Angling Guide Licensing Mtg

[canadagrey]

Smitty:

I firmly believe that the most important one is the resource. Though I'm not totally convinced that just by licensing guides does that. This licensing will effect all Alberta Waters not just the Bow or Crow. Maybe single barbless hooks and a bait ban would do more for the resource than licensing guides.

Still

[Heimdallr]

I think it's fairly obvious that guiding is a business and should have the same kinds of rules, regulations, and enforcement as any other. Unregulated free market capitalism has been proven wrong and dangerous in so many instances it is a wonder that people will still flat out cringe at the idea of any form of regulation even if that simply means creating certain standards a business must operate by.

 

It's like having a river that has absolutely no regulations and saying that people will practice a reasonable amount of catch and release and use barbless hooks, and minimize handling of fish simply because they fish there and, most likely, would like to continue to do so. I think we've already seen how that scenario works and it is the same with the use of any other resource. The invisible hand doesn't work. People, for the most part, are selfish and destructive and will maximize their own immediate benefit if at all possible.

[Smitty]

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.

 

I'm not a guide, nor do I have a vested interest beyond a normal level from the angling public. As for the rest of your comment, some truth there to a large extent, but not entirely.

 

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.

 

Where do you come up with those numbers?

 

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 problem with caveat emptor is based on the anecdotal ramblings that idiot guides can damage the resource to everyone's detriment. Unfortunately a few bad apples can spoil the barrel, BUT! I recongnize I'm basing this on those ancedotal ramblings. In other words, I would need to substantiate this opinion.

 

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 first part of your comment reveals the elitist snobbery we've come to associate with you O.O. It may be only a personal belief, but revealing that side of you gives me tacit permission to laugh...

 

As for wasting public funding, I'm not in favor of that either, that's why my mind wasn't made up about this issue; I'm trying to balance off whether any increase in fees in my part to help fund regulate the industry would be justified.

 

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

 

Just when I thought you couldn't make a more ridiculous comment then the soapbox about hiring guides, you came up with that one. Comparing this idea to that boondogle only demonstrates you must be sadly misinformed about what a total waste the gun registry was/is.

 

 

Smitty

[canadagrey]

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

What about Alberta Guides going to BC????

[rehsifylf]

I think it's fairly obvious that guiding is a business and should have the same kinds of rules, regulations, and enforcement as any other. Unregulated free market capitalism has been proven wrong and dangerous in so many instances it is a wonder that people will still flat out cringe at the idea of any form of regulation even if that simply means creating certain standards a business must operate by.

 

It's like having a river that has absolutely no regulations and saying that people will practice a reasonable amount of catch and release and use barbless hooks, and minimize handling of fish simply because they fish there and, most likely, would like to continue to do so. I think we've already seen how that scenario works and it is the same with the use of any other resource. The invisible hand doesn't work. People, for the most part, are selfish and destructive and will maximize their own immediate benefit if at all possible.

 

Sorry - have to disagree. Completely.

 

We're not talking about unregulated fishing. The guides and their clients are subject to the same regulations regarding fishing as anyone else, and they are subject to income tax on anything they make regardless of whether they are licensed or not.

 

i can't see this working out like everyone imagines. Licensing won't ensure that every guide is good, in fact I expect it will drive out some of the better ones. Teachers are regulated and licensed. Anyone ever heard of a bad teacher?

 

Frankly - I get a little tired of the 'capitalism" has caused all of the problems in the world dogma on this forum. Every thread it seems gets to a point where someone starts blaming it all on capitalism. Take a good look at all of the countries that practice true socialism and I doubt you'll find a plce you want to live - if you do, I encourage you to move there and live the dream.

[canadagrey]

To better educate everyone we should all show what position we are coming from, then we will truly have those postions relative to their stake in the pie. I'm not saying that a guide stake is more important only we know where he is coming from.

I am a fly only fisherman and have used professional guides.

What's your stake in the matter?

[Heimdallr]

Sorry - have to disagree. Completely.

 

We're not talking about unregulated fishing. The guides and their clients are subject to the same regulations regarding fishing as anyone else, and they are subject to income tax on anything they make regardless of whether they are licensed or not.

 

i can't see this working out like everyone imagines. Licensing won't ensure that every guide is good, in fact I expect it will drive out some of the better ones. Teachers are regulated and licensed. Anyone ever heard of a bad teacher?

