A Interesting Study Of Anglers Vs Enforcement

[DonAndersen]

Here is an interesting study with regards of how and why anglers get "checked"

 

 

Effectiveness of Enforcement to Deter Illegal Angling Harvest of Northern Pike in Alberta

 

 

By JORDAN R. WALKER, Fish and Wildlife Division, LEE FOOTE, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta &

MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN, Alberta Cooperative Conservation Research Unit, University of Alberta,

 

 

 

Abstract.—We studied anglers’ perceptions of an enhanced enforcement strategy and the effects of this

strategy on the illegal harvest of northern pike Esox lucius at recreational fisheries in Alberta. The strategy

was designed by Alberta enforcement officers and consisted of varying patrol frequency and strongly worded

warning posters. Monitoring effects of this strategy at nine popular Alberta lakes during 2001 and 2002

showed that intensive patrol events did not change anglers’ perceptions of enforcement. Anglers’ perceptions

of detection (i.e., certainty of punishment) increased with enforcement effort, but not with the use of warning

posters. Anglers’ perceptions of penalties (i.e., severity of punishment) increased with the use of signs, but not

with increased patrol effort. We observed a tendency toward reduced illegal harvest at lakes where anglers

perceived high deterrence (defined as the product of certainty and severity of punishment), although anglers

consistently overestimated the actual risks of detection. Anglers perceived that the chance of detection

increased as enforcement effort increased, with an asymptotic maximum perception when officers contacted

more than 3% of anglers. These results suggest that officer efficiency in deterring anglers’ illegal behavior at

these lakes is optimized by applying no more than this level of enforcement effort.

 

 

OK - just where does this leave us? We have <>220,000 anglers in the province of Alberta so enforcement should have contacted <> 6600 anglers.

 

 

regards,

 

 

Don

 

 

[agbff]

" Anglers’ perceptions of detection (i.e., certainty of punishment) increased with enforcement effort, but not with the use of warning

posters."

-People over posters, the only logical way to truly enforce regulations of our fluvial systems.

 

Where does this leave us?

- Between a rock and a hard place, where does the much needed extra funding to employ additional SRD officers come from?

[DonAndersen]

flyon,

 

I guess that if we wish to have enforcement, we as tax payers had better step up to the plate or failing that support Stream Watch.

 

What gives me pause; when Alberta had a population of <800,000 every Forestry Office, Forestry employee including grader operators had a ticket book and used them There may have been 100 guys in my area alone. Now there are 2. And that is with a population increase of 400%. So, if one can replicate Govt thinking, when we get to <>5,000,000 there will be no enforcement @ all.

 

By the way - present enforcement staff now numbers 95 for all of Alberta.

 

regards,

 

 

Don

[Jayhad]

I guess that if we wish to have enforcement, we as tax payers had better step up to the plate or failing that support Stream Watch.

Don, couldn't the govt' step up and do the RIGHT and apply license revenues to the resource rather than general revenue?

 

I guess fat chance of that happening though eh?

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

why should we step up to the plate? lets make non nationals and out of province people pay out the ars like BC! jk

[DonAndersen]

While all your ideas have merit - while we argue, nothing happens.

 

Question is: Is there a need? - Yes

 

Question #2: If Govt isn't gonna do it, how will it get done? There is a lot of history here. AF&G Assoc. has for 40 years or more asked the Govt for increased enforcement with "0" result. So the Govt isn't interested. The question remains, how is increased enforcement accomplished? The private sector does it! Stream Watch for formed exactly because the Govt wasn't interested. Further, in large part, Stream Watch is the only enforcement activity done in east slopes fishery.

 

Question #3: I've contacted SRD Enforcement and asked for the number of face>face contacts of anglers for 2010 and earlier. If the result is <3% obviously there is a good argument to present to your MLA for increased $'s for enforcement.

 

 

regards,

 

 

Don

 

[zed]

why should we step up to the plate? lets make non nationals and out of province people pay out the ars like BC! jk

 

$20/day for non-albertans to fish the bow river would bring in some cash and maybe (but probably not) ease the pressure.

