definition of salmon/sea trout licence

jimbev

as an example say I'm fishing the river nore with a fly rod or spinning for trout how do I prove I'm only targeting trout and thus avoid the licence
many thanks

thefisherbuy

Well, They'll know if your fly fishing for trout, they'll look at your rod, Because most trout fly rods are small weighted and won't hold a salmon, Just say your fishing for trout, They'll know, They might check you tackle to make sure it's trout gear, As for spinners use small ones, Eg, 2,3,4 Don't use mepps 5 because thats proven salmon spinner

con___manx1

Even if your fishing for trout there is a chance of catching a salmon. I caught a salmon on a tiny little trout fly early in the season. I have heard this happen too other anglers as we'll . That law is ridiculous. Should need a licence for brown trout too. I think the licence fee should be reduced. It's too expensive at the moment.

Blondie919

con___manx1 wrote: »

Even if your fishing for trout there is a chance of catching a salmon. I caught a salmon on a tiny little trout fly early in the season. I have heard this happen too other anglers as we'll . That law is ridiculous. Should need a licence for brown trout too. I think the licence fee should be reduced. It's too expensive at the moment.

Why should we need a licence for brown trout?

con___manx1

Blondie919 wrote: »

Why should we need a licence for brown trout?

if you fishing for brown trout in the vicinity of sea trout or salmon there is a good chance you could catch one. Some people use it as an excuse not to buy a licence. Even tho there not fishing for brown trout at all. I could put a brown trout fly on and a sea trout would take it just as quick. It's the same fishing with worms or spinners for brown trout. U could just as easy catch a sea trout or salmon. This just my opinion anyway.

Bio Mech

con___manx1 wrote: »

if you fishing for brown trout in the vicinity of sea trout or salmon there is a good chance you could catch one. Some people use it as an excuse not to buy a licence. Even tho there not fishing for brown trout at all. I could put a brown trout fly on and a sea trout would take it just as quick. It's the same fishing with worms or spinners for brown trout. U could just as easy catch a sea trout or salmon. This just my opinion anyway.

So you should have a licence for brown trout but not actually for brown trout but just to make sure people who are fishing for sea trout/salmon but who say they are fishing for brown trout pay something in case they catch sea trout/salmon?

Zzippy

Bio Mech wrote: »

So you should have a licence for brown trout but not actually for brown trout but just to make sure people who are fishing for sea trout/salmon but who say they are fishing for brown trout pay something in case they catch sea trout/salmon?

Here's another question. As a salmon angler why should I have to buy a licence, when everyone else who fishes for trout, pike, perch, etc. doesn't have to? If everyone had to have a licence there would be no loopholes and the government would actually see a sector that contributes, and be more inclined to fund it properly. As it is all ministers see is a vocal minority of anglers loudly proclaiming they will never pay for fishing, fighting with each other about federations, and ignoring the real threats to their sport, which allows them to push through things like mega-salmon farms without any fear of real opposition.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Zzippy wrote: »

Here's another question. As a salmon angler why should I have to buy a licence, when everyone else who fishes for trout, pike, perch, etc. doesn't have to? If everyone had to have a licence there would be no loopholes and the government would actually see a sector that contributes, and be more inclined to fund it properly. As it is all ministers see is a vocal minority of anglers loudly proclaiming they will never pay for fishing, fighting with each other about federations, and ignoring the real threats to their sport, which allows them to push through things like mega-salmon farms without any fear of real opposition.

I find in reality that there is a very silent majority of anglers opposed to a general licence.

Zzippy

Steven Cool Visibility wrote: »

I find in reality that there is a very silent majority of anglers opposed to a general licence.

You're probably right. I was referring to the very loud minority who jump up and down about the possibility of a licence (see the facebook page about a State licence) yet who are nowhere to be seen or heard when other anglers have huge concerns about, for instance, the proposed salmon farm in Galway Bay. One is a (small) threat to their disposable income, one is a major threat to the existence of one of the main quarry species on this island. Their priorities are totally f*cked up IMO, and that is where my frustration lies. FWIW I support the idea of a small licence for all angling but I understand why many people do not.

Bio Mech

Zzippy wrote: »

You're probably right. I was referring to the very loud minority who jump up and down about the possibility of a licence (see the facebook page about a State licence) yet who are nowhere to be seen or heard when other anglers have huge concerns about, for instance, the proposed salmon farm in Galway Bay. One is a (small) threat to their disposable income, one is a major threat to the existence of one of the main quarry species on this island. Their priorities are totally f*cked up IMO, and that is where my frustration lies. FWIW I support the idea of a small licence for all angling but I understand why many people do not.

People only see their own perspective unfortunately. A lot of people wont care about a Salmon farm in Galway bay but will object to 50 quid out of their pocket. Its the state mandated bodies and institutions that should be seeing the big picture but often don't and so protection of national resources is compromised.

The Salmon licence, Salmon bye laws impinging on others fishing on for example the liffey, netting, guys filling bags with Roach and smolt, Salmon farms, pollution, litter (and of course the very rare days when it all comes together right and you have a brilliant day). Its often a very frustrating past time fishing. And unfortunately a lot of inequality and pettiness between different interest groups.

