Harps Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Montana has it right... http://www.foam-montana.org/faq.htm The Montana Board of Outfitters (MBO), a unit of the state Dept. of Labor & Industry, sets experience, qualification, and testing requirements for licensing outfitters to provide fishing and/or hunting services (both big game and upland bird/waterfowl). Guides are sponsored by individual outfitters, then qualified by the MBO for a license. Of course, you can ask to see their license. They are required to carry them in the field. If they are providing services in a boat, the craft must display a red-and-white sticker with their license number on it near the bow, oarlocks, or stern. If you know their name or license number, check the MBO License Search to see if they are currently licensed. It is ILLEGAL for an unlicensed outfitter or guide to provide services for compensation, and it is ILLEGAL to hire an unlicensed outfitter or guide. Is it time to make sure all guides in Alberta are licensed? I think so... Better statistics on use of waters. Guiding standards could be enforced (theoretically). Alberta vs Out-of-Province guides would be known. It could begin the proceedure of limiting some days of some waters to Alberta anglers only (no guides on Tuesday and Thursday for example if some places got to busy *cough* parts of the Bow/Oldman). Money collected could go back to support the resource that the guides make there money on (our public resource). What do you folks think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I don't disagree with you (but I am not a guide), but I hear the proverbial can of worms opening! P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share Posted September 30, 2009 Oh and it would be better for existing legit outfitters because they don't have to compete with everybody with 2 years fishing experience, a boat, a mini-van, and a website. (This point was much more eloquently suggested to me on a different webpage). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kungfool Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 If licensing would limit the number of guides, and the days they are allowed to guide I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Assuming you're talking about fishing guides, I'm all for it ... with a few stipulations. 1. Criteria for establishing competency are relevant to the waters. Troll fishing Pike in lakes in the remote north should require differing competency criteria than fly fishing the Oldman, just as fishing the North Saskatchewan is different than fly fishing the Bow. 2. Two levels of fishing guide/outfitter licenses, one for guide/outfitters, another for guides. 3. Enforcement on all levels of fishing activities become effective and meaningful. 4. Regulations reflect management of fisheries not management of anglers. 5. Some means of evaluating performance. 6. Licensing restricted to Alberta residents only. I'm not sure Montana has it exactly right ... battle fishing on the Missouri. Not sure BC has it right either ... elimination of competative free enterprise. I'm not concerned about the "guide" with 2 years fishing experience, a boat, a mini-van, and a website ... client's aren't stupid, they see which boats are catching the fish. If you're only objective is to reduce guides and rod days on the water then you're barking up the wrong tree. Political will is the only medium through which regulatory changes like this will take place and political pressure and lobbying will be the voice that's heard. Reduced guiding and/or rod days is not in the political picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadensis Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Assuming you're talking about fishing guides, I'm all for it ... with a few stipulations. 1. Criteria for establishing competency are relevant to the waters. Troll fishing Pike in lakes in the remote north should require differing competency criteria than fly fishing the Oldman, just as fishing the North Saskatchewan is different than fly fishing the Bow. 2. Two levels of fishing guide/outfitter licenses, one for guide/outfitters, another for guides. 3. Enforcement on all levels of fishing activities become effective and meaningful. 4. Regulations reflect management of fisheries not management of anglers. 5. Some means of evaluating performance. 6. Licensing restricted to Alberta residents only. I'm not sure Montana has it exactly right ... battle fishing on the Missouri. Not sure BC has it right either ... elimination of competative free enterprise. I'm not concerned about the "guide" with 2 years fishing experience, a boat, a mini-van, and a website ... client's aren't stupid, they see which boats are catching the fish. If you're only objective is to reduce guides and rod days on the water then you're barking up the wrong tree. Political will is the only medium through which regulatory changes like this will take place and political pressure and lobbying will be the voice that's heard. Reduced guiding and/or rod days is not in the political picture. Well said. Very tough to limit licensing to Alberta Residents only. The only way to "evaluate performance" is through grievances filed with whomever will be the regulatory body of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxwell Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Assuming you're talking about fishing guides, I'm all for it ... with a few stipulations. 1. Criteria for establishing competency are relevant to the waters. Troll fishing Pike in lakes in the remote north should require differing competency criteria than fly fishing the Oldman, just as fishing the North Saskatchewan is different than fly fishing the Bow. 2. Two levels of fishing guide/outfitter licenses, one for guide/outfitters, another for guides. 3. Enforcement on all levels of fishing activities become effective and meaningful. 4. Regulations reflect management of fisheries not management of anglers. 5. Some means of evaluating performance. 6. Licensing restricted to Alberta residents only. I'm not sure Montana has it exactly right ... battle fishing on the Missouri. Not sure BC has it right either ... elimination of competative free enterprise. I'm not concerned about the "guide" with 2 years fishing experience, a boat, a mini-van, and a website ... client's aren't stupid, they see which boats are catching the fish. If you're only objective is to reduce guides and rod days on the water then you're barking up the wrong tree. Political will is the only medium through which regulatory changes like this will take place and political pressure and lobbying will be the voice that's heard. Reduced guiding and/or rod days is not in the political picture. u betcha! im for liscencing guides! not really into teh rod day thing b.c. has going on! but we need a change asap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhurt Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I think guides that work in alberta should have some sort of business liecene. I really wonder how many guides actually pay taxes too, I really do not know since I am not a guide but it would be intresting to know. I think guides should also have to have First Aid, and River Safety course, and if they guide out of a boat I think they should also have to take a river craft safty course too. One thing to remeber about the guiding community (as I have been told) It is a very small community and word gets around and people soon find out who are the bad guides and who are the good guides too. As it was explained to me by one guide I know is that