy wrote: »

You do realise that development is only one of the remits of IFI? And development work has always been very much dependent on funding. The amount of funding provided by the co-ops was miniscule because it was a voluntary contribution by anglers, the vast majority of whom chose not to contribute. The vast majority of the money spent on development works was provided by government or EU funding. That has now totally dried up. Where is the money to come from to do development work???

So all the fisheries protection officers, environmental officers, research staff and development staff (who are continuing to do maintenance work, or redeployed to protection), should be laid off because the funding for one aspect of IFI's work is no longer available???

As iv said it's only my opinion and I'm entitled to that and as are you . I have reservations about funding ifi through the new levy , because not every one will benifit from it both the protection and funding aspects of it . This I believe should have or should be resolved before any levy is introduced . As for part time protection officers really , this is pure rubbish and perhaps some funding could be set aside to perhaps take on and train seasonal officers and the likes .

Zzippy

madred006 wrote: »

As iv said it's only my opinion and I'm entitled to that and as are you . I have reservations about funding ifi through the new levy , because not every one will benifit from it both the protection and funding aspects of it . This I believe should have or should be resolved before any levy is introduced . As for part time protection officers really , this is pure rubbish and perhaps some funding could be set aside to perhaps take on and train seasonal officers and the likes .

Leave aside the waterkeeper issue, as that has nothing to do with the proposed levy, and is being used to muddy the waters, and let's talk about the proposed levy, charge, whatever you want to call it.
IFI would not be funded through the levy. IFI is funded by the taxpayer in terms of salaries, capital and running costs. This funding has decreased over the last few years, as have the number of staff. IFI is still continuing to operate successfully, concentrating on the core duties of protecting fisheries, and doing extra work like new development where funding allows. Existing development work is being maintained to the best ability of staff given the funding constraints. The proposed levy would be ring-fenced and spent back on development and angling projects by clubs, not IFI. So how is that funding IFI?
To clarify, are you suggesting that taxpayer funding should be increased so that IFI can do development work again, before we talk about any levy? And if so, would you support an increase in taxes, or a reduction in funding elsewhere (e.g. health, education) to compensate?

madred006

Zzippy wrote: »

Leave aside the waterkeeper issue, as that has nothing to do with the proposed levy, and is being used to muddy the waters, and let's talk about the proposed levy, charge, whatever you want to call it.
IFI would not be funded through the levy. IFI is funded by the taxpayer in terms of salaries, capital and running costs. This funding has decreased over the last few years, as have the number of staff. IFI is still continuing to operate successfully, concentrating on the core duties of protecting fisheries, and doing extra work like new development where funding allows. Existing development work is being maintained to the best ability of staff given the funding constraints. The proposed levy would be ring-fenced and spent back on development and angling projects by clubs, not IFI. So how is that funding IFI?
To clarify, are you suggesting that taxpayer funding should be increased so that IFI can do development work again, before we talk about any levy? And if so, would you support an increase in taxes, or a reduction in funding elsewhere (e.g. health, education) to compensate?

Did I ever say that I would support an increase in taxes ? No I didn't nor would I expect health or education to suffer as a result of any angling venture . But you say leave the water keepers out of it , why they are a very important part of protecting our waterways and should not be replaced by egotistical over zealous anglers on a power trip with little or no powers or training .
I don't mind paying the levy if everyone will benifit from it and this Ringfenced is a great word , kinda like going forward lots of alternate meanings and as such IMO only greater clubs and locations will benifit from it . Ie tourist catchments and the big rivers .
In 2012 there were 410 seizures by ifi staff that's less than 2 a day and poaching has never been as common . The greater percentage of these seizures occurred in the west of Ireland and in particular the Ballinakill area and about 15-20 in east of Ireland Blackrock area including drogheda . No seizures occurred in Laois Offaly Kilkenny Wexford Leitrim Roscommon , point I'm making is I would hate to be back here in 2 years time and saying that these areas received no funding . IFI will ultimately have the final word on who gets the funding because if they don't sanction the work you don't get the grant . So in effect will have control of it . Can you tell me that this money will not suppliment them in some way shape or form no you can't nor can I say the opposite . But it's something that should be decided upon and finalised and copper fastened and if so I have no problems paying it , and if it's done cottectly with everyone on board it could see great changes to angling in all codes , I just hope it's done right and we all benifit . Tight lines