I used to be very involved with the fisheries boards, clubs, national groups but these days I just want to be left alone. I avoid contact with IFI and anglers at large now and have dropped off the club scene. I don't publish my catches any more, don't claim specimens. I am much happier that way. Anyway enough of that tangent!

con___manx1

Bio Mech wrote: »

So you should have a licence for brown trout but not actually for brown trout but just to make sure people who are fishing for sea trout/salmon but who say they are fishing for brown trout pay something in case they catch sea trout/salmon?

Well if your spinning or worm fishing in the vicinity of sea trout a fisheries officer may not believe your fishing for brown trout at all even tho you are.It depends on the officer but some of them could give you a fine even tho your completely innocent.

SeaFields

con___manx1 wrote: »

Well if your spinning or worm fishing in the vicinity of sea trout a fisheries officer may not believe your fishing for brown trout at all even tho you are.It depends on the officer but some of them could give you a fine even tho your completely innocent.

Genuine question. Can they? I would have thought you would have to be caught with either a sea trout or salmon in your possession ?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

con___manx1 wrote: »

Well if your spinning or worm fishing in the vicinity of sea trout a fisheries officer may not believe your fishing for brown trout at all even tho you are.It depends on the officer but some of them could give you a fine even tho your completely innocent.

That will not and has not happened. If your gear is brown trout gear then you are fine. Having a Sea Trout in your bag may be a different matter of course!

Flysfisher

It is a very grey area.

I have caught plenty salmon while fishing for trout on the Boyne, under certain circumstances it is unavoidable. For example the Boyne is a big river so when streamer fishing I use a 10ft 7/8 weight rod and fast sinking line, this set up controls the larger flies better and also works better in heavier water. I fish the streamers down and across similar to a Salmon angler may fish his fly.

So could this be perceived to be salmon fishing?? We might say that a Salmon angler would use a 15 foot 10 weight rod and not a single handed rod but many salmon anglers now favour a shorter more powerful rod.
So if I caught a salmon while streamer fishing for trout, as I have often done, would I get prosecuted? If it went to court it would be thrown out.




By the way I fully support the notion of an all species angling license PROVIDING THE MONEY WAS PUT INTO ANGLING AND NOT PADDYS DAY TRIPS TO NEW YORK.

Flysfisher

Steven Cool Visibility wrote: »

I find in reality that there is a very silent majority of anglers opposed to a general licence.

I think many see as it as another TAX. Therefore are against it. If the IFI actually said what they would do with it. Then that would be a help.

Zzippy

Flysfisher wrote: »

I think many see as it as another TAX. Therefore are against it. If the IFI actually said what they would do with it. Then that would be a help.

Like the water charge? Or motor tax? Or USC? Or property tax? We pay taxes for everything, politicians at some stage are going to look at angling and ask why anglers aren't paying a tax for that too... I can see it happening early in the next government's term, when they have 4 years til the next election.

As for where the money goes, the last minister said it would be ring-fenced and only spent on projects related to angling. This is already done with the salmon conservation fund, so it's not a stretch to see it being done with a possible angling charge/licence.

con___manx1

SeaFields wrote: »

Genuine question. Can they? I would have thought you would have to be caught with either a sea trout or salmon in your possession ?

they don't need to catch you with anything . if you are using the same methods to catch a brown trout as u would a sea trout spinning or worming they will either kick you off or give u a fine. Especially if there is a lot of sea trout / salmon in the river system .

con___manx1

Steven Cool Visibility wrote: »

That will not and has not happened. If your gear is brown trout gear then you are fine. Having a Sea Trout in your bag may be a different matter of course!

Yes but spinning and worming isn't just brown trout gear it's the exact same method as sea trout fishing. If your fishing that method and the river is full of sea trout but you say your fishing for brown trout. Will the officer believe you? I That is the question. It's a very grey area.

Flysfisher

Zzippy wrote: »

Like the water charge? Or motor tax? Or USC? Or property tax? We pay taxes for everything, politicians at some stage are going to look at angling and ask why anglers aren't paying a tax for that too... I can see it happening early in the next government's term, when they have 4 years til the next election.

As for where the money goes, the last minister said it would be ring-fenced and only spent on projects related to angling. This is already done with the salmon conservation fund, so it's not a stretch to see it being done with a possible angling charge/licence.

By your logic hill walkers, hikers, climbers, cyclists etc should all pay a tax for those things too.

Most if not all anglers distrust the ring fencing idea. I wouldn't pass any remarks of what any minister says they are liars everybody knows that. This is where the problems lie anglers do not trust the government and state agencies to manage or spend the money correctly. There is huge distrust and rightly so.

However of course there are those who don't want to pay no matter where the money goes. I think most of the opposition to a general all species licence stems form the west of the island. Many of the same people refuse change in any form whatsoever.

But angling needs proper funding and management, it's not an easy one and what happens the tough decisions, they are kicked down the road for the next bunch of crooks in the dial to deal with, 4 years you say! They haven't the balls to deal with it now. Four years at the very least.