Print

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

[Gooey]

I would like to see manditory test, a higher level of basicic angling knowledge and a large increase in fines.

If everyone is forced to learn the rules BEFORE they start fishing then no one can compalin about a $300 minimum fine for snagging, poaching etc.  People will have NO excuses and should  be much more careful about working within the regs.

 I fully endosre increasing liscencing fees to cover the cost and admin of a fishing liscence test.  I think that if liscences were $150 then alot of uncommitted fishers would stay off the river - I think these more casual fishermen are some of the main culprits.  Take the guy that I saw at KWB who had a 12 foot leader, leader harnes and 3oz BB...doubt he's around after the thick of salmon season.

[Rodney]

If licence fee is increased to the prices that you mentioned, then I think you will definitely be seeing a new breed of poachers on our waters. Well, actually, you won't even see them, poaching will be done so out of sight since fines will be so high.

[dennisK]

d

[winter steel]

    Dennis, I am surprised as well that more fishermen do not say anything when an obvious abuse is present or even just helping some lost angler find his way to the promise land. I think that the surrounding crowd plays a role, strength in numbers can be both a positive and a negative thing depending on the crowd. Rodney, if more revenue was made available through license fees, perhaps some of it could be spent on increased moderation of the resource.

[Rodney]

Rodney, if more revenue was made available through license fees, perhaps some of it could be spent on increased moderation of the resource.

In that case, I think it's a good idea to find out just how much of the licence fee goes back to the resource. Actually, let's start by finding out how much of the salmon conservation stamp fee goes back to our fish. I don't have the exact value with me right now, but I recall it was a lot less than what I had expected.

[Matuka Jack]

Fishing license fee goes to the general revenue.  Then the goverment decide on how much funding the DFO gets as well as other fishery and environment related programs.  IMHO, no matter how much we pay for license to access the fishery the fundings will be the same.  After all, policies are made to make the government more money to spend on the programs that they feel are appropriate. 

With the increase cost of license, there will be a decline in licenses sold.  With the decrease in sales of license, those who want to get a license could pay up to a hundred time what it cost now.  They have to get the money for administration cost of a complicated licensing policy.  I guess, if people have to pass exam(s) in order to fish,  children will never have an opportunity to fish.  That would be a tragedy.  No more future generations will come forward to champion the fisheries and the environment, since it will become no longer their concern.   In many countries, people do not get opportunities to fish because it is very cost prohibitive.  Hence, they become unaware or do not care what happens to the fishery.

Some people always propose changes without having any sense of the socio-political implication of the rules they are proposing.  I guess Forest Gump says it best.

[winter steel]

    Matuka you raise some excellent  points. With regards to license fees, a microeconomics study concerning marginal supply and marginal demand would quickly tell you the price of a fishing license that would maximize revenue without hurting numbers. Ninety bucks for a license (all tags included) to fish year round on almost any freshwater isystem s a pretty good deal and I for one would be willing to pick up a few more pop cans and sacrifice some doe to improve the resource. I think children could be an exemption to the test as most fish with an adult and they are definately not the offenders on most rivers. I'm not sure at what cost it would be to develop a program to test competency but we are not asking you to register your rods . Personally, I would rather not expose children to an abuse of the resource as it is now on certain systems. I'm not propsoing immediate change, just food for thought in regards to improving our resource. If nothing is ever discussed nothing ever changes.  Matuka, other than Britain (Eng, Scot, Wales, Ire) where fishing is privatized costing anglers between 300-600 dollars a rod day I don't know of any other countries where it is cost prohibitive. In fact, some countries like Cuba, Mexico and I believe some of the Scandanavian countries charge nothing for their own citizens to fish. I'm working on memeory which means I could be wrong. Tight Lines.

[dennyman]

I really have to question the wisdom of dramatically raising the cost of license fees. I am in agreement with others that peer pressure is a far better way to go. For instance, in some lakes in the interior they are flyfishing only. If a tourist ever got on one of those lakes and started fishing with a willow leaf, the flyfishermen would get over there right away and tell them you can'fish like that here. And if it was an honest mistake, inform the person of lakes down the road that they can fish like that. Same thing can be done here with regards to the complaints about flossing and snagging and it may not eliminate it totally but I bet the numbers will come down. And with regards to a license increase, who is to say that the throwing more money at the problem will make it better. If that is the case, then the government should open up the books and show us where this money is going.  If they can clearly show that they are severely handicapped by a lack of funds then yes maybe licenses should increase but only within a reasonable amount. I for one am finding my dollars stretched enough with higher gas costs, and heating bills I certainly don't want to be hit with any other increases unless it is absolutely necessary.