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

Did I ever say that I would support an increase in taxes ? No I didn't nor would I expect health or education to suffer as a result of any angling venture . But you say leave the water keepers out of it , why they are a very important part of protecting our waterways and should not be replaced by egotistical over zealous anglers on a power trip with little or no powers or training .
I don't mind paying the levy if everyone will benifit from it and this Ringfenced is a great word , kinda like going forward lots of alternate meanings and as such IMO only greater clubs and locations will benifit from it . Ie tourist catchments and the big rivers .
In 2012 there were 410 seizures by ifi staff that's less than 2 a day and poaching has never been as common . The greater percentage of these seizures occurred in the west of Ireland and in particular the Ballinakill area and about 15-20 in east of Ireland Blackrock area including drogheda . No seizures occurred in Laois Offaly Kilkenny Wexford Leitrim Roscommon , point I'm making is I would hate to be back here in 2 years time and saying that these areas received no funding . IFI will ultimately have the final word on who gets the funding because if they don't sanction the work you don't get the grant . So in effect will have control of it . Can you tell me that this money will not suppliment them in some way shape or form no you can't nor can I say the opposite . But it's something that should be decided upon and finalised and copper fastened and if so I have no problems paying it , and if it's done cottectly with everyone on board it could see great changes to angling in all codes , I just hope it's done right and we all benifit . Tight lines

As I pointed out before the Minister has said many times that he want to get everyone on board with the new legislation and thats why he is willing to go around the country holding public meetings. There are other issues to be discussed too. The proposed new angler reserve force. How members of the Board of IFI are appointed. At present of the 10 Board members 7 are game anglers with pike, coarse and sea not getting a look in.

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

As I pointed out before the Minister has said many times that he want to get everyone on board with the new legislation and thats why he is willing to go around the country holding public meetings. There are other issues to be discussed too. The proposed new angler reserve force. How members of the Board of IFI are appointed. At present of the 10 Board members 7 are game anglers with pike, coarse and sea not getting a look in.

From that perspective it's great to see pike anglers backing it and I agree that the representation should be fairer ,all forms of angling are to be enjoyed and as such each should get a fair slice of the cake so to speak and I support this 100 % . But surely this reserve force should be entitled to proper training and receive some form of reimbursement all be it expenses .

rpmcmurphy

If the dept of finance has placed a target reduction on the IFI staff headcount to a designated number before future recruitment can commence would it not make more sense to allocate a significant proportion of the monies derived from an angler contribution charge to the recruitment of current/past seasonal staff on a full-time basis. These individuals have built up a wealth of experience and training in recent years and would be more suited to the rigors of fisheries protection as opposed to any process which will empower the ordinary angler of unknown motivation.

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

From that perspective it's great to see pike anglers backing it and I agree that the representation should be fairer ,all forms of angling are to be enjoyed and as such each should get a fair slice of the cake so to speak and I support this 100 % . But surely this reserve force should be entitled to proper training and receive some form of reimbursement all be it expenses .

IFPAC have submitted , and other feds agree, that the new angler reserve force should be vetted, appointed and trained by IFI and that part of the angler contribution kitty should go on this and reimbursing members of the reserve force for at least out of pocket expenses.

jkchambers

I enclose a copy of our submission re the new legislation. A problem we are trying to sort is where many farmers are stopping anglers crossing their land because some "anglers" leave lots of rubbish behind, light fires , engage in anti social activities. This is becoming a major problem in many areas. We want to see a situation like they have in Holland where , when getting his registration card, he not only undertakes to observe fishing laws but also the countryside code and he can loose his right to fish (for a while) if he breaks these undertakings. Since we made this submission it seems that the charge/contribution will also cover salmon/sea trout angling

madred006

jkchambers wrote: »

