Angling Guide Licensing Mtg

[DaveJensen]

There is to be an angling guide licensing mtg to discover whether there is interest enough to warrant licensing the angling guides in the province.

 

"Ladies and Gents, On behalf of Keith Rae, I am sending you the attached draft agenda and a compilation of comments for your information and review before the meeting on Saturday, October 24, 2009 at Beacon Heights Community Hall, Edmonton. If you have any questions or concerns or wish to advise of your attendance, please contact Keith directly."

 

keith@gethookedfishing.com

 

It would also be interesting to read posts from:

 

- guides who won't be attending, either in support or not in support of licensing.

 

- fishermen who are/not in support of licensing, and their reasons.

 

- people who have any ideas as to how the licensing program will be funded and functions performed. With a likely true cost of several hundred thousand dollars annually and what will likely result in only a few dozen companies (with ind guides rolling under larger rather than pay their own fees), the math doesn't add up. If anyone has any ideas, please post (and no, I'm not ignorant as to the likely reactions to such a leading question but someone has to be realistic and ask the dummy questions). Do anglers want $300K +/- taken annually from fisheries budgets to have a licensed guide program (Ipicked a # but it will cost something substantial)? Replies?

 

Cheers & TIA

[richmia]

THE WRITER MUST BE A GUIDE BECAUSE ANY BOSO WITH A MACKENZIE BOAT CAN CALL HIMSELF A GUIDE WITHOUT THE BASIC FIRSTAID OR OTHER LIFE SAVING SKILLS ALSO WITHOUT ANY LIABILITY INSURANCE NO WONDER THE " GUIDES" ARE AGAINST LICENCING RICHMIA

[bhurt]

Personally I think guides should be licence and I also think they should have to pay for the licence, any other Small Business or Buiness needs to pay for their own licence so why should guides get away with not paying for it, as I see it you take from our economy you should also put back into our economy.

[Teck71]

Agreed Bhurt, also think they should have 1st aid training, Proof of Liability issurance, and a Panel for complaints to be Aired about the company/guide. Also good would be a website of Approved guides for alberta.

 

just my 2 cents

[navigud]

A good starting point for licencing guides would 1st determine what constitutes being a guide, is the only requirement a drift boat , oars and extra rods and flies? Is there any course that is taken or any test written? If not something is wrong here and all I need is a drift boat and I`m a guide.

300k for this program ? Do you think we as Albertans get a deal on our annual licence, time to ding the out of province and out of country licences.

And yes I agree with licencing guides.

[Smitty]

Hi Dave:

 

Mike Smith here. Hope you are doing well.

 

I am quite in the dark here about this issue, so let me confirm a few things:

 

1) The administration costs of the program from the gov't's standpoint will be in the 300K range? Which means the $ obviously come from somewhere, which then opens the possibility of the SRD's budget being stretched even thinner to cover such costs? Have I got that right?

 

2) If so, the natural question is to ask is why isn't this cost simply an overhead expense to be borne by the guides themselves? Is this where, as you say, "the math doesn't add up", because it will become too cost-prohibitive for the smaller guides to profitably operate? Have I got this right?

 

Assuming for the moment I have the right impression from the above, my opinion would be for a cost-sharing split; say, for the sake of argument, that guides will bear 50% to 66% of the costs, and anglers will supply the rest through an increase in licensing fees. Now some may of course may say "why should any of my money go towards the subsidizing of any guides business to reduce their costs?"

 

The answer, for me, is that I'm in favor of having my $ goes towards protecting the resource. As far as I'm concerned, I'm helping protect the resource by helping regulate the industry that exploits the resource for profit by ensuring that guides are (1) properly trained and insured (2) and their numbers and/or rod days can be capped, if that should be deemed necessary.

 

There are lots of smart people on the board, so if anyone can provide an intelligent argument that counters what I said, I'm all ears. I really haven't made up my mind completely yet, so it will be interesting to hear what others say.

 

But aside from costs, administration, and other practical considerations, in principle I am in favor of (1) regulating the industry (2) having the option to limit guides/rod days if necessary (3) definitely limiting the guides whose residency is not in Alberta.

