Should Pre-16 And Post 65 Get A License?

[billie]

Note that I asked if they should "get" not "buy". I have no issue whatsoever with the fee structure.

 

I caught a cutty on a C&R stream and released it. I then crossed the river and ran into a young lad of 6-8 years old and his family on the other side of the pool.

 

He asked if I kept the fish and I said "No, the fish in this river must be released to live another day, you are not allowed to keep them". He looked quite puzzled.

 

I went and spoke to his parents and courteously discussed the regulations. They stated to me that "He didn't need a license and the rules don't apply to him". I corrected their assumptions.

 

So even with all the signage in the area, they did not understand that the rules are applicable to the child.

 

Is it not reasonable to have these excepted groups still procure a license. It should coincide with a checkbox disclaimer that they acknowledge their adherence to the regulations. For the seniors, they can also acknowledge the recent changes.

 

This seems like a positive step in creating sustainable habits in new fisherpersons at the outset. To be honest, a first time fisherperson should have an on-line education program to access and learn from (maybe not for pre-school), and shared with the parent also.

 

No, I won't be calling in a 6 year old anytime soon.

 

My 2 bits.

[somereddeerguy]

I think everyone who is going fishing should have to take some kind of course. Fees are up for debate but I think its a great and easy step towards a bit more conservation. I have ran across many first time fishermen/women who cant grasp the concept of catch and release.it wont stop poaching but if it helps stops a few "accidental or uninformed poaching incidents" its worth it. That's just my opinion anyways

[trailhead]

A child basically fishes under his parent or guardians license and as such they are then liable and accountable. Also any fish caught by the child counts towards the total caught by the adult, not separately.

[billie]

I've never looked for that rule but where does it say the kid's limit is part of the adult?

 

I'll take anther look. It hasn't been something I need to know I guess. Actually doesn't sound right. That would mean a 15 year old cannot fish alone?

[DonAndersen]

Some provinces and states have required over/unders to get licenses although they cost nothing. This was to make sure the person got a copy of the regs.

Whether or not they read it is another question.

And adults are responsible for thier kids.

 

I have not needed a license for 5 years. I typically spend $25 on fuel every time I go fishing. After 125 trips per year paying >$3000 in fuel, a $25 license fee is the least cost. Hell, I spend more than $25 on tippets.

 

Don

[Ricinus]

I just wish the money would go directly to fisheries and not General Revenue.

 

Mike

[BowLurker]

I just wish the money would go directly to fisheries and not General Revenue.

 

Mike

 

+1 for this! At least BC has the right idea, with 100% of freshwater license revenue going to the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC.

 

I was fishing with both ends of the age spectrum at a family outing, and the older fisherman didn't understand the regs because he hasn't had to buy a license for 10+ yrs. Kind of difficult to let the grandkids know about their bad habits.

Guess that's why I piped up and let them both know about that certain body of water. But again, the older fella had the same attitude as others, that the rules didn't apply to the child..or him. Sigh.

 

-M.

[billie]

I couldn't find anything about kids fish limit being part of an adult's. Am I missing something?

 

Very good points BowLurker.

 

You know, maybe the odd fish by young and old probably isn't a big deal. But I guess it is a "death by a thousand cuts". Where I fish, I rarely see either . I suppose every little bit helps, on both sides of the ledger. A few less kept is a few more released.

 

The old guys can be stubborn (I gotta be careful here, ha!) but attrition is not on their side. The young are the ones that should be inducted properly.

[TerryH]

I couldn't find anything about kids fish limit being part of an adult's. Am I missing something?"............

 

That's the rule in national parks. Not so in Alberta fishing regs.

[Jayhad]

I think seniors should be charged more, no seriously, why give the guys free access when they fish the most? I think the system should be based on days fished.... and I fish 200 days a year

[BowLurker]

I grew up half in Norway, and half here in Canada. The fish we catch in Norge are a staple food, I let most go, but we all know that most big fish have to stay in the water. Canadians/Neufies kept the giant fish. Yup...there it is. I have had many arguments about the sweet Cod.

 

When I went to get my Driver's License in Norway, the person asked if I was to fish, and did I have a boat.

 

Why is the Canadian attitude so difficult to license everyone, Seniors to Kidlets.. At least they learn!

 

-M.

[DonAndersen]

I think seniors should be charged more, no seriously, why give the guys free access when they fish the most? I think the system should be based on days fished.... and I fish 200 days a year

 

I'm with you. How about $5/day. Cheaper than golf.

