bcubed Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 ACA is proposing (finally) to increase the angling fees in the province. http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/default/index.cfm/aca/proposed-angling-levy-increase/background/ Personally, i think they could have bumped up the fees more for residents, as well as non-residents. Hope that they put the funds towards more enforcement, rather then just blindly stocking more lakes. Can stock and aerate all you want, but without consequential regulations and effective enforcement, we'll never get anywhere with our lakes.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ÜberFly Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I agree raise the non resident fees and put $ towards enforcement! Maybe consider a classified system like in BC! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailhead Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 With you on this too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peetso Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Yep as long as the money goes to enforcement then I am all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcubed Posted August 1, 2013 Author Share Posted August 1, 2013 They're asking for feedback, so please add it, doesn't take much time: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8GVVD5R Would also love the money go towards licensing guiding operations. But again, can change all the rules under the sun, but unless theres someone out there enforcing them, it doesnt matter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peetso Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 A classified water levy couldn't hurt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peetso Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 They're asking for feedback, so please add it, doesn't take much time: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/8GVVD5R Done and done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGK Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 B, they want to go to $56 for non-res, that's pretty good! Should have gone to 30 or 35 for resi's, but this is better than a stick in the eye! I'm with you on enforcement but still believe the ACA's main focus should always be habitat & native fish 1st, introduced wild and stocked 2nd and 3rd respectively! Enforcement is SRD, so if the ACA can pick up more research slack from SRD, they can reshuffle gas money to the enforcement trucks in all probability. Have always said and still maintain that Alberta has one of the best research & management systems in the country. BC is a joke in comparison! http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/default/index.cfm/aca/proposed-angling-levy-increase/license-comparison-tables/ k 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcubed Posted August 1, 2013 Author Share Posted August 1, 2013 Kris, i agree, i'm glad they bumped fees. However, the non-resident non-canadians could have had a $10 bump without anyone complaining. I agree with you about their main focus, should probably spend a bit more time on riparian areas after the flooding this year, then adding more stocked lakes. Should also watch the non-resident non-canadians getting a cheaper deal then fellow Canadians if they fish for 5 days or less, when non-alberta residents are forced to buy annual. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryfly Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Glad to see folks commenting on lack of enforcement. GREAT to see the increases for non Albertans. About time. Right now residents subsidize tourists. Bah. 1. Please provide your feedback on the proposed levy increase. We take your comments seriously, so please be constructive.-- I am a senior and don't pay a penny! I would gladly pay for a fishing license.-- Start charging ALL non residents....it is utter nonsense that under 16s do not need a license in Alberta. i.e a German or Japanese tourist <16 years fishes for free. This is just wrong and maddening.-- increase license fees for all non residents anglers by 100% NOW. I pay |$60 for a BC license!! And they pay the same as me here. Nonsense and maddening! I am not happy about this and responses from ESRD ministers over the years are absolute nonsense. I ain't happy about this as you can tell! -- all increases should go toward current ACA activities and enforcement. See below.2. Tell us what conservation work you would like to see your levy dollars support.ACA does great work. Thanks!But all of the habitat, research work and aeration is for nothing since we have de facto zero enforcement of fisheries in Alberta. It is a disgrace. I am aware that it is not ACA's role but surely the ACA board of governors has some clout with ESRD and the Solicitor Gen offices. Enforcement is complex and now under the Sol Gen department but ACA can apply pressure to get enforcement increased.Why waste my license fees on research when poachers can openly break fishing laws with close to 100% certainty that they will not be caught! This HAS to be a major concern of ACA so the board needs to address this and using the excuse "it is not our mandate" does not cut it. ...Clive SchaupmeyerCoaldale, Alberta 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muffin Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Well said Clive. Survey filled out and completed. Nice to see they are taking some steps in the right direction. Interesting to see all the comments on this one and I am