 

[Guest tallieho]

okay i'm up to get my butt fried by some of the geezers,but money talks,users pay right...it's time the geezers pay to use the resource 65yrs old no pay for licence,this rule has got to go.

[DonAndersen]

tallieho,

 

I agree - it's about time that everyone paid.

 

Medical Care or even Education which are both a provincial responsibility can be bought privately if you believe that the Govt is operating too slowly or not @ all.

For enforcement, you can't take things into your own hands. Been tried. The Govt, their laws and employees will stomp you flat and toss the remainder in jail.

 

Truth :1 - So - we have to work with Govt on enforcement.

Truth #2: What gets funded - gets done

 

We can argue forever about who should pay. Good God - license fee i<>$25.00. About the same price as a decent steak and a beer. How about sending the same $'s to Streamwatch.

 

 

Don

 

 

[PGK]

.

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

to pkg, every bit counts

[DonAndersen]

420FLYFISHIN,

 

I agree - an I'll take 2 bits from you.

 

 

Don

[Jayhad]

What percentage of the active angling population is over 65? Probably less than 10% and I'd bet less than 5%. What percentage of the active angling population is between 25 and 45 and can rationalize that more $ = better fisheries? Lots. Taxing the 'geezers' is a disrespectful and worthless idea. You're all cheap. $26 a year puts zero value on your fisheries. ZERO. And then when the logging outfits want to go up the castle, your argument is 'save the fish' and the gov says, well, show us the money! And you can't, because your fishery is worthless and your guiding industry isn't regulated so you can put no value on the economics brought from the fishery. Fish have no value unless you give them some.

 

Buck up girls. You want better fisheries? Do something about it.

 

 

I read this as more wind from the resident gas bag.

 

 

Kris, you come on to this forum and call the members names and degrade us, but yet you demand we take you as the super dope gansta smart fish biologist you believe you are. Rather than trying to fan the flames use your book smarts and all your infinit wisdom and offer some suggestions, rather than "do something." Some people on this forum are doing things and don't talk about it on the forum becuase they are doing it for the fish not for internet pats on the back.

I would happily pay more, even though you paint all of us with a hugely wide brush saying "You're all cheap". For me $500 a year is still a bargin. OUr system doesn't have classified waters, I' d love to see that. We don't have conservation tags, I'd love to see that. Our system doesn't put license revenues into the resource it goes into General Revenue, I would love to see a change.

 

Our guiding industry can't get a guides association off of the ground, why? I don't know, I agree with you that guide associations get things done by associating value to the resource. Plus the government has no intention to regulate guides, how do we change that?

 

Many of the community support Stream Watch, that is doing something.

 

So Kris, I ask, no plead with you to give us a small tidbit of knowledge on how we can fix our systems, you clearly have the answers. I don't know what to do other than what is currently being done.

 

Please note saying change the current govt isn't a solution it's a pipe dream, and it is no guarentee that a new govt. would act in a way we as anglers wish they would.

 

Jay

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

don, i give my 2 bits every year but being a full time student 2 bits is all i can afford untill i get a few more poachers lol

jay dont worry about pkg, hes still running on his education high (ie. i graduated from mechanics so i know everything!!!)

 

[PEISteve]

My 2c

 

I'll offer some background from a report I was involved with compiling for the Provincial gov't of PEI a few years ago.

This is from Prince Edward Island, but you can translate it to Alberta with some imagination.

 

In 2008, the population of PEI was approximately 138,000.

 

Approximately 6000 resident and 600 non resident licenses were sold on PEI. This generated about $150K, which goes into the provincial gov't general revenue. Peanuts, pays the salaries of 2 & 1/2 conservation officers. There is also a conservation fee of $20 per angler that goes to an NGO for distribution to approved watershed and conservation groups.

 

The average age of an angler in PEI was 49 for males, 43 for females.

 

These 6600 anglers spent $4.1 Million on purchases attributable to the recreational fishery. $2.4 Million direct spending on major purchases such as boats, campers, fishing equipment, land, buildings). The remaining $1.7 Million is attributed to fuel, food, lodging, etc. while angling.

