searun
Well-Known Member
I have no problem with guides. My problem has always been with people with no integrity. Some happen to be guides
Excellent. Then u will have no issues giving me a hug.
not for profit vs profit ..outlooks and opinions
- Thread starter trophywife
- Start date
Excellent. Then u will have no issues giving me a hug.
J-GLOBAL
Well-Known Member
I think recreational fishers and guides are different.
I, for one, think they are both separate and different.
DFO kinda agrees, see below.
There is a reason why different qualifications, licenses/certifications, etc.
Would a guide always have the same opinion as a rec fisher? Probably not. A guide, whom should be counting on "receiving a significant amount of their annual income" from the fishery, in many cases, wouldn't have the same concerns as a rec fisher who 'spends a significant amount of their annual income' directly or indirectly from the fishery.
Last year we read about different lodge/guide outfits that bought quota. Because it was what they believed was right for their business, and they are "receiving a significant amount of their annual income" from the fishery. How many rec fishers agree with that? How many rec fishers purchase quota? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm thinking not many, if any. Just pointing out that out of necessity, and in reality, guides/lodges are commercial, and must think differently. They have a business to run, money to make, expenses to cover, etc., so they in fact are different.
I wouldn't have a problem with the guides/lodges being put into the Commercial category, as in fact they are commercial. As there is Quota available to sell, then obviously some % of quota from the other commercial should be able to be shifted to the guides/lodges. And leave the 15% with the rec fishers.
Fishing on a C# = Commercial & Commercial quota
Fishing on a BC# = Rec & rec quota
This is from DFO:
Membership on the Local SFAC should allow for representation from all elements of the local recreational fishing community. Representation will be geographically oriented to ensure perspective from all sections of the area.
Representation on the Local SFAC will be sensitive to achieving a balance between Primary and Secondary Level User Group Members. The majority of members should be Primary Level User Group Members.
Primary Level User Group Members are persons who do not receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Primary User Group Member may include a person who is the representative from a non-industry recreational fishing advocacy organization.
Secondary Level User Group Members are persons who receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Secondary Level User Group Member may include a person who represents a recreational industry organization.
I, for one, think they are both separate and different.
DFO kinda agrees, see below.
There is a reason why different qualifications, licenses/certifications, etc.
Would a guide always have the same opinion as a rec fisher? Probably not. A guide, whom should be counting on "receiving a significant amount of their annual income" from the fishery, in many cases, wouldn't have the same concerns as a rec fisher who 'spends a significant amount of their annual income' directly or indirectly from the fishery.
Last year we read about different lodge/guide outfits that bought quota. Because it was what they believed was right for their business, and they are "receiving a significant amount of their annual income" from the fishery. How many rec fishers agree with that? How many rec fishers purchase quota? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm thinking not many, if any. Just pointing out that out of necessity, and in reality, guides/lodges are commercial, and must think differently. They have a business to run, money to make, expenses to cover, etc., so they in fact are different.
I wouldn't have a problem with the guides/lodges being put into the Commercial category, as in fact they are commercial. As there is Quota available to sell, then obviously some % of quota from the other commercial should be able to be shifted to the guides/lodges. And leave the 15% with the rec fishers.
Fishing on a C# = Commercial & Commercial quota
Fishing on a BC# = Rec & rec quota
This is from DFO:
Membership on the Local SFAC should allow for representation from all elements of the local recreational fishing community. Representation will be geographically oriented to ensure perspective from all sections of the area.
Representation on the Local SFAC will be sensitive to achieving a balance between Primary and Secondary Level User Group Members. The majority of members should be Primary Level User Group Members.
Primary Level User Group Members are persons who do not receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Primary User Group Member may include a person who is the representative from a non-industry recreational fishing advocacy organization.
Secondary Level User Group Members are persons who receive a significant amount of their annual income directly or indirectly from the recreational fishery. A Secondary Level User Group Member may include a person who represents a recreational industry organization.
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
I have attended every SFAC meeting in my area for the last two years. There is a total of 3 guides that attend the meetings out of 20 plus people. The chairman is a non guide. The secretary is a non guide. The folks on the committees (these are side line activities that folks put endless hours into for your behalf) are non guides. The whole push from our local SFAC is from recreational anglers.
I don't get anything from your post?