I enclose a copy of our submission re the new legislation. A problem we are trying to sort is where many farmers are stopping anglers crossing their land because some "anglers" leave lots of rubbish behind, light fires , engage in anti social activities. This is becoming a major problem in many areas. We want to see a situation like they have in Holland where , when getting his registration card, he not only undertakes to observe fishing laws but also the countryside code and he can loose his right to fish (for a while) if he breaks these undertakings. Since we made this submission it seems that the charge/contribution will also cover salmon/sea trout angling

Hi jk great submission and well thought out . Think it will be a good thing that the levy will include salmon and sea trout because for some anglers this has been a stumbling block in recent years to fish for them ,ie financial restraints . Do you think that there will be an increase in revenue as a result , or a decrease , by the way did u get any of the pm I sent cheers .

Pappa Charlie

Zzippy wrote: »

Leave aside the waterkeeper issue, as that has nothing to do with the proposed levy, and is being used to muddy the waters, and let's talk about the proposed levy, charge, whatever you want to call it.
IFI would not be funded through the levy. IFI is funded by the taxpayer in terms of salaries, capital and running costs. This funding has decreased over the last few years, as have the number of staff. IFI is still continuing to operate successfully, concentrating on the core duties of protecting fisheries, and doing extra work like new development where funding allows. Existing development work is being maintained to the best ability of staff given the funding constraints. The proposed levy would be ring-fenced and spent back on development and angling projects by clubs, not IFI. So how is that funding IFI?
To clarify, are you suggesting that taxpayer funding should be increased so that IFI can do development work again, before we talk about any levy? And if so, would you support an increase in taxes, or a reduction in funding elsewhere (e.g. health, education) to compensate?

What about the spin off from angling tourism to the government, why should the government abdicate from funding, god knows they waste it in spades in other areas. I pay enough taxes to the government for them to provide funding. The goverment want more money from everyone and are providing less and less for it. IMO it will be a chosen few clubs and projects that will get the funding and those at the top of these will reap the benifit! The ordinary angler will be extremely lucky to see any value for their money only hassle on the waterways from so called vigilante volunteers welding the big stick for the government!

madred006

Pappa Charlie wrote: »

What about the spin off from angling tourism to the government, why should the government abdicate from funding, god knows they waste it in spades in other areas. I pay enough taxes to the government for them to provide funding. The goverment want more money from everyone and are providing less and less for it. IMO it will be a chosen few clubs and projects that will get the funding and those at the top of these will reap the benifit! The ordinary angler will be extremely lucky to see any value for their money only hassle on the waterways from so called vigilante volunteers welding the big stick for the government!

My thoughts aswell , but maybe given time it might work , but it's hard to see small clubs benefiting ,for example Sheelin let's say they apply for a grant , IMO they will always get it , because it's seen as the jewel in the crown and that's coming from the ifi . Then a small club off the beaten track applys for grant aid , will it always be but in the long finger . In 2008 we were told that essential work would be carried out on a stretch of water ,which receives a good head of salmon in the winter and still we wait . We as a club were asked to get permission for the ifi to do the work . This I have a problem with , why can they not write a letter to landowners informing them that their land may be accessed to carry out work on the river and thank them for their cooperation .Small stand alone clubs should not have to act on their behalf IMO .

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

My thoughts aswell , but maybe given time it might work , but it's hard to see small clubs benefiting ,for example Sheelin let's say they apply for a grant , IMO they will always get it , because it's seen as the jewel in the crown and that's coming from the ifi . Then a small club off the beaten track applys for grant aid , will it always be but in the long finger . In 2008 we were told that essential work would be carried out on a stretch of water ,which receives a good head of salmon in the winter and still we wait . We as a club were asked to get permission for the ifi to do the work . This I have a problem with , why can they not write a letter to landowners informing them that their land may be accessed to carry out work on the river and thank them for their cooperation .Small stand alone clubs should not have to act on their behalf IMO .