 

Thoughts?

 

By the way, these costs can also be passed on to the customer, can they not? So guiding will become more expensive. I don't see that necessarily as a bad thing.

 

Smitty

 

P.S. Richmia, your reply leaves a lot to be desired. Why not turn off the all caps, stop 'yelling', and post something a little more rational, a little more productive, and a little less knee-jerk. Or is that beyond your capability?

[headscan]

So I guess my question is more about enforcement of whatever licensing system is put in place. I can charge a couple of guys as a guide then claim that I'm out fishing with my "buddies" if questioned. If we all deny that money exchanged hands then how do you prove I was guiding? I'm in favour of some sort of license and agree with all of the requirements Teck posted, just wondering about enforcement particularly when you consider how thinly stretched the CO's are to check regular angler licenses.

[richmia]

Hi Dave:

 

Mike Smith here. Hope you are doing well.

 

I am quite in the dark here about this issue, so let me confirm a few things:

 

1) The administration costs of the program from the gov't's standpoint will be in the 300K range? Which means the $ obviously come from somewhere, which then opens the possibility of the SRD's budget being stretched even thinner to cover such costs? Have I got that right?

 

2) If so, the natural question is to ask is why isn't this cost simply an overhead expense to be borne by the guides themselves? Is this where, as you say, "the math doesn't add up", because it will become too cost-prohibitive for the smaller guides to profitably operate? Have I got this right?

 

Assuming for the moment I have the right impression from the above, my opinion would be for a cost-sharing split; say, for the sake of argument, that guides will bear 50% to 66% of the costs, and anglers will supply the rest through an increase in licensing fees. Now some may of course may say "why should any of my money go towards the subsidizing of any guides business to reduce their costs?"

 

The answer, for me, is that I'm in favor of having my $ goes towards protecting the resource. As far as I'm concerned, I'm helping protect the resource by helping regulate the industry that exploits the resource for profit by ensuring that guides are (1) properly trained and insured (2) and their numbers and/or rod days can be capped, if that should be deemed necessary.

 

There are lots of smart people on the board, so if anyone can provide an intelligent argument that counters what I said, I'm all ears. I really haven't made up my mind completely yet, so it will be interesting to hear what others say.

 

But aside from costs, administration, and other practical considerations, in principle I am in favor of (1) regulating the industry (2) having the option to limit guides/rod days if necessary (3) definitely limiting the guides whose residency is not in Alberta.

 

Thoughts?

 

By the way, these costs can also be passed on to the customer, can they not? So guiding will become more expensive. I don't see that necessarily as a bad thing.

 

Smitty

 

P.S. Richmia, your reply leaves a lot to be desired. Why not turn off the all caps, stop 'yelling', and post something a little more rational, a little more productive, and a little less knee-jerk. Or is that beyond your capability?

 

[Harps]

All hunting and fishing guides should be licensed.

I have talked to poachers who said that their guide from the day before said they could fish in an out of season location. Same guy bought a box of barbed flies from the guide to fish all the way down Hwy 22 (in May). I have seen guides tossing fish. I have seen guides racing to put clients on fishing holes and getting in verbal arguments with other anglers about rights to fish. It is time for some standards to be applied.

Guides make money from a public resource and use public access. I know some guides give back to the community (I know alot of great guides), but I suspect that that is the exception.

 

Checking online there are dozens of flyfishing guides in Southern Alberta alone.

Plus there are folks out of BC that guide in Alberta and even a guide in Ontario (Grindstone) that advertises that he is part of the Alberta Outfitters Assn. Add to those flyfishing guides the number of gear fishing gides and fly-in places in the north.

 

Each shop will likely run a guide service (Lots of guiding possiblities).

Then there will be additional guides that want to stay as guides. If it would cut into a shops bussiness then an individual guide could go independent. There might be an initial start-up cost but $300k a year is a farce. (I'd like to see what this is based on). If there are 100 outfitters in Alberta... $1000-$2000 a year fee for an outfitter, plus $100 per guide.

