Should Fishing Guides Be Licensed?

[KingSalmon]

They are making profit off a public resource...it should be licensed. That, and we don't even know how many are out there, since technically anyone with an Alberta license can be a guide.

[Taco]

Fishing guides and outfitters should treated exactly the same as hunting guides and outfitters. Period

[DonAndersen]

Guys/Gals,

 

As long as the "guide" doesn't fish, he/she requires no license but can charge the client upwards of $500/day.

 

Don

[dryfly]

Birchy,

 

"Seriously? Guides fish for free?" Don answered right. They have to have a license to fish, but a guide does not need to have a license provided he does not fish.

 

Okay..two silly extreme examples...

 

1) A guide from SK can guide five, 15-year-old German anglers and they do not need one bloody license among them! Does it happen often? Probably never. It is a matter of principle: we are nuts to give away access to our resources like that. Crazy nuts.

 

2) Same guide can guide an Elbonian adult and five kids for five days and the total license fee is $41.50...or about a buck fifty per day in rod fees. Whacko crazy.

 

This is about licensing guides and license fees in general. The whole system needs rebuilding from the ground up. It has zero to do with shitting all over BC and their $20-per-day crap. This is about proper resource management and funding support.

 

rickr wrote, "the first step to a communist state is to regulate and license independent contractors."

 

Most democracies license (or accredit) every and any manner of private contractors from doctors to plumbers to teachers to roofers to organic farmers. Most societies demand some sort of protection through licenses and accreditation.

 

Have a swell weekend.

 

Clive

 

License fees

[bulltrout]

2) Same guide can guide an Elbonian adult and five kids for five days and the total license fee is $41.50...or about a buck fifty per day in rod fees. Whacko crazy.

i didn't know Elbonians fly fished...i always thought their beards got caught in the reels...besides, we don't have to worry about them guiding here cuz Air Elbonia doesn't have that type of range yet... my kingdom to see five Elbonian kids on the Crow...lmfao

[Glenbow]

I don't think that guiding & oil & gas are even remotely the same - the royalties on O&G are different as O&G are permanently removed from the land, whereas trout are not. I don't personally agree with the increased royalties on the O&G sector, but that is not the issue here either.

 

Remember, the more we box ourselves in as a society with more rules/regs/taxes/fees/laws, the more restrained our lives will be and our freedoms to enjoy things will become constricted and/or more expensive.

 

I think it should be up to the guides themselves to choose and the public as the consumer to see which guide has insurance, first aid etc. The public always shows what will win & what won't by choice.

 

I think that as long as a guide pays a license fee to fish, good. I don't agree that he (she) must pay a fee to guide and not fish himself. He already pays a business license fee (if he does in fact) and pays taxes on the money he makes (if in fact he does). It is no different than if I were to charge a fee to go show a bunch of tourists Bull trout spawning in the fall & take pictures. Or take them on a nature hike to show them interesting sights. Why the heck would I have to pay a fee & be licensed to do that?

 

If I were a 'fishing consultant' would that change the rules? If a consultant can charge a fee for knowledge in his own head (good or bad) then why can a guide not? The fish do not know the difference, nor are they being harvested.

 

More government = bad idea to me. More fees and licenses = bad idea to me. I do not care if a guy charges a fee to somebody to show him where to fish, and the guy doesn't have a license. It is a guy charging for what he knows (like a consultant) and offers it for sale. If somebody hires a crappy consultant and doesn't get what he thinks he paid for, it's no good for the crappy consultant. Mr. Consultant then has 1 less referral or repeat customer. He may not continue being a consultant. It is no different. And I agree that our fish are our resource, so maybe non-Albertans should have to pay a guide license fee or whatever. But, let us preserve the opportunity for an enterprising Albertan fishing enthusiast to grow himself into a guide business without a bunch of governmental obligations and interference and cost. He is after all not a nuclear reactor technician. He is showing somebody how and where to fish. Nothing more. There are the same amount of fish there after guiding (within reason of course) as there are after. Let us not go down the road to becoming BC - we have a good thing here and it deserves to not be impaired. I strongly support the ideal of individuals being motivated and creative enough to build themselves into a business with as little governmental interference as possible.