 

Average Disposible income in 2008: PEI - 0.87% (1.12% in Alberta)

Average net worth: PEI - $85.4K (Alberta - $106.6K)

 

Without getting into proper statistcal calculations, the economic value of the recreational fishery in comparison to PEI in 2008.

$4.1M/6600 anglers equals $136.7M/220000 anglers.

 

136.7 + 0.25% additional disposible income. (where else are anglers spending extra money) = $137 Million, the add in a guess for the net worth gap.

 

Then add whatever you may think these things are worth: There are only 2 small manmade lakes on PEI, zero boat sales over a 12 foot aluminum dory. There is also virtually no guide services save for a half dozen part timers in the province.

 

We're likely giving $200 Million a good scare in this province. To say our fish have no value to the economy is a sad misconception.

 

Steve

 

[PGK]

.

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

i would say that FFC is also a drop in the bucket. try one of those internet petitions, people seem to love starting those up and if it does work it is much easier to contact a larger demographic than the few active members here on FFC.

 

[PGK]

.

[ironfly]

Don, couldn't the govt' step up and do the RIGHT and apply license revenues to the resource rather than general revenue?

 

I guess fat chance of that happening though eh?

 

I've seen the breakdown, and about 90% of the money we spend on our fishing licenses goes directly into fisheries. I suppose these government officials could've been lying in a public forum, but I doubt it.

[Harps]

How many seniors pick up fishing regulation books if they don't need a licence?

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/Fis...parison2008.pdf

Apparently Seniors in Alberta are poorer than those in most of Canada... I do like Manitoba's licence structure.

 

And

When you look at licence cost comparison we are close in residential licences, but there is room for some increases. The big thing is how obviously we undervalue fishery tourism from other provinces! I think that is the place where cost increases should go... How many non-Alberta Canadians fish in Alberta??

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/FishWildlife/Fis...rta-Feb2010.pdf

 

Where else will the money come from???

[Jayhad]

I've seen the breakdown, and about 90% of the money we spend on our fishing licenses goes directly into fisheries. I suppose these government officials could've been lying in a public forum, but I doubt it.

 

 

Junior do you have access to the breakdown, I was of the understanding that it goes into genereal revenue... but if $X goes into general revenue and general revenu pays out $X to the fisheries that's awesome and really my point would be incorrect and moot, I hope you are right

[DonAndersen]

God PGK - you finally said something that made sense.

 

Harps - I fish 110>130 days/year with about 1/2 of them in Alberta. 60 days @ 6 hours/ day = 360 hours for a <>$25 license or $0.07/hour.

It's a tad stupid when you look @ it like that.

 

I'd suggest that I pay $200/year for an anytime license

I also suggest a $3/day for a daily tag or crap make it $5/day @ least the cost of a crummy coffee.

 

 

Don

[Harps]

Harps - I fish 110>130 days/year with about 1/2 of them in Alberta. 60 days @ 6 hours/ day = 360 hours for a <>$25 license or $0.07/hour.

It's a tad stupid when you look @ it like that.

 

I'd suggest that I pay $200/year for an anytime license

I also suggest a $3/day for a daily tag or crap make it $5/day @ least the cost of a crummy coffee.

 

Don

 

I agree Don, $25 is cheap! But $25 for a BC resident to fish here is a slap in the face to Alberta taxpayers. That should go up at least to $50.

Resident licences should go up, but I think penny pinching Albertan's won't accept more than a dollar or two increase, especially in these tough economic times.

 

I really like the idea of a conservation licence (same price we pay now- C&R on flowing waters reduced catch on stocked waters) and a $10-20 extra if you want to keep fish (same regs as now). Plus maybe special stamps (ie Brook trout hunter, etc) for certain areas.

 

And... small fee for seniors!

[PGK]

.

[Guest 420FLYFISHIN]

Don, you can pay $200 a year but i would NEVER! i think 35-40/year (not including WIN) would be tops for Albertans. BC'ers and others can pay that price.