Outfitters/guides pay for first aid, insurance (could be subsidized, especially through a outfitting Assn), and each guide must pay an exam fee (once ever 3 years, possible seperate exams for areas they want to fish). I would want a guide licensed to fish in the ES area, not one who spends his time in the eastern boreal.

Like Montana, proof of experience in guiding in Alberta should be mandatory (I think 100-200 days) before somebody could become an outfitter.

I like the idea of having professional guide qualifications (above a standard guide) as an incentive to take revelent courses and expand your knowledge in the field. Good thing for attracting clients too!

 

Additional monies shouldn't come from the fisheries dept... they should come from the Employment and Immigration deptn (Labour codes and standards).

 

 

As a corporation, I would think that a guide license would be a mandatory condition for hosting a corporate event... what if something were to go wrong? The corporation would have to take the hit.

 

 

In terms of enforcement:

*Self regulation would be big, because you don't want the cometition taking clients without paying, wihle you do (I hate self regulation, but it would work where money is involved, especially with word of mouth businesses).

*All guide boats must be identified> decal with guide number on the bow.

*Business vehicles would have a decal in the window (important for insurance and business $ also).

*Guides would only have to pay once a year so it wouldn't be a per trip issue. If a guy is on the water with a group of people, check the truck for a sticker. If they are in a boat... check the boat and the trucks at the take-out.

Sure some would get missed, but how much business would they get if folks start looking for guide licenses before they book a trip (The Outfitters Assn needs a website with a list of current guides).

 

Keith's site seems to indicate that they would have no problem affording a guide/outfitters license.

 

In Montana:

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.

 

From Montana Board of Outfitters

 

2. What is the difference between a Guide and an Outfitter?

In Montana there is a substantial difference between Guides and Outfitters. Guides must work for Outfitters, and any clients they guide must come from their endorsing Outfitter. To become an Outfitter, a Guide must have 100 days of guiding experience, take an exam, pay a minimum of $1,800.00, and meet other criteria. Becoming a Guide is relatively simple compared to Outfitter qualifications.

 

3. Do I need First Aid or CPR to comply with the rules?

Only Basic First Aid is required to become a Guide in Montana. Internet courses are not accepted.

 

4. Do I need a Guide License to take clients on float trips or scenic hiking trips?

No. A Guide license is needed only if clients are hunting or fishing and paying for it. For further information on the requirements for guiding hikes and scenic float trips, or starting a business in Montana, etc. contact the Secretary of State.

 

27. What are the requirements for Professional Guide?

An applicant for a professional guide's license must meet the standard qualifications for a guide license, in addition to, the following qualifications:

 

(a) have held a guide license in the state of Montana for at least three years;

( have not had disciplinary action taken against the applicant's guide license in this or any other state;

© have spent at least 300 days guiding clients in the field as evidenced by employment records, or client report logs of endorsing outfitters;

(d) applicants must produce, on a form provided by the board, character

references from three clients the guide has guided, one licensed outfitter, and one licensed guide and present evidence of 15 hours of training or education obtained in the year previous to application in addition to guiding experience, in topics relevant to guiding as approved by the board. Please reference the following Administrative Rule: http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?RN=24.171.601

 

There were some good ideas in this thread on licensing guides from last month

[richmia]

Smitty sorry about the caps but I did not mean to yell .By the way smitty I guided on the bow for about 18 years iI think I know what I am talking about there should be licencing of all guides and also an ethics board there used to be a guides association where did that go? richmia

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Guiding

 

While I am sure people can pick apart any concerns...here are mine.

 

I guess I will take the position that the fisheries are paid for by average tax payers and managed as so. We have to be careful to ensure our public fisheries do not become overly commercialized. Cost should be born by the business and not the taxpayers.

 

In effect I can see licencing being valuable in keeping those guides making a living at it sufficiently employed to allow them to feed their families and pay their mortgages etc. There can also be a lot of fly by night operators that have an interest in getting a quick buck but no actual vested interest in managing the water and the habitat. I am sure there are plenty of Bow River guiding outfits that detest border jumpers coming across from out of province to steal business.