 

Frankly - I get a little tired of the 'capitalism" has caused all of the problems in the world dogma on this forum. Every thread it seems gets to a point where someone starts blaming it all on capitalism. Take a good look at all of the countries that practice true socialism and I doubt you'll find a plce you want to live - if you do, I encourage you to move there and live the dream.

 

You clearly didn't understand what I meant. Unregulated fishing was an anecdotal metaphor for an unregulated industry and the inability for business and people to regulate themselves. I also never said capitalism ruined the world or caused the world's problems. I merely said that unregulated free market capitalism doesn't work, which is something that history has proven over and over again in the same way that real communism doesn't work.

[murray]

I find this discussion very interesting. I know this topic has been talked about before but I sit here wondering why it is an issue at all. If it's all about protecting the Alberta Guiding community, ensuring that guides from outside of Alberta do not work here, then I think this is a topic to be discussed between the guides themselves. If this movement resulted in higher sportfishing liscence fees for me, I wouldn't be all that pleased. If the liscencing of guides resulted in safer, better trained(first aid CPR that sort of thing, I'm all for it. Would the end result be fewer numbers of guides on the river, I dont think so. For me personly, I cant see too many benefits and possibly a couple of downside points. I would not like to see my cost increase in order to liscence a bunch of guides.

 

Murray

[canadagrey]

If guides were licenced and something happened to the resource, are we going to pay millions to buy back their licences as is the case of commercial fishing?

Still

[canadagrey]

Proficiency Tests? Insurance? Business License? First Aid, CPR training?

Should the client expect the above?

Still

[dryfly]

Yes, guides should be licensed. All of them.

 

Not read the posts here. Maybe this was covered. Someone mention guides from the USA.

 

There are reported to be MT guides on rivers in SW Alberta. I am pretty sure this is fact.

 

Harps will know this. Are they not breaking immigration and employment laws by working here in the first place without proper work permits? (Nothing to do with fishing regs.) And bet a dollar if they were investigated they'd simply say they'd come up to Canada with friends and they are not guiding. Pretty sure that would be their response.

 

So they could still do the same thing right? i.e. not be licensed. They are not advertising up here so know one could really know if they are guiding or fishing with their Merkan friends. I see this as a big loophole. Dave Jensen and Vic would have to be licensed because we know 'em. But we don't know some Montana Bubba Guide do we? So we get nailed four times over this.

1) An American guide takes money out of the pockets of Canadian guides.

2) The money leaves Canada.

3) He pays no taxes on that income, and

4) Uses our resource free of charge to make money. Nonsense. Dave ya listening?) )

 

The one that really pisses me off is that a guide from BC can make money here and not even have a fishing license ... he can guide for absolutely free. (Provided he is not fishing he does not need a fishing license.) That is simply wrong. Think about it. We are subsidizing (via license fees) a guide from BC (or any other place) so he can make money here. Huh?!

 

Cheers!

 

Clive

[Guest Sundancefisher]

There is an affinity for some to not add to a discussion but to try and reduce the intent to nothing more than mindless bickering. Guys. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with disagreeing with the majority. In fact I for one would strongly encourage you to disagree and provide some well thought out and informative opinions. If anecdotal please say that...even if it a feeling mention your concerns. Maybe they are well founded and no one thought about it or maybe you can get some additional information to help make a better informed decision.

 

If it your intent to destroy any vestiges of an attempt to lobby and make suggestions through your expressions on this board...then why even bother commenting?

 

Consider this a invitation and request to post in an mature manner. Occasional jokes will occur and people should read them as such. But over all...more serious than not a great debate is fun to read through.

 

Cheers and may you be the best master debater you can be.

[canadagrey]

Limited number of Guide Days?

Float or Walk & Wade is there a difference? What about the number of just anglers?If the resource can handle the pressure OK, as soon as it can't does the Guide take preference? Do the guides then start to dictate fishing opportunities?

Still

[Heimdallr]

After reading all the posts in this topic and thinking about it some more I can definitely mirror some people's feelings that once guides are licensed and are paying to guide and to use the waters that they will gain more power or political capital than the average angler. I would definitely hope this would not be the case, but I could see it happening. It is definitely a point worth considering.

[canadagrey]

Will licencing guides improve quality of the experience for the client?

My experience has been good and bad by full time professional guides.

I will not under the cover of this electronic media identify either. Only on a one on one conversation relate these experiences.

Still

[bigbrooktrout]

Why does everything have to be in edmonton??? Shouldn't everyone have a voice??

[canadagrey]

FULL TIME, PART TIME GUIDES, IS ANY INCOME TAX PAID?