 

Remember, this can set a precedent and be used to support arguments to charge fees or impose licenses in any number of areas. What about the guy that mows lawns? The guy that collects garbage (as an independent business)? The guy that shovels snow for you? The guy that hangs Christmas lights? Please do not read that I am naive in making these comparisons, these are merely examples of folks that have used their own initiative to make something of and for themselves. More regulatory cost and interference constricts this healthy motivation and stagnates the propensity for growth. I do not want to see things like river access or 'rod days' ever implemented on the waters of the province that I call home. And I have just as much to lose as anyone else on this forum.

 

I have a healthy respect for the folks that have chosen to contribute to this thread, and it is thanks to them that we can all participate & share in this turbulent discussion. I am also deeply appreciative that we can so far be as passionate about our points of view and still this thread remains a distinguished example of discussion. My hat is off to the participants.

 

Anyone wanna talk about jet boats?

 

 

(kidding, of course)

[bulltrout]

ah yes...the jetboat thread...what a gong show that was...funny thing is i was actually thinking about that one at work today... BTW, does anyone remember how many posts that thing ended up having???

[SteveM]

Glenbow:

You, my friend, are thinking too much!

Dr. Loblaw's prescription for you is this- some fresh New Zealand air & much brown trout therapy.

[dryfly]

Glen:

 

The sad part of this is that I doubt if anyone here disagrees with what you said. "More government = bad idea to me. More fees and licenses = bad idea to me." In general, we agree.

 

But I'll come back to the concept of "user pay" and fees for use of resources. And, yes, I know it is a thin line (real thin and fuzzy too) between what is use of resource and what isn't. I sure don't know. But I think guides are living of the avails of our resources and should pay to use those resources. But is is indeed fuzzy. If I take a picture of our mountains and sell it, should I pay a user fee? Ooohh. Should we charge everyone an access fee to the forestry reserve? I'd be pleased to pay a fee if the money went directly into preservation and enforcement. But alas, it would just go into the Black Hole, eh?

 

"Anyone wanna talk about jet boats?" I found the "pussy cat and jet boat" picture, but figured that would constitute a blatant hijacking of Don's thread. So instead I'll leave you with the END OF THE WORLD video clip instead. It's been a while.

 

Just substitute Alberta for California at the end.

 

Oh heck, here's the licensed guide jet boat.

 

Clive

[Glenbow]

I'm just impressed that I could use 'stagnates' and 'propensity' in the same sentence. I think I need a vacation. I think I'll go to New Zealand for a while & try to unwind. Monday sounds good!

[maxwell]

im all for it..its weird how loose things are....

[DonAndersen]

Guys/Gals,

 

I'm surprised so far that nobody has brought up the concepts of mitigation and compensation and how it applies to the guiding business.

 

From what I've read on this board and others, there has been conflicts between users on the Bow with the quote "why don't you f*** off - I'm trying to make a living here" about summing up the threads. It would appear that the guides "win" by using the resource and all others "lose" by the presence and activities of the guiding business.

OK - fair enough - the guides are trying to make a living. But how does the others owners of the resource get compensated for the loss of their fishing experience due to the increased crowding? And further, it is well established that compensation is only part of the package. Usually some type of mitigation is undertaken as well.

Other jurisdictions do it through limiting the number of guides working the water [Mitigate], curtailing non-resource owners activities through limiting permits or charging higher fees[Compensate].

 

 

Mitigate is defined as: to cause to be less harmful or painful

 

Compensate: to make an appropriate and usually counterbalancing payment or to offset an error, defect or undesired effect

 

Notes:

 

1] Alberta has very few miles of very good fishing water. Think @ one time I figured it was less than 80 miles - virtually all guiding activity takes place within that short distance.