As I pointed out before IFI gave out 50 grand in grants to clubs in the Midlands a few months ago. A small pike club go 10750 the biggest grant. The grant to Sheelin was half that. Small clubs can and do well if they have a reasonable project. With regard to getting work done we deal with IFI for and along with the club. This does tend to help to get things over the line.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Yet again (away from inspectors who never appear in this area anyway) what do the guys who are not in clubs and fish a few times a year for pike on the less renowned lakes, or hit the beach from time to time, get from all this? I can see the trout club looking for funding of projects but nobody is going to improve or stock the small seldom used lakes or provide facilities for somebody looking for mackerel or dogs along the less tourist favoured coast. I don't mind paying if there is something for it but the assumption seems to be that all benefit from clubs and federations. I have said it before - I asked guys both at the shore and at lakes this summer and none were in clubs, nor wanted to be, in order to enjoy the fishing they were doing. Let's be honest. Is this just to try and force certain people away from fishing as they are deemed undesirable by clubs or federations?

madred006

Kaliyah Stocky Self-esteem wrote: »

Yet again (away from inspectors who never appear in this area anyway) what do the guys who are not in clubs and fish a few times a year for pike on the less renowned lakes, or hit the beach from time to time, get from all this? I can see the trout club looking for funding of projects but nobody is going to improve or stock the small seldom used lakes or provide facilities for somebody looking for mackerel or dogs along the less tourist favoured coast. I don't mind paying if there is something for it but the assumption seems to be that all benefit from clubs and federations. I have said it before - I asked guys both at the shore and at lakes this summer and none were in clubs, nor wanted to be, in order to enjoy the fishing they were doing. Let's be honest. Is this just to try and force certain people away from fishing as they are deemed undesirable by clubs or federations?

I would certainly hope not as I said no one should be turned away or prevented from angling ever .
As for federations and let me stress that this is my opinion one or two are mainly intrested in the competitive side of angling and give very little back to angling mainly trout angling and let me stress again this is my opinion I stand to be corrected on this .

jkchambers

madred006 wrote: »

My thoughts aswell , but maybe given time it might work , but it's hard to see small clubs benefiting ,for example Sheelin let's say they apply for a grant , IMO they will always get it , because it's seen as the jewel in the crown and that's coming from the ifi . Then a small club off the beaten track applys for grant aid , will it always be but in the long finger . In 2008 we were told that essential work would be carried out on a stretch of water ,which receives a good head of salmon in the winter and still we wait . We as a club were asked to get permission for the ifi to do the work . This I have a problem with , why can they not write a letter to landowners informing them that their land may be accessed to carry out work on the river and thank them for their cooperation .Small stand alone clubs should not have to act on their behalf IMO .

Good to actually talk to you yesterday.
I would think the reason IFI asked the club to get landowner permission for IFI to do the work is that club members would know the landowners and it would be much harder for a landowner to refuse to sign permission for locals than a faceless statutory body

Flysfisher

It's about time there was an all species rod license. Salmon anglers and trout anglers (who have to buy the midlands license) have to pay why not the others?

I fish for salmon and I also fish for trout on the midland lakes and that costs €140 a year, that's before any club subs etc. it's a lot and very very unfair, that others get away with their element of the sport for free.

Coarse and sea anglers should pay too. It's only fair.

I think that the ring fencing of fund is a must and must be totally transparent. In fairness the salmon conservation fund, funded by salmon anglers seems to work reasonably well.

One fee for all, everybody contributes.

To those ejits banging on about a rod license dispute, forget about it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Flysfisher wrote: »

It's about time there was an all species rod license. Salmon anglers and trout anglers (who have to buy the midlands license) have to pay why not the others?

I fish for salmon and I also fish for trout on the midland lakes and that costs €140 a year, that's before any club subs etc. it's a lot and very very unfair, that others get away with their element of the sport for free.

Coarse and sea anglers should pay too. It's only fair.