Have you ever attended a local SFAC meeting J-GLOBAL?
Last edited by a moderator:
J-GLOBAL
Well-Known Member
Well, the title & purpose of the thread is discussion - opinions about for profit vs. not. I think my post gave opinion on topic. Sorry if you didn't get anything from it.
If you've read my posts on other threads, you'll know of my frustrations with SFAC/B, and I'll leave those discussions there. My purpose in posting that portion was to show the differentiation made by DFO, and how it informs my own opinion about profit vs. not, which again is the purpose of the thread.
Fish Assassin
Crew Member
I think it was a great post. Thanks for sharing,
Aces
Well-Known Member
So true, Chris. When we have our SFAB meetings for area 123/124 we are lucky to have 8 guides out of 60 show up....very frustrating.
I believe this was the primary driver for the guides being "licensed." They thought it would give them long-term preferential access to the resource and the restricted right to commercially charter, thereby obtaining an inherent value in their licensing, like a commercial license. Something they could retire on. All it really did was increase their costs and time related to first aid tickets, TC, etc and restrict the weekend warriors from guiding, maybe. The weekend guides have long been an issue for the full-timers as they see a loss of revenues to them. Perhaps they see themselves as more of a taxi-driver with skills.
Like many industries (ie real estate), 20% of the boats take 80% of the fish. Guides' current participation in sports-fishing and their ability to catch fish directly impacts my opportunity to fish for various species due to now restricted seasons, quotas, sizes etc. But, is it truly any different than it would have been if there were no guiding? Wouldn't DFO have kept the commercials up long enough to decimate these fisheries to the exact point that they are at now? Our industry, which is what it is, needs guides as much as they need us. They are vocal when they are threatened or see opportunity, they help to keep recreational fishing in the forefront around quotas, and they do provide access (and a decent expectation of actually catching a fish) to Canadians who might not otherwise have the opportunity.
GLG
Well-Known Member
So if guides/lodges buy commercial halibut quota at $5/lb. and take a recreational angler out to fish for a 100 lb halibut, who pays for the fish? Do you think that the guide/lodge will "eat" the cost? If so how long would they stay in business before passing that cost onto the recreational angler.
I have fished with a guide and also on my own boat for halibut. Why should I pay $5/lb when I use a guide?
I've long been in support of a separate charter type license but it had nothing to do with some expected preferred access to the resource. I would like to see it mainly for a couple of reasons ( one you did mention). Firstly to be able to limit the number of people who can enter the industry, especially in certain terminal area fisheries where too many pro boats could impact not only stocks but also the fishing experience for everyone by overcrowding. Also as you stated when that happens your business would be worth something as someone would have to buy your license if they want to fish an area that has been capped.
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
I agree with RS for the above reasons for sure. Guides also play a key role is passing on knowledge to the general rec fishing community, either by sharing their tactics, like on this forum, or teaching paying REC FISHERMAN. I know a ton of my fishing buddies who went out on charters to help learn more, especially for halibut. The fact is, many guides and operations are just rec fisherman who decided they love it so much that they want to make a living off of it and share it with more people. There are obviously exceptions to the rule and some are in it MORE for the money, but most for the love deep down. No need to divide the troops. Plus, if the different groups involved were put on a spectrum, the guides/lodges are closer to rec than any other group. In MY opinion of course....
I think we're splitting hairs (or heirs) on the access to the resource. I believe restricting licenses would provide preferred access to the resource, that being preferred access to its financial value (hours on the water X $.) 20 years from now your kid/grandkid would be able to guide on dad's license and mine won't, at least not without paying $XX for the restricted right. Also, if the guiding industry wants to keep to their position that they only provide a platform for fishers (not commercial fishers) then restricting guide boats only serves to restrict that access, for all.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't that create a new type of slipper skipper? Using a license instead of a quota? . Guys would get licenses now, have a monopoly on the guiding side as long as they or heirs wanted it and then be able to sell the license they were gifted because there was no other way for a newcomer to break in? Can't say I agree with that. I do see merit in controlling the number of guides for an area, but when a guy packs it in, that license should revert back to the government. I feel the same way about commercial quota.
I understand the need for a limit of number of guides per area for reasons noted by Profisher but it would need to be structured so they don't own it and must be using it.
Cap on number of guides that can be registered and working per area. Must have active business and meet all the regulations.