[Spoonman]

Today at the roadside pool at Allisons I spoke up and applied pressure(I won't say peer cause this dip-sh*t aint in my group) when some cowboy hatted goof brings in some ugly spring by the tail and him and buddies toe it up on the beach.They stand there looking at it and by the time I decide to yell at them if they were going to put that fish back in the river ,it was too late.They had already slit it's throat .I guess I startled them and they push it out into the river in a cloud of blood .My verbal barrage that followed managed to at least get them to  put their rods down and take a break.Flossing/snagging semantics are trivial dogma with b.s. like this happening.

[Matuka Jack]

    Matuka you raise some excellent  points. With regards to license fees, a microeconomics study concerning marginal supply and marginal demand would quickly tell you the price of a fishing license that would maximize revenue without hurting numbers. Ninety bucks for a license (all tags included) to fish year round on almost any freshwater isystem s a pretty good deal and I for one would be willing to pick up a few more pop cans and sacrifice some doe to improve the resource. I think children could be an exemption to the test as most fish with an adult and they are definately not the offenders on most rivers. I'm not sure at what cost it would be to develop a program to test competency but we are not asking you to register your rods . Personally, I would rather not expose children to an abuse of the resource as it is now on certain systems. I'm not propsoing immediate change, just food for thought in regards to improving our resource. If nothing is ever discussed nothing ever changes.  Matuka, other than Britain (Eng, Scot, Wales, Ire) where fishing is privatized costing anglers between 300-600 dollars a rod day I don't know of any other countries where it is cost prohibitive. In fact, some countries like Cuba, Mexico and I believe some of the Scandanavian countries charge nothing for their own citizens to fish. I'm working on memeory which means I could be wrong. Tight Lines.

What do you think the elasticity of the supply curve in this case?
The price of the license would definitely have to increase dramatically in order to support the extra cost of setting up offices to handle testing and all the associated administrative cost of a more complicated licensing process.  Do really think $90 from fishermen that buys the license would be able to cover the cost to set it up all accross Canada?  I really do not think you have any grasp of the numbers involved regarding the cost to have all that set up.  I suggest that you look up what the staffing, buildings and all the associated budgetary cost for any government departments.  You will a better idea on how much it would cost to do your suggestion.  Then you count how many  fishing license get sold every year. Then you plug it into this formula:

Fishing license price increase = (Cost of the administration of the policy per year) / (Number of fishing License sold per year)

Just because you read some highschool micro economics book does not mean you can bamboozle everyone.

[BwiBwi]

If there is no efficient way of monitoring or imposing regulations. It doesn't matter what they change in the regulation book.  Look at how many violations are done at current level and how many actullay get caught? And that's not just recreational fishery also native fishery and commercial fishery.

[Gooey]

matuka, thats kind of like saying, its really expensive to track CO2 production and ozone wholes etc.  so why bother.  I am sure the keito accord is expensive but no doubt something very neccesary in todays environment.

we all agree (i think) that there are problems with the sports fishery and if it costs me extra so we can start to get a handle on some of the problems to thats fine with me.

Keep in mind you need to take test to get a hunting liscence of a drivers liscence, maybe the excecution of a fishing liscince test could be piggy backed on the current providers of the previous tests mentioned...the synergy of one office doing a hunting and a fishing test seems obvious to me.

[winter steel]

Hey Matuka, let's not get personal. I'm not trying to bamboozle anybody, supply and demand is a relatively easy concept to understand and in this case the elasticity of the supply curve is unaffected by price (in realtion to the good we are supplying-licences is infinite), and has no bearing, it would be the sustainablity of the resource that would be in question, adding/subtracting anglers, catch rates blah, blah, blah. I actually studied economics at SFU. I don't think we are taking SAT tests or final exams, standardized tests can be and often are done on computers, much like a learners license in driving. I'm not suggesting a new department be set up, nor would one be needed. The initial set up cost would definately be there, however, results and even licenses themselves can then be attained online, not to mention perhaps statistical information that can be made more readily available online should people wish to record there tagging their. I really do think we can improve our fishery in more ways than one ( than simply adding more fish), you eveidently do not share my opinion in that our fishery and its management needs improving. BwiBwi your right , but at least ignorance could not be used as a defense when a fellow angler reports him or her to DFO or simply tries to right a wrong. Tight lines

[buck]

Winter Steel, you may not have made a lot of Friends on the weekend, but you can count me as one. Etiquette -- whats that ?

[BwiBwi]

It's how the officers want to see each situation. It is the anglers' duty to understand and know all regulation when they are angling. But officers sometime cut them some slack. Don't know if it's a good system or not, sometimes it can be a true oversight from some anglers and sometime can be deliberate. Tough call.
So will test really help? Not really, all the information is there in that regulation book as it is at current time.
I do sincerely agree changes need to be done.