I think that the ring fencing of fund is a must and must be totally transparent. In fairness the salmon conservation fund, funded by salmon anglers seems to work reasonably well.

One fee for all, everybody contributes.

To those ejits banging on about a rod license dispute, forget about it.

I too pay well for my game fishing but the attitude that salmon and trout anglers pay so why shouldn't everybody is what is wrong with this. Many many coarse, pike, sea anglers get no stocked venues, protected fisheries, improved access etc that we enjoy at the decent salmon and trout venues. Begrudgery is no reason to licence all rods.

Flysfisher

Kaliyah Stocky Self-esteem wrote: »

I too pay well for my game fishing but the attitude that salmon and trout anglers pay so why shouldn't everybody is what is wrong with this. Many many coarse, pike, sea anglers get no stocked venues, protected fisheries, improved access etc that we enjoy at the decent salmon and trout venues. Begrudgery is no reason to licence all rods.

Well we can't stock the sea! As much as we might like to.

But it's not begrudgery! How could it be? Plenty of game fisheries get no protection at all. I Never see state fishery men on rivers I fish, can't remember the last time I saw one must be 25 years ago. They don't stock the rivers I fish, never see them doing any river maintenance. It's the clubs that do the lions share of the work.
One licence for all I really just can't see the difference between someone who fishes for salmon, seatrout, eels and someone who likes to fish for carp, pike, tench etc.
Why should one group pay and others not. Madness.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

We're at crossed purposes, I think. I don't expect the sea to be stocked nor pike lakes but clubs for game fishing will benefit from funding for projects such as stocking. I see fishery inspectors regularly and I have no problem with that - after all the fee is not to fund the existing fisheries operations. What I'm saying is game fishing can benefit by it's very nature and organisation; to an extent pike clubs can too. But many many anglers are not going to see anything for their fees if they are shore anglers or fish in areas with no pike club and few worthwhile venues.

madred006

Kaliyah Stocky Self-esteem wrote: »

We're at crossed purposes, I think. I don't expect the sea to be stocked nor pike lakes but clubs for game fishing will benefit from funding for projects such as stocking. I see fishery inspectors regularly and I have no problem with that - after all the fee is not to fund the existing fisheries operations. What I'm saying is game fishing can benefit by it's very nature and organisation; to an extent pike clubs can too. But many many anglers are not going to see anything for their fees if they are shore anglers or fish in areas with no pike club and few worthwhile venues.

I agree with what you say , and find it hard to expect those who fish piers and coast locations around the country benifiting from it in any way , buts that's my opinion and maybe someone who does sea angling might shed some light .

Zzippy

Kaliyah Stocky Self-esteem wrote: »

We're at crossed purposes, I think. I don't expect the sea to be stocked nor pike lakes but clubs for game fishing will benefit from funding for projects such as stocking. I see fishery inspectors regularly and I have no problem with that - after all the fee is not to fund the existing fisheries operations. What I'm saying is game fishing can benefit by it's very nature and organisation; to an extent pike clubs can too. But many many anglers are not going to see anything for their fees if they are shore anglers or fish in areas with no pike club and few worthwhile venues.

I would hope the fund would not be used for stocking purposes, but more for development. Development could include not just developing fisheries and facilities but developing skills and youth, so sea and coarse anglers would be able to apply for funds to help develop youth angling for instance. From what jkchambers has said, I think anglers will be able to indicate which branch of angling they pursue most, and their contribution would go into a fund for that branch of angling, which would prevent sea anglers' contributions from funding game angling clubs, etc.

madred006 wrote: »

I agree with what you say , and find it hard to expect those who fish piers and coast locations around the country benifiting from it in any way , buts that's my opinion and maybe someone who does sea angling might shed some light .

I'm a member of a sea angling club and we would love to get our hands on some funding to help run youth courses, buy some basic equipment for youths taking up the sport, etc. Individual members may not benefit from a charge, but they will be funding the future of our sport - we need more young people to take up fishing so in 40 years time angling is not written off as a tiny minority pursuit.