if the guide is bad he might survive for a year or two but his return clients might not return thus causing business for that bad guide to go down and in the end going out of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headscan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I think guides should also have to have First Aid, and River Safety course, and if they guide out of a boat I think they should also have to take a river craft safty course too. And some form of insurance - liability, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 hmmm. Many guides that organized and hooped us Albertans on fishing the Elk still enjoy free rein on Alberta waters. Times should change for them here. They ticked me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headscan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 hmmm. Many guides that organized and hooped us Albertans on fishing the Elk still enjoy free rein on Alberta waters. Times should change for them here. They ticked me off. Way to keep flogging that dead horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingshooter Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I also think guides should be licensed and bonded and have to meet all health/safety and environmental guidelines. Just like any other industry. Like if they fish a small stream with native cutthroats they should have to do an impact assessment of their actions on a threatened species and if they are wadding they should have certified Whirling Disease free clients and if they have visited any foreign fisheries in the last year with rock snot, killer snails and lampreys they should not fish for 3 years. Just a thought but things can be taken a bit too far if it was left up to the burocrats........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbransfield Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I also think guides should be licensed and bonded and have to meet all health/safety and environmental guidelines. Just like any other industry. Like if they fish a small stream with native cutthroats they should have to do an impact assessment of their actions on a threatened species and if they are wadding they should have certified Whirling Disease free clients and if they have visited any foreign fisheries in the last year with rock snot, killer snails and lampreys they should not fish for 3 years. Just a thought but things can be taken a bit too far if it was left up to the burocrats........ [/quot I like your idea of health and safety guidelines, but I don't know why you would want to penalize someone for fishing an environmentally infected area by a three year ban of fishing a non-infected area? A simple sterilization of non-felt boots, waders, lines would Sufic? Thats what it has come to in New Zealand and it is for the most part working for them. Maybe you can expandor clarify that for me. If they had infected a new area due to that I could understand the ban but by simply fishing in an affected area seems a bit extreme. I think that if the government were to make guides do an assessment on their actions maybe all recreational anglers should as well?? Seems only fair..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Did you know...to be a 'fisherman' in Germany, you must 'first,' attend a fishing course, which is mandatory, then to fish waters , the cost of licensing in Germany is $1000.00 per year..basically because most of the waters are privately owned.......... as far as 'guides' are concern, considering they have a tremendous responsibility on their hands, namely 'clients', it should be made mandatory for all to take and hold certain health/safety first aide courses, as well as having a recognized legit business which requires a business license of sort, and in most cases those businesses should be 'Limited', to protect the guides of any personal financial loss.........Wolfie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted October 4, 2009 Author Share Posted October 4, 2009 Some good ideas here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Some good ideas here I would love to see a +/- rating like on Ebay for guides based upon actual customer feed back. Lots of different guys, lots of different personalities and it can be difficult to figure out which one is best for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I would love to see a +/- rating like on Ebay for guides based upon actual customer feed back. Lots of different guys, lots of different personalities and it can be difficult to figure out which one is best for you. the only way that would work is from certified "buyers" of the service. Too many people (especially on this board) would LOVE a chance to defame certain guides or people this way. Sad but true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadensis Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Licensing will do nothing to ensure you get a good guide. A little due dillagence from the client, no different than any other service you pay for. At one time there was a local guide that offered trips on Ebay, so he would have this rating you speak of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headscan Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 I don't think a rating system for guides would work very well. Just because I get along with a guide doesn't necessarily mean someone else will and vice versa. Also, how many guides will get poor ratings because the client had unrealistic expectations about size and number of fish they expect to catch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Waugh Posted October 6, 2009 Share Posted October 6, 2009 Check out section "J" of the Alberta Fisheries Act regulations. Regulations 43(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations (a) establishing categories of licences, activities to be authorized by licences and classifications of licences; ( respecting the terms, conditions and transferability of a licence; © respecting the eligibility requirements and applications for and the issuing of licences; (d) respecting instruments under section 18(; (e) governing the imposition and collection of royalties in respect of fish caught pursuant to a licence; (f) respecting the inspection of fish, fishing equipment and fish processing facilities and of the handling, marketing, processing, storage, transportation, preservation and disposition of fish; (g) establishing quality standards for fish for human consumption; (h) respecting fish, fishing and the handling, marketing, processing, storage, transportation, preservation, disposition and sale of fish; (i) respecting the propagation, rearing and keeping of fish; (j) respecting sportfishing guides and activities involving assisting persons to sportfish; (k) respecting competitive fishing events, competitive fishing event participants and activities involving competitive fishing. The statute is already on the books and has been a bone of contention at the Fisheries Roundtable for years. The guys from the Pass are particularly incensed. The standard response back from SRD brass is that there is no big push from the guides to be regulated. Which is hardly the point. Especially with the classified waters issue in the East Kootenays still burning. The government has had the power to get a firm grip on the guide situation for several years now. They've just chosen not to use it. There seems to be a pattern developing here. All show no go. Just wait until your see the wiggle room they find in the Land Use Framework. You read it here first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.