 

I can also see the benefit in say grabbing your kids and heading down to the Livingstone River for a little camping and fishing. Nothing peeves me more than rude and arrogant guides that feel that because they have a paying client, you and your kids are useless annoying lumps in the water (as an example). With more strict control over guides, how many, where they go and how many hours they are allowed on the river we can cooperate and share the rivers. I don't want guiding to control the rivers.

 

Also as a tax base...if they are going to be guiding in Alberta, they should at a minimum be paying Alberta corporate income taxes. None of this dart into the Crowsnest...make $500 and dart back across the border and not pay Albertans for the use of the resources that is putting bread upon their table.

 

Lastly and not least...unregulated guiding will bring nothing but chaos to our watersheds. BC has amply shown that licenced guiding can help control access and mitigate fish stocks. Regardless about whether we are fishing barbed or barbless there is a percentage of mortality (no point in arguing percentages). Therefore the more fishing pressure...the more harm to the fishery.

 

IMHO...just a few thoughts.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[Harps]

Great points Sun!

[Smitty]

Sun and Harps, you've both made excellent points. I am swayed by your positions. One reply for Sun:

 

...I guess I will take the position that the fisheries are paid for by average tax payers and managed as so. We have to be careful to ensure our public fisheries do not become overly commercialized. Cost should be born by the business and not the taxpayers...

 

Sun

 

But if the regulation of the industry protects the resource, and hopefully increases the experience for me - i.e., I benefit as a member of the angling public, then shouldn't a small portion of my license fees be used in subsidizing administration costs? Clearly I am playing a little bit of devil's advocate, because, I am not a guide, and essentially I am lobbying for more money to be taken out of my pocket. But I honestly don't mind if the quality of our fisheries improves. If that means x % of my dollars assists in preventing the over-commercialization of the resource, are we not ok with that?

 

I say this from the standpoint to ensure that some small, high quality guiding outfits may not be put out of business by overwhelming overhead. Or am I being too simplistic? As I said, there are lot of knowledgeable people here - including guides. Hopefully more reply, especially about this issue. I'd hate to see high quality, passionate guides look for alternative careers. But, of course, there are costs associated with every business, so c'est la vie.

 

Smitty

[Hawgstoppah]

I'm all for it. Won't be able to attend a meeting thats FIVE days away. (why dont they ever send guides / companies some freekin NOTICE for these things????)

 

here's my input.

 

- MUST end up with some form of control over

 

1. insurance (all guides should HAVE to have it)

2. stickers on boat and vehicle

3. current first aid training

4. code of ethics (when, if broken results in the guide / company being warned once, twice = removal)

5. really nice website listing all guides in alberta.

6. better accountability for monies made. I'm sure most guides in alberta havent filed their guiding income in their taxes for years, esp their tips. The rest of us taxpayers are losing out on that money. That alone could pay this deficit Jensen speaks of.

 

cheers.

[reevesr1]

Agree with most of above.

 

One thing I will say, as an ex-member of a tipping industry- if there are many guides not claiming their income today and this system results in them having to claim, guide rates will undoubtedly go up. As I'm sure Brian will tell you, it's hard enough to feed your family on a guide income today. May not be an issue to some, but it will price some people out of the market resulting in fewer potential customers.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun and Harps, you've both made excellent points. I am swayed by your positions. One reply for Sun:

 

But if the regulation of the industry protects the resource, and hopefully increases the experience for me - i.e., I benefit as a member of the angling public, then shouldn't a small portion of my license fees be used in subsidizing administration costs? Clearly I am playing a little bit of devil's advocate, because, I am not a guide, and essentially I am lobbying for more money to be taken out of my pocket. But I honestly don't mind if the quality of our fisheries improves. If that means x % of my dollars assists in preventing the over-commercialization of the resource, are we not ok with that?