2] Nasty court case in Rocky several weeks ago where a fellow held others @ gun point for several hours due to a perceived conflict between the guiding company and resident hunters over a sheep.

3] With very few exceptions, virtually every disease effecting wild stocks of fish and wildlife is brought into Alberta by business activities.

 

regards,

 

 

Don

[TimD]

Civilized market societies have standards, regulations and licenses because it helps the marketplace function smoothly. Often where there is no regulation, user groups form and one of the first things they do is write up a code of conduct - I am thinking of the quad and skidoo people here. If these user groups don't have enough power then the government usually steps in with regulations. I can't think of a good case where one can talk of individual freedom without talking about responsibility.

 

Sure the guides should be licensed, they should also have an association with a set of standards and behaviors that they all adhere to. They should also have some type of identification on their boats - so we know who the real guides are and who is just floating down the water - I have had drift boats interfere with my fishing a few times and I am not sure if it is a guided trip or a couple of people that don't have any etiquette.

 

Charging royalties (user fees) to guides for using the resource is logical in one sense because nobody should ride for free but it would be hard to administer. I would hate to see some type of royalty payment without a code of conduct that says "guides will not move their clients into water being fished without getting permission." I could just see a situation where some guide says, "I paid to use this water and I have clients that should be shown some fish so we are going to fish in front of you."

 

 

Regards,

 

Tim

[dryfly]

Good points Don. (Tim..just saw your post after I posted..nice.)

 

The point about "mitigation" is near what what I was eluding to about "living off the avails" and "preservation." I don't see many guides in the places I fish, but can tell you there is one rather aggressive guide somewhere somewhere and yes he and his sports interfere with us some days. Not in the sense of overtly bothering us--in fact they are civil about keeping a distance--but they crowd us out some days.

 

Another angle to this whole licensing thing is I wonder just how many labor laws etc etc are broken by the guiding bidnez. (Probably not much different than in all other businesses.) I've heard of US guides bringing people to Alberta and of course not having a work visa--hard to prove a guy is actually working for $$ while fishing, eh? How many have business permits in the municipalities they work in? My guess is all full time guides are squeaky clean in this matter--they have to be. But I bet a zillion dollars most casual guides don't have business licenses (a form of taxation and highly questionable in many cases..business licenses can be expensive and a pain) and nor do many declare all of the income..like a lot of folks who handle cash type bucks. (That is more or less accepted in our society -- heck, it is even revered sometimes.)

 

So if guides are getting away with some of the (sometimes silly) administrative-type regs, should we care when a lot of other "trades" businesses are probably no different? Except for an outright ban on foreign guides, probably not. But for me it all comes back to "living off the avails" of natural resources and sustaining (mitigating) those resources. You and I pay through our licenses. Heavy users who make a living off the resources pay nothing (other than thru taxes .. so do you and I) for the use of those resources.

 

We have finite water as you well noted. I worry about 2050 when there are 8 or 10 million people in Alberta--ain't gonna be pretty. (You and I will miss it. But lots of the younguns here will see it ... and wonder how we screwed up back on '08, eh?)

 

Tim mentioned "standards, regulations and licenses"...I am 'retired' but still work a few weeks each year (like right now) and yet I have a professional shingle that costs me $400 per year and $2 million in gen liability insurance that costs me $1K per year. Why? In case someone gets a paper cut on a report I write? It has nothing to do with professional conduct.)

 

As for general licensing fees for all users (you, me and Heinz, Cedric, Sumo and and Bubba), well .. don't get me going!

 

Sunday morning coming down ... a bloody breezy one too ... gonna write today.

[lonefisher]

I see the points being made..... whats the protocol in places like montana and some other big fishing destinations? How do they regulate their guides while still providing equality on the river ect ect. I say if there is a really good system somewhere we should adapt such a system to Alberta...... Unfortunately I have little experience with guiding practices in other places.

