Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fishgutz63]

just heard ur local government is thinking of raising fishing licence to subsedize the north shore search n rescue so i guess for a few people that screw up n get lost were all on the hook for it huh.so what do you folks think of that idea?

[Animal Chin]

We all screw up. Peace of mind knowing competent and committed people are looking out for me is worth my money any day.

They'll do what they gotta do, someone has to pay for it and there's likely little we can do about whom they decide to do it.

Having said that, I often hear people non-participants/non-outdoors people complaining about tax dollars used to rescue individuals engaging in high risk activities (ie. rock climbing, trekking etc).

My argument to that is that the enjoyment of the outdoors and adventure is a part of our Canadian heritage, celebration of the human spirit etc (your best hyperbole eloquently presented). It's much like public support of artists, the ballet, fringe theatre, contemporary dance or what have you, I don't participate in anyway but I understand it's necessary and don't mind its public support, so how is that different from public funds rescuing Canadians engaging in high risk activities?

Americans, Germans and Japanese on the other hand, totally different story.. $1000 and hour...just kidding.

Shouldn't be strictly out of fishing licenses though. I'd levy an infinitesimal tax on all outdoor gear sold.

[clarki]

If you can post some more information beyond "just heard" and "ur local government"... then maybe I'll have an opinion. Until then, it's just rumour mongering.

[leapin' tyee]

If you can post some more information beyond "just heard" and "ur local government"... then maybe I'll have an opinion. Until then, it's just rumour mongering.

It was in this morning news.

[Geff_t]

Nope not a rumor. This topic is also being discussed at municipal meetings that are happening this week and will be brought to the government soon.
They want the surcharge to be added to our fishing license as well as the price of a lift ticket for skiing.

[Jeff_]

We all screw up. Peace of mind knowing competent and committed people are looking out for me is worth my money any day.

They'll do what they gotta do, someone has to pay for it and there's likely little we can do about whom they decide to do it.

Having said that, I often hear people non-participants/non-outdoors people complaining about tax dollars used to rescue individuals engaging in high risk activities (ie. rock climbing, trekking etc).

My argument to that is that the enjoyment of the outdoors and adventure is a part of our Canadian heritage, celebration of the human spirit etc (your best hyperbole eloquently presented). It's much like public support of artists, the ballet, fringe theatre, contemporary dance or what have you, I don't participate in anyway but I understand it's necessary and don't mind its public support, so how is that different from public funds rescuing Canadians engaging in high risk activities?

X2, my question would be why the levy is being placed on just fishing licenses and lift passes? I understand the ski lift passes but what about the rest of the people that use the outdoors? (ie hunting licenses, boat registration etc) Seems a little bit arbitrary to place the levy just on recreational fishing furthermore, would the levy be placed on freshwater and tidal? I'm not questioning the fact that money has to come from somewhere to support S&R operations I'm just wondering about the reasons behind placing the levy on certain types of outdoor activities where many other groups could potentially need S&R services.

[adriaticum]

just heard ur local government is thinking of raising fishing licence to subsedize the north shore search n rescue so i guess for a few people that screw up n get lost were all on the hook for it huh.so what do you folks think of that idea?

Sounds like people are trying to get their BS out.
They started charging for rescues for those who go out of bounds if I remember correctly.

[Fishawn]

How about raising our fishing license fees to hire more CO's.  I'm all for that. Or taking a part of our fees to subsidize the commercial guys. A few days of no nets would make a huge impact for us sporties, IMO.

[Hohummm]

just heard ur local government is thinking of raising fishing licence to subsedize the north shore search n rescue so i guess for a few people that screw up n get lost were all on the hook for it huh.so what do you folks think of that idea?

This is being discussed at the UBCM meetings, and is just one of several potential options for raising money to support S&R in BC. Also, just because North Shore Rescue is featured in any news story regarding S&R, doesn't mean that this proposed surcharge would only support them.

If this proposal (or any other) is accepted, the funds would be managed on a provincial basis to support the approximately 80 SAR teams, not just the high profile ones.

[Kenwee]

Revenue from fishing licenses should be used solely for the purpose of fish and habitat enhancement.Why should fishermen subsidize for the search and rescue of careless hikers and risk takers suing the wilderness.

[Hohummm]

Revenue from fishing licenses should be used solely for the purpose of fish and habitat enhancement.Why should fishermen subsidize for the search and rescue of careless hikers and risk takers suing the wilderness.

I'm not saying I agree with the surcharge(I don't), but anglers are not immune to getting into trouble. A quick search on the web revealed many references. This is just the first one that showed up:

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Fishing+most+dangerous+sport+Fraser+Valley/7124132/story.html

[Rodney]

http://www.khsar.com/2012/11/search-and-rescue-20121029/

[cutthroat22]

They started charging for rescues for those who go out of bounds if I remember correctly.

There is no charge for Search and Rescue.

[DanJohn]

charge 200 a year and get rid of the people who really don't want to be there, get rid of the people who don't want to learn rules, fish with pride and respect to the land, the animals, and others out there. subsidize a whole wack of stuff, and hire more co's. why we pay 30 odd bucks a year is beyond me. even a 100 could do a mess of good, and works out to what? 8 dollars a month? for someone who goes out every weekend, or at least every 2 weeks, it's nothing compared to gear, and gas I spend. I know on an economical level it's not realistic though for tourism and charters and such.

[jimmywits]

X2, my question would be why the levy is being placed on just fishing licenses and lift passes? I understand the ski lift passes but what about the rest of the people that use the outdoors? (ie hunting licenses, boat registration etc) Seems a little bit arbitrary to place the levy just on recreational fishing furthermore, would the levy be placed on freshwater and tidal? I'm not questioning the fact that money has to come from somewhere to support S&R operations I'm just wondering about the reasons behind placing the levy on certain types of outdoor activities where many other groups could potentially need S&R services.
 
x2 by far the vast majorities of rescues are not Anglers, I think the fees need to be spread over an array of sources related to the outdoors.