When you are done you give it up and the next guy on list gets it at no cost.
Same way Commercial quotas SHOULD work.
No one owns the resource.
Tips
Cap on number of guides that can be registered and working per area. Must have active business and meet all the regulations.
When you are done you give it up and the next guy on list gets it at no cost.
Same way Commercial quotas SHOULD work.
No one owns the resource.
Tips
Nimo Nimo is offline
Senior Member
Join Date
Jan 2008
Location
Canada.
Posts
252
Quote Originally Posted by Fish Assassin View Post
Would splitting rec. and guides/lodges mean Canada would then give them free quota?
I believe this was the primary driver for the guides being "licensed." They thought it would give them long-term preferential access to the resource and the restricted right to commercially charter, thereby obtaining an inherent value in their licensing, like a commercial license. Something they could retire on. All it really did was increase their costs and time related to first aid tickets, TC, etc and restrict the weekend warriors from guiding, maybe. The weekend guides have long been an issue for the full-timers as they see a loss of revenues to them. Perhaps they see themselves as more of a taxi-driver with skills.
Like many industries (ie real estate), 20% of the boats take 80% of the fish. Guides' current participation in sports-fishing and their ability to catch fish directly impacts my opportunity to fish for various species due to now restricted seasons, quotas, sizes etc. But, is it truly any different than it would have been if there were no guiding? Wouldn't DFO have kept the commercials up long enough to decimate these fisheries to the exact point that they are at now? Our industry, which is what it is, needs guides as much as they need us. They are vocal when they are threatened or see opportunity, they help to keep recreational fishing in the forefront around quotas, and they do provide access (and a decent expectation of actually catching a fish) to Canadians who might not otherwise have the opportunity.
So if this all played out would the average Joe (Weekend Warrior) be able to bring his buddies out fishing or would he be considered an unlicensed guide and run off the fishing grounds if he showed up too often. Scarey
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
A lil birdie told me that's why they made the logbook mandatory for guides this year to begin to limit number of them. Somewhat like Alaska
Doug
Well-Known Member
The log book is not mandatory as far as I know. No one has ever contacted me about the log book and we follow all the regs and sell dfo licences. You would think dfo would advise us, they write to me about everthing else they are implemnting. Unless it is coming. Also they have no staff to inforce anything just look at how many books were issued and how many where returned last year. Budget cuts....
Regarding Alaska this is what I was told, maybe someone could confirm.
In Alaska they based who got a licence on operators who filed tax claim for charter fishing buisness for the past 7 years.. if you were a new operator, an operator only claiming small income or an under the table operator you had to apply and most if not all did not get approval. This is how they reduced the fleet by just about half.
I feel the same process should be implement here and then regulated. But there is no policing so things are not going to change.
A charter license would have nothing to do with access to the resource itself it has to do with access to the business. I would not have a problem with the license going back into the hands of the government instead of sold first hand to the next guy. The only reason I suggested the latter was because it follows how the present commercial licenses are handled. I would accept the government getting it returned a lot more if the commercial license was handled the same way.
The ownership is what got the halibut allocation gong show started.
If there was no ownership and quota was handed back if not being fished from the start things would be totally different. We'd have enough fish for rec and working commies would be making money.
Lets not start that with salmon and charter licenses.
Not trying to derail thread. I think this is relative to comments made.
Tips
If there was no ownership and quota was handed back if not being fished from the start things would be totally different. We'd have enough fish for rec and working commies would be making money.
Lets not start that with salmon and charter licenses.
Not trying to derail thread. I think this is relative to comments made.
Tips
Sorry but have to disagree as I'm only referring to a license...that has nothing to do with quota. Commercial fishing licenses have been around long before quota, sport licenses have been around I think back to the 80's. There is no connection between the two. It is just a license that says you are able to participate in that activity. It would be like saying that having a class one drivers license gives you some type of monopoly on the movement of freight. I also hope that soon we find a way to get all license funds out of general revenue and 100% of it going back directly into the resource. When that happens I would like to see all annual sport licenses go up to $100 for residents, $250 for non residents, maybe $15 for a resident day license and $25 for a non resident. Then have the charter license somewhere in the $500 range. All money back into enforcement, science, stream work, enhancement etc. Anyway back to the topic...can't add anymore to this side bar.