 

Don

[billie]

Not sure about $5 a day but any senior under a certain income threshold should get their fees returned on their provincial income tax. Hunting tags too if they're low income. Those who can afford it should contribute, but granted in my utopian world, all license fees go into conservation efforts, not general revenue.

[DonAndersen]

Billie et al,

 

Fisheries and for that matter all natural resources are the responsibility of the general population and as such license fees and the like should go to general revenue. To isolate fishing licenses as a single source of revenue for fisheries would severely limit the ability of fishery managers to do the required work.

This type of funding would mean folks who do not pay license fees get away scott free.

Just remember that the total number of licensed Angler's are <>300,000 which realizes about $10.00 to general revenue. A paltry 3 million.

 

Don

[Sparkplug]

I like the idea of everyone having to have a licence. The cost of having one for children or seniors could be either negligible or zero; we're not talking about a revenue issue here.

 

The real question is how do you get ALL fisherpersons, young, old(er) and in-between, to be aware of the regulations and "bought-in", i.e., clear understanding that the regs apply to them, period, not to mention starting to develop some sort of a conservation awareness/ethos.

 

I like the thought of having to pass a short test in order to get your licence. The licence candidate would at least have had to read the regulations in order to pass the test. Could be available on-line. I'm not talking about a university entrance exam here; just a short test to require someone to basically prove that they have at least read the regulations and have a basic understanding.

 

And maybe for anyone under 16, a parent/guardian has to pass the test too, in addition to the <16 person, in order for the <16 person to get a licence (even if free for them).

[Brunsie]

I'm a senior and as such, don't have to buy a licence.

If I had to pay for a licence, it wouldn't bother me, as they're cheap compared to other provinces.

The administrator (IBM I think) gets approximately $15.75 for every licence sold. If F/W were to require every youth and senior

to get a licence, F/W would have to pay this fee or start charging youths and seniors at least this cost. Can you imagine the uproar this would cause?

As Don said, making fisheries rely on licence fees to support themselves wouldn't work as ACA and SRD actually get about $40 million a year from

the provincial government.

 

My $.02

BK

[billie]

Fair enough Don. The fees comments are mostly emotionally driven.

 

The regs show what licensing revenue goes to:

64% goes to the ACA.

31% goes to licensing agencies and fish monitoring programs,

And only 5% goes to general revenue.

 

the 31% calculates to $8.68/license so a bit less I suppose after reconciling the monitoring. Sorting through the myriad of moneys relative to the overall picture would be a chore in itself.

 

Back to the premise of the OP, licensing for all would be a positive step, IMO, regardless of the fee structure.

[Smitty]

Billie et al, Fisheries and for that matter all natural resources are the responsibility of the general population and as such license fees and the like should go to general revenue. To isolate fishing licenses as a single source of revenue for fisheries would severely limit the ability of fishery managers to do the required work. This type of funding would mean folks who do not pay license fees get away scott free. Just remember that the total number of licensed Angler's are <>300,000 which realizes about $10.00 to general revenue. A paltry 3 million. Don

 

Why the false choice? To my mind, it should not be "either or", the AEP budget should be set from general revenues, and then supplemented by the fines from violations. Alberta's environment is there for everyone to enjoy, it shouldn't fall on the backs of fisherman and hunters to fund protection of the environment. Public resource should equal public dollars funded from everyone via general revenue taxes, and then the fines could be specifically funneled into the AEP budget.

 

Just a thought.

 

Mike

[BrianR]

I looked back on the minutes[2010-2016] of the fisheries rnd.tbl.I found that it has been on there table & has never made it to the minister. source.mywildalberta rnd.tbl fisheries

[BillyGopher]

I looked back on the minutes[2010-2016] of the fisheries rnd.tbl.I found that it has been on there table & has never made it to the minister. source.mywildalberta rnd.tbl fisheries

and that is the discussion ender right there. It has yet to make it to the Minister, let alone have the Minister deliberate it. And you know how long a deliberation that would be given the present and forseeable political climate in AB. Maybe in 20 years there will be a seniors license, but it won't be for $. It will simply be a tracking device of use of our Fisheries. No Minister will ever approve charging seniors just to go fishing as it pertains to societal considerations as a whole, esp when the vast majority of much simpler, politically easier to implement changes were well shot down before reaching the Minister, let alone most of the few that then made it through to the Minister in the last round of license changes put forth by the FRT.