happy to see a focus on enforcment from the board community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertatrout Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I don't like the concept of the levy based on it going to the ACA. We need enforcement and we need the ACA to commit to spending levy money on sport fisheries. I appreciate a lot of the work the ACA does but as an organization funded mostly by fisherman and hunters I fee their priorities still need further adjustment. Funding to organizations/ land groups that do not at a minimum support fishing/hunting access should not be currently occurring, the revenue base is simply too narrow. http://www.ab-conservation.com/go/default/index.cfm/aca/revenue-sources/ I acknowledge the ACA is "developing" and they do perform lots of good work. Albertans also need to realize Alberta Fish and Wildlife is a mere skeleton and the ACA is not capable of taking over their role in Alberta. If ACA's mandate continues to expand they cannot simply continue milking hunters and fisherman for funds, new sources of revenue need to be explored. How about a levy on ATV users who are destroying our streams? How about levy's on industry? I will not support another levy until other players are forced to contribute to the pot. I did send my feedback and have had many discussions with the ACA about this in the past. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonAndersen Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 Folks, It pays to take a second or 2 and look over how ACA deals out the money. Of the $ 469,000 paid out in the Large Grant Fund just $80,800 went to fisheries stuff and most of that to habitat examination. That is just 17% OF THE TOTAL. And then we have: ACA’s Grants in Biodiversity Program is run in collaboration with the Alberta Co-operative Conservation Unit, which represents a consortium of Alberta universities including: University of Alberta, University of Calgary and the University of Lethbridge. ACA’s annual financial contribution to the fund is $225,000. And it goes on and on. About time that outfit figures out who pays the bills. Hunters and fishermen are getting screwed. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scel Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I think that an increase is important and crucial; however... Can someone please tell me how an increase in enforcement will help the longevity of fisheries in the province? As far as I can tell, there is no political system that benefits from increased enforcement over the merits of increased education. Can someone tell me how increasing non-resident fees increases awareness and health of fisheries. We want want more people to come to beautiful Alberta. In most cases, increasing fees just increases non-compliance. How are fisheries any different? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peetso Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 We want want more people to come to beautiful Alberta. There's plenty of people here already. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianR Posted August 1, 2013 Share Posted August 1, 2013 I completed there survey..I am in favor of the increase.BUT what about the seniors & youth. [eg]B.C fees have seniors & youths covered off.It has been spoken on this board many times,that the srd.doesn't no how many fisher's there are out there using the resource.At the very least the seniors & youth should have to be in the possession of a WIN card.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryfly Posted August 2, 2013 Share Posted August 2, 2013 Agreed that all anglers should at least have a WIN card..at least the old buggers like me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowcane Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Tax grab by a differant name, put the rose coloured glasses on if for a second you think a cent will go where it should be...oh and get over the BC thing already, yup its not fair but nethier is life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PGK Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Folks, It pays to take a second or 2 and look over how ACA deals out the money. Of the $ 469,000 paid out in the Large Grant Fund just $80,800 went to fisheries stuff and most of that to habitat examination. That is just 17% OF THE TOTAL. And then we have: ACA’s Grants in Biodiversity Program is run in collaboration with the Alberta Co-operative Conservation Unit, which represents a consortium of Alberta universities including: University of Alberta, University of Calgary and the University of Lethbridge. ACA’s annual financial contribution to the fund is $225,000. And it goes on and on. About time that outfit figures out who pays the bills. Hunters and fishermen are getting screwed. Don So it's a bad idea to give (invest, actually) money to universities to support the education & training of the province's future fish managers? ULeth trains all the enforcement officers and half of the environmental monitors, UofA is doing most of the research into examining Albertan grayling abundance & distribution and has run or partnered with all of the research done in the foothills re: stream crossings and impacts to Athabasca rainbows & bulls and all the associated management implications and policy documents that guide resource development today, UofC is the top pathogens and aquaculture lab east of BC. Your comments never cease to amaze Don. Truly, ignorance must be bliss. 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.