 

I say this from the standpoint to ensure that some small, high quality guiding outfits may not be put out of business by overwhelming overhead. Or am I being too simplistic? As I said, there are lot of knowledgeable people here - including guides. Hopefully more reply, especially about this issue. I'd hate to see high quality, passionate guides look for alternative careers. But, of course, there are costs associated with every business, so c'est la vie.

 

Smitty

 

I would separate business from personal. The regulation would protect the resource for you and me over the carte blanche exploitation by a business which is in it for profit. I do not have a problem with guides...but like in any business, controling them is better than chaos. Lots of damage can be done by unlicence, unregulated fly-by-night operators. Also the customers are at risk with hiring such an individual. You are not a user of the service hence I would advocate a user pay system. You do not pull land records for doing oil and gas business so why should the government subsidize my business at your expense. If you take your argument to heart then I want you to pay for more than just fishing related subsidized businesses. :-)

 

As for costs I am not sure what those costs should be. I would say that business controls need to be in place. There has to be balance in the system since fisheries are our heart and soul to us fishermen.

 

As for us paying for guiding related administration costs as taxpayers...I am not sure I follow how guides are improving the resource. As a user I would define them as negatively impacting the resource, like we all do. Foot traffic, boat traffic our very literal footprint so to speak impacts the water and shoreline. Then you take into effect the fish that die do to accidental mortality or legal mortality. Increasing the fishing pressure will lead to a decline in the fishing. Take the Elk for instance. The guides have all said that licencing the guides and limiting anglers has greatly improved the fishing for BC residents. I strongly believe that would probably hold true for the Crow, Bow, Livingstone etc.

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I'm all for it. Won't be able to attend a meeting thats FIVE days away. (why dont they ever send guides / companies some freekin NOTICE for these things????)

 

here's my input.

 

- MUST end up with some form of control over

 

1. insurance (all guides should HAVE to have it)

2. stickers on boat and vehicle

3. current first aid training

4. code of ethics (when, if broken results in the guide / company being warned once, twice = removal)

5. really nice website listing all guides in alberta.

6. better accountability for monies made. I'm sure most guides in alberta havent filed their guiding income in their taxes for years, esp their tips. The rest of us taxpayers are losing out on that money. That alone could pay this deficit Jensen speaks of.

 

cheers.

 

I like what you wrote...

[Harps]

Hey Dave, Do you have any background info on this meeting?

Are you going to the meeting?

Who is attending the meeting? Is it just fishing guides or is there some gov't reps?

Is this a group starting to oppose licensing restrictions?

[Guest Sundancefisher]

There is to be an angling guide licensing mtg to discover whether there is interest enough to warrant licensing the angling guides in the province.

 

"Ladies and Gents, On behalf of Keith Rae, I am sending you the attached draft agenda and a compilation of comments for your information and review before the meeting on Saturday, October 24, 2009 at Beacon Heights Community Hall, Edmonton. If you have any questions or concerns or wish to advise of your attendance, please contact Keith directly."

 

keith@gethookedfishing.com

 

It would also be interesting to read posts from:

 

- guides who won't be attending, either in support or not in support of licensing.

 

- fishermen who are/not in support of licensing, and their reasons.

 

- people who have any ideas as to how the licensing program will be funded and functions performed. With a likely true cost of several hundred thousand dollars annually and what will likely result in only a few dozen companies (with ind guides rolling under larger rather than pay their own fees), the math doesn't add up. If anyone has any ideas, please post (and no, I'm not ignorant as to the likely reactions to such a leading question but someone has to be realistic and ask the dummy questions). Do anglers want $300K +/- taken annually from fisheries budgets to have a licensed guide program? Replies?

 

Cheers & TIA

 

Thanks to Keith...

 

Hey Keith.

 

Thanks for posting . Regardless of the outcome or what the final concensus is, I strongly believe this forum is an excellent tool to have people discuss in a mature manner all the well thought out and articulated points available and come to an educated decision. Since many fisheries issues affect us all eventually...having some say as a lobby group is better than none. All it takes is one great idea or thought that is missed or clearing up something that doesn't make sense or shows to be unworkable and then value is achieved for all.

