Conor Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 How do you all feel about testing for an angling license, or having the option to test and get a different license (ie a two tiered license system)? The Quirk Ck. project has shown that even some avid angler's ID skills are poor. I can't imagine haw many illegal fished are bonked every year do to misidentification. Testing would allow managers to be more effective with regulations, allowing protection of our native fish pops by increased harvest of non-natives. Testing would also prevent our native fish from being misidentified as non-natives. Also, and this is possibly the biggest bonus, every potential angler can get a crash course on ethics, conservation and fish handling. Thoughts? I am not 100% for the idea, maybe because I haven't really hashed it out, yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beedhead Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Thats not a bad idea...But Im thinkin it would come down to a money thing...And the price of our licences would go up...or we would have pay for the test and fish ethics course... Cheers...Jeff.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 IMO it's all an enforcement issue, nothing like a $400 fine or a threat of same to get someone to bone upon the fishing regs. It isn't the same as hunting where you have a 2 km kill zone around the gun. The money would be better spent putting more dedicated WOs on the ground although that isn't likely to happen given the current fiscal climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justfreewheelin Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 well I thought that everyone was or is required to take an outdoor ed/wildlife conservation course to get their WIN card then they are allowed to get their fishing license? We all need to just keep the fish cops on speed dial I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weedy1 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 well I thought that everyone was or is required to take an outdoor ed/wildlife conservation course to get their WIN card then they are allowed to get their fishing license? Nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lundvike Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 My feelings that personally two tiered would never be an issue for me. If there were no limits other than having to have the upper tier to keep fish, why would I bother. I fish catch and release. I can't remember the last time I bonked a fresh water fish, never in Alberta. Although I do support the concept for anyone who wished to keep fish, I fear however that anyone who didn't care isn't going to bother either they are gonna just take their chances. If there was a signifcant increase in cost I think I would vote for increased enforcement rather than two tiered licensing. It is an interesting concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headscan Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 So if it was two-tiered that would mean one type of license if you're fishing all C&R and another that allows you to keep fish? Interesting idea, but implementation would be difficult. In major centers like Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, Lethbridge you could have education/testing locations but what about all the small towns? How far are people going to have to go to take the course or test? There might be a lot of interest in March/April if it needs to be renewed annually but what about outside of that? I think you'd have people who are really concerned about proper identification not really needing a course and learning it on their own and those who don't care either not taking the course or just not paying much attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 The course would probably be similar to the one you have to take to get a hunting license. A one time deal. I think the main point would be to be able to implement regulations similar to Quirk Ck. in certain streams where our native salmonids need some assistance. First tier would be a normal license; second tier would be an increased harvest license. Of course, non-native harvest would not be increased on all waters, just waters that might benefit from reductions of brook trout or rainbows (upper elbow, cataract might fall into the category). I'm thinking efforts like this might help stabilize bull trout and cutthroat populations, and may help prevent future closures of some of our more pristine streams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Still just an enforcement issue Conor, none of States w/increased harvest for invasives have a two tiered license, you misidentify and you're caught harvesting a prohibited species you get whacked with a substantial fine. Done Deal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 Ontario has a two tier system of a Regular Limit licence and a Conservation license that has lower keep limits, meaning you can still keep a few fish if you want. The conservation licence is also a bit less expensive. I think Taco has the right idea with better coverage of CO's. In the 20 some odd years I lived and fished in Calgary, I was only ever checked for a licence once. With the ID issue, perhaps there could be some small written exam taken before a licence was granted. If you can't ID the fish, the regs are somewhat pointless in some instances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman09 Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I would be in favor of a two tiered system with an additional cost going towards a license with a higher keep rate. Its those people who are costing the provinces more for the restocking each year. Why should they not have to pay for this benefit in comparison to me who fishes all year long and doesn't keep a single fish. Its just like shopping....pay for what you take home. Don't get me wrong....I have no problem paying for my license .....and that we probably don't pay enough compared to the benefits we receive from the managed fisheries. But why should someone who is causing a greater demand for restocking pay the same as someone that does not impact the number of fish because of C & R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 However, people that C&R tend to fish a lot more than those who bonk. Add up my 1% mortality at the end of the year, and I have done a lot more damage than someone who limits out a few times a year. I dig your point, Taco, but as a rule enforcement costs more than education. That said, not everyone out there