Chinook Neutral/Positive Fishing

[SaltyAlice]

TL;DR: I want to pay more for my salmon stamp, it's way too cheap. Read on...

With the issues surrounding chinook and the SRKW I have been wondering about approaching the issue in a similar way to airlines with their "carbon neutral" fees. When you fly most airlines you have the option of paying a few bucks to offset the carbon impact of your flight. The efficacy of these fees is debatable but I was wondering if there might be a comparable model we can use for chinook?

Personally, my goal is to put more back into the system than my family takes out by way of donating time and money to salmon-related programs.

Trolling around for chinook is an expensive hobby, but one that is important to myself and vast numbers of coast communities and businesses. The license fees are extremely low when compared to even a single day's gas, not to mention the cost of gear, bait, maintenance, moorage, and the boat itself. How much would a salmon stamp need to be in order for the license to become neutral, or better yet, mean that more salmon resulted from sportsfishing?

If the very act of getting out on the water and fishing for chinook resulted in a net increase in the number of chinook AND coastal communities could continue to benefit from the economic activity, it would be near impossible to logically shut it down.

How much would you pay if salmon stamps definitively meant that your fishing put more in than you took out and protected coastal communities futures?

Edit: the concept here isn’t a secondary stamp. It would be to increase the price of all annual salmon stamps to a level that ensures the sport could not be called into question with regards to sustainability. Controversial I know, but worth batting the idea around amongst ourselves.

 

[Stizzla]

$99.

 

[Foxsea]

I get it. Good when the money goes back into salmon enhancement and conservation. I would pay $100 for a salmon stamp but only with the attached entitlement to fish in all areas not subject to fishery conservation measures.

 

[Dogbreath]

This is a slippery slope....

 

[chris73]

TL;DR: I want to pay more for my salmon stamp, it's way too cheap. Read on...

With the issues surrounding chinook and the SRKW I have been wondering about approaching the issue in a similar way to airlines with their "carbon neutral" fees. When you fly most airlines you have the option of paying a few bucks to offset the carbon impact of your flight. The efficacy of these fees is debatable but I was wondering if there might be a comparable model we can use for chinook?

Personally, my goal is to put more back into the system than my family takes out by way of donating time and money to salmon-related programs.

Trolling around for chinook is an expensive hobby, but one that is important to myself and vast numbers of coast communities and businesses. The license fees are extremely low when compared to even a single day's gas, not to mention the cost of gear, bait, maintenance, moorage, and the boat itself. How much would a salmon stamp need to be in order for the license to become neutral, or better yet, mean that more salmon resulted from sportsfishing?

If the very act of getting out on the water and fishing for chinook resulted in a net increase in the number of chinook AND coastal communities could continue to benefit from the economic activity, it would be near impossible to logically shut it down.

Perhaps a secondary salmon stamp that has a different slot or limit? (Controversial, I know)

How much would you pay for a salmon stamp that definitively stated that your fishing put more in than you took out and protected coastal communities futures?

Hey Salty, nothing stops you from giving back way more than you may do now. There are a number of great groups and organizations keeping our salmon stocks afloat that could really need your extra donation. But not only money is needed. A good number of forum members here, myself included, have raised large sums of money or worked many volunteer hours for a great variety of salmon projects. If it wasn't for those extra and outside the salmon stamp efforts the salmon would be completely gone in a number of watersheds. So if the only thing that you give back right now it a $6 salmon stamp per year and you have the capacity to do more I would strongly encourage you to do so. Nothing needs to be legislated for you to do so. But some people are not in a position to pay a lot or don't have the extra time or physical ability to do much and I hate to see them having to quit fishing because it was made too expensive and got turned into a rich club hobby. Even though I agree that the current fees are very low.

 

[bottom feeder]

$250 resident - tourist $400 - all money collected goes to salmon enhancement!!!!!!!! whale watchers $25 per person per trip

 

[ziggy]

Rather than give the government more money to waste, if you feel strongly about it, donate to an organization involved in environmental cleanup or salmon enhancement. At least that way you know where it’s going and have some say in who gets it!

 

[Rain City]

Elite Angler's eh. Imagine, what will the poor people do? I guess no license means no contract, which means more policing required, which means that even more Tax dollars required beyond that of what we have today. If they can't manage policing now, how will they then in the future where only Elite Anglers are afforded the right to fish? Perhaps a sliding pay measure which is best based upon income...the more you make the more you pay, some would pay zero. Hmmm.

I like the cut of your jib.

 

[SaltyAlice]

Agree on the contribution above and beyond just the stamp, and huge kudos to all that do! For clarification we contribute several grand every year specifically for salmon and related causes.

My post was more to start a discussion about how we could establish some sort of baseline that would ensure that, at the bare minimum, the ecosystem benefits from thriving sports fishing on the coast. Generous contributions of time and money will always play a critical role but I personally would love to see greater impact from the core licensing system.

 

[Nimo]

Also agree better not to volunteer to public coffers. Local charities like Sooke Salmon Enhancement can issue donation receipts and your money goes directly to the local streams /projects. In a way we indirectly force the Gov to contribute through the tax receipt. I agree we should contribute where we can and I intend a donation to SSES this year and years following. Not sure if they are a financial contributor to the sooke netpen project but would be helpful.

 

[banger17]

This thread makes me think of ICBC... ‘nuff said!

