jdangler Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 With my job, I'm going to be travelling to BC past the Elk once a month and wont be able to stand driving past the Elk without stopping, so I bought a license. The cost was $55 and every time I want to stop another $20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbowtrout Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Still cheaper then Golf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigalcal Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Still cheaper then Golf I lose a lot more golf balls than flies !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonn Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 It frustrates me to no end knowing that a B.C. Resident pays the same price for an Alberta license as I do. But when we cross the boarder we pay higher fee's add Classified fee's. Just curious, do B.C. Residents pay classified fees as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zed Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 It frustrates me to no end knowing that a B.C. Resident pays the same price for an Alberta license as I do. But when we cross the boarder we pay higher fee's add Classified fee's. Just curious, do B.C. Residents pay classified fees as well? $20 yearly fee. you dont think bcers pay enough taxes? if alberta charged british columbians $20 per day to fish there, most simply wouldn't bother coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailhead Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 $20 yearly fee. you dont think bcers pay enough taxes? if alberta charged british columbians $20 per day to fish there, most simply wouldn't bother coming. And that's a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 So fish in some of the many other streams that aren't "classified" and DON'T cost $20 a day ? j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zed Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 And that's a bad thing? i dont think alberta would even notice if bc stopped coming... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailhead Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 They'd notice around the Crowsnest area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simpson Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 B.C er's, Alberten's, Saskabushyins, Ontarin's.......sigh... it is too bad we could just not all be CANADIANS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headscan Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 B.C er's, Alberten's, Saskabushyins, Ontarin's.......sigh... it is too bad we could just not all be CANADIANS! Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdangler Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 I knew what I was going to have to pay, & I payed it because I wanted to fish the Elk, to try it & experience it, & like I said I have to drive by it & look at it, & not fish it would be to much, but if it had been just the money I would rather have paid $70 US and fished in Montana for a season with no daily river fee, where I truly am a non resident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutfriend Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Get over it- Totally worth it to fish some of those systems- i have a hard time hearing people continuously get upset at this issue. Yes the decision was not a conservation issue, and yes there should be some allowances for those who own property in BC, but if you go by a ticket to an NHL game- what does that three hours of disappointment get you? a day at the local ski resort? or a day at the spa for your “lady friend”? well it is not that much- and the fishing is great, and there are almost no gorbies casting over you or pushing you out of your spot, the mountains are great to look at, and there are far fewer tampons or golf balls in those systems... etc.etc. Get over it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillraker Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Get over it- Totally worth it to fish some of those systems- i have a hard time hearing people continuously get upset at this issue. Yes the decision was not a conservation issue, and yes there should be some allowances for those who own property in BC, but if you go by a ticket to an NHL game- what does that three hours of disappointment get you? a day at the local ski resort? or a day at the spa for your “lady friend”? well it is not that much- and the fishing is great, and there are almost no gorbies casting over you or pushing you out of your spot, the mountains are great to look at, and there are far fewer tampons or golf balls in those systems... etc.etc. Get over it! Agree! Could not have said it better myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danhunt Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 It's probably common knowledge, but just in case I think it's worth mentioning - the tributaries of classified streams are also classified, or at least they were the last time I fished one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdangler Posted May 25, 2010 Author Share Posted May 25, 2010 Hey, I'm over it, in fact it was never an issue, I gladly paid, if it was that much of problem for me I wouldnt have. I thought it might be intersting to some people who might want to know what it costs to fish in BC. The only thing that bothers me as a Canadian it is the same to fish in the US as it is does in BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest frypan Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Get over it- Totally worth it to fish some of those systems- i have a hard time hearing people continuously get upset at this issue. Yes the decision was not a conservation issue, and yes there should be some allowances for those who own property in BC, but if you go by a ticket to an NHL game- what does that three hours of disappointment get you? a day at the local ski resort? or a day at the spa for your “lady friend”? well it is not that much- and the fishing is great, and there are almost no gorbies casting over you or pushing you out of your spot, the mountains are great to look at, and there are far fewer tampons or golf balls in those systems... etc.etc. Get over it! why do every one compare the price of golf, sking, and now a nhl game to fishing , something that is a part of the public trust ? how about a fee for hiking , mountan biking , hores riding on public lands as well , lets see how that would fly ? fishing in public water is not a busines venture like what you compare it too. the cash grab by the bc (B ring C ash) govermnent is a joke looks to me like a tax on the welthy albertans and torists to further subsidise the bc welfare bum atitude - once a bum always a bum- btw i refer to the government in bc as bum not you. you do live in a beautyful place, to bad for the entitelment adatude of lots of resident and govermnent- the smaller the town the worse it is with theis adatude in bc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Essentially in a National Park you do pay a fee to hike (as well as every other activity, including golf and skiing)!! Don't be surprised if it happen one of these days provincially, as well! P why do every one compare the price of golf, sking, and now a nhl game to fishing , something that is a part of the public trust ? how about a fee for hiking , mountan biking , hores riding on public lands as well , lets see how that would fly ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest frypan Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Essentially in a National Park you do pay a fee to hike (as well as every other activity, including golf and skiing)!! Don't be surprised if it happen one of these days provincially, as well! P that why i avoied the nationla parks. the park is just a busines too, they advertize for customers all over the world, yet dont want so many people in the parks? makes no sesse to me , when you think of how thet go about it is is crazy. ship them in from japan land, you have to built hotels, restrants, yet this is a sanctuary fore the animal, flora, fanuna? same goes for ski hills. you get a fine for picking a flower, but ok to create a ski run and sell hot dogs on the top of mounteans? just backwards man. as wel there will be no fishign in the national park in the future. so no reasen for me to go back and suport this crown corperation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydropsyche Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 why do every one compare the price of golf, sking, and now a nhl game to fishing , something that is a part of the public trust ? how about a fee for hiking , mountan biking , hores riding on public lands as well , lets see how that would fly ? 