bonking bulls thinks they are brook trout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lundvike Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I reread my original post and I would like to apologize I think I was still a little annoyed about having to shovel snow again. Anything that we can do to protect native species is always a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SQUATCHER Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 tested for a fishing license....but anyone can have kids, almost anyone can drive. the world is truely a @#$%ed up place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyW Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 How about better/more signage at trailheads and parking areas and more enforcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefisherking Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I would also like too see an increase in enforcement, but it's not likely that we will see any new CO's in the near future. I have often wondered how come there are no organizations where you could volunteer your time once or twice a month, and do some sort of river patrol. Not so much to catch people breaking the rules, but more to educate and inform. If you did run into some poachers you could always call in the CO's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxwell Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 i think its a stellar idea too have a test too get your angling liscence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefrog Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Hi Good for you to be concerned. But, look at the morons driving in this province. A test doesn't mean too much. Increase the fines severely. This administration system is already in place; it would not be much more costly. Nothing would make people smarter than loss of a week's wages. If one takes the approach that fishing is a privilege and not a right, it is the angler's responsibility to educate himself. This is an ideal approach as well. I doubt something like this would ever happen either. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harps Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I'm all for a mandatory test before you get a licence. Then jack up enforcement 'cause there's no excuse... although the gov't should pay for enforcement, not us. I'd go for a test to get a east slope stamp... no fishing in the East slope zones unless you pass the test... then extra for the stamp. 100% of the ES stamp could go to enforcement and restoration on the esat slopes. The test could be administered in any licence bureau... retaken when you renew your WIN card. Then make the "stamps" mandatory to display when you fish... anybody could see them and if you don't see one... call. Big Brother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Make the fine for getting caught 1000 bucks or more, for fishing without a license for starters. Then, make the fines for illegal harvest START at 5,000. Wanna save the fish? Jack up the fines and make the asshats breaking the regs and/or unethical fishing shake in their boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 all the fines in the world ain't gonna do any good unless we get enforcement and/or convictions period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Din Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Where would tourists/non-residents fall into this picture? Would they have to take a test before they could fish here? If so, don't you guys think it would hurt the tourism/fishing industry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Why dont they just raise the cost of angling licences. I dont know if that would be enough to help get more enforcement out there or not. But I think the price of a licence right now is a hell of a deal for a years worth of fishing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taco Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Tell Ted Morton; Legislature Office 420 Legislature Building 10800 97 Avenue Edmonton, AB Canada T5K 2B6 Phone: (780) 415-4815 Fax: (780) 415-4818 Constituency Office 6, 160 Maclaurin Drive Calgary, AB Canada T3Z 3S4 Phone: (403) 216-2221 Toll-Free: 1-866-843-4314 Fax: (403) 216-2225 foothills.rockyview@assembly.ab.ca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sundancefisher Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 In this day and age it will be expensive and time consuming to force people to write an organized, sit down test and if you are asking for a test to be written prepared to offer up a fish identification course to help people learn and pass. To demand a test but refuse to educate would be silly. The only practical solution to this would be an on line course and test. Have it linked to your WIN card number. Upon passing the computer would allow you to then purchase your fishing licence. People may still cheat if done from home but a huge number will actually at least think about why they need to know what they are fishing for. As for two tiered licences. Having one licence for catch and kill and one for catch and release would be handy but again somewhat impractical. How much cheaper would one be over another? What about the flyfishermen that gather on the bank of a river for 10 minutes of photos before releasing and after dropping the fish on the rocks a few times for good measure. I would be in favor of a taking an online course updated every 5 years and included in the licencing fees if it not only includes fish identification, proper handling and ethics as well as discussion on poacher awareness, volunteerism and habitat protection and pollution etc. I fished Quirk Creek on the project once and laughing said I was targetting bonefish and tarpon. An older couple believed me and wondered which stretch has the most. They were unfortunately very serious. Another person dropped some garbage and had to be encouraged to pick it up. Others fail the test repeatedly. Imagine these people that can not tell a brookie from a cutt or a bull? Imagine them fishing a river or lake for any other species? Do they know a pike from a walleye? A sturgeon from a goldeye? How about people that walk on redds in the spring and fall? In the end I believe enforcement is key. For every person that does not know one species from another I fear twice as may may be fishing out of season, killing more than their limit or damaging habitat etc. We all need to be vigilant and report problems. Sincerely Sun 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.