What changes would you make to i.f.s.a. rules.

Message

#1 Post by **Tom Maher** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:18 pm

It seems that every year, at around September time with the i.f.s.a. having its agm people are full of complaints and ideas.
So i thought i'd start this discussion.
This may give the people who turn up to the agm some points to raise and let the higher ups ("prawn sandwich brigade" in another thread) know what anglers actually want done.

I personally dont understand why the sizes for shore and boat are the same.

I was at the Home nations and was disappointed to see that there was no sponsorship for the Irish team - K.B. baits provided sponsorship for packed lunches, but the team itself was not sponsored. Did anyone approach ANYONE ( doesnt have to be a fishing manufacturer ) about sponsoring THE IRISH NATIONAL TEAM?. A.I.B., Credit Union, Guinness, Jameson, Murphys anyone.
The sames goes for the provincial teams.

What is being done to promote juvenile angling ?

i could probably sit here a while longer and list a few things, but it could just be a waste of time.

#2 Post by **eric** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:04 pm

definitely try to gain more exposure for organized angling,
increase comp venues for matches, always seem to fish the same venues,
get rid of size limits, all fish,no matter how small should count.

#3 Post by **fishinmidget** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:57 pm

gazo wrote:get rid of size limits, all fish,no matter how small should count.

NO!!!!!!

small fish caught have a high mortality rate and do you really want loads of juvenile fish dying??

a sponsor for the international teams(including the youth and Junior) would be nice....

#4 Post by **Tom Maher** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:38 pm

Venues are generally decided by the organizing club - so that should be brought up at your clubs agm. Most of the time they go to the tried and tested venues or the ones that will accommodate all the anglers.

Scrapping fish size limits is a problem. There was a thread in the forums a while ago on this - the result being that no one could agree on a system that everyone agreed on.

#5 Post by **eric** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:45 am

but think about the amount of small fish that are caught, don't count and are flung back out to sea. its not as if we will all start targeting them, we still have a minimum hook size of 4

#6 Post by MC » Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:18 pm

every angler has to a bucket of fresh sea water to help small fish recover until they are release and to hold fish before measurment, save having fish lying on the beach as its curel

#7 Post by **Tanglerat** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:12 pm

The IFSA is too concerned about comps, imo.

I'd like to see the Federation take a more pro-active role in conservation and the politics of representing anglers.

teacher · #8 Post by **teacher** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:03 pm

Tanglerat wrote:I'd like to see the Federation take a more pro-active role in conservation and the politics of representing anglers.

I agree. There's more to sea angling than match angling.

#9 Post by **petekd** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:04 pm

I'd like to see the IFSA stopping charging members for multiple insurance policies when they elect to join more than one club for the year. I personally would rather that money, if it had to be paid went instead into club coffers rather than to an insurance company somewhere. Also, not that it affects me but I have to follow on with the points made in relation to proper sponsorship of the Irish team. Maybe some of that wasted insurance money could instead go to those lads lucky enough to represent the country instead of them relying on their clubs, their pockets and the odd sponsor.....

#10 Post by **mickeyfish** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 9:10 pm

i would like the masters to be fished the same as the FIPS rules, whats the point in fishing our rules to select a team, and the methods the angler used to qualify would not be allowed when represnting your country.

i also agree with petekd about the insurance , i pay 3 affiliation fee's so that means i pay 3 times for the 1 cover, its wasting monies that could go to a better cause within the federation (teams, youth & overheads)

regards

mick barry

#11 Post by **chrisfeeney30** » Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:18 pm

i would like there to be sponsership for the interpros, i am on the connacht u17 team and everything has to be payed by us, the reason we only had 4 at this years interpros is because not everyone had the cast to go, if we had that one person we could have won as we only lost by a small margin, im not suggesting that it should all be paid for, just a small sponsership going towards something would be a big help, anyone agree??
chris

#12 Post by **donal domeney** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:41 am

Well done to the people who care enough to post replys.
I regret been classed amoung the "prawn sandwich brigade" but I've been called worse. So here's what you got to do.