 

THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN AROUND THE ROUND TABLE MORE THAN ONCE OVER THE PAST 3 OR 4 YEARS.

 

IF YOU HAVE A ONE SIDED VIEW ie: BC Guides (only an example)

Consumer facing higher costs

etc.

etc.

etc.

Your view then looks easy. When you look at the whole picture?

STILL STILL STILL

[canadagrey]

Why does everything have to be in edmonton??? Shouldn't everyone have a voice??

 

I believe this meeting is being driven by AFGA and Walleye Council. I believe this meeting is replacing the Fisheries Round Table originally scheduled for Edmonton. Get involved with your club, talk to SRD about how to get involved.

[DaveJensen]

This meeting is a follow up to the last FRT meeting which developed a sub committee on this issue, to determine if there is need/desire for guide licensing. If you feel strongly one way or another or feel strongly to be involved, this is the mtg that will determine the next step, if there is to be one. Email Keith Rae to come, though this meeting is by invitation as it is intended to be a sub committee mtg to determine if there is merit to advance. Every guide, everyone involved in the fly fishing industry, should be at this meeting.

 

To reiterate, the $300K/yr was a # I picked out of my head that was realistic true/real cost, given officer time allocations, vehicle/court/office costs, administration and accounting time, setting up and performing the efficiency tests, setting up ethics panels/review boards, etc, etc, pending how deep this goes. My fear here is that there will be a mismatch in our industry, given how small the guiding industry is in Alberta. This is not a US state with all sorts of big lodges, dozens of guides, and the traffic US waters get, nor is it BC that has a much larger usage of its fisheries (tidal/nt/classified waters, etc) that are the driving support $ to the program. Many of the shops cross-utilize many of the same guides on the Bow, for example. What troubles me is that if the people of Alberta want guides licensed (I believe rightfully so), then who pays for it? Why would guides not be expected to pay for it all? But, given the $ at work it is almost impossible for that to happen - that kind of $ just isn't going to come from a few guides that make $10 to 40K a year. So where does that leave us? The last thing I see as valuable, given how touchy the guide issue is (see posts on various forums), is guides seeking out licensing then turning around telling Ab anglers that there is little end result benefit to the fisheries and - oh, by the way - the program is taking $ from fisheries budgets. And that is just one issue.

 

Guides need a voice and need to be organized, etc. However, guides are lumped in the same as commercial fishermen on the fisheries allocation for Alberta - dead last in the prioritization. That's something for everyone to consider. How does that matter? If pressure gets too high on a sensitive trout water and recreational use suffers due to guide use, given the fishery allocation, guess who's first off the bus? Licensing guarantees this as it clearly identifies the users and the rules. Everyone needs to realize the true end results of licensing.

 

I personally have strong opinions that are very much on the side of the fish and recreational fishing, but I'll save those for myself presently. There are many great points in these posts and I'll be sure to raise them at the meeting. Thus far, from posts here, summated:

 

Should guides be allowed to operate anywhere and everywhere, on all waters, or should there be no-guide waters?

How does simply licensing guides provide added value to the customer?

Licensing has nothing to do with professionalism. Simply gaining a license, FA/CPR, and insurance means nothing to the customer in terms of performance, it means the guide's asses are covered.

Will licensed guides have more political clout than the average angler?

If this process is for professional guides, then what are the parameters that define "professional"? If there is a board, a panel, proficiency test, watershed tests, etc, how will these operate and who pays for this?

Can we keep non AB guides off our waters? (Federal issue and extremely hard to regulate) Who will do the checks?

Who searches the internet to see who is guiding? Who goes on the water to investigate who is/isn't guiding? How much $ does this cost? Who pays?

If COs that are already stretched to be on the water are to do the guide license checks, then who will pick up the slack for lost fisheries enforcement?

Will there be a requirement of licensed guides to inspect clients' gear for invasive spp?

If guides were licensed and something happened to the resource, are we going to pay millions to buy back their licenses as is the case of commercial fishing?

Who will need a license? Just guides or should it not extend to shops, lodge owners, heli companies for transporting anglers (as in BC), ff schools, b&bs, shuttle companies for providing anglers a service? If you provide direct services to fish waters, should you not need to be licensed?

Will there be a limit to the # of guide days?

Guides are small businesses and should have to pay similar taxes, licenses, etc as a small business.

What panel or process will complaints be handled through? This assumes there is a professional standard and proficiency tests, which falls under professional guides. We're not at that level, we're talking licensing only.

How will guides be publicly identified (stickers, website, etc)?

