License Costs

[timehh]

Should the cost of having the 'privilege' to fish Alberta waters be increased?

 

2007

 

Alberta Resident:

Under 16 $0.00

16 - 64 $22.50

65+ $0.00

WIN Card $8.00 (Valid for 5 years)

 

Under 16:

 

$0.00 for both kids to fish

$495.00 for a 6 day summer camp for a single child

$150.00 for a session of karate lessons (15 lessons) for a single child

 

16 - 64

 

$22.50 for my annual license $30.50 if I need to renew my WIN card

$50.00 about what it costs to fill up my vehicle with fuel for 1 week

$65.00 - 100.00 about what it costs for a single round of golf around Calgary

 

 

65+

 

You've been paying out the nose all your life, I figure you deserve the break

 

 

I'd be willing to pay more for my license, and have to buy licenses for both of my kids, especially if these additional funds went directly to supporting Alberta fisheries by way of habitat restoration, purchasing of land to prevent development in sensitive areas, angler education, and enforcement etc.

[Brownstone]

Yep .. there are alot less wholesome and expensive activities to be at with the family .. I would'nt mind it one bit to see the prices raised .. (I pay +/- 100 bucks for a "non-resident" salmon license to fish back in Newfoundland) .. as long as the money gets put to use within the system .. its a good investment for everyone

[Teck71]

Agreed I'm all for a raise in licence as long as it means that the fishery is better protected, meaning more CO's (really po's me that I have had a Licence both here and in Ontario since I was 16 and have never been asked to produce it), tougher legislation, and more research money determine how to better protect our Waters. But not if it means that some fat assed politician get to take an extra week in mexico on my dime.

 

 

I mean I have only ever seen 1 CO up at the Bergen store, we chatted a bit but I have never seen one while I was Fishing. makes you wonder how many people spend years poaching to finally get caught only for it to be their 1st offence and given a slap on the wrist

[maxwell]

im all for it..i think the whole thing needs revamping...

[KnotLikely]

They should be increased with the extra revenue being returned to fisheries, and not lost in general revenue.

 

I'd also like to see changes that require testing on species identification, regulations, ethics. Perhaps tiered licensing where catch and keep pay one license fee, and catch and release pay another. Maybe even a lottery and or stamp system for the more fragile streams.

[trevally]

I am all for increasing the cost of a license. You can't even golf 9 holes in calgary for the cost of one! If I know that each incremental dollar was going towards conservation, I would gladly pay 4 times as much.

[lonefisher]

I believe I was told that it will be going up next season..... not a lot but a little bit. I'm A ok with it.

[bigbowtrout]

I think a new system is in order. Buy a normal licence and have access to all of the stocked ponds and lakes in Alberta pay for an advanced licence and have access to the more fragile systems. $50 for the normal licence $100 for the upgrade.

[darthwader]

Jack it up...as long as it goes to the right places. It is almost embarrassing how cheap it is now. I tell my relatives in Scotland and they just laugh and shake their heads.

 

"Ye canny fish for that o'er here son!" - (say in Scottish accent for effect)

 

DW

[TerryH]

I'm three years away from getting the over 65 freebie license. Therefore, I hope this gives me some credibility when I suggest the seniors free license be eliminated. If you use the resource, you should pay for it -- I don't care how old you are. Older guys are catching more fish too, given they have all that experience -- right?

 

BBT, I also like your suggestion of two classes of license -- one for stocked lakes, another for fragile areas (eg. the Livingstone).

 

Lastly, as has often been suggested on this forum, something has to be done about the non-resident license fee to bring it in line with other provinces and states.

 

Terry

[Guest tallieho]

I'll start by saying this,if you use the resource you should have to pay something.My reasoning for this is,presently i don't know how the gov't would ever know how many people are actually using the resource.Are our fishermen increaseing on the demands of the fisheries,or are our numbers decreasing?.I don't mine paying more as long as it is justified,goes into the fisheries & not into general revenue for the gov't slush fund.

[Glenbow]

I don't favor an increase in the resident license cost. I wouldn't mind seeing the stocked vs. all waters license, it sounds like a reasonable idea. I already pay too much for other things that our infinitely wise Government has decided to charge more for, so no increase in fees is my vote. For more revenue, jack-up the non-resident license like everywhere else.

[Bobr]

I’d gladly pay more for the privilege of fishing our lakes and rivers.

We will never get the habitat protection and regulation enforcement we all seem to want without more CO’s on site.

If it will cost me more to have such a system in place so be it.

(I can’t honestly remember the last time a CO stopped and asked me for my license or to check my equipment.)

 

I also think a short quiz of 5-10 questions or so on fish ident and the regs etc. should be required before you can even get a license. Just cuz you can open a wallet doesn’t mean you know what you are doing.

 

The over 65 thing I’m not sure about. While I agree that they’ve paid their dues time and time again and deserve a break. There is going to be a whole lot of boomers becoming that age soon and that may adversely affect the amount of $’s coming in for programs and enforcement. (While the splinters are little uncomfortable I’m gonna have to stay on the fence on this one.)