1. Get you club to call their A.G.M. at least 3 weeks before the Provincial A.G.M and at least 1 month before the I.F.S.A. A.G.M. (November 3rd.)
2. Have your motion worded properly and have it passed at club and provincial level to insure good support
3. To have it passed at National level make sure the clubs who supported you at provincial level are there to support you at I.F.S.A. A.G.M.

On the points above again, make sure you word your motion properly and you have a seconder at the meeting that strongly supports your view points.

Over the years I've seen a lot of good motions lost or rejected because the wording did not make sence. Notices of Motion are take as written.

Must go the prawn are ready to be salted :lol: :lol:

#13 Post by **Tom Maher** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:14 pm

i just want it noted that i said "higher ups" and referenced the "prawn sandwich brigade" from another thread.

your honor.

mr. chairman.

sir.

enjoy your sandwich

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

#14 Post by **paul mason** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:17 am

T'was me who used the term prawn sandwich brigade taken from your very own county man Roy Keane used to describe the higher up's who have no input other than turn up and dictate to others " what " where " and "why " It's not a pop at you Donal.
There are a lot of problems in the ifsa to many to mention here.
My biggest gripe with them for a long time now is the international team selection, it should be done on a selection were the angler interested should summit a c.v. of competitions competed and won and a team selected from that. And let the angler fund his own expenses from sponsorship he has acquired. Then we would see the anglers who really want to fish and are committed.

teacher · #15 Post by **teacher** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:43 am

paul mason wrote:My biggest gripe with them for a long time now is the international team selection, it should be done on a selection were the angler interested should summit a c.v. of competitions competed and won and a team selected from that. And let the angler fund his own expenses from sponsorship he has acquired. Then we would see the anglers who really want to fish and are committed.

This doesn't effect me directly so I'm hesitant butt in but I will anyway. Wouldn't having a selection panel move the team selection upwards into the domain of the "prawn sandwich brigade"?

Perhaps a more suitable approach, in the interests of openness, would be to have a scoring system that more closely reflects the factors that you mention, Paul, particularly competition experience over an extended period of years.

#16 Post by **paul mason** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:47 pm

Far from it teacher the English team is selected in this manner and you just have a look at there results over the years.

selectors should also have to furnish a c.v.

I know what you are saying about experience but this does not always carry over into match results. The anglers to be picked need to be hot the time of the international not three years previously as is the case now. Experience is important " horses for course's" would you enter a plough horse into the grand national don't think so.

Rockhopper · #17 Post by **Rockhopper** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:08 pm

Jonathan,

The Irish system of selection is fair on the anglers but unfair on the nation.

Someone with experience must sit back and make good selections on anglers who are better suited to the venue in hand. I know many of the England team and some get peaved if they get dropped after a good run of results, but if they are not suited to either the style or the venue, they have to accept it.

Paul....they do put a plough horse in the the Grand National....I back it every year :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tom.

teacher · #18 Post by **teacher** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:47 pm

I guess what I was trying to suggest was that the metrics that a selection panel would use should be set out openly in a way that lends itself to an objective selection process. These metrics could be orthogonal to any other existing points system.

Having said that, a selection panel would be more akin to, selecting, say, a rugby or football team so there is a good precedent for doing it that way too.

Who selects the selectors?

Rockhopper · #19 Post by **Rockhopper** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:58 pm

aha!! :lol:

Tom.

#20 Post by **Donagh** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:01 pm

I'm member of a non-IFSA club. My understanding is we have the same insurance package as through the IFSA. The main advantages with joining the IFSA as far as I'm aware then is being able to enter opens of other IFSA clubs and the entry into the master angler. As most member including myself have IFSA cards from other clubs anyway if the master angler system was completely got rid of would there be any advantage for our club to join the IFSA?

Donagh

Sea Angling Ireland

What changes would you make to i.f.s.a. rules.

What changes would you make to i.f.s.a. rules.

Changes

Re: Changes

change