 

If there is anything else, please add it.

[canadensis]

If the REAL worry is about the resource than the first thing to be elimanated should be guide days on any body of water.

We are slowly slipping into a system where DIY out of Province anglers are being shut out; look at BC. It has nothing to do with the protection of the resource, just greed from the guide/outfiters that have the resources to get in on this at the ground floor. Simple economics, limit or control the supply and the demand increases andd so will thier bank accounts. Of course this is all shrouded in we must protect the resource; Folly!

 

All created by high level lobbying, just do some research on APOS in alberta and tell me what this has done for resident hunters or the resource in alberta? Tougher access for residents, non-residents HAVE to be guided. Guide/outfitters see residents as the competition, and there is a parallel with Angling just wait and see. I have to wait to get a Mule deer tag in some zones 7 years as a resident, but a non resident can PAY and hunt the same tag/same zone every year with the outfitter, the balance is in favor of the outfitter and the client with deep pockets. Don't be fooled and think one is fishing, the other hunting as they are managed by the same government department. Both resources held in the public trust that one group wants to get an economic benefit from- the guide/outfitters! The system is slowly sliding down the slippery slope of user pay driven by the guide/outfitters.

 

If the Angling guides get their *hit together (couldn't in the past) and lobby properly, and get good leadership the resident will get the short end of the stick in the long run. Residents and DIY non-residents are viewed as the competition, don't forget this!

 

The bottom line is any guide worth their salt will not have enough fishable days to fill the demand. Like any business, lability insurance and a business license and then go for it. Sink or swim.

[wtforward]

Man oh man. I will have to check into what it takes to be a guide and

if I can front the initial cost ( with no intention of ever guiding which in my

case is true ) I can minimize the possibility of getting kicked to the

curb. De facto pecking order for consideration ..DIY walk and wade ..front of the line,

followed by walk and wade guided, floating non guided, followed by floating

guided and alas jet boaters last. Non resident guides walk and wade, float

or otherwise no such thing. From a cost to implement position does

licensing still flow to general revenue and if so how come ? Unchecked

guiding eventually morphs into the ugly side of capitalism when it attaches

itself to things we can freely enjoy as a recreation never mind the impact

on the fishery.

 

 

 

[canadagrey]

Licensing Guides Not Just for Bow or Crow, requires a set of rules for all of Alberta. ie: lodges, fly in lakes etc. Some of the regs will also align with Hunting? Regardless of what Stake you have in the ground on this issue, it definately does not have an easy answer. As for BC retribution ,Let's through one more curve in the picture. What is the province dealing with BC or other provinces on other issues re interprovincial trade issues (oil, gas or lumber) and will this complicate these and overall may not be in Alberta's best interest and the opportunity to change regulations may not recieve any Cabinet attention.

STILL

[Smitty]

FYI, I seem to be one of a handful of FFC members that lives in Edmonton. I will attend the meeting, and try to bring a summary of the Pros and Cons you guys have brought forth.

 

Any other points I should bring to the table?

 

Smitty

[Hawgstoppah]

FYI, I seem to be one of a handful of FFC members that lives in Edmonton. I will attend the meeting, and try to bring a summary of the Pros and Cons you guys have brought forth.

 

Any other points I should bring to the table?

 

Smitty

 

yes, the fact that if they plan of having a meeting in edmonton, with an actual representation from the south (actually, from everywhere), to give us more than a weeks notice, rather than this brutal lack of communication about such meeting... and the only way to find out and IF were lucky enough to check an internet BB and see that this is going to happen. was there letters sent out to all guides? e-mails? phone calls? nope! come on guys. how can we trust a committee for the future, when they cant even plan a meeting properly???

 

My 2 cents.

 

[canadensis]

yes, the fact that if they plan of having a meeting in edmonton, with an actual representation from the south (actually, from everywhere), to give us more than a weeks notice, rather than this brutal lack of communication about such meeting... and the only way to find out and IF were lucky enough to check an internet BB and see that this is going to happen. was there letters sent out to all guides? e-mails? phone calls? nope! come on guys. how can we trust a committee for the future, when they cant even plan a meeting properly???

 

My 2 cents.

 

 

I am sure if you got involved you could get your message to the people who could actually field your concerns. You guide don't you? Be proactive man!

 

Does not really matter is you are for or against guide licensing, the FACT is you have a bunch of people that will be making a decision that will effect your livelyhood one way or another.

 

Like always it sure is easy to sit back, criticize and poke sticks at the guys who are trying to do something.

 

My 2 cents.