The SFAB and license fees.
- Thread starter OldBlackDog
- Start date
And that is ok because that employs Canadians...but I'm sure he would expect the Canadian government to waive the necessity for a license or pick up the cost. lol Something else to mention....I know for a fact that it is many of these deep pocket fishermen who without being asked donate large sums of money to the resource and that includes non residents of Canada.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Well I'm also pretty sure the vast number of annual resident license holders who run their boats most of the year( not sure how many of the 300k) employ a lot of Canadians as well. You know mechanics, bait producers, tackle shops, fuel dock personnel, marina personnel, just to mention a few. A lot of them also contribute time and money to their local conservation and the organisations that do the good work.
Anyway we can spin around this buoy forever. Until someone makes a concrete proposal, which has so far been absent, this discussion is simply theoretical so I think I'll bow out
Anyway we can spin around this buoy forever. Until someone makes a concrete proposal, which has so far been absent, this discussion is simply theoretical so I think I'll bow out
GLG
Well-Known Member
Hi Ziggy I'm not a guide and have never been one. I'm just a local like you and what you described pretty much sums me up. I do care where this is going and I think it's important to talk about it. After all it did hit the local paper and here so that message is coming in loud and clear.
Last edited:
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
"Fortunately more than 50 years ago DFO created an advisory and consultation process known as the Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB). Despite the temptation by some in government to eliminate or at least compromise its functions the SFAB has somehow endured and evolved to become a truly representative “from the grass roots up” organization, said to be the longest standing advisory board to the minister of fisheries and oceans from any fishery anywhere in Canada".
I think this part needs to be re-posted for people to realize how long volunteer's have been fighting for their access to fish this great coast of ours.
If we ever get to see dollars from general licenses actually going towards conservation and research, it will be a great day. I think it opens many doors for tackle companies, lodges, etc. to help donate to the cause as well. If that door was opened, I would like to see something like this being offered by tackle/other companies.
I think it should go both ways however and see these companies donating themselves to the cause as well (which I'm sure many do already in various forms). But to have that open door with the license fee's creates a huge positive for the recreational side that will astound the government (I am not that naive to pretend that they already don't know this lol).
The message is pretty clear. We are prepared to pay more but the government has to do the right thing and put the funds towards the right cause and not the general coffers. Great things could be done if the monies were allocated properly.
I think this part needs to be re-posted for people to realize how long volunteer's have been fighting for their access to fish this great coast of ours.
If we ever get to see dollars from general licenses actually going towards conservation and research, it will be a great day. I think it opens many doors for tackle companies, lodges, etc. to help donate to the cause as well. If that door was opened, I would like to see something like this being offered by tackle/other companies.
I think it should go both ways however and see these companies donating themselves to the cause as well (which I'm sure many do already in various forms). But to have that open door with the license fee's creates a huge positive for the recreational side that will astound the government (I am not that naive to pretend that they already don't know this lol).
The message is pretty clear. We are prepared to pay more but the government has to do the right thing and put the funds towards the right cause and not the general coffers. Great things could be done if the monies were allocated properly.
Last edited:
finaddict
Well-Known Member
I completely agree with a license fee increase based on Mr Maynard's criteria. Very well written article, by the way. Where I stumble on this proposal is my complete lack of trust in this (or any) Federal Government's commitment to the cause. DFO (and all Fed gov't officials) from East of the Rockies could not possibly care less about the West coast. I would want a third party audited financial statement of all monies collected and distributed from licenses done annually as part of the agreement to increase funds. I would want these financial statements printed in the synopsis on a bi-annual basis. If this was done, and I really finally could trust that the funds were going to the benefit of West Coast recreational fisheries and conservation, and not into general revenue, or even into DFO general revenue, I would gladly buck up $100 and more per year.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
I think we are kidding ourselves if we think an increase in license fees will benefit in habitat
restoration and conservation efforts.
The money will almost certainly go into general revenue and be wisely spent by the feds.
restoration and conservation efforts.
The money will almost certainly go into general revenue and be wisely spent by the feds.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Waiting for the government to do anything requires a great deal of patience and to a whole lot of faith. In the meantime for those who feel strongly about seeing your money go to good use, why not investigate donating to local conservation organisations. I personally feel that's currently the best bang for my buck! I know where my money goes and can see what it actually accomplished.
By all means come out with a new licenses fee schedule that fishers can agree is fair and equitable. Avoid a generalisation and be specific as to what you propose across the board for all types of licenses. Don't forget the commercial side as well! If properly administered that has the potential to be the long-term solution, especially if the government guarantees the fees won't disappear into administration costs or simply disappear. In the meantime however, I encourage all to look at the local organisations and support the one or ones of your choice.
By all means come out with a new licenses fee schedule that fishers can agree is fair and equitable. Avoid a generalisation and be specific as to what you propose across the board for all types of licenses. Don't forget the commercial side as well! If properly administered that has the potential to be the long-term solution, especially if the government guarantees the fees won't disappear into administration costs or simply disappear. In the meantime however, I encourage all to look at the local organisations and support the one or ones of your choice.
Waiting for the majority to voluntarily donate to the cause will be just as painful as watching government waste general revenue funds. Those who donate will continue to do so but you or me asking for all to donate will not work. Never has. It has to be attached to something mandatory like a fishing license. I couldn't even get all of our local guides to collect donations from their customers for the SVIAC Sooke Chinook project. Maybe a half dozen out of 50 guides participated, and they stand to benefit the most from the project. As a long time volunteer I know it is always a smaller group of dedicated individuals who rise to such a call for help whether with their time of funds. Its almost impossible to get the rest to even attend a 2 hour long meeting to hear what is in the wind.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Hear HEAR!
The unfortunate caveat in that is trusting the gov to allocate any funding in the right direction.
While I may agree with all my heart with the concept, and be very willing to toss in a few more sheckles especially directed towards the resource's well being, I cannot help but believe the Scrooge's in Ottawa would pounce like the greedy sharks they are on any such perceived windfall of "free" money.
Thus, until we get it IN WRITING that any additional (and while we're at it, existing...) funding stay way the hell away from Gen Rev, I will be diametrically Opposed to creating that windfall for them to abuse.
Should we realize a firm agreement that all funding thus generated is dispersed solely for the benefit of the resource, of course I will throw all I can into support.
I hope this isn't yet another case of the proverbial icicles chance in hell...
Cheers,
Nog
littlechucky
Crew Member
The license fees are a joke.
I'd like to see a meaningful increase so long as the revenue collected goes to support the fisheries.
In the mean time I will donate to PSF, get a tax deduction, and know that 100% of my dollars are going to relevant projects.
I'd like to see a meaningful increase so long as the revenue collected goes to support the fisheries.
In the mean time I will donate to PSF, get a tax deduction, and know that 100% of my dollars are going to relevant projects.
Check our cousins north and south. Free for seniors and vets in Alaska and pretty comparable with our current fees in the other categories. Like I said earlier and others have said unless the additional revenue is written in stone to go into Wild fish enhancement it will just go into Ottawa's Black Hole.
Are you serious? Why are sports anglers so entitled? All user groups should pay for the ridiculously cheap opportunities to kill salmon that we have. As so many have stated these increased fees should be directed to salmonid restoration projects, even, and I hate to say this, increased hatchery production on some select stocks, like chinooks ... think orcas, not ourselves.
Yeah I am serious. Actually no entitlement just tax fatigue. I volunteer at a local hatchery, play by the rules. When is enough, enough? Any dollar that goes to government is squandered. Roads are crap, hospitals overflowing-and falling apart, less services all around. What's next tax the air we breathe? I would pay more if I could track the money but corruption and the endless swines at the trough discourages me from trusting government sorry.
I think they can take the increase from my ICBC increases over the next five years if I decide not to park my vehicle because I can't afford it anymore. That would mean no boat insurance, gas tax, or any expenditures to feed the pigs. Imagine? I wonder if the welfare bums have a point.
Similar threads
