A Interesting Study Of Anglers Vs Enforcement

[PGK]

.

[TerryH]

If you look realistically at all the things we pay for (rods, reels, lines, waders, boots, flies, gas, hotels ...................) to support our fishing activity, and break them down on an annual expense basis, I would guess that licence costs are at the low end of the list. Why is it that these fees are what some of use bitch about the most? Oh, and speaking as a geezer, I argue that everyone should have to buy a licence. Terry

[reevesr1]

I personally would not have an issue if they raised license fees. But then, I fish about 50-75 times per year. If I only fished 2 or 3 times a year, I would have an issue with significantly higher license fees.

[PGK]

.

[darrinhurst]

Just my 2 cents, but I have to say that the $26 for a fishing license in Alberta is cheap. Part of the reason why I fish more than I golf. For $26 I can fish the entire year without it really costing me anything other than gas (which I would have to do to golf anyway) and some flies now and again.

 

I would easily pay as much as $100 for the year. My only concern is what the government would do with that extra cash? Maybe they could use it to fund the new Arena District in Edmonton........

[troutlover]

People that fish 2-3 times per year aren't fishermen, they're citizens. You don't consider citizens when trying to reform angling management

 

citizens become fishermen.

[adc]

Lot's of good points........I hate to say this, but Stream Watch is NOT the answer..........We are running into donor fatigue as it's the same people/corporations year after year and they are tired......It needs more funding.........I think most everyone but the poachers agree we need more enforcement and we have a vehicle in ACA to fund, through an additional, nominal license fee an "Education Fund" which could encompass both the education AND enforcement requirements not just on the east slopes but elsewhere as well...........More hunting enforcement is needed as well.............How about a $5.00 per license sold (hunting or fishing) fee for the "ACA Education Fund" with the monies to be used only and specifically for angler and hunter education and enforcement..........Would seem relatively simple and painless for all........

[DonAndersen]

Alan,

 

I agree - $5 is nothing but you've listened to the Fish and Game Bunch. Getting a buck outta them is impossible. They run up the tired old flag about people not being able to afford the extra money.

I listened to the F&G ASS bitch and holler when the ACA raised their levy to do the work they are charged with by Govt. But @ the meeting held in Rocky by the ACA to explain the increased levy - well - none of the 100+ local members of the AF&G ASS showed up.

 

While I agree that Stream Watch is not the total answer, at least it puts boots on the ground - something the Govt seems unable to do by itself.

 

The thought occurs that maybe F & W enforcement is kinda like hospital care - leave it get screwed up enough and part of the people will look after the issue themselves rather than waiting for the Govt to do it which is perhaps what the Govt really wants. Get out of the business of F & W. All it holds up is development.

 

 

regards,

 

 

Don

[snuffy]

I personally would not have an issue if they raised license fees. But then, I fish about 50-75 times per year. If I only fished 2 or 3 times a year, I would have an issue with significantly higher license fees.

 

The solution to that would be a cut-rate day license for residents with further discounts for minors. This way we can still jack up the fees and buddy with 2 kids who just want to drown a worm on their annual trip to the lake won't be shelling out $200. With online purchasing, its not inconvienient.

[adc]

Alan,

 

I agree - $5 is nothing but you've listened to the Fish and Game Bunch. Getting a buck outta them is impossible. They run up the tired old flag about people not being able to afford the extra money.

I listened to the F&G ASS bitch and holler when the ACA raised their levy to do the work they are charged with by Govt. But @ the meeting held in Rocky by the ACA to explain the increased levy - well - none of the 100+ local members of the AF&G ASS showed up.

 

While I agree that Stream Watch is not the total answer, at least it puts boots on the ground - something the Govt seems unable to do by itself.

 

The thought occurs that maybe F & W enforcement is kinda like hospital care - leave it get screwed up enough and part of the people will look after the issue themselves rather than waiting for the Govt to do it which is perhaps what the Govt really wants. Get out of the business of F & W. All it holds up is development

 

regards,

 

 

Don

I think even the AF&G folks would buy into a nominal checkoff for more education/enforcement if they know that's where the money goes........I think the concerns with ACA checkoffs previously had to do with how the money was spent and I seem to recall concerns by some over spending funds on dickey bird research not directly related to fisheries or hunting..........

[SilverDoctor]

You're right about the financial state of seniors, something that many forget, unless you a blessed to have a corporate pension, things can be tight and often a decision between a luxury like a fishing license (if it became law to purchase one) and food is not a choice. I take out a few seniors who really enjoy fly fishing but even the gas expense is too much for them on a more than limited budget. Of the 4 seniors that I fish with here and a couple on BC, all know the regulation off by heart incidentally. Part of the fishing routine is getting the regulations no matter hat age and parsing it. Much like the old Sears xmas catalog.

 

 

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???

[DonAndersen]

From Govt of Canada site below is copied:

 

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/can/2005/section4-eng.htm

 

 

1995 2000 2005

Alberta 219,807 182,044 179,461 Resident Anglers

 

Alberta 12,500 13,900 12,400 Foreign and Non-Alberta Anglers

 

Canadian anglers fishing within their home jurisdictions accounted for about 38 million days fished in 2005. Only 2% of total fishing effort (992,628 days) could be attributed to Canadians fishing in other jurisdictions, while foreign anglers accounted for the remaining 10% (4.2 million days) in 2005. In terms of the average days fished for each angler category, resident anglers fished an average of 15 days, while the non-resident Canadian and foreign anglers groups averaged about 7 days each.

 

So there ya' go - an increase in the Foreign etc anglers of $10 would put 1>1.5 officers in the field.

 

But to bust your bubble - Govt of Alberta has hiring freeze - SRD is 10 positions short in enforcement now. Knee jerk reaction on hiring freeze is not likely to change.

 

Do recall though the huge sobbing tears of a Guide who works the North Saskatchewan River when ACA raised their levy on licenses. A buck or so, in his mind, was going to profoundly effect his business. He spent well over 1/2 hour sobbing and bleating @ a Provincial Roundtable meeting. Didn't have much effect - those that do, went for a smoke. The rest suffered in silence. We're CDN after all.

 

 

regards,

 

 

Don

 

 

[Bowfloat]

I am sorry I posted something in the wrong form thread.