[bhurt]

I agree that the guides on ALL Alberta's river, streams, lakes, etc.... should have a business licence and a guide lince, but I think it is much more important right now to make sure that ALL guides have some sort of First Aid training, and river safty, u can add these into the lincence but there is alot of legal issuses that have to be hashed out with lincesing a guide before it can be put into action. In my own opion First Aid training and river safty is much more important then a guide lincese! (BTW sorry for the crap spelling)

[LynnF]

I could be wrong but I thought there was a movement by the FFOAA to get guides licensed some years back - more of a proactive effort to get it done before the government mandated it I think. Where did that get to?

 

I think it should be so - for many of the same reasons that have already been posted, so I won't bother reiterating. But the #1 reason I support it is because of the increased usage of our in-demand, valuable fishing resources that are not just being used (or exploited depending on how you view this issue) by the locals anymore. I'd love to know the amount of foreign guide guiding days on the Bow last year vs local guiding days. I don't think I'd be surprised at the #.

[Castuserraticus]

* if you license someone, they do have a larger voice in how the resource is managed?

Most likely - they can choose to have a larger voice as you have Don.

 

* if you don't license someone, they have no voice and are counted with all others

As above - in Alberta anyone who chooses can become involved as much as they want - in energy, forestry, agriculture, ...

 

* licenses may/could incorporate things like location restrictions, age, insurance coverage & first aid training - definitely

 

* licences for guides handling boats may/could require certificate of competency

Definitely - there are a few boats each year that the river beats up

 

* typical resource exploiters [ oil/gas, coal, wood] pay about 15% of gross income as a "user fee/royalty/stumpage etc" - is this appropriate for fishing guides?

No - C&R is not an extractive industry

 

* if a license system was set up, who should pay for administration - you & I, the Govt, the license holders et al?

All these options are ultimately you & I as it's our tax dollars. It should be the license holders paying which means you likely don't want the gov't administering it as the costs will be too high for the relatively small number of guides. This implies a voluntary license system which is somewhat like the present outfitters association membership. Administrative costs would have to include enforcement which can be expensive.

 

* how long should the license be in effect. Yearly, 5 years, quarterly, fishing season only? - annual

 

* should all types of fishing guides be licensed? What about fly in camps, ice fishing guides, horsey outfitters whose wranglers point you @ the creek

???

* could license holders justifiability restrict the public to certain locations if their business is effected.

Not public waters.

 

* conversely, should the public, on crowded waters, restrict guides

No, generally I believe the guides who make their living from the resource will be more passionate about protecting it than Joe Sixpack.

 

* should guides have to adhere to a higher level of conduct and if so, who develops the ethics for guides

The guides - has to be somewhat self policing. A main element is who to complain to and what's the punishment for irresponsible behaviour.

 

* how would a guide and/or a guided operation be identified?

License number displayed on boat. They all have to wear the same bright pink hat.

 

* should owners of business who supply guiding services be licensed? Should these license fees be greater that the guide license?

No - The owners already pay business taxes and collect licensing fees. They are acting as agents for independant operators.

 

Or should the whole question of licensing guides be dumped and the free for all continue?

 

The primary driver behind most regulation is having someone to complain to and a system of enforcement for violations. Rules are always written based on previous problems so the problems have to be defined. Out-of-province operators, resource management, encroachment on the rights of others, ... A huge problem here is that once a regulatory system is in place it would grow resulting in ever increasing fees. New problems will pop up because people cheat in newly creative ways to get around existing regs.

 

It seems a major fear is that the present system is so open and lax that a truly unscrupulous operator could do some serious damage in a fairly short time period. With all the law abiding fisherman on this board and others watching for violations how long could a crook operate?

[Brookie]

Excellent thread Don. Alberta should have done something 15 years ago. Allocating rod days would be the way to make a positive impact on the Alberta trout fishery. I wouldn't want that job.

[angler]

Clive:

 

1) A guide from SK can guide five, 15-year-old German anglers and they do not need one bloody license among them! Does it happen often? Probably never. It is a matter of principle: we are nuts to give away access to our resources like that. Crazy nuts.