12 post, only 2 of which I just read, and I already like you!!!! Damn right, Flypan. Many things we assume were reserved for the general public enjoyment are slowly being claimed by special interest groups and auctioned off to the highest bidder and no one seems to notice or care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutfriend Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Why do everyone get so upset? Me not avoied nationla parks to pay my money to eat hotdog on mountean top while i go fishign in some stocked lake. You are right, the comparison to an NHL game may be a little different, but you could just as easily watch a hockey game from home for next to nothing as well. For some it is about the experience of peace and quiet on a river in nature. You can experience that peace on the Bow River early and late season, but once others dust off the boats and rods and clog up the system, for some it becomes less enjoyable. So for some, including myself, I am willing to pay a little extra (I am not wealthy by any means) for that experience. There are already programs that focus on pay for play ("Open Spaces" program) for consumptive activities (there is a hooking mortality associated with catch and release angling no matter how skilled you are) in this province so those types of costs will come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 With my job, I'm going to be travelling to BC past the Elk once a month and wont be able to stand driving past the Elk without stopping, so I bought a license. The cost was $55 and every time I want to stop another $20. Didn't read the rest of the posts. Just yours. So my basic response would be: And? You have a point here to make? Smitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest frypan Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Why do everyone get so upset? Me not avoied nationla parks to pay my money to eat hotdog on mountean top while i go fishign in some stocked lake. You are right, the comparison to an NHL game may be a little different, but you could just as easily watch a hockey game from home for next to nothing as well. For some it is about the experience of peace and quiet on a river in nature. You can experience that peace on the Bow River early and late season, but once others dust off the boats and rods and clog up the system, for some it becomes less enjoyable. So for some, including myself, I am willing to pay a little extra (I am not wealthy by any means) for that experience. There are already programs that focus on pay for play ("Open Spaces" program) for consumptive activities (there is a hooking mortality associated with catch and release angling no matter how skilled you are) in this province so those types of costs will come. well we can agree to disagre then to me paying ecxessive amounts to enjoy somethign that is the public trust is not aceptable. i understand a reasonabal amount for a lisense , but a $20 per day on the top is to much , where will it stop ? in some country only the very wealthy can aford to fish , all private water . do you want this here ? if you have the money it would be less busy, seems to be you wish it is just a tax , we alredy pay to much tax , i am not ok with this how about we just sell off the river and then the golf coarse owner could buy and charge $100 / day the same as golf ? i am sure it would be less crowded then. its is wrong man , just wrong on so many level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 well we can agree to disagre then to me paying ecxessive amounts to enjoy somethign that is the public trust is not aceptable. i understand a reasonabal amount for a lisense , but a $20 per day on the top is to much , where will it stop ? it is just a tax , we alredy pay to much tax , i am not ok with this how about we just sell off the river and then the golf coarse owner could buy and charge $100 / day the same as golf ? i am sure it would be less crowded then. its is wrong man , just wrong on so many level. Frypan: You pointed out that using the analogy of comparing hockey games, skiing, and golf, and comparing it to a public resource like fishing is both inappropriate and incorrect. I think you make a good point there. But! Lets not delude ourselves. Even public resources are not "free". We should not exaggerate our sense of entitlement here. Our "free" public trust resources like fisheries cost money. In fact, one might argue that there is a level of unfairness in the public resources. The reason being is that ALL taxpayers subsidize the public resources, whether they use them or not. SRD, enforcement, regulations, research is all supported by general revenue coffers (with some subsidies from license sales). So, using your reasoning, someone who doesn't like to hike, fish, camp, hunt paddle, etc may validly complain about paying for our recreational use. So knowing that, the public funded agencies in charge of managing said public resources may feel it is appropriate to levy surcharges to help support specific fisheries. This, of course, is all in theory, and may be corrupted by bureaucratic bumbling (i.e. your $20 does not go towards enhancement of the Elk watershed, but helps stock perch in pond outside of Prince George - I exaggerate). I my opinion, its not SO wrong on SO many levels. Gov't departments such as SRD are empowered to do these things like daily fees, or walleye tags. While it behooves us to be on guard for slippery slope European style privatization of fisheries, with the current climate of the gov't gutting budgets, not caring about the environment in general, its expected that a user fee style approach might be employed. BTW, reading my post carefully please note I am sidestepping the issue of whether the BC or AB approach of discriminating against "non-resident Canadians" is appropriate. But, I can say from my perspective, I would support AB adapting a model like BC's (to distinguish between provincial residents). Yeah, I realize that might be unpopular, but c'est la vie. Bottom line is that everyone should pay more for licenses, and those fees should be specifically targeted towards fisheries enhancement. Smitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birchy Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 I have no problem paying a premium to fish quality waters. So long as they could guarantee the money would go back to the resource, I wish they'd do the same thing here in AB. 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.