 

Thanks again and feel free to bring more to the table. The more of these we have to discuss and debate as adults the better.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[canadagrey]

What the REAL REASON for Licensing Guides?

For the Guide's Benefit?

For the Client's Benefit?

For the Resource's Benefit?

For the TAX Dept's Benefit?

Because I keep

[Hawgstoppah]

Hopefully as a tool so in the future we can keep NON alberta guides, OUT of our provinces waters

[LynnF]

Anyone know whatever happened to the FOAA or FFOAA? They were working on this issue many, many moons ago....I'll bet Jim....can't remember his last name would have some great input. Dave will know who I'm talking about.

 

I think it's more than about time guides had to be licensed. We live in a province where a world class fishery runs through a city of 1.2 million people. A fishery that sees tourists and guides from all over the world. I think it's about time that we kept our economy here (buy local, don't bring your own guide) and that our guides that spend the $$ and take the time and really care are weeded out and rewarded with a license.

 

As a potential customer, I"d sooner fish with a guide that I know is contributing back to the resource through his licensing fees and requirements and who is able to respond to emergencies and is trained and qualified at a minimum level - whatever level or criteria is set. But the biggest question I would have is what this is going to translate into in terms of $$ - for both the guide and therefore the customer.

 

I think we should be leading the way with this initiative because of the size of our city, the fisheries we have, the # of guides we have and the sheer # of local and non-local customers who use those guides. Honestly, I can't believe it we're still having the conversations and meetings, but glad that it is front and centre...and hope something comes of it.

[Smitty]

What the REAL REASON for Licensing Guides?

For the Guide's Benefit?

For the Client's Benefit?

For the Resource's Benefit?

For the TAX Dept's Benefit?

Because I keep

 

Reading throught the posts, I think the correct answer is "all of the above".

 

I'm not convinced this is as simple as picking one, single reason, real or not. But if you're pointing an unlicensed firearm at me, and forcing me to choose, I'd say for the benefit of the resource, because if you improve the quality of the resource, everyone benefits in the long run.

 

Smitty

[orvisonly]

Capital Idea! Or is it more like a Capitol Idea?

 

More regulation is just what we all need.

 

This must stem from the huge number of deaths resulting from Guides not having first aid training. Or is it the lack of liability insurance that has prevented untold scores of relatives from cashing in on these deaths?

 

Is there a problem here, besides some anecdotal ramblings about guides who allegedly committed heinous acts? Could this just be a few individuals that are upset at the amount of competition in guiding from non full-time guides? If you look at the history of licensing, it is almost always driven by unions or associations who want to drive out competition. In these cases, it is an organization that forms and manages the accreditation of members. If it were required for fishing, it would happen.

 

As for those who question cost of the program, I agree the estimate of three hundred thousand dollars per year is wrong. The annual cost of anything the government is associated with would be well over a million dollars without including enforcement costs.

 

What happened to caveat emptor? If a guide is good, he'll get business. If not, he'll be just another guy with a boat. If some panty waist felt the need to have a first aid trained guide, he/she would ask for it. If you feel aggrieved enough to sue your guide, it makes no difference whether he has liability insurance - that and waivers are for the guide's protection, not yours.

 

My personal belief is that anyone who uses the services of a guide is missing out on most of the true enjoyment one can get from fishing. There are a few people on here that do seem to be at a higher level of understanding, but they represent the minority. In any event, if people want to degrade their experience by paying someone else show them how and where to fish, that is their perogative. However, when unecessary regulation of the activity starts to waste public funding, then I take issue with it.

 

The gun registry makes no sense whatsoever, and this idea makes that one look inspired.

[DonAndersen]

But if guides are licensed, how do you get rid of them when the fishing pressure requires that the recreational use of water is just that recreation?

Paying a license just gives them a sense of entitlement.

Clearly though - compensation is required for recreational anglers when their use of the resource is compromised is by guides and mitigation when guide's clients pack bugs and diseases into Alberta.

Isn't there enough fishing pressure already? Why not just ban them?

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don