 

Am I mistaken?? I tho't that under 16 did not need a licence so lang as they are accompanied by a permit holder Am I wrong in this???

[dryfly]

Angler...

 

A foreigner under 16 does not need a license and can fish alone and can kill a limit of fish.

 

Worse yet ... Five under-aged foreign or resident anglers can kill five limits.

 

A dad and eight kids get nine limits. Tis true! Sad, but true.

 

Tell me we don't need an overhaul of licensing, eh?

 

You don't need a license to kill in Alberta.

 

SRD considers all under 16s the same. They have a full limit of fish where there are limits.

[PlayDoh]

Fishing guides and outfitters should treated exactly the same as hunting guides and outfitters. Period

 

And for all the same reasons. You then inevitably regulate who can guide, and who cannot if there are people bidding on the same area, which is a good thing unless your a guide who lost out.

 

Considering how few guides there are and Alberta not having an extensive fishery in comparison to BC or the Maritimes. It would likely cost more then it collects to use the same structure as the new outiftter regulations.

 

The more management and income you can put in our rivers the better IMO, to the point of communism. lol.

 

I don't think tourists bring children on guided trips or even to the river to stock up on Trout. The flip side is if a Father/Parent wants to take his children fishing, whom aren't likely to impact the fishery since they lack skill and patience to focus on 'bag limits', it doesn't cost him a fortune to do so. $30 a licence for a child isn't fair, and would only cause problems enforcing regulations upon children.

 

If a guide is guiding people in an area that he doesn't fish or bother to get a licence for, he'll likely be out of business soon. Also 'fishing licences' are essentially irrelevant to the 'guiding licenses' issue IMO.

[dryfly]

PlayDoh

 

"$30 a licence for a child isn't fair"

 

I totally agree regarding ALBERTA children--they should be free--but I am vehemently opposed to out-of-province and foreign kids fishing for free AND having a limit.

 

It is NUTS!

[ladystrange]

not so fast on the kids without skill and patience...

 

actually i think that alberta kids should have a WIN card and pay the $8 and need a licence to fish. no a huge fee, but like $5 or $10 for the year.

 

now back to the kids not catching fish and impacting the fisheries... july long weekend carbondale area. lady hikes out of a gorge and asks me what the legal size what the legal size limit is. i said, depends on which side of the bridge you are on, either 30 or 35cm, so 12 - 14 inchs. she said she just saw the parents (who were not fishing) take a bag of full of fish back to their camper and the fish were in the area of 7-10inches, every single one of them and the kids were still down on the rocks (about 10ft above the water with spining rods chucking bait fish and worms btw)

 

so not only did the parents have no concern for the rules, the kids were then left alone because what is the CO going to do. (actually i know the warden down there and he probably would have chucked the kids of the cliff but thats another matter) kids are hauling 8in fish UP a rocky cliff, keeping most of them and the ones they didnt keep got dumped back in to the water from about 12 ft above the water, they were using dead bait, but bait fish and worns regardless.

 

personally i think the limit for rivers for trout should be 2, stocked lakes - whatever. but then again, i dont eat fresh water fish

 

another set of kids in august out at grotto were culling the fish they caught and stringing them through the gills. i did confront the adults but all i got was ignorance and a lot of swearing from a not so classy lady (and i use that loosely)

 

last summer up on burnt timber, more bait chuckers on a bait banned river had a brown (i think) on a rope tied to the back - to keep him fresh for later.

 

forget the guide licences, how about a fishers awareness program, like the hunting course before you can get a hunting permit...

 

kids can fish and catch fish, just as adults can...

[DonAndersen]

Folks,

 

Based on Lynn's comments - went looking for a "guides" association web site. This is the best that I could do. Is this the only one? Looks like a list of guiding companies.

 

ttp://www.aoaa.ca/members.htm

 

Some years ago I do recall seeing a larger site.

 

regards,

 

 

Don