Oh, and also those people that pay that stupid annual fee for the special licence plates - why would one bother!!??

 

[searun]

Not a new idea. The SFAB has been in discussion for several years with DFO regarding changes to the Conservation Stamp and funding moving away from general revenue to be administered by the PSF for conservation measures. Secondarily there has been discussion regarding how to increase fees without simply resulting in those revenues finding their way to government as opposed to purely supporting salmon conservation. So far no luck getting current legislation amended to allow fund direction - Ottawa it seems moves at glacial pace when it comes to embracing the concept of user-pay. I think there are many amoung us who would gladly pay more if we knew the cash went directly back into producing more fish.

I personally feel we are grossly under-valuing our resource and access to it. The rec salmon fishery generates $713 million USD annually to Canada, and if managed differently could generate even higher economic benefits to Canada. We practically give it away for free. Canadians should pay increased license fees IMO, and Non-residents even more so. In some jurisdictions non-residents are required to hire local guides or catch monitors, which brings more economic benefits and proper catch monitoring to the fishery. Not saying we should move in this direction, but suggesting we need to look more closely at how to ensure Canada benefits more from our natural resources.

 

[california]

Personally I do not want to see the fees increased substantially in order to create a whole new and separate bureaucracy that will become as inefficient and duplicitous as all other bureaucracies. On the other hand I do not see a problem with increasing fees to foreigners, and putting those funds into general revenues to help reduce fiscal deficits. General revenues are where all the infrastructure we depend on for accessing, navigating and enjoying marine areas comes from.

 

[profisher]

No one (locals or foreigners) like to pay into general revenue where much of that money does nothing and there is no way to track it. . As Searun says we should be paying more to have year round access to all the tidal water recreational fisheries we have available to us. Most of us would be fine with that knowing the money was going directly back into supporting our fisheries and fish. We all could donate to the same efforts and many do...unfortunately far more never have or will. An increase in the salmon stamp is the only way to capture fair and equal funds from all users.

 

[Doubletyee]

I don’t agree in increasing the stamp fee to $100. Like many said this money just disappears into the government and they waste the money. A salmon tag of 100 would stop many people from fishing. I take my kids every year for one or two days and if I had to pay a 100 per kid for their tag this would not happen. If we don’t get the next generation involved in Salmon fishing they never will. I agree we need to support our salmon but think this is much better done on a volunteer level then just another tax or fee. Getting our children involved in restoration and volunteering for the Salmon would have a much bigger effect then giving another 100 for the government to waste.

 

[Jencourt]

Not a new idea. The SFAB has been in discussion for several years with DFO regarding changes to the Conservation Stamp and funding moving away from general revenue to be administered by the PSF for conservation measures. .

I thought the stamp fee finally got sorted a couple years ago or so. Did they not come out and tell us that as of that date 100% of the stamp would go to PSF as intended? Do I have this wrong? I would have sworn that's what had happened.

 

[spring fever]

I thought the stamp fee finally got sorted a couple years ago or so. Did they not come out and tell us that as of that date 100% of the stamp would go to PSF as intended? Do I have this wrong? I would have sworn that's what had happened.

I thought that was a done deal as well!!

 

[terrin]

No one (locals or foreigners) like to pay into general revenue where much of that money does nothing and there is no way to track it. . As Searun says we should be paying more to have year round access to all the tidal water recreational fisheries we have available to us. Most of us would be fine with that knowing the money was going directly back into supporting our fisheries and fish. We all could donate to the same efforts and many do...unfortunately far more never have or will. An increase in the salmon stamp is the only way to capture fair and equal funds from all users.

When you say fair and equal do you mean something like this?
Flexipass fees (2018)
Prices do not include tax.

Type 1 month 3 month 12 month
Adult (19-64 years) $46.18 $125.00 $399.00
Youth (13-18 years) $32.33 $87.44 $278.68
Child (3-12 years) $23.09 $62.50 $199.50
Senior (65+ years) $32.33 $87.44 $278.68
10-visit pass fees (2018)
Prices do not include tax.

Type 10 visits
Adult (19-64 years) $48.80
Youth (13-18 years) $34.88
Child (3-12 years) $24.57
Senior (65+ years) $34.88

 

[GLG]

I thought the stamp fee finally got sorted a couple years ago or so. Did they not come out and tell us that as of that date 100% of the stamp would go to PSF as intended? Do I have this wrong? I would have sworn that's what had happened.

Just going from memory but the salmon stamp has 2 issues. One was sorted out, kind of, that the amount of the stamp was changed from just being a fraction of the amount being directed to PSF to the full amount being directed to PSF. The second issue was to increase the amount of the stamp so that we could get more money to PSF. Years back they passed a bill called the user fee act that prohibits increases in user fees unless it was done by an act of parliament. That's a huge deal and very difficult to do. It's been tried by others and as far as I know the only thing that has worked was to increase the fee according to inflation. Currently, I think, that's what SFAB is now, and the past few years, trying to do.

I would think that the cost of the licence would run into the same roadblock as the stamp did.

 

[Jencourt]

Thanks Gil. That is how I remember the first part, and that the full amount had been directed to psf instead of only a portion. Although familiar with the challenges of the user fee act, I was not aware they where struggling to make an increase to the stamp fee. Thanks for the info on that.