[reevesr1]

I don't favor an increase in the resident license cost. I wouldn't mind seeing the stocked vs. all waters license, it sounds like a reasonable idea. I already pay too much for other things that our infinitely wise Government has decided to charge more for, so no increase in fees is my vote. For more revenue, jack-up the non-resident license like everywhere else.

Not that I would ever disagree with you Glen, but...

I have never been in favor of any gov't raising revenue by increasing fees for out of province visitors. If they need more money for fisheries in Alberta, then it is the responsibility of Alberta fishermen to fund that, not visitors (and just because BC and other provinces do certainly does not make it right). One of the things that drove me crazy in Houston was when they decided to fund a new sports stadium by raising hotel and rental car taxes. In other words, get someone else to pay for it. I hated that.

[Teck71]

I think raising rates accross the board, would be the best solution. hit everyone so that one group does not get hit more.

[birchy]

I'd be willing to pay more for sure. Provided we see the things a few of you mentioned already.. more C.O.'s, better protection of the fisheries, etc. Nothing more frustrating than calling in some poachers on the Bow and hearing that the nearest C.O. is in Cochrane (personal experience)!

[DonAndersen]

Guys,

 

You get what you pay for. If you pay nothing, you get nothing. One thing I know about the PCers - nothing has value unless it can be sold. F&W thinks that the fishing is worth what you pay, so the PCers see it as low priority.

If the license fee rose by several hundred %, perhaps the priorities would change. Till then - forget it.

As far as different licence fees to fish flowing vs stillwaters. Stillwater trout costs about #.80 each. Flowing water costs nothing to raise fish [assuming decent management, land use and enforcement].

 

catch ya'

 

 

Don

[SamIam]

If everyone has so much money to be giving away, how about giving it to the local TU chapter? That way, you know it is being used for what you want and not disappearing into the governments black hole.

[Glenbow]

That's what I'm talking about. You have to pay for everything these days - I am reluctant to 'offer' any more of my money. We need to convince the Gov't that the resource deserves more funding from the funds it already collects (all sources). We already have to pay stupid amounts for gas to go fish in the mountains. If you want to fish in the national park, you then have to pay for a National Park Pass as well as a national license. We already pay a lot in various forms of taxation, and I am not inclined to offer any more of my money to the Government when I cannot trust where that money will go. There is no guarantee that the money will go where it is intended. Like I said before in a previous thread that was very similar to this one, I would rather take part in fund raising for more C.O.'s to pay their wages and then there's a certain amount of accountability. I could be wrong, I've been wrong before, but to me it's something that fits better for me. The Gov't must be convinced that our fishery deserves more money and attention. How to do that, I am not sure.

[DonAndersen]

Glenbow,

 

Try writing your MLA. Contacts are @ http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/mla_contacts.cfm

 

Make sure you CC Morton.

 

No point in writing to F&W. Consult plumbers on which way the stuff flows.

 

Don

[Glenbow]

Thanks Don, will do.

[hydropsyche]

In other words, get someone else to pay for it. I hated that.

 

Rickr, you're my kinda Canadian. I like your attitude.

 

To stay on topic. I think fees should be raised.

 

(*BC rant and thread jack warning*)

 

I believe in user pay and those users are mostly local. People can form committees and make decisions with a stroke of a pen that will be backed by politicians that only have to answer to the people that will vote for them (locals). Looking for someone else to pay for their ride is just wrong. I guess its a matter of degree and $20/day on *top* of twice the annual fee of a resident, not backed by biological data but only a desire to keep undesirables off *their* water, is just plain wrong.

 

An interesting note: I was having dinner with my uncle in law from the SEK. He's a health freak and loves to go swimming. He didn't see anything wrong with the new rules until I compared it to access to tax payer funded sports centers. I asked him if he thought it would be fair if Calgary charged him 100% more plus $20/day to go swimming in a local pool then a resident just because of the colour of his license plate. All the arguments used to justify the SEK's rape apply here (tax payer funded, too many people, scarce resource, the traveling angler can afford to pay, the money goes to a good cause etc.). I think he finally got my point.

 

(rant off)

[reevesr1]

Now I have to show my ignorance:

 

hyrdro- What is a SEK?

Don: PCer = Progressive conservative(er) or Politically Correct(er). I assume the first.

 

Glen,

I'm not sure about raising fees either. As many have stated, I have no issues with it if it goes to the resource. But I am certainly not naive enough to trust that is what is going to happen. My point was that if you're not going to raise it for Albertan's, don't raise it for anyone else.

[toolman]

If everyone has so much money to be giving away, how about giving it to the local TU chapter? That way, you know it is being used for what you want and not disappearing into the governments black hole.

 

Ta Da....great idea SIA

[Tako]

Are you guys STILL whining about $20/day. Simple solution, stop following the guides around. There's plenty of water over here that ain't classified. So much that I've never bought a CW license in my life.

 

To stay on topic, I pay $38.52/yr as a resident. When I paid $22.50 to fish in